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, Steven 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, Walter L. Baker

Director, Division of Water Quality 

Utah Department of Environmental 

Quality

Regional Representatives

Region I - Pete LaFlamme (VT) 

Region II - Michele Putnam (NJ) 

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: Recommendations for Prioritization for the U.S. EPA National 

Pretreatment Program

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

The Association 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 Protection Agency’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 Territorial 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 pretreatment 
ACWA Recommendations for National

Pretreatment Program Prioritization

June 20, 2013

Page 2 of 7

1221 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 2nd Floor, 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 the last several years. The loss of historical knowledge via staff retirements and a decrease 

in program personnel/capacity has created significant knowledge and training gaps. ACWA 

wishes to express its appreciation to the staff at EPA’s National Pretreatment Program for 

creating and maintaining valuable forums 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 that 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 decreasing resources. As an outcome of these 

ongoing dialogues, participants 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 

pretreatment technical support areas. Several of these recommendations would require crossprogram coordination amongst programs 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 recommendations 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 opportunity 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 funding and 

program staffing. A total of 37 state pretreatment program staff, representing 26 states,

1

provided input. 

The respondents shared an overwhelming 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 greatest 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 the 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 Floor, 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 identified for 

higher prioritization. The activities are listed in order of descending priority, from greatest to 

lesser importance. 

1. Recommendation: EPA 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 standards and 

requirements for 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 states 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 ELGs pre-date 

the time that the Federal Register routinely became available online, 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. 

States 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 numeric limits. States would greatly benefit from 

additional training in these areas. 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 gaps. 
ACWA Recommendations for National

Pretreatment Program Prioritization

June 20, 2013

Page 4 of 7

1221 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 2nd Floor, 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 planned for March, 2009 

(Charlotte, NC) but became an EPA only meeting due to projected low attendance 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 collaborate on issues. Although the 

online/teleconference forums for discussion and information exchange are very helpful, the 

value of face-to-face interaction cannot be matched. EPA should restore the annual National 

Pretreatment Coordinators Meeting (with an extra day focused on training 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 every 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, states recommend supplementing those with an instructional video

demonstrating 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: Likewise, 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 proportional), 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 significant noncompliance criteria (SNC). Therefore states 

recommend that EPA develop software to assist those entities with the SNC calculations. 
ACWA Recommendations for National

Pretreatment Program Prioritization

June 20, 2013

Page 5 of 7

1221 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 2nd Floor, 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 states 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 states therefore encourage EPA to continue working 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 Pretreatment 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 respective 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 1989). A basic document was 

complete as of September 2012; several appendices 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 Projects:

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, given 
ACWA Recommendations for National

Pretreatment Program Prioritization

June 20, 2013

Page 6 of 7

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

TEL: 202-756-0600, FAX: 202-756-0605

WWW.ACWA-US.ORG

the new chemistry being used by the industry. The guidance 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 sample 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 guidance on developing local limits to include specific examples of developing BMPs 

as local limits. Also, guidance that addresses 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 

BMPs; using BMPs in lieu of numeric standards; which records to require; 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 Manual 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 Authority 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 portions 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 Floor, 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