1



## MEMORA**NDUM** 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 ( 1 9 June 2 014) [DCN 0141 ]

**Overview** This was the fourteen th meeting for the EPA

- state technical workgroup, which is discuss ing key issues related to the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (eRule) . These discussions are informing the forthcoming supplemental Federa l 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 Table s 1 and 2. The agenda for this meeting is a lso provided below. EPA is summariz ing 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 l ike 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 NPDE S permit applications and Notices of Intent (NOI) (see 30 July 2013; 78 FR 4609 6

- 460 98 ) , 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 te n elements at a time, Mr. Johnston asked for input from the technical workgroup. Below are some questions and comments from the technical workgroup. The first2



### 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 da tes 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 pretrea tment 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. Joh nston 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 SIU s 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 a nd 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

– N PDES or to add a new facility.3



### NPDES permit application. Mr. Johnston noted that this wou ld mea n 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 t here 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 ICIS

NPDES 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 Com pliance 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

- NPD ES 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 full y 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 com ment I made on yesterday’s State Technical Workgroup Meetings call. I stated that a history of name changes was already available in ICIS

- NPDES. W hat 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 all ow states to track the percentage of effluent limits that are based on local limit s 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 relucta nt 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 appl i cations, “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 need s 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 a re 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**  dat a element.

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

### This guidance d efines 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 analys is’ (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 annual ly . 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.pdf6



###  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 t hat the “Annual POTW reports” regulations [40 CFR 403.12(i)] ask for summary information such as “summary of the status of Industrial User compl iance over the reporting period” and “summary of compliance and enforcement activities .” Consequently, EPA did n ot 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 Attachment s 1, 2, and 3, respectively

.7



### State Technical **Workgroup Meeting –**  **NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 1**  **9 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 devel op 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 

### Yes Eric Cleckler ec leckler@adem.state.al.us Glenda Dean gld@adem.state.al.us Teresa Marks

AR marks@adeq.state.ar.us


### Yes Pat Goff goff@adeq.state.ar.us Mo S hafii 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 

### Yes Robin B elley belley.robin@azdeq.gov 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 J essica K leinfelter jessica.kleinfelter@dep.state.fl.us E dward S mith edward.c.smith@dep.state.fl.us F rances 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 

### Yes Steve Caspers scaspers@kdheks.gov Shelly Shores

- Miller sshoresm@kdheks.gov Shawn H okanson KY shawn.hokanson@ky.gov 

### No Grace Scott MI scottg@michigan.gov 

### Yes Carla Davidson davidsonc@michigan.gov9

**Main Contact State or** 

**Organization Main Contact**  **Email State/Org.**  **Present? (Yes/No)**  Ruth Wallace MO ruth.wallace@dnr.mo.gov 

### Yes Walter Fett walter.fett@dnr.mo.gov Christopher Miller epermitting@dnr.mo.gov Tamara D ahl 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 

### Yes Roy Walker roy.walker@deq.ok.gov D avid P ruitt david.pruitt@deq.ok.gov Jim B illings OR billings.jim@deq.state.or.us 

### Yes Sean Furjanic PA sefurjanic@pa.gov 

### No Kent W oodmansey SD kent.woodmansey@state.sd.us 

### Yes Tim F lor tim.flor@state.sd.us A lbert S pangler albert.spangler@state.sd.us Lawrence Bunting TN l awrence. b unting@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 D oyen lynley.doyen@tceq.texas.gov K imberly S hepard kimberly.shepard@tceq.texas.gov Jeff Studenka UT jstudenka@utah.gov 

### No Jerome Brooks VA jerome.brooks@deq.virginia.gov 

### Yes Deborah Debiasi Deborah.DeBiasi@deq.virginia.gov P hani Eturu phani.eturu@deq.virginia.gov Stephen Bernath WA sber461@ecy.wa.gov 

### Yes Dave Knight dakn461@ecy.wa.gov Nancy Kmet nkme461@ecy.wa.gov10



### 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 s prague.david@ e pa.gov 

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

### Yes R honda Golder OECA/OC/ETDD golder.rhonda@ e pa.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 a panian.david@ e pa.gov 

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

### Yes Glynis Hill OP/ORPM/PRAD hill.glynis@epa.gov 

### No11 **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 gene ral, 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 addit ional 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 enco urage 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 en tered 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 Doc ket 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 Re sponse:**  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. **EP A 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 strin gent 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 cons idering 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 sugge sted 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) **Re ceiving 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) **Receivi ng 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 Respons e:**  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 tho ugh EPA’s regulation does not mention that a waiver is available. She also notes that m ost 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 def iciencies, 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 non

compliance (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 sa mple**  : 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 twelve14

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 t his 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 pretr eatment 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 onc e 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 C aspers, Pretreatment Specialist Kansas Department of Health & Environment E
- Mail address:SCaspers@kdheks.gov16 **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 val ue 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

- evalua te 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 n oted during the conference call, EPA developed Appen dix 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 associat e d 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 pretreatme nt 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 suc h 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 cou ld 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) beg inning 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 t hat reference be deleted so as not to create the false expectation that PCI’s or Audits would need to confirm or collect17

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 ex ist). **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 appropr iate 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 ca pacity) 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 p retreatment 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 pretrea tment 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:** Th is 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 per mit 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 investi gating 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 encourage s you to include thi s 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 dat a 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 wastestrea ms 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 bel ieve 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 drop

down 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 dro p 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 supplem ental 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 1 989. 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 parti culars 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 submi t 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 S chedule 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 so me 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 conce rn 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 t han 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 requi rements”, 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 contro l 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 withi n 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 instr uctions 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 en forcement 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 requ ested. **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 Use**  **r 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 o**  **r 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 non

delegated PO TWs 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 pretreatment23

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 NPD ES 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 l ist 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 T SDF 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 whe n 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 actual ly 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**  **Remedia tion**  **w aste**  : 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. Knigh t P.E. Environmental Engineer Washingto n State Department of Ecology24 **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 prog ram, 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 p retreatment 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 Pretreatm ent 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 pretre atment 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