1

MEMORANDUM

TO: Public Record for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274 (www.regulations.gov)

FROM: Carey A. Johnston, P.E.

USEPA/OECA/OC

ph: (202) 566 1014

johnston.carey@epa.gov

DATE: 3 July 2014

SUBJECT: Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting (19 June 2014) [DCN 0141]

Overview 

This was the fourteenth meeting for the EPA-state technical workgroup, which is 

discussing key issues related to the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (eRule). These 

discussions are informing the forthcoming supplemental Federal Register notice and they will 

continue beyond the publication of the supplemental notice to help EPA address state 

comments. EPA participants will include the OECA eRule Team as well as representatives from 

EPA’s Office of Water and Office of Environmental Information. Technical workgroup members 

are listed below in Tables 1 and 2. The agenda for this meeting is also provided below. EPA is 

summarizing the notes from these discussions for the docket in order to provide transparency 

on EPA’s outreach during the rulemaking process. The OECA eRule team will also be available 

for any other stakeholder group that would like to discuss the eRule.

Meeting Notes

EPA (Mr. Carey Johnston) started the meeting by reminding state participants that in 

addition to raising questions during the technical workgroup meetings, states can email their 

questions on the proposed rule (including the data elements) to EPA. Questions on all aspects 

of the proposed rule can be sent to Mr. Johnston. Mr. Johnston then asked teleconference 

participants to focus on the pretreatment data elements. The source of these data elements 

includes NPDES permit applications and Notices of Intent (NOI) (see 30 July 2013; 78 FR 46096-

46098), State or EPA pretreatment inspections or audits (Page 46102-46103), and POTW 

Pretreatment Program Annual Report and SIU Periodic Compliance Reports in Municipalities 

without an Approved Pretreatment Program (Page 46111). 

Mr. Johnston started the technical discussion by reading the name of each data element 

along with the corresponding data description and regulatory or policy citation. After reading 

about five to ten elements at a time, Mr. Johnston asked for input from the technical 

workgroup. Below are some questions and comments from the technical workgroup. The first 
2

set of data elements discussed were the basic pretreatment information (Page 46096-46098), 

which are derived from individual NPDES permit applications or NOIs (general permit covered 

facilities).

 Texas (Ms. Rebecca Villalba) asked if EPA wanted only the original date for the 

Pretreatment Program Approved Date data element or if EPA wanted to track dates on 

periodic modifications to POTW pretreatment programs. Ms. Villalba said that only having 

the original approval date might not provide sufficient information on whether the POTW 

was making the necessary periodic updates to its pretreatment program.

 Washington state (Mr. Dave Knight) noted that the three data elements related to the 2005 

Pretreatment Streamlining Rule, Program Modification Date for Required Pretreatment 

Streamlining Changes, Program Modification Date for Optional Pretreatment Streamlining 

Changes, and Program Modification Type for Optional Pretreatment Streamlining 

Changes, seem to have limited value. EPA (Ms. Jan Pickrel) asked if it made sense if EPA 

were to track all major program modifications, not just those related to the 2005 

Pretreatment Streamlining Rule (see 14 October 2005 FR 70 FR 60134). Mr. Knight noted 

that tracking the date of last modification and modification type provides more insights on 

whether a particular POTW is making the necessary updates to its pretreatment program. 

Iowa (Ms. Courtney Cswercko) also agreed that it made more sense to track the date of last 

modification and modification type.

 Arkansas (Mr. David Ramsey) asked how significant industrial users (SIUs) will be captured 

in ICIS-NPDES. Mr. Johnston replied that each SIU will its own entry into the 

ICIS_Facility_Interest table.

1

This means that ICIS-NPDES will track each SIU separately with 

a unique number, which will likely be a Federal Registry System (FRS) identifier. 

 Several states had questions about who will be responsible for electronically capturing SIU 

facility data and how states would share these data with EPA.2 Mr. Johnston noted that the 

eRule makes a distinction between SIUs in municipalities without a pretreatment program. 

For these SIUs the Control Authority is not the local POTW but rather the state or EPA 

(whomever has the authorization to implement the pretreatment program). Consequently, 

for these SIUs the state or EPA, as the Control Authority, will enter basic facility and control 

mechanism data into ICIS-NPDES. This will enable these SIUs to electronically submit their 

periodic compliance monitoring reports [as required by 40 CFR 403.12(e) and (h)].

Mr. Johnston noted that for SIUs in municipalities with a pretreatment program it might be 

possible to have the POTW submit these data electronically to the state. These electronic 

data submissions could be done via the electronic NOI or accompany the individual paper 

 

1

See diagram of this table and related tables at: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/facts/pcs-icis/facInterestModel.html.

2

To add a Facility in ICIS – NPDES, users must enter the following key data elements: Facility Site Name, Street 

Address, City, State, and Zip Code. These fields constitute the minimum data set required to uniquely identify an 

existing Facility in ICIS – NPDES or to add a new facility.
3

NPDES permit application. Mr. Johnston noted that this would mean that states could 

reduce or eliminate their labor in electronically capturing these data, which are currently 

required to be reported by POTWs on their NPDES permit applications.3

 Minnesota (Ms. Tamara Dahl) noted that her state already has most of their SIU data in an 

electronic format but that it may be difficult to share these data with ICIS-NPDES. Several 

states noted that it would be a large effort to populate ICIS-NPDES with SIU data. Mr. 

Johnston noted that he would gather more information on how states could provide SIU 

data to EPA in an efficient manner. [Note: After the call Mr. Steve Rubin (EPA) confirmed 

that there are batch XML transactions for adding IUs. These transactions will need to be 

generated either by the state or they can be sent to EPA by a spreadsheet if just the basic 

information is to be added. Adding permitted features, limit sets, and limits is more 

complicated and time-consuming, but can be done via a spreadsheet.]

 Iowa (Ms. Cswercko) noted that it would make more sense to have ICIS-NPDES create the 

unique tracking number for SIUs.

 Several states asked how ICIS-NPDES tracks facility status. Specifically, states ask how ICISNPDES treats facilities that move or go out of business. Virginia (Ms. Deborah Debiasi) noted 

that SIUs seem to change their names often and that ICIS-NPDES will need a way to 

uniquely identify a facility. Mr. Ramsey noted that states can make facility name changes in 

ICIS-NPDES.4[Note: After the call Mr. Rubin confirmed that ICIS-NPDES updates the facility 

interest table if an IU added or deleted. ICIS-NPDES tracks facility and permit data 

separately. Mr. Rubin further noted that a state can inactivate a permit by inactivating all 

limit set. The alternative approach is to turn Compliance Tracking off, but this is not the 

recommended option. Terminated permits are supported with the Termination Date in 

ICIS_PERMIT in ICIS-NPDES.]

 Mr. Knight noted that Washington state is a “batch” state, which means that they flow data 

to ICIS-NPDES in manual batch updates. He noted that any mechanisms that generates 

unique identifiers for SIU must work for batch states. He suggested that Washington state 

may need more time to fully populate ICIS-NPDES with SIU data. Oklahoma (Mr. David 

 

3

Allowing POTWs to provide insert, update, and delete changes to the list of SIUs and CIUs that discharge into 

their system would also be consistent with EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(iii): “The information required 

in paragraphs (j)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section may be waived by the Director for POTWs with pretreatment programs 

if the applicant has submitted either of the following that contain information substantially identical to that 

required in paragraphs (j)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section: (A) An annual report submitted within one year of the 

application; or

(B) A pretreatment program.”

4

On June 20th Mr. David Ramsey sent a clarification to his comment in an email to Mr. Johnston: “I wanted to 

clarify a comment I made on yesterday’s State Technical Workgroup Meetings call. I stated that a history of name 

changes was already available in ICIS-NPDES. What I should have said is that a history of the Permit Organization 

Formal Names is an available option (at the permit level, not the Facility Name itself although this might be a good 

idea for the future). At the facility level a history of Non-Government Contacts and Addresses may be 

maintained.”
4

Pruitt) noted that more time may also be necessary for similar reasons for construction 

stormwater sites.

 Mr. Knight noted that clarification is needed for the Significant Industrial User Subject to 

Local Limits More Stringent than Categorical Standards data element. He asked how states 

should track a facility has only one limit more stringent than categorical standards while 

another facility has all but one limit more stringent than a categorical standard. Ms. Villalba

noted that if you reduce the possible options for this data element to either “yes” or “no”, 

then you might over simplify and reduce the value of the collected information. Mr. 

Johnston noted that EPA would work with states on how to develop the possible options for 

this data element. For example, he noted that instead of “yes” or “no”, this data element 

could be allow states to track the percentage of effluent limits that are based on local limits 

as they are more stringent than categorical standards. Ms. Pickrel stated that she would 

investigate to see how EPA has currently defined this existing reporting requirement for 

NPDES permit applications.

 Ms. Villalba asked EPA for clarification on the Type of Significant Industrial User Process 

Wastewater Flow data element. Mr. Villalba wondered if this data element was meant to 

track all hauled discharges to a POTW. Mr. Johnston stated that this data element was only 

meant to track wastewater discharges from SIUs and CIUs and that this includes wastewater 

from SIUs and CIUs that is trucked to a POTW.

5

 Several states suggested that it would be difficult for states and POTWs to provide EPA with 

a breakdown of the SIU and CIU flow data (process vs. non-process, continuous vs. 

intermittent).6 Ms. Villalba noted that their audits of POTW pretreatment programs show 

that POTWs really struggle to get these wastewater flow data from SIUs and CIUs. 

Tennessee (Ms. Yatasha Moore) suggested that some industries may not be able to report 

on non-process wastewater flow as they don’t monitoring their flow. Several states 

suggested that EPA only require total flow from the facility discharged to the POTW as this 

would be easier for states to track and share with EPA. Ms. Cswercko suggested that POTWs 

will be very reluctant to enter any data on SIUs and CIUs as a part of electronic reporting.

 

5

EPA notes that “pollutants are usually more concentrated in hauled waste than in typical domestic wastewater, 

and because hauled waste may not be equalized when discharged, hauled waste may cause adverse impacts at 

treatment plants. These adverse impacts may include pass through to the receiving water, interference with 

treatment plant processes and operations, sludge contamination, and hazards to POTW personnel. To help prevent 

hauled wastes from causing problems, POTWs need to adequately control the discharge of hauled waste.” See 

“Guidance Manual for the Control of Wastes Hauled to Publicly Owned Treatment Works,” EPA-833-B-98-003, 

September 1999. 

6

EPA regulations require POTWs to report the following information on their NPDES permit applications, “Average 

daily volume of wastewater discharged, indicating the amount attributable to process flow and non-process flow.” 

EPA used the distinction to create Appendix A data elements. See 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(ii)(D).
5

 Kansas (Mr. Steve Caspers) asked if EPA needs to separately collect information on RCRA 

and CERCLA waste discharges to POTWs.7 Mr. Johnston noted that he would review this 

data element with EPA’s Office of Water. 

Mr. Johnston then continued the technical discussion by reading the name of each data 

element associated with pretreatment inspections and audits (Page 46102). Below are some 

questions and comments from the technical workgroup. 

 Mr. Caspers asked if EPA could provide more guidance on how states should interpret these 

data elements. For example, how should states interpret the Legal Authority Status and 

Deficiencies data element. 

 Ms. Pickrel noted that EPA has guidance on how to interpret these data elements.8This 

guidance defines criteria for determining which POTWs should be reported on the Quarterly 

Noncompliance Report (QNCR) for failure to implement pretreatment requirements and 

criteria for determining which pretreatment violations by POTWs meet the level of 

significant noncompliance (SNC).

Mr. Johnston then continued the technical discussion by reading the name of each data 

element associated with POTW Pretreatment Program Annual Report and SIU Periodic 

Compliance Reports in Municipalities without an Approved Pretreatment Program (Page 

46108). Before the beginning of this discussion Mr. Johnston noted that they would not be able 

to complete the group’s review of these data elements and that they would need to schedule 

another teleconference. Below are some questions and comments from the technical 

workgroup.

 Ms. Villalba made a comment on the Local Limits Pollutants data element. Ms. Villalba 

noted that some cities use local limits that are based on best management practices and 

not based on a ‘headworks analysis’ (as noted in the data element description). Washington 

state concurred and noted that the reference to a headworks analysis should be removed. 

 Ms. Moore noted that Tennessee requires POTWs to submit their program reports twice a 

year instead of annually. She asked how ICIS might handle more frequent reporting with 

electronic reporting and ICIS-NPDES. Mr. Johnston noted that Appendix A collects two data 

elements for all the program reports that can support biannually reporting, Start Date of 

Reporting Period and End Date of Reporting Period, and that Table 1 in Appendix A notes 

that “The applicable reporting frequency is specified in the NPDES permit or control 

mechanism, which may be more frequent than the minimum frequency specified in Table 

1.” In particular, Mr. Johnston noted that the eRule can support the Tennessee requirement 

for POTWs to submit their POTW Pretreatment Program report biannually.

 

7

EPA regulations require POTWs to report information on RCRA and CERCLA discharges to POTWs. See 40 CFR

122.21(j)(7).

8

See http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/1990_potw_noncompliance_guidance.pdf
6

 Michigan (Ms. Grace Scott) noted that it would be helpful if the annual report captured 

pollutant specific limits in the POTW Pretreatment Program report. Mr. Johnston noted that 

such data would be collected when the state or EPA is the control authority. However, EPA 

determined that the “Annual POTW reports” regulations [40 CFR 403.12(i)] ask for summary 

information such as “summary of the status of Industrial User compliance over the 

reporting period” and “summary of compliance and enforcement activities.” Consequently, 

EPA did not include data elements that would collect effluent limit data for SIUs where the 

POTW is the Control Authority.

After the meeting EPA received comments from the Kansas Department of Health & 

Environment, Washington State Department of Ecology, and Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources. They are presented in Attachments 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
7

State Technical Workgroup Meeting – NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

19 June 2014

Agenda

1pm Introduction/Roll Call 

1:10 Discussion of pretreatment data elements 

2:00 End of Call

Quick Reminder

 The technical workgroup is not a formal decision-making body. The workgroup is expected 

to develop, research, and evaluate options for consideration by EPA and state senior 

management.

 There are no formal quorum rules for the workgroup. Scheduled teleconferences will 

proceed with whichever workgroup members call in to participate.

 There will be no formal voting or consensus of the workgroup. Instead, the workgroup is 

expected to try to develop recommendations reflecting their various perspectives, not 

achieve consensus.

 Summaries of the workgroup’s discussions will be prepared for and reviewed by the 

workgroup, for presentation to EPA senior management and other states and the 

rulemaking record. The discussions summaries will outline the major elements of the 

discussions, areas of agreement and any dissenting views.
8

Table 1: State Technical Workgroup Members

Main Contact State or 

Organization Main Contact Email

State/Org. 

Present? 

(Yes/No)

Sean Rolland ACWA srolland@acwa-us.org Yes

Karen Lechner AK karen.lechner@alaska.gov Yes

Christy Monk

AL

cvm@adem.state.al.us

Eric Cleckler ecleckler@adem.state.al.us Yes

Glenda Dean gld@adem.state.al.us

Teresa Marks

AR

marks@adeq.state.ar.us

Yes

Pat Goff goff@adeq.state.ar.us

Mo Shafii shafii@adeq.state.ar.us

Karen Bassett bassett@adeq.state.ar.us

David Ramsey ramsey@adeq.state.ar.us

Ellen Carpenter carpenter@adeq.state.ar.us

Wendy LeStarge

AZ

lestarge.wendy@azdeq.gov

Robin Belley belley.robin@azdeq.gov Yes

David Lelsz lelsz.david@azdeq.gov;

Andy Putnam

CO

andrew.putnam@state.co.us

goff@adeq.state.ar.us Yes

Elisa Willard elisa.willard@state.co.us

Bob Zimmerman DE robert.zimmerman@state.de.us

stephanie.bower@state.de.us No

Beth Graves ECOS bgraves@ecos.org Yes

Chris Klena

FL

chris.m.klena@dep.state.fl.us

Yes

Jessica Kleinfelter jessica.kleinfelter@dep.state.fl.us

Edward Smith edward.c.smith@dep.state.fl.us

Frances Carpenter frances.carpenter@dnr.state.ga.us

Frances Carpenter GA frances.carpenter@dnr.state.ga.us Yes

Tom Easterly

IN

teasterl@idem.in.gov

ckoontz@idem.in.gov

Yes Jeremy Chenevert jcheneve@idem.in.gov

Mark Stanifer mstanife@idem.in.gov

Courtney Cswercko IA courtney.cswercko@dnr.iowa.gov Yes

Ed Dillingham

KS

edillingham@kdheks.gov

Steve Caspers scaspers@kdheks.gov Yes

Shelly Shores-Miller sshoresm@kdheks.gov

Shawn Hokanson KY shawn.hokanson@ky.gov No

Grace Scott

MI

scottg@michigan.gov

Yes Carla Davidson davidsonc@michigan.gov
9

Main Contact State or 

Organization Main Contact Email

State/Org. 

Present? 

(Yes/No)

Ruth Wallace

MO

ruth.wallace@dnr.mo.gov

Walter Fett walter.fett@dnr.mo.gov Yes

Christopher Miller epermitting@dnr.mo.gov

Tamara Dahl

MN

tamara.dahl@state.mn.us

Yes Paul Scheirer paul.scheirer@state.mn.us

John Murphy NEIWPCC jmurphy@neiwpcc.org No

Jason Lonardo

NJ

jason.lonardo@dep.state.nj.us

Yes Julio Collazo julio.collazo@dep.state.nj.us

Robert Wither

NY

rewither@gw.dec.state.ny.us

Yes Joseph DiMura jxdimura@gw.dec.state.ny.us

Shellie Chard-McClary

OK

shellie.chard-mcclary@deq.ok.gov

Roy Walker roy.walker@deq.ok.gov Yes

David Pruitt david.pruitt@deq.ok.gov

Jim Billings OR billings.jim@deq.state.or.us Yes

Sean Furjanic PA sefurjanic@pa.gov No

Kent Woodmansey

SD

kent.woodmansey@state.sd.us

Tim Flor tim.flor@state.sd.us Yes

Albert Spangler albert.spangler@state.sd.us

Lawrence Bunting

TN

lawrence.bunting@TN.gov 

Yes Yatasha Moore yatasha.moore@tn.gov 

Kim Wilson

TX

kim.wilson@tceq.texas.gov

Yes Rebecca Villalba rebecca.villalba@tceq.texas.gov

Lynley Doyen lynley.doyen@tceq.texas.gov

Kimberly Shepard kimberly.shepard@tceq.texas.gov

Jeff Studenka UT jstudenka@utah.gov No

Jerome Brooks

VA

jerome.brooks@deq.virginia.gov

Deborah Debiasi Deborah.DeBiasi@deq.virginia.gov Yes

Phani Eturu phani.eturu@deq.virginia.gov

Stephen Bernath

WA

sber461@ecy.wa.gov

Dave Knight dakn461@ecy.wa.gov Yes

Nancy Kmet nkme461@ecy.wa.gov
10

Table 2: EPA Technical Workgroup Members

Name EPA Office Email Present? 

(Yes/No)

Lisa Lund OECA/OC/IO lund.lisa@epa.gov No

John Dombrowski OECA/OC/ETDD dombrowski.john@epa.gov No

Andy Hudock OECA/OC/ETDD hudock.andrew@epa.gov No

Rochele Kadish OECA/OC/ETDD kadish.rochele@epa.gov No

Carey Johnston OECA/OC/ETDD johnston.carey@epa.gov Yes

David Sprague OECA/OC/ETDD sprague.david@epa.gov Yes

Emery Harriston OECA/OC/ETDD harriston.emery@epa.gov Yes

Rhonda Golder OECA/OC/ETDD golder.rhonda@epa.gov Yes

Jackie Clark OW/OWM/WPD clark.jackie@epa.gov Yes

Roy Chaudet OEI/OIC/IESD chaudet.roy@epa.gov No

Chuck Freeman OEI/OIC/IESD freeman.charles@epa.gov No

Aditi Prabhu OGC/WLO prabhu.aditi@epa.gov No

David Apanian Region 4 apanian.david@epa.gov Yes

Jan Pickrel OW/OWM/WPD pickrel.jan@epa.gov Yes

Glynis Hill OP/ORPM/PRAD hill.glynis@epa.gov No
11

Attachment 1 – Comments from Kansas Department of Health & Environment

From: Steve Caspers [mailto:scaspers@kdheks.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 1:00 PM

To: Johnston, Carey

Cc: Sean Rolland; Susan Kirsch; Pickrel, Jan; Dave Knight (dakn461@ECY.WA.GOV); Grace Scott 

(scottg@michigan.gov); Rebecca Villalba (rebecca.villalba@tceq.texas.gov)

Subject: RE: Electronic Reporting - pretreatment data - comments

Carey, as a follow-up to last week’s conference call, I wanted to provide my comments in writing, as 

discussed briefly on the 6-19-2014 conference call. I realize it can be difficult to listen and document all 

of the comments you received on the call, so I thought it would be helpful, to provide them by e-mail 

below. As you know, several State representatives on the phone had similar concerns. Hopefully they 

can comment if they have a different prospective than I am presenting or have additional comments.

In general, I believe there are way too many data elements being requested. Most of us do not have the 

time or resources to enter all of this data. If States are not entering the data, the burden falls on IUs or 

cities. They also have limited resources. Is there some way to enter the amount of data in stages and/or 

reduce the number of proposed data elements? 

EPA Response: EPA will use the forthcoming supplemental notice to solicit comment on whether the 

implementation period should be extended and whether additional phases should be added. Please 

note that all of these data elements are built off of existing EPA regulations that specify the minimum 

standards for NPDES permit applications and compliance tracking. Also, many of these data elements 

will only need to be entered once or updated infrequently. Consequently, just counting the number of 

data elements does not equate directly to the potential burden on states or NPDES regulated entities.

When there are so many data elements to work with and since this project is in the beginning stages, it 

is destined to fail, as proposed. It seems like it would be better to start with a few basic elements and 

build on others later, once the bugs have been worked out. 

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We encourage you to include this as a comment on the 

forthcoming supplemental notice.

Below are some of the data elements listed in Appendix A, Table 2 (in bold type), that were only briefly 

discussed on the phone, followed by some specific comments that need to be considered, in order to 

make them more clear.

(1) Date when CA adopted the required 13 changes from the streamlining rule: It will be difficult 

to put one date in when there are 13 separate changes that could have a date. Would we only 

put the date of the latest change that was adopted? What if part of the 13 items were adopted 

and others were adopted later? Would a date also be entered for any significant program 

modifications that were adopted after the original modification was approved? What date is 

entered if the changes have not been approved?

EPA Response: EPA is considering changes to these data elements. The revised set of data elements will 

be included in the Docket when EPA publishes the forthcoming supplemental notice.
12

(2) Date when CA adopted the 7 optional streamlining provisions: Not sure why EPA or anyone 

would need to know this information, since they are optional.

EPA Response: EPA is considering changes to these data elements. The revised set of data elements will 

be included in the Docket when EPA publishes the forthcoming supplemental notice.

(3) SIU name: It appears the system does not easily allow for SIU name changes, which can occur 

often and does not allow SIUs to be removed from the system when they become inactive or 

close.

EPA Response: EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database allows users to add, update, and delete facility records. EPA 

is investigating the option of having POTWs enters these data when they submit their POTW 

Pretreatment Program report.

(4) Address of SIUs discharging to POTW: Not sure why EPA would need this information. The name 

of the SIU and the city and state they are located in, should suffice.

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We encourage you to include this as a comment on the 

forthcoming supplemental notice.

(5) SIUs subject to local limits that are more stringent than categorical limits: This element 

presents many problems. It appears the SIU would be mentioned if they were subject to local 

limits that are more stringent than categorical limits. What happens if only one pollutant limit 

out of 12 is more stringent? It appears this information is not only useless but could be very 

misleading as worded. As a regulator, I am only concerned whether limits are being met. I am 

not concerned where the limit came from.

EPA Response: As previously noted, these data elements are built off of existing EPA regulations. In 

particular, EPA regulations ask that POTWs “shall indicate which Industrial Users are subject to local 

standards that are more stringent than the categorical Pretreatment Standards.” See 40 CFR 

403.12(i)(1). The meeting notes provide additional clarity for this data element (“this data element could 

be allow states to track the percentage of effluent limits that are based on local limits as they are more 

stringent than categorical standards”).

(6) SIU process flow: The units (example, MGD) that need to be reported when entering flow data, 

is not included.

EPA Response: The data element currently specifies “gallons per day.” 

(7) SIU non-process flow: the term “non-process” flow is not defined. Suggest using terms already 

defined in pretreatment regulations, such as total, regulated, non-regulated and dilution flows. 

These types of flows would be more meaningful and is already tracked.

EPA Response: EPA is considering changes to these data elements. The revised set of data elements will 

be included in the Docket when EPA publishes the forthcoming supplemental notice.
13

(8) IU causing problems at the POTW: What EPA calls “problems” should be identified. Some are 

listed in ( ) but not all. Based on the call, it appeared the 4 1/2 year time frame starts when the 

City’s NPDES permit application is submitted, which is very awkward. It is suggested the 

timeframe be simplified to be the past four calendar years. Using a calendar year would also 

allow IUs to be evaluated over the same time period and be easier to track.

EPA Response: This data element was derived EPA regulations ask that POTWs to include in their NPDES 

permit application “whether any problems at the POTW (e.g., upsets, pass through, interference) have 

been attributed to the SIU in the past four and one-half years.” See 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(ii)(G). Please 

consider sending me suggested language for this data element that can provide additional clarity on 

problems at POTWs and the appropriate date range. Currently, EPA is using calendar year for this data 

element and EPA can update the data element description to make this clear.

(9) Receiving RCRA waste: Suggest calendar year be used, so not to be confused with State or 

Federal fiscal year.

EPA Response: Currently, EPA is using calendar year for this data element. EPA can update the data 

element description to make this clear.

(10)Receiving Remediation waste: the data description is confusing since it mentions both RCRA Or 

CERCLA wastes. Not sure why EPA needs to know if a POTW receives remediation waste. 

Knowing whether they are receiving RCRA waste has some regulatory merit.

EPA Response: This data element was derived using EPA regulations, which asks that POTWs to include 

information on RCRA and CERCLA wastes that they receive. See 40 CFR 122.21(j)(7). This helps identify 

POTWs that are receiving toxic pollutants from RCRA and CERCLA sites. Ms. Jan Pickrel has observed 

through the EPA OWM Permit Quality Review process that many permit writers or pretreatment 

coordinators don’t know about the information sharing requirements in 40 CFR 122.21(j)(7). She notes 

that many states and regions have waived this data sharing requirement on their POTW application

form even though EPA’s regulation does not mention that a waiver is available. She also notes that most

pretreatment coordinators do not even see POTW NPDES applications and, consequently, only tend to 

think of a link to 40 CFR 403.12(p), which is nearly a 1-time reporting element.

(11)Legal Authority Status and Deficiencies: Deficiencies listed in the FY1990 guidance need to be 

specifically listed in the data description. This is an old document that many may not be familiar 

with and minor deficiencies may get reported, that should not be reported. As mentioned on the 

phone, even the best programs may have deficiencies, when the program is audited. However, 

some deficiencies are more important than others. It is assumed only the major deficiencies in 

the guidance document need to be reported?

EPA Response: This data element tracks deficiencies that would indicate a POTW is in significant noncompliance (SNC). The guidance document (see link in the meeting notes) provides more detail on how 

these SNC decisions are to be made.

(12)Failure of the Control Authority to inspect or sample: the data element asks if at least 80% of 

the SIUs had been inspected or sampled in the last twelve months. This element is unclear for 

two reasons. One, inspection and sampling events need to be separated out into two elements, 

since they do not always occur simultaneously. Secondly, it is unclear when the “past twelve 
14

month” time period begins and ends. It is suggested the wording of “last complete calendar 

year” be used, so it is more clear.

EPA Response: Currently, EPA is using calendar year for this data element. EPA can update the data 

element description to make this clear.

(13)Failure of the Control Authority to enforce pretreatment standards and reporting 

requirements; The data element does not match the data name. The data element discusses 

failure to inspect and sample (see comment #12 above), as well as SIUs in SNC. As mentioned 

above, a number for those SIUs in SNC with standards needs to be separated from those in SNC 

for reporting requirements. For example, what happens if 10% of the SIUs are in SNC for 

parameters but 17% are in SNC for reporting?

EPA Response: As noted in the meeting notes these data elements derive from the 1990 pretreatment 

guidance document. EPA can update the data element description to make this clear.

(14)SNC with pretreatment schedule flag: Instead of using the words “pretreatment schedules” in 

the data description, it would be better to use the words “enforceable compliance schedules”. 

Pretreatment schedules in letters are not enforceable.

EPA Response: EPA can update the data element description to make this clear.

(15)Date of most recent adoption of technically based local limits: The data name and data 

description is not the same. The data name is the date local limits were adopted the data 

description is the date the CA evaluated the need for limits, which is not the same. Note, the next 

data name is backwards as well. Also note, the element should only request the date of the 

“most recent” date limits were approved, since some programs are on their third generation of

local limits.

EPA Response: EPA can update the data element description to make this clear.

(16)Local limits pollutants: Listing all of the pollutants in unnecessary and will be resource intensive. 

For example, think of all of the pollutants that would need to be entered if a city had 20 

treatment plants, which means you would have 20 sets of local limits.

EPA Response: This data element is tracked at the Control Authority level. Consequently, the Control 

Authority will only need to enter each pollutant once no matter how many treatment works are 

managed by the Control Authority. EPA can update the data element description to make this clear.

(17)Removal credits application status: Since there are only a couple of POTWs in the US with 

removal credits, is it really worth it for everyone to enter “not applicable” since 99% of the 

POTWs do not have removal credits? Consider eliminating any data elements relating to removal 

credits.

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We encourage you to include this as a comment on the 

forthcoming supplemental notice.
15

I believe this is the point where the discussion ended. Comments relating to the other data elements can 

be provided later. Let me know if you have any questions.

Steve Caspers, Pretreatment Specialist

Kansas Department of Health & Environment

E-Mail address:SCaspers@kdheks.gov
16

Attachment 2 – Washington State Department of Ecology

From: Knight, David J. (SWRO) (ECY) [mailto:dakn461@ECY.WA.GOV] 

Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 6:51 PM

To: Johnston, Carey

Cc: Sean Rolland; Susan Kirsch; Pickrel, Jan; Grace Scott (scottg@michigan.gov); Rebecca Villalba 

(rebecca.villalba@tceq.texas.gov); Steve Caspers; Kmet, Nancy (ECY)

Subject: RE: Electronic Reporting - pretreatment data - comments

I wanted to use this Email primarily to provide feedback on some pretreatment related sections we 

didn’t get to (although I would prefer another conference call). I concur with Steve’s concern that each 

item needs to have value in evaluating program effectiveness and/or proper implementation. And, as 

Steve pointed out, there are some items, especially for the Annual Pretreatment Reports required of 

POTWs, that don’t seem to me to meet that standard. I would ask EPA re-evaluate whether each piece 

of data is really useful and necessary to assessing the performance of POTW pretreatment programs and 

related state oversight activities before the next proposal.

EPA Response: As noted during the conference call, EPA developed Appendix A using existing EPA 

regulations. EPA included in its development the need for each of these data elements. EPA provided a 

summary of its analysis in the docket for the proposed rule. For example, the following document, 

NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule Analysis F: Program Reports (See EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274-0117, 

Available at: www.regulations.gov) provides a short summary of EPA can use data associated with the 

program report data elements.

But my comments today primarily are around what States are to record with respect to Audits (since 

that is more my job). That said, I needed to include a few comments on other areas too by way of 

reinforcing them. I am not commenting here on the POTW Annual Pretreatment Report data elements 

(aside from the lack of need to require reporting of removal credits), trusting for now that other States, 

POTWs, and organizations will provide ample comments on that topic. My #1 main concern with 

respect to POTW annual pretreatment reports is that when we implement the rule, POTWs must be 

provided a means to enter ALL items required of them with respect to their SIU’s and annual 

pretreatment reports, with no requirement for states to be involved in transferring or transcribing such 

data or “setting up” or maintaining SIU accounts for tributary IU’s of delegated programs.

EPA Response: As noted during the conference call, it might be possible for POTWs to provide insert, 

update, and delete changes to ICIS-NPDES regarding the list of the SIUs that discharge to their collection 

system. These electronic data submissions could be done via the electronic NOI or accompany the 

individual paper NPDES permit application. Mr. Johnston noted during the call that this would mean that 

states could reduce or eliminate their labor in electronically capturing these data, which are currently 

required to be reported by POTWs on their NPDES permit applications.

Section 13 of the Electronic Reporting Rule (ERR) beginning on page 46096 is titled “Pretreatment 

information on NPDES Permit Application, NOI’s, (or Pretreatment Compliance Audit or Inspection) (This 

includes permit application data required for all new and existing POTWs (40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)”. There is 

a big difference between these data sources. The rule separately addresses what is expected in PCI’s 

and Audits in a section beginning at bottom of p. 46102 of the FR notice. I did not see where any of the 

items in section 13 are appropriately captured as part of PCI’s and Audits and suggest that reference be 

deleted so as not to create the false expectation that PCI’s or Audits would need to confirm or collect 
17

this data. EPA should transfer any data items that are envisioned to be reported as part of a PCI or Audit 

to that section (if they exist).

EPA Response: EPA can update Appendix A to make clear that the pretreatment data elements on Page 

46096 through 46098) refer to the information submitted by POTWs on their individual NPDES Permit 

Application or Notice of Intent.

Presently a number of the data items in this section (13) are clearly only applicable to a POTW with a 

pretreatment program and there is significant overlap with annual pretreatment reporting 

requirements. While the data items of section 13 may be appropriate to be reported by certain POTWs 

as part of their NPDES permit applications, it’s important to define which POTWs. The greatest value of 

this data may be from POTWs that do not administer a pretreatment program and are either > 1.0 MGD 

(design flow capacity) or serve SIU’s. For POTWs running pretreatment programs, the data elements on 

SIUs are redundant with the data elsewhere required of their annual pretreatment reports. 

Accordingly, I suggest the pretreatment related items needed from delegated pretreatment POTWs be 

consolidated in the annual pretreatment program report section. NPDES permit requirement relating to 

SIUs at 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6) would generally be fully addressed by NPDES permittees with pretreatment 

programs. The only item that I could find that isn’t likely to already be part of the annual pretreatment 

report is at 40 CFR 122.44(j)(2)(ii) which requires a technical evaluation of the need to revise Local Limits 

each permit cycle. And while this requirement isn’t limited to pretreatment POTWs, I suggest it is best 

added to annual pretreatment reports anyway (e.g. Has the POTW performed a technical evaluation of 

the need to revise Local Limits in the last five years?) so that it isn’t inadvertently missed by them.

EPA Response: This data element was derived EPA regulations. In particular, EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

122.21(j)(6) required that all POTWs submit a list of SIUs and CIUs that discharge to their collection 

system. The required data that must be submitted on the NPDES permit application includes: (1) Name 

and mailing address; (2) Description of all industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's 

discharge; (3) Principal products and raw materials of the SIU that affect or contribute to the SIU's 

discharge; (4) Average daily volume of wastewater discharged, indicating the amount attributable to 

process flow and non-process flow; (5) Whether the SIU is subject to local limits; (6) Whether the SIU is 

subject to categorical standards, and if so, under which category(ies) and subcategory(ies); and (7) 

Whether any problems at the POTW (e.g., upsets, pass through, interference) have been attributed to 

the SIU in the past four and one-half years. EPA’s Appendix A only collects some of these data. 

As noted in the meeting notes, EPA regulations allow POTWs to exclude the list of SIUs and CIU on their 

NPDES permit application if they provide the same information on their annual pretreatment program 

report [see 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(iii)]. EPA is investigating ways to use NeT to allow POTWs to share insert, 

update, and delete changes with ICIS-NPDES for the list of SIUs and CIUs that discharge into their 

system. 

Regarding the addition of new data elements to Appendix A, EPA encourages you to include this as a 

comment on the forthcoming supplemental notice.

As mentioned during the conference call, several data items within this section do not seem absolutely 

necessary. This particularly includes items relating to streamlining, items #186, #187, #188 (pp. 46096 

and 46097).
18

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We encourage you to include this as a comment on the 

forthcoming supplemental notice.

Also, while it is required in 40 CFR 403 to report this, it is not really useful to ask whether an SIU is 

subject to local limits more stringent than CIU standards since it’s not clear what that means (and 

database elements already ask if the SIU is subject to local limits and categorical standards separately).

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We encourage you to include this as a comment on the 

forthcoming supplemental notice. As noted in the meeting notes, instead of “yes” or “no”, this data 

element could be allow states to track the percentage of effluent limits that are based on local limits as 

they are more stringent than categorical standards. 

Also, asking more about flow than the peak and average flow rates for non-domestic wastestreams from 

SIUs (such as in items #199, #200, #201) is going into areas that are overkill for ICIS to tabulate. This 

kind of information would not be useful outside of the context of processing a permit application from 

an SIU.

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We encourage you to include this as a comment on the 

forthcoming supplemental notice.

I also have concerns about the items “Industrial User Causing Problems at POTW”, “Receiving RCRA 

Waste” and “Receiving Remediation Waste” that I discuss below the comments on the PCI / Audit data 

items. So to start, below are my concerns with the existing PCI/AUDIT data items (ERR Items 277-283 on 

FR p. 46102&3) and their descriptions (per the proposed FR). One consistent theme you will see is that I 

believe the citations of 1989 and 1990 memos should be replaced with reference to EPA’s 2010 Audit 

guidance manual which incorporated these memos (or should have).

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/final_pca_checklist_and_instructions_%20feb2010.pdf

Legal Authority Status and 

Deficiencies

This data element would identify if legal authority to implement the 

pretreatment program was sufficient or if the pretreatment compliance 

audit or inspection identified particular deficiencies, identified in a dropdown list. This data element is consistent with the “FY 1990 Guidance 

for Reporting and Evaluating POTW Noncompliance with Pretreatment 

Implementation requirements”, from EPA, 27 September 1989

CONCERN: The 1990 Guidance is outdated and obscure. EPA should use 

and cite the Feb 2010 updated Audit Guidance Manual which has a good 

legal authority checklist at Appendix C (pp 81-92), and explanations in 

Section B of chapter 3 (p.3-3 to 3-6). The drop down list should include 

the items described there and in the Audit checklist – including 

adequacy of interjurisdictional agreements.

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We encourage you 

to include this as a comment on the forthcoming supplemental 

notice.
19

Failure of the Control Authority 

to Enforce Against Pass-Through 

or Interference

This data element would be a simple “yes/no” indicator as to whether 

the pretreatment compliance audit or inspection identified a deficiency 

related to the control authority’s failure to enforce against pass-through 

or interference. This data element is consistent with the “FY 1990 

Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTW Noncompliance with 

Pretreatment Implementation requirements”, from EPA, 27 September 

1989.

CONCERN: Pass Through and Interference are two separate things, and 

deserve to be separately addressed. To clarify expectations, EPA needs 

to cite it’s Audit manual which is a published guidance manual and thus 

has more weight than the 1989 memo and is readily accessible to states 

and POTWs. EPA has not been telling States to refer to this memo when 

doing Audits, so why would they cite it here to collect the same 

information. Section G.6 of the Audit guidance manual (page 3-30) 

discusses the particulars of doing this assessment in more 

detail. Inspectors must evaluate whether the POTW had problems 

meeting its limits which are attributable to non-domestic discharges and 

whether the POTW has taken all reasonable steps to find the pollutant, 

trace it to its source, and curtail any future potential pass through or 

interference. The POTW actions should follow the 1987 Guidance 

manual for Preventing Interference at POTWs and the 1991 manual 

Control of Slug Loadings to POTWs. And EPA should clarify whether 

Approval Authorities are to consider grease blockages causing overflows 

(item G.7) as “Interference”.

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We encourage you 

to include this as a comment on the forthcoming supplemental 

notice.
20

Failure of the Control Authority 

to Submit Required Reports 

Within 30 Days

This data element would be a simple “yes/no” indicator as to whether 

the pretreatment compliance audit or inspection identified a deficiency 

related to the control authority’s failure to submit required 

pretreatment reports within thirty days of the due date. This data 

element is consistent with the “FY 1990 Guidance for Reporting and 

Evaluating POTW Noncompliance with Pretreatment Implementation 

requirements”, from EPA, 27 September 1989.

CONCERN: This would already be an NPDES permit violation since the 

POTW’s NPDES permit requires the annual pretreatment 

report. Therefore, this is redundant.

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. As you probably 

know ICIS-NPDES has the capability for states to identify when 

reports (e.g., DMRs) are due and to automatically identify if a 

report is submitted late. This capability could be used to track 

POTW annual pretreatment program annual reports and the 

biannual compliance monitoring reports [Part 403.12(e) and (h)] 

for SIUs/CIUS where the state or EPA is the Control Authority. We 

encourage you to include your thoughts on this possibility as a 

comment on the forthcoming supplemental notice.

Failure of the Control Authority 

To Meet Compliance Schedule 

Milestone Dates Within 90 Days

This data element would be a simple “yes/no” indicator as to whether 

the pretreatment compliance audit or inspection identified a deficiency 

related to the control authority’s failure to meet compliance schedule 

milestone dates within 90 days of the due date. This data element is 

consistent with the “FY 1990 Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating 

POTW Noncompliance with Pretreatment Implementation 

requirements”, from EPA, 27 September 1989.

CONCERN: EPA should cite the Audit manual again here. Even though 

the Audit manual lacks a section in the instructions to explain this 

criteria it does reinforce it, and the EPA memo cited really has little 

explanation either. I’m also concerned that some may confuse POTW 

milestones (usually associated with an Order requiring program 

development) with SIU milestones. And although not tracked per se, 

whether a POTW held its SIU’s to meet appropriate milestone dates 

would probably be a more frequent concern than whether the POTW is 

meeting compliance schedule milestone dates for developing or 

modifying their program.

EPA Response: EPA can update the data element description to 

make this clear.
21

Failure of the Control Authority 

to Issue or Reissue Control 

Mechanisms 

This data element would be a simple “yes/no” indicator as to whether 

the pretreatment compliance audit or inspection identified a deficiency 

related to the control authority’s failure to meet compliance schedule 

milestone dates within 90 days of the due date. This data element is 

consistent with the “FY 1990 Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating 

POTW Noncompliance with Pretreatment Implementation 

requirements”, from EPA, 27 September 1989

PROBLEM: The Audit manual should be cited rather than this old memo 

as it contains EPA’s current metric on page A-2 (90% of permits reissued 

within 6 months of expiration). The 1990 guidance metric is more 

focused on program development, with the metric within 180 days after 

program approval, or the date required in the approved program, NPDES 

permit, or General Pretreatment Regulations... The current metric is 

reinforced on page D-6 (RNC Worksheet) and page 3-14 (section D.1.d) 

of the pretreatment Audit instructions.

EPA Response: EPA can update the data element to reference the 

most current guidance for audits and inspections.

Failure of the Control Authority 

To Inspect or Sample

This data element would be a simple “yes/no” indicator as to whether 

the pretreatment compliance audit or inspection identified a deficiency 

related to the control authority’s failure to inspect or sample. If at least 

80% of the significant industrial users have been inspected or sampled in 

the past twelve months, then this would not be identified as a 

deficiency. This data element is consistent with the “FY 1990 Guidance 

for Reporting and Evaluating POTW Noncompliance with Pretreatment 

Implementation requirements”, from EPA, 27 September 1989 

CONCERN: Both EPA’s Pretreatment Audit Manual published in Feb, 

2010 and the two J.Elder memos described are inconsistent on whether 

this is “and” or “or”. While the 2/8/89 Elder memo describes this as 

“Failed to conduct at least 80% of the inspections and samplings of 

SIUs”, the 8/9/89 draft guidance on POTW noncompliance (also 

published by Elder) describes this as “failed to inspect or sample at least 

80% of the SIUs..” The Audit instructions on P.D-5 have two lines: One 

for SIU’s not inspected, and one for SIU’s not sampled (respectively) but 

pages D-2 and D-6 of the Audit manual combine them into one 

metric. Clarity would dictate this be two separate items.

EPA Response: EPA can update the data element to reference the 

most current guidance for audits and inspections. EPA can update 

the data element description to make this clear.
22

Failure of the Control Authority 

to Enforce Pretreatment 

Standards and Reporting 

Requirements

This data element would be a simple “yes/no” indicator as to whether 

the pretreatment compliance audit or inspection identified a deficiency 

related to the control authority’s failure to inspect or sample (inspect or 

sample?!). If less than 15% of the significant industrial users have been 

in significant noncompliance in the past twelve months, then this would 

not be identified as a deficiency. This data element is consistent with the 

“FY 1990 Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTW Noncompliance 

with Pretreatment Implementation requirements”, from EPA, 27 

September 1989

CONCERN: This metric has nothing to do with the CA’s failure to inspect 

or sample (where did that come from). But even so, as described this 

seems an inappropriate metric since it does not measure what I believe 

we really want to know. That is - whether the POTW has taken prompt 

action which lead to a return of their SIUs to compliance within a timely 

manner through the appropriate application of their approved 

ERP. Since (I believe) over half of delegated POTWs nationally have five 

or less SIU’s, having even one SIU in SNC would mean the CA had met 

this (level II) RNC criteria. Audit instructions on Page 3-28 clarify that 

what we want to track is whether the POTW has had >15% of its SIU’s in 

SNC over 6 months without formal POTW actions or penalties where 

appropriate, and that the enforcement action taken was consistent with 

its approved enforcement procedures. Let’s align this item with that 

criteria not just 15% of SIU’s in SNC. 

EPA Response: EPA can update the data element to reference the 

most current guidance for audits and inspections. EPA can update 

the data element description to make this clear.

While reluctant to suggest greater levels of reporting, I would suggest an item for PCI’s & Audits may be 

of significant utility in verifying the validity of AA oversight. This would be whether as part of the Audit 

the Approval Authority has reviewed the information reported by the Control Authority in their last 

annual report. The field should allow a Y/N response and also allow a note for the inspector to 

document where data reported by a POTW is deficient and corrections requested.

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We encourage you to include this as a comment on the 

forthcoming supplemental notice. In particular, please help identify the name of the data element, its 

description, and possible responses (e.g., Yes/No, unique codes).

Database item #202: Industrial User Causing Problems: (Part of the NPDES Permit Application Data 

requirements which would be fulfilled when a POTW completes a reapplication for its NPDES permit) 

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) whether it caused or 

contributed to any problems (including upset, bypass, interference, pass through) at this POTW within 

the past four and one-half years. EPA regulations require the Control Authority to develop and 

enforce local limits when the discharge from an IU causes or contributes to any problems (including 

upset, interference, bypass) at the receiving POTW’s effluent discharge or biosolids. CONCERN: I 

believe that knowing (every five years) about IU’s “causing problems” is an important metric for nondelegated POTWs so that Approval Authorities can review whether they need a local program, local 

limits, etc. However, POTWs with delegated programs should address this in their annual pretreatment 
23

reports. Whether they have had pass through or interference is extremely relevant to their 

implementation of their program (and I believe certainly within the scope of content envisioned at 

403.12(i)).

EPA Response: As noted in the meeting notes, EPA regulations allow POTWs to exclude the list of SIUs 

and CIU on their NPDES permit application if they provide the same information on their annual 

pretreatment program report [see 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(iii)]. EPA is investigating ways to use NeT to allow 

POTWs to share insert, update, and delete changes with ICIS-NPDES for the list of SIUs and CIUs that 

discharge into their system. 

Database item #203: Receiving RCRA waste: CONCERN: The explanation clarifies that this means 

POTWs receiving RCRA waste from truck, rail, or dedicated pipe. Receipt in such manner would subject 

the POTW to RCRA requirements themselves, and they would need to (as I understand it) obtain a RCRA 

TSDF permit (See the June 1987 manual on this topic, which at Chapter 4 notes: “POTWs accepting these 

wastes are considered to be hazardous wastes TSDF’s and are subject to applicable RCRA 

regulations.” Therefore, asking if they receive RCRA waste by such means is important to evaluating 

whether the POTW is complying with RCRA and is therefore useful. 

EPA Response: Thank you for your comments. We encourage you to include this as a comment on the 

forthcoming supplemental notice. As you note, under §261.4(a)(1)(ii), mixtures of sanitary wastes and 

other wastes (including hazardous industrial wastes) that pass through a sewer system to a publicly 

owned treatment works (POTW) are excluded from Subtitle C regulation. The exclusion applies to a 

waste when it first enters a sewer system provided that it will mix with sanitary wastes prior to storage 

or treatment by a POTW. The Agency interprets this exclusion to begin at the point of entry into the 

sewage system, not at the point the hazardous waste actually mixes with the sewage (45 FR 33066, 

33097; May 19, 1980). In particular, this exclusion does not include any waste directly transported to the 

POTW by truck or rail shipments (45 FR 33066, 33097 and 33176; May 19, 1980).

Database item #204: Receiving Remediation waste: CONCERN: Many remediation sites are short term 

cleanups of leaking underground storage tanks which enjoy the Domestic Sewage Exclusion (DSE) and 

are therefore exempt from RCRA. These may or may not be SIU’s, depending on pollutants, treatment 

technology used, duration, and flow volumes. There is no good reason to require reporting of the receipt 

of such wastes in the POTW’s collection system (regardless of whether the POTW is delegated for 

pretreatment or not) aside from the reporting of SIU’s already required. Remediation waste does not 

pose any greater risk to the POTW than industrial wastewater. And the public will not be better 

informed, nor will States and EPA be able to provide oversight of pretreatment programs by a Yes or No 

answer to this question. 

EPA Response: This data element was derived using EPA regulations, which asks that POTWs to include 

information on RCRA and CERCLA wastes that they receive. See 40 CFR 122.21(j)(7). This helps identify 

POTWs that are receiving toxic pollutants from RCRA and CERCLA cleanup sites, which may be useful in 

resolving issues of non-compliance such as POTW effluent limit exceedances.

David J. Knight P.E. 

Environmental Engineer 

Washington State Department of Ecology 
24

Attachment 3 – Comments from Missouri Department of Natural Resources

From: Fett, Walter [mailto:walter.fett@dnr.mo.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 3:27 PM

To: Johnston, Carey

Cc: Pickrel, Jan

Subject: Pretreatment call on E-reporting 

On 78 FR 46103: The references to use the “FY 1990 Guidance . . . “ sounded to me like an adoption of a 

guidance manual by reference in the rule. Can we not use discretion when making the determination 

that the POTW is implementing the pretreatment program, or not? It appears to me we have lost that 

discretion, and this is a new requirement that should go through rulemaking. 

EPA Response: EPA is not using the eRule to change its existing policies or regulations regarding when a 

POTW must implement a pretreatment program. EPA will update Appendix A to make this clear. 

For example, we ended up with a number of pretreatment cities regulating 5 industries or less. The last 

entry in the pretreatment section on page 46103 requires that a POTW be reported with a ‘yes’ on 

“Failure of the Control Authority to Enforce Pretreatment Standards and Reporting Requirements” if 

only 1 of 5 industries (20%) is in SNC at any time during the audit period. 

EPA Response: EPA is not using the eRule to change its existing policies or regulations regarding when a 

POTW must implement a pretreatment program. EPA will update Appendix A to make this clear. EPA 

also notes that the average POTW pretreatment program has approximately 10 SIUs or CIUS.

Walter N. Fett

Engineering Section 

Water Protection Program

Department of Natural Resources