Association of State and Interstate

Water Pollution Control Administrators

1 221 CONNECTICUT AVEN U E N

. W

, 2 ND FLOOR, • W A S H INGTON, DC 20036 • TEL: 202. 756- 0600 • FAX: 202. 756- 0605 • W W W

. ASIW PC A.ORG

July 2, 2008

Deborah Nagle USEPA Headquarters

Ariel Rios Buildin g 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mail Code: 4203M Washington, DC 20460

RE: State Pretreatment Progr am National Priorities

Ms. Nagle,

The Ass o ciation of State and Inter s tate Water Po llution Control Administ rators (ASIWPCA), is the national, professional org anization of the state and inte rstate water quality program officials who are responsible for the day-t o-day implementation of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

The Pretreatment Program represents a fundamental and core as pect of the CWA, whic h has led to many of the water qual ity successes we see t oday. States are concerned that the progress we have made to date may only be tempor ary or at least may have reached its full capacity given the current trends. Over the past dec ade there appears to have been a

disinv estment in the national Pretreatment Program which has undermined its ability to evolve with the science, address modern conc erns and issues, and maintain efficac y and effectiveness under the pressure of econom ic growth and competing interests.

The ASIWPCA Permitting and Complianc e Task Forc e, on behalf of its me m bers, would like to provide the following observations and perspectives attached as Appendix 1: Opportunities for E nhancing the National Pretreatment Program. We look forward to working with you in the future as you consider this document.

Sincerely,

ASIWPCA Permitting & Co mplian c e Co-Chai rs

P a u l D a v i s C h u c k C o r e l l

TN Divisi on o f Water Pollut i on Co ntrol IA Departme n t of Natural Re sou r ces

cc: ASIWPCA Membership

1 221 CONNECTICUT AVEN U E N

. W

, 2 ND FLOOR, • W A S H INGTON, DC 20036 • TEL: 202. 756- 0600 • FAX: 202. 756- 0605 • W W W

. ASIW PC A.ORG

## Appendix 1: Opportunities for Enhancing the National Pretreatment Program

A. Staff

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

cannot be overstated and is t he foundation of any effectiv e environmental program. The original recommendations f o r staffing of programs do not reflect the increased responsibility and complexity of local pret reatment programs. Further, many of the more experienced and technically profic ient staff are retiring everyday.

Recommendation: EPA s hou ld sig n ific antly in cr ease its investment in pretreatment program and po licy staff to more appropriately reflect the need.

These staff should be well ver s ed and trained on the effluent guidelines

, pretreatment regulations, wastewater treatment plant technologies, industrial processes, industrial wastewat er te chnologies, sampling, and ana l ytical methods. Further, there may be val ue in creating staffing metrics (staff/permi ttee, etc.) that managers and state inspect o rs can us e as guidance

to ensure POTWs are not under-fundi ng their local programs.

Recommendation: EPA shou ld recognize that there has been a correlative reduction in pretreatment staffi ng at the state lev e l and it is unlikely that previous st affing leve ls will b e se en aga in . EPA s hou ld adjust its expectatio ns of the states to reflect this reality and future program changes should be aimed

towards ac hieving greater efficiency. O pportunities to reduce the paper wor k burden should be explored. For instance, the EPA Pretreatment Audit check l ist runs 40 to 50 pages in length. No other NPDES program inspections go into nearly this much detail.

B. Policy Dev e lopment

EPA has n o t regularly updated critical component s of the pretreatment program such as the “Priority Pollutant” list nor has it kept pace with new regulations lik e “Streamlining”. Attempts to forward the program through new pr etreatment standards were stricken from regulations for new sect ors such as MP&M, Industrial Laundries, and Landfills. Existing sources ar e allowed t o continue operating u nder less protective regulations long after older production equi pment would have exceeded its useful life.

Recommendation: EPA s hould update guida nce in a timely manner after regulations change, if not done c oncurr ently. Regulator s cannot expect POT W s to promptly integrate c hanges to address new rules and policies when updated guida nce reflecting th e new rule s is still in developm ent. For example, E PA must do more than produce streamlining “fact sheets”.

Recommendation: In any new or revised standards, EPA sho u ld give e x is ting sources a specific deadline after which they must meet new source standards. For example, the Electr oplating preamble referenced the regulation as temporary, yet more than 20 year s have elapsed without any changes.

1 221 CONNECTICUT AVEN U E N

. W

, 2 ND FLOOR, • W A S H INGTON, DC 20036 • TEL: 202. 756- 0600 • FAX: 202. 756- 0605 • W W W

. ASIW PC A.ORGRecommendation: The priority pollutant list is obsolete and EPA sho u ld

overhaul it. EPA s hou ld place priority on the threat, which is lo w for polluta nts no longer produced. By fa iling t o update t he list, EP A ensures the program’s

obsolesc e nce and ineffectuality in addressing the threat posed by new chemicals, pollutants, and pollutant categories of emerging conce r n.

C. Collaboration

Working together states and EPA can do much more than they could indiv i dually, and drawing upon the consolidated experience of all t he states, produce much more well considered policies and tools.

Recommendation: EPA should fund an alternat iv e to Quick P lace and the

current Pretreatment Coor dinat ors Listserv to prom ote 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 te chnology and ensure the new pretreatment staff (both at Control and A ppro v al Authorities) have r equisite k nowledge, skills, and

abilities. As tools are devel oped and guidance revised, traini ng is essential to achiev e the goals of the pretreatment program. On a related fr on t, several EPA branches are

involv ed with developing information on new, cleaner, and less wasteful practices and technologies.

Recommendation: EPA shou ld review these technica l efficienc ies an d integrate those applicabl e into the regulatory app roach and pretreatment

standards.

Recommendation: EPA sho u ld fund pretreatment trai ning for ea ch Reg i on an d State. This should include training to implement regulatory revisions (streamlining and wastewater methods), new manuals such as Local Lim i ts, and training on effluent guid elines, industrial processes, and industrial

wastewater treatment tec hnologies. Regulations al lowing BMP alternatives require a much higher level of competenc e on the part of the Control Authority, and this means they must train POTW s on how t o implement these more complex strategies.

Recommendation: EPA should prov ide distribut able (not copyright ed) pretreatment training materials (Pow erPoint and others), along with handout s, for updated Pretreatment 101 and Advanced Pretreatment training c ourses. EPA shou ld make these availa ble from a website an d should regularly up date

them to refl ect changes and state/regional input.

Recommendation: EPA s hould fund th e deve l op ment and distributio n of

“basic” instructional v i deos on DVD for eac h basic function of a local program. This should include doing IU s u rveys, dev elop ing lo cal limits, writing per m its, inspecting SIUs, sampling, managing data, enforcement, etc. This should also include industrial processes, and wastew ater treatment tec hnologies.

1 221 CONNECTICUT AVEN U E N

. W

, 2 ND FLOOR, • W A S H INGTON, DC 20036 • TEL: 202. 756- 0600 • FAX: 202. 756- 0605 • W W W

. ASIW PC A.ORGRecommendation: EPA shou ld develo p a list of external sources of pretreatment informati on for which the Agency has collaborated. For example,

Sacramento State offers training and videos regarding industrial pretreatment.

E. Archive Av aila bility

Rules and polic ies need to be loca ted online in a plac e that is consistent, clear, easily accessible, and readily available to all stakeholders.

Recommendation: USEPA should add a link from the mai n pretreatment homepage on EPA.g o v website to all PI RT and DSS preambles and inc l ude 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?doc ument_type_id=3&v i ew=Fact%20She

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

.

Recommendation: EPA shou ld create web pages fo r categorical standar d s that presently do not have a link to t he dev elopment document on the new web

site http://www.epa.gov/waterscienc e / guide/ind u s try.html#other . Also link this pag e to the pretreatment pr ogram home page. Of the 33 industry categories with pretreatment standards, this new site provides links to the developm ent documents of approximately 13.

Recommendation: EPA sh ould restore t he link betwee n 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 scanne d develop ment documents

< http://ww w .epa.gov/nscep/ > to the indiv i dual sites for each category and through this to the Pr etreatment home page.

Recommendation: EPA sho u ld also inclu d e response s to technical qu estio n s related to the specific category on the website.

F. National Consistency

While the balance bet ween stat e flexibility and nat ional consistenc y is important, there

are some areas where states believe consis tency would greatly im prove the program.

Recommendation: EPA sh ou ld pub lish a stand ardized “Annual Rep o rt” summary page template states can use (if they prefer) to provide to CA’s. T h is

would nee d to provid e states all the info rmation that EPA intend s to periodically ask for (including new “Performance M easures” that states and EPA have agreed to and are required for ICIS). This will a llo w CA’s to easily provide consistent data and AA’s to easily tabulate the data for purposes of consolidating reporting. Th is would also help reduc e the cons iderable ef fort states now expend tabulating dat a to update PCS.

1 221 CONNECTICUT AVEN U E N

. W

, 2 ND FLOOR, • W A S H INGTON, DC 20036 • TEL: 202. 756- 0600 • FAX: 202. 756- 0605 • W W W

. ASIW PC A.ORGRecommendations: EPA should revisit th e definit ions of a PCI and Audit f ound in the 2004 guidance manual on NPDES ins pections ( C hapter 9 pages 9-1 7 to 9-21). EPA should co nfirm whether the centra l focus of “Audits” is to examine whether approved programs meet all le gal 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 tr ue NPDES inspection has c r eated some

confusion. There needs to be c ons istency across all guidance documents for

these definitions.

Recommendation: EPA sho u l d standardize rules for reporting grease

overflows. EPA sh ould clarify ho w much inf o rmation (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 w a s previo usly done by the PIRT (Pretreatment Implementation Rev i ew Taskfor ce), D SS ( D omestic Sewag e St udy), and the GAO findings. (Possibly consider ASIWPCA as a liais on to ensure states have input into framing the problems and developing possible solutions.)

Recommendation : EPA should work wit h states to identify opportunities to develop national guidance and policy on pretreatment program areas where

national c onsistency is vital to t he program’s success. One example in particular would be for the streaml i ning rule.

G. Pretreatment Tools

Pretreatment programs must keep pace with the moving face of technology and new regulations . Doing this requires EPA to dev elop and re gularly upd ate a variety of tools and guidance documents.

Recommendation: EPA should establish WET test ing protocols for assessing

whether a waste can be tr eated at the POT W , and how to deter mine whether a

WET failure at a PO TW is related to non-domestic s ources. EPA should also publish case studies of WET failures that pretreatment measures could have prevented.

Recommendation: EPA sho u ld develo p n a tional guidance on early warnin g tools, including how t o use mor e recent probe and meter technology to set up telemetry and alarms for potentially problem atic situa t ions. What options are available for monitoring pH, transmissivity, tox i city, explosiv ity, and organic loadings, etc. This is especially import ant gi ven the homeland sec u rity issues.

Recommendation: EPA sho u ld develo p new adm inistrative tools for CA’s including Permit and Permit Fact Sheet s hells incorporating “streamlining” with guidance on how to implement the new or changed c ondition s, along with other provisions such as limits fo r compatible po llutants.

Recommendation: EPA shou ld develop n e w implem entation tools for AA’s. These tools should including guidance on d r afting NPDES permit conditions for contributing jurisdictions with model language. This gui dance should address

1 221 CONNECTICUT AVEN U E N

. W

, 2 ND FLOOR, • W A S H INGTON, DC 20036 • TEL: 202. 756- 0600 • FAX: 202. 756- 0605 • W W W

. ASIW PC A.ORGthe AA’s obligations and authorities for imposing NPDES permit conditions on contributing jurisdictions so that t he AA appropriately reinforces delegated pretreatment programs. Ke y elements would inc l ude cont ributing jurisdiction authorities, locating IU’s, permitting, enf orcement, data reporting, capacity management, and surcharge application.

H. Performance Measures

Performance measures show how the pretr eatment program is do ing in protecting

POTWs and the env ironment. Some states feel that newer and better performance measures are important for sh owing 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 bur den on the state and local pretreatment coordinators. The state pr etreatment coordinat or s have expressed concern about the implement ation of these measures.

Recommendation: Give a broader coalition of states the opportunity to participate in developing new performa nce measures. Concise direction regarding data needs and expect a tions rega rding the tracking mec hanism must be clearly delineated.

1 221 CONNECTICUT AVEN U E N

. W

, 2 ND FLOOR, • W A S H INGTON, DC 20036 • TEL: 202. 756- 0600 • FAX: 202. 756- 0605 • W W W

. ASIW PC A.ORG