Association of State and Interstate 

 Water Pollution Control Administrators 

1221 CONNECTICUT AVENUE N.W, 2ND FLOOR, • WASHINGTON, DC 20036 • TEL: 202.756-0600 • FAX: 202.756-0605 • WWW.ASIWPCA.ORG

 July 2, 2008 

Deborah Nagle 

USEPA Headquarters 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Mail Code: 4203M 

Washington, DC 20460 

RE: State Pretreatment Program National Priorities 

Ms. Nagle, 

The Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), is 

the national, professional organization of the state and interstate water quality program 

officials who are responsible for the day-to-day implementation of the Clean Water Act 

(CWA). 

The Pretreatment Program represents a fundamental and core aspect of the CWA, which has

led to many of the water quality successes we see today. States are concerned that the 

progress we have made to date may only be temporary or at least may have reached its full 

capacity given the current trends. Over the past decade there appears to have been a 

disinvestment in the national Pretreatment Program which has undermined its ability to 

evolve with the science, address modern concerns and issues, and maintain efficacy and

effectiveness under the pressure of economic growth and competing interests. 

 

The ASIWPCA Permitting and Compliance Task Force, on behalf of its members, would like 

to provide the following observations and perspectives attached as Appendix 1:

Opportunities for Enhancing the National Pretreatment Program. We look forward to 

working with you in the future as you consider this document. 

Sincerely, 

ASIWPCA Permitting & Compliance Co-Chairs 

Paul Davis Chuck Corell

TN Division of Water Pollution Control IA Department of Natural Resources 

cc: ASIWPCA Membership 

1221 CONNECTICUT AVENUE N.W, 2ND FLOOR, • WASHINGTON, DC 20036 • TEL: 202.756-0600 • FAX: 202.756-0605 • WWW.ASIWPCA.ORG
Appendix 1: Opportunities for Enhancing the 

National Pretreatment Program 

A. Staff 

The value of properly trained staff at the local, state, regional, and national levels

cannot be overstated and is the foundation of any effective environmental program. 

The original recommendations for staffing of programs do not reflect the increased

responsibility and complexity of local pretreatment programs. Further, many of the

more experienced and technically proficient staff are retiring everyday. 

Recommendation: EPA should significantly increase its investment in

pretreatment program and policy staff to more appropriately reflect the need.

These staff should be well versed and trained on the effluent guidelines, 

pretreatment regulations, wastewater treatment plant technologies, industrial 

processes, industrial wastewater technologies, sampling, and analytical 

methods. Further, there may be value in creating staffing metrics 

(staff/permittee, etc.) that managers and state inspectors can use as guidance

to ensure POTWs are not under-funding their local programs. 

Recommendation: EPA should recognize that there has been a correlative 

reduction in pretreatment staffing at the state level and it is unlikely that 

previous staffing levels will be seen again. EPA should adjust its expectations 

of the states to reflect this reality and future program changes should be aimed

towards achieving greater efficiency. Opportunities to reduce the paper work

burden should be explored. For instance, the EPA Pretreatment Audit checklist 

runs 40 to 50 pages in length. No other NPDES program inspections go into

nearly this much detail. 

B. Policy Development 

EPA has not regularly updated critical components of the pretreatment program such 

as the “Priority Pollutant” list nor has it kept pace with new regulations like 

“Streamlining”. Attempts to forward the program through new pretreatment standards 

were stricken from regulations for new sectors such as MP&M, Industrial Laundries,

and Landfills. Existing sources are allowed to continue operating under less protective 

regulations long after older production equipment would have exceeded its useful life. 

Recommendation: EPA should update guidance in a timely manner after

regulations change, if not done concurrently. Regulators cannot expect POTWs 

to promptly integrate changes to address new rules and policies when updated 

guidance reflecting the new rules is still in development. For example, EPA 

must do more than produce streamlining “fact sheets”. 

Recommendation: In any new or revised standards, EPA should give existing

sources a specific deadline after which they must meet new source standards. 

For example, the Electroplating preamble referenced the regulation as

temporary, yet more than 20 years have elapsed without any changes. 

 

1221 CONNECTICUT AVENUE N.W, 2ND FLOOR, • WASHINGTON, DC 20036 • TEL: 202.756-0600 • FAX: 202.756-0605 • WWW.ASIWPCA.ORG
Recommendation: The priority pollutant list is obsolete and EPA should

overhaul it. EPA should place priority on the threat, which is low for pollutants 

no longer produced. By failing to update the list, EPA ensures the program’s 

obsolescence and ineffectuality in addressing the threat posed by new 

chemicals, pollutants, and pollutant categories of emerging concern. 

C. Collaboration 

Working together states and EPA can do much more than they could individually, and

drawing upon the consolidated experience of all the states, produce much more well 

considered policies and tools. 

Recommendation: EPA should fund an alternative to QuickPlace and the 

current Pretreatment Coordinators Listserv to promote unfettered information

exchange between states. Both of these formats have severe limitations that

drastically reduce the value to state coordinators. 

D. Training 

Training is essential to keep pace with technology and ensure the new pretreatment 

staff (both at Control and Approval Authorities) have requisite knowledge, skills, and

abilities. As tools are developed and guidance revised, training is essential to achieve

the goals of the pretreatment program. On a related front, several EPA branches are 

involved with developing information on new, cleaner, and less wasteful practices and

technologies. 

Recommendation: EPA should review these technical efficiencies and

integrate those applicable into the regulatory approach and pretreatment 

standards. 

Recommendation: EPA should fund pretreatment training for each Region and

State. This should include training to implement regulatory revisions

(streamlining and wastewater methods), new manuals such as Local Limits, 

and training on effluent guidelines, industrial processes, and industrial 

wastewater treatment technologies. Regulations allowing BMP alternatives

require a much higher level of competence on the part of the Control Authority, 

and this means they must train POTWs on how to implement these more 

complex strategies. 

Recommendation: EPA should provide distributable (not copyrighted) 

pretreatment training materials (PowerPoint and others), along with handouts, 

for updated Pretreatment 101 and Advanced Pretreatment training courses.

EPA should make these available from a website and should regularly update

them to reflect changes and state/regional input. 

Recommendation: EPA should fund the development and distribution of

“basic” instructional videos on DVD for each basic function of a local program. 

This should include doing IU surveys, developing local limits, writing permits, 

inspecting SIUs, sampling, managing data, enforcement, etc. This should also

include industrial processes, and wastewater treatment technologies. 

1221 CONNECTICUT AVENUE N.W, 2ND FLOOR, • WASHINGTON, DC 20036 • TEL: 202.756-0600 • FAX: 202.756-0605 • WWW.ASIWPCA.ORG
Recommendation: EPA should develop a list of external sources of 

pretreatment information for which the Agency has collaborated. For example,

Sacramento State offers training and videos regarding industrial pretreatment. 

E. Archive Availability 

Rules and policies need to be located online in a place that is consistent, clear, easily

accessible, and readily available to all stakeholders. 

Recommendation: USEPA should add a link from the main pretreatment

homepage on EPA.gov website to all PIRT and DSS preambles and include

links to prior memos to the pretreatment home page: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=3. Also of value would be

Pretreatment Bulletins (1985-1993), Bytes (1998-1999), Fact Sheets (2006-

2007) and several other related pubs found at: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/docs.cfm?document_type_id=3&view=Fact%20She

ets%20and%20Outreach%20Materials&program_id=3&sort=name. 

Recommendation: EPA should create web pages for categorical standards 

that presently do not have a link to the development document on the new web 

site 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/industry.html#other. Also link this page 

to the pretreatment program home page. Of the 33 industry categories with 

pretreatment standards, this new site provides links to the development 

documents of approximately 13. 

Recommendation: EPA should restore the link between the main pretreatment

home page and the website with the list of all currently known new source dates

(a list of these dates available at

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/newsource_dates.pdf ). 

Recommendation: EPA should link scanned development documents 

 <http://www.epa.gov/nscep/> to the individual sites for each category and 

through this to the Pretreatment home page. 

Recommendation: EPA should also include responses to technical questions 

related to the specific category on the website. 

F. National Consistency

While the balance between state flexibility and national consistency is important, there

are some areas where states believe consistency would greatly improve the program. 

Recommendation: EPA should publish a standardized “Annual Report” 

summary page template states can use (if they prefer) to provide to CA’s. This

would need to provide states all the information that EPA intends to periodically

ask for (including new “Performance Measures” that states and EPA have

agreed to and are required for ICIS). This will allow CA’s to easily provide 

consistent data and AA’s to easily tabulate the data for purposes of

consolidating reporting. This would also help reduce the considerable effort 

states now expend tabulating data to update PCS. 

1221 CONNECTICUT AVENUE N.W, 2ND FLOOR, • WASHINGTON, DC 20036 • TEL: 202.756-0600 • FAX: 202.756-0605 • WWW.ASIWPCA.ORG
Recommendations: EPA should revisit the definitions of a PCI and Audit found

in the 2004 guidance manual on NPDES inspections (Chapter 9 pages 9-17 to 

9-21). EPA should confirm whether the central focus of “Audits” is to examine

whether approved programs meet all legal requirements and whether PCI’s

primarily focus on confirming the POTW is carrying out its approved program. 

The statement that an audit is not a true NPDES inspection has created some 

confusion. There needs to be consistency across all guidance documents for 

these definitions. 

Recommendation: EPA should standardize rules for reporting grease

overflows. EPA should clarify how much information (if any) CA’s must provide 

about grease blockages in the collection system in pretreatment annual reports. 

Recommendation: EPA should identify a way for states to have input into any 

National Assessments. This was previously done by the PIRT (Pretreatment 

Implementation Review Taskforce), DSS (Domestic Sewage Study), and the 

GAO findings. (Possibly consider ASIWPCA as a liaison to ensure states have

input into framing the problems and developing possible solutions.) 

Recommendation: EPA should work with states to identify opportunities to 

develop national guidance and policy on pretreatment program areas where 

national consistency is vital to the program’s success. One example in 

particular would be for the streamlining rule. 

G. Pretreatment Tools 

Pretreatment programs must keep pace with the moving face of technology and new 

regulations. Doing this requires EPA to develop and regularly update a variety of tools 

and guidance documents. 

Recommendation: EPA should establish WET testing protocols for assessing

whether a waste can be treated at the POTW, and how to determine whether a 

WET failure at a POTW is related to non-domestic sources. EPA should also 

publish case studies of WET failures that pretreatment measures could have

prevented. 

Recommendation: EPA should develop national guidance on early warning

tools, including how to use more recent probe and meter technology to set up 

telemetry and alarms for potentially problematic situations. What options are

available for monitoring pH, transmissivity, toxicity, explosivity, and organic

loadings, etc. This is especially important given the homeland security issues. 

Recommendation: EPA should develop new administrative tools for CA’s

including Permit and Permit Fact Sheet shells incorporating “streamlining” with 

guidance on how to implement the new or changed conditions, along with other 

provisions such as limits for compatible pollutants. 

Recommendation: EPA should develop new implementation tools for AA’s. 

These tools should including guidance on drafting NPDES permit conditions for 

contributing jurisdictions with model language. This guidance should address 

1221 CONNECTICUT AVENUE N.W, 2ND FLOOR, • WASHINGTON, DC 20036 • TEL: 202.756-0600 • FAX: 202.756-0605 • WWW.ASIWPCA.ORG
the AA’s obligations and authorities for imposing NPDES permit conditions on 

contributing jurisdictions so that the AA appropriately reinforces delegated

pretreatment programs. Key elements would include contributing jurisdiction 

authorities, locating IU’s, permitting, enforcement, data reporting, capacity

management, and surcharge application. 

 

H. Performance Measures 

Performance measures show how the pretreatment program is doing in protecting 

POTWs and the environment. Some states feel that newer and better performance 

measures are important for showing that programs nationally are continuing to make

progress and respond to new concerns. Many of the performance measures currently

being considered are subjective and/or create additional burden on the state and local 

pretreatment coordinators. The state pretreatment coordinators have expressed 

concern about the implementation of these measures.

Recommendation: Give a broader coalition of states the opportunity to 

participate in developing new performance measures. Concise direction

regarding data needs and expectations regarding the tracking mechanism must 

be clearly delineated. 

1221 CONNECTICUT AVENUE N.W, 2ND FLOOR, • WASHINGTON, DC 20036 • TEL: 202.756-0600 • FAX: 202.756-0605 • WWW.ASIWPCA.ORG