1221 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20036
TEL: 202

- 756

- 0600, FAX: 202

- 756

- 0605

WWW.ACWA

- US.ORG ®

Board of Directors & Officers

President, Steve n H. Gunderson Director, Water Quality Control Division, Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment

Vice President, Shellie Chard

- McClary Director, Water Quality Division Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

Treasurer, Martha Clark Mettler Deputy Assistant Commissioner Office of Water Quality, Indiana Department of Environmental Management

Secretary, Mike Fulton Director, Water Quality Division Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Past President, Walt er L. Baker Director, Division of Water Quality Utah Department of Environmental Quality

Regional Representatives

Region I

- Pete LaFlamme (VT)

Region II

- Michele Putnam (N J )

Region III

- Collin Burrell (DC )

Region IV

- Drew Bartlett ( FL )

Region V

- William Creal (MI)

Region VI

- Todd Chenoweth (TX)

Region VII

- Pat Rice ( NE )

Region VIII

- Kent Woodmansey (SD )

Region IX

- Mike Fulton (AZ)

Region X

- Lynn Kent (AK)

Interstates

- Carlton Haywood (ICPRB)

Executive Director & General Counsel Alexandra Dapolito Dunn June 20 , 2013

Deborah Nagle , Division Director Water Permits Division Office of Wastewater Management US EPA Headquarters Ariel Rios Building Mail code: 4203M 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. Washington, DC 20460 Robert Wood , Director Engineering & Analysis Division Office of Science & Technology US EPA Headquarters Ariel Rios Building Mail code: 4303T 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. Washington, DC 20460

Lisa Lund, Director Office of Compliance Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance US EPA Headquarters Ariel Rios Building Mail code: 2221A 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. Washington, DC 20460

Via email to: nagle.deborah@epa.gov ; wood.robert@epa.gov ; lund.lisa@epa.gov

Re: Recom mendations for Prioritization for the U.S. EPA National Pretreatment Program

Dear Ms. Nagle, Mr. Wood, and Ms. Lund:

The A ssociation of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) (hereinafter “the Association” or “states”) appreciates the opportunity to provide the recommendations below pertaining to activities and areas of technical support provided by the U.S. Environmental Protecti on A gency’s (EPA) Office of Water (OW) and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) related to EPA’s National Pretreatment Program

. The Association is a national, nonpartisan, professional organization, representing State, Interstate, and Terr itorial water quality control officials (hereinafter “ states ” ) responsible for the implementation of surface water protection programs throughout the nation, including
pretreatment programs

. State pretreatment staff coordinate with local government entities (e.g., publicly

- owned treatment works (POTWs)) to ensure proper implementation and compliance with pretreatmentACWA Recommendations for National

Pretreatment Program Prioritization June 20, 2013 Page 2 of 7

1221 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 2nd F loor, Washington , DC 20036
TEL: 202

- 756

- 0600, FAX: 202

- 756

- 0605

WWW.ACWA

- US .ORG standards.

Pretreatment programs at the state and national level have experienced increasing disinvestment
over th e last s everal years. The loss of historical knowledge via staff retirements and a decrease in program personnel/capacity has created signif icant knowledge and training gaps. ACWA wishes to express its appreciation to the s taff at EPA’s National Pre treatment Program for creating and maintaining valuable forum s for state

- to

- state and EPA

- state information sharing in the pretreatment program listserv and bi

- monthly pretreatment coordinator conference calls. These discussions help facilitate information sharing t hat serves to both combat knowledge gaps and avoid unnecessary duplicative efforts for pretreatment programs already forced to make difficult prioritization choices in the face of decr easing resources. As an outcome of these ongoing dialogues, participant s in those EPA

- state forums determined that it would be beneficial to gather state feedback on where states would recommend EPA prioritize efforts in its
pretr e atment technical support areas. Several of these recommendations would require cross

program co ordination amongst pro grams within EPA

- OW as well as with OECA. For that reason, the Association wanted to share these recommendations more broadly with the goal of furthering cross

- program dialogue around these state reco mmendations for prioritization. The Association also recognizes that EPA may have already taken meaningful steps that are aligned with these recommendations and we are interested in future discussions on any ongoing efforts.

During November and December 2012, states had an opportuni ty to provide feedback on areas where increased technical support and updates would provide the greatest benefit , recognizing
the difficult task of prioritization EPA may be faced with given its own decreased f unding and program staffing. A total of 3 7 state pretreatment program staff , representing 2 6 states

, 1
provided input.

The respondents shared an o verwhelming consensus that EPA should increase grant monies to state pretreatment programs. However, recognizing that water programs across are facing deep

cuts across the board , we have focused the following priorities on where the greates t needs are,
that are also more likely achievable given current and ongoing resource constraints. Additionally, these recommendations for prioritization are not intended to displace other important Clean Water Act work. Based on th e priorities achieving the greatest consensus

, ACWA developed the recommendations set forth below :

1 Pretreatment program staff from the following states provided feedback (*indicates more than one individual from that state gave feedback): NH, NJ , WV, VA*, NC*, SC*, TN*, FL, MS, KY, OH*, MI, IN, IA*, MO, AR*, NE, KS, OK, TX*, UT, WA*, OR, CA, AK, CO.ACWA Recommendations for National

Pretreatment Program Prioritization June 20, 2013 Page 3 of 7

1221 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 2nd F loor, Washington , DC 20036
TEL: 202

- 756

- 0600, FAX: 202

- 756

- 0605

WWW.ACWA

- US .ORG PRIORITIZATION OF ACWA RECOMMENDATIONS :

The following is a list of National Pretreatment Program activities that the states identi fied for higher prioritization. The activities are listed in order of descending priorit y, from greatest to lesser importance.

1. Recommendation: E PA should ensure that technical experts are available in EPA Regions and Headquarters to assist states with program implementation. States often rely on EPA
technical staff to determine applicability and interpret pretreatment standard s and requirements fo r the various categories. With attrition in recent years, there has been a loss of expertise at the federal level.

2. Recommendation: EPA should provide greater flexibility within any current restrictions tied to grant monies for state s to address their state

- specific pollutants of concern. Pollutants of

concern will vary from state

- to

- state. For example, some states may have mercury issues, while others may have pharmaceuticals issues.

3. Recommendation: EPA should continue to make and maintain updates to the Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG) websites , including all regulatory and support documents (e.g., Federal Register (FR) notices and their preambles) and other notices related to program development (e.g., Domestic Sewage Study (DSS) (1990) regulations)

. This will become increasingly important as states continue moving toward wholly electronic data systems and are being asked to significantly reduce reliance on hardcopies. Many existing ELG s pre

- date
the time that the Federal Register routi nely became availa ble on line , and therefore need to be scanned in and posted to the ELG website

. It is also our understanding that there is an effort underway to create an electronic index to key concepts located in the regulatory preambles.
S tates remain keenly interested in having such a searchable tool and encourage continued progress with this effort

.

4. Recommendation: Local limits remain a very important aspect of the industrial pretreatment

program. In order to keep industrial pretreatment programs vibrant and responsive, states need additional training in areas which EPA has not refined guidance such as setting limits for compatible pollutants, managing mass based load allocations, and incorporating best management practices ( BMPs ) in lieu of numer ic limits. States would greatly benefit from
ad ditional training in th ese area s

. A comprehensive two

- day training course hosted by EPA on local limit development in each EPA Region is one possible approach states identified for addressing these knowledge gap s

.ACWA Recommendations for National

Pretreatment Program Prioritization June 20, 2013 Page 4 of 7

1221 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 2nd F loor, Washington , DC 20036
TEL: 202

- 756

- 0600, FAX: 202

- 756

- 0605

WWW.ACWA

- US .ORG 5. Recommendation: The last official EPA

- State National Pretreatment Program face

- to

- face meeting was held in August, 2008 (Charleston, SC). Another was pla nned for March, 2009 (Charlotte

, NC) but became an EPA only meeting due to projected low a ttendance by states. At that time, EPA switched direction to provide a series of webinars to try to fill the void. The webinars are a great vehicle for unilateral communication and training, but do not provide an opportunity for states and EPA to collabo rate on issues. Although the online/teleconference forums for discussion and information exchange are very helpful, the
value of face

- to

- face in teraction cannot be matched. EPA should restore the annual National Pretreatment Coordinators Meeting (with an extra day focused on train ing for Approval Authorities), and offer states some travel assistance to ensure maximum participation (e.g.,
50% cost

- share) . If an annual face

- to

- face is not feasible , then EPA should strive to hold such a meeting eve ry two years

. Additionally, EPA should continue to provide remote
access/dial

- in capabilities for those state participants that are unable to travel.

6. Recommendation: With respect to compliance, EPA OECA should revise performance
metrics to consider allowing Pretreatment Compliance Inspections in lieu of Pretreatment Compliance Audits for well

- run programs. This would allow more staff time and resources to focus on POTWs with a greater history of non

- compliance issues.

7. Recommendation: Although EPA has produced some valuable instructional webinars with slide presentations, sta tes recommend supplementing those with an instructional video
de monstrating a model industrial pretreatment inspection. Specifically, states would
recommend downloadable MP3 files or some other format that can be readily accessed
online. It is ACWA’s understanding that OECA may be working on some online instructional tools. ACWA encourages communication with states on any such tools under development

.

8. Recommendation: Like wise, states recommend that EPA consider developing an instructional video to supplement existing slide presentations on proper sampling techniques. The video should also address clean sampling techniques, and include how to determine sample type (flow vs time prop ortional), and proper location. Again, states recommend the
video be made available as a downloadable MP3 files or similar format

. Instruction in sampling also provides cross

- program training benefits that extend beyond state pretreatment
staff.

9. Recommendation: In states’ experience, many control authorities (i.e., POTWs) have misinterpreted or misunderstood s ignifican t noncompliance criteria (SNC). Therefore states
recommend that EPA develop software to assist those entities with the SNC calculation s

.ACWA Recommendations for National

Pretreatment Program Prioritization June 20, 2013 Page 5 of 7

1221 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 2nd F loor, Washington , DC 20036
TEL: 202

- 756

- 0600, FAX: 202

- 756

- 0605

WWW.ACWA

- US .ORG For example, something similar to EPA’s Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring & Enforcement (PCME) software (c.1992). Or alternatively, if a software tool is not possible in
the near future

, then a detailed narrative description and FAQ would be beneficial. For example, an FAQ on “how to consider incomplete information,” would be useful for states.

Recommended Prioritization of Pretreatment Manual Updates :

Current Projects:

The s tates understand that EPA is already revising or recently completed an update to the following five manuals , and that these updates may require cross

- coordination among more than
one OW division . The s tates therefore encourage EPA to continue work ing to finalize these documents in addition to starting new manual and guidance updates. Since the Control Authority Pretreatment Audit Checklist has been updated recently, the P retreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI) guidance has become less of a priority , but remains important. The following manuals are listed in order of descending priority for updating , from greatest to lesser importance

. Additionally, for each of these manuals, ACWA recommends adding a frequently asked questions (FAQs) section, or posting those resp ective FAQs online :

1. Introduction to the National Pretreatment Program (February 1999) update published June, 2011

. States encourage maintaining more frequent updates to this publication.

2. Industrial User Permitting Guidance Manual (September 198 9). A bas ic document was complete as of September 2012 ; s everal app endices have not been completed.

3. Guidance for Conducting a Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI) (September 1991)

. States encourage EPA to revisit and refresh this publication.

4. Control Authority Pretreatment Audit Checklist and Instructions (May 1992) updated February 2010

.

5. Guidance for Developing Control authority Enforcement Response Plans (September 1989). States encourage EPA to revisit and refresh this publication.

Proposed Pr ojects:

States identified the following list of new guidance development and updates ranked in order of descending priority, from greatest to lesser importance. The first item in particular was rated as a very high priority by most states relative to the choices.

1. If 40 CFR 433 (metal finishing) and 413 (electroplating) will not be updated in the near future, EPA should provide specific guidance regarding application of these regulations, givenACWA Recommendations for National

Pretreatment Program Prioritization June 20, 2013 Page 6 of 7

1221 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 2nd F loor, Washington , DC 20036
TEL: 202

- 756

- 0600, FAX: 202

- 756

- 0605

WWW.ACWA

- US .ORG the new chemistry being used by the industry. The guidanc e needs to provide interpretation of the applicability of the Metal Finishing regulations in the current industrial practices.

2. Update the Industrial User Inspection and Sampling manual to include discussion of BMPs and flow proportional monitoring as well as more guidance on 40 CFR 136 (test methods ) . In particular guidance pertaining to s ample collection ( field blanks) and preservation are of the greatest priority. It is our understanding that EPA may already be working on online instructional tool that would address this training gap. States would be interested in hearing from EPA on any instructional tools under development.

3. Update guid ance on developing loca l limits to include specific examples of developing BMPs
as local limits. A lso, guidance that address es the problem of control authorities using the total toxic organics (TTO) limit from 40 CFR 433 as a local limit in permits for non

- categorical
industries

.
4. Update and expand the guidance manual for Developing BMPs , October 1993 where it pertains to industrial activities

. For example, it could be expanded to describe : industry specific

BMP s ; using BMPs in lieu of numeric standards; which records to req uire; and how to verify that the BMPs are being followed through record keeping.

5. Update where necessary the FY1990 Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTW Noncompliance with Pretreatment Implementation Requirements.

6. Finalize the “Procedures Manu al for Reviewing a POTW Pretreatment Program Submission.” States had an opportunity to review and provide feedback on a draft version of this document which provides a comprehensive checklist for new pretreatment programs, as well as for existing

programs that are undergoing updates

. States encourage moving forward with finalizing and releasing this manual.

7. Continue updating the Guidance for Developing Control A uthority Enforcement Response
Plans (ERPs)

. This should include a checklist for reviewing ERPs, and how to evaluate whether or not an ERP is being followed. This guidance should also include an extensive discussion of how to determine SNC, including how to consider missing information.

8 . More guidance is needed regarding the optional portion s of the streamlining regulations.
Some control authorities that have added optional portions of streamlining are not including very much detail in the procedures to implement the control authority’s legal authority for the option/options that were added. It would be helpful to have some foundation /guidance for requiring the control authorities to add the detail to the procedure(s). One way that this could be addressed is through incorporation into the forthcoming “Guidance Manual for POTW Pretreatment Program Development.” ( see # 6 above).ACWA Recommendations for National

Pretreatment Program Prioritization June 20, 2013 Page 7 of 7

1221 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 2nd F loor, Washington , DC 20036
TEL: 202

- 756

- 0600, FAX: 202

- 756

- 0605

WWW.ACWA

- US .ORG ACWA looks forward to facilitating discussions between EPA and states on any of the
aforementioned recommendations. We look to host a discussion sometime late summer/ early fall 2013 for EPA and states to discuss the recommendations and any EPA response, as well as any current and ongoing EPA efforts that address these priorities. Please contact our Executive Director and General Counsel, Alexandra Dunn, at 202/756

- 0600 or at adunn@acwa

- us.org, to
facilitate any follow

- up discussions conversations.

Sincerely,

Steven H. Gunderson
ACWA President Director, Water Quality Control Division Colorado Department of Health and Environment
ACWA President