Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-0234
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-12-24T05:00Z

1
Draft
Strategy
for
National
Clean
Water
Industrial
Regulations
Public
Meeting
January
15,
2003
2
WELCOME
3
AGENDA
°
Introduction
°
Background
and
Goals
°
Major
Factors
to
Be
Considered
°
Expected
Flow
of
Investigations
°
Plans
for
Stakeholder
Involvement
°
Issues
Needing
Stakeholder
Input
°
Questions
and
Answers
4
INTRODUCTION
5
Purpose
of
the
Meeting
To
facilitate
public
comment
on
the
draft
Strategy
for
National
Clean
Water
Industrial
Regulations,
announced
by
EPA
on
November
29,
2002,
by:

°
Presenting
the
draft
Strategy
goals
and
content.

°
Identifying
specific
issues
and
questions
on
which
EPA
is
soliciting
comment.
6
Purpose
of
the
Meeting
(
cont.)

To
facilitate
public
comment
by:

°
Providing
information
on
how
to
submit
comments.

°
Answering
questions
on
the
Strategy
to
ensure
understanding.
7
Meeting
Logistics
°
Each
major
presentation
will
be
followed
by
a
brief
opportunity
for
clarifying
questions.

°
Information
on
how
to
present
comments
will
be
presented
at
the
end
of
the
meeting.
8
Meeting
Logistics
(
cont.)

°
We
will
provide
a
longer
question­

andanswer
period
at
the
end
of
the
meeting,

as
well
as
contact
information
for
additional
questions.

°
We
will
not
be
taking
minutes
or
transcripts
of
today's
meeting.
9
BACKGROUND
AND
GOALS
10
The
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
°
EPA
develops
national
regulations
setting
effluent
limits
for
categories
of
industry.

°
Regulations
address
direct
discharges,
as
well
as
discharges
to
Publicly
Owned
Treatment
Works.
11
The
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
°
Over
50
major
industrial
categories
regulated
over
30
years,
since
1972
Clean
Water
Act.

°
National
industrial
regulations
are
estimated
to
result
in
the
removal
of
690
billion
pounds
of
pollutants
each
year,
and
substantially
contribute
to
improvements
in
the
quality
of
water
nationwide.
12
The
1987
Clean
Water
Act
Amendments
°
Clarified
Congress'
intent
that
effluent
guidelines
keep
pace
with
progress.

°
Added
Section
304(
m),
which
required
EPA
to
take
public
comment
on
and
publish
effluent
guidelines
plans
every
two
years.
13
CWA
Requirements
for
the
Section
304(
m)
Plan
(
A)
establish
a
schedule
for
the
annual
review
and
revision
of
promulgated
effluent
guidelines,
in
accordance
with
subsection
(
b)
of
this
section;

(
B)
identify
categories
of
sources
discharging
toxic
or
nonconventional
pollutants
for
which
guidelines
under
subsection
(
b)(
2)
of
this
section
and
section
306
have
not
previously
been
published;
and
(
cont.)
14
CWA
Requirements
for
the
Section
304(
m)
Plan
(
cont.)

(
C)
establish
a
schedule
for
promulgation
of
effluent
guidelines
for
categories
identified
in
subparagraph
(
B),
under
which
promulgation
of
such
guidelines
shall
be
no
later
than
4
years
after
such
date
of
enactment
for
categories
identified
in
the
first
published
plan
or
3
years
after
the
publication
of
the
plan
for
categories
identified
in
later
published
plans.
15
Effluent
Guidelines
Planning
to
Date
°
EPA
was
sued
in
1989
for
failure
to
develop
a
plan
that
met
the
statutory
requirements,

and
entered
into
a
consent
decree.

°
For
most
of
the
last
10
years,
selections
of
industries
for
guidelines
and
their
schedules
were
substantially
influenced
by
this
consent
decree.

°
Our
final
obligations
under
the
most
recent
consent
decree
are
now
underway
(
due
by
2004).
16
Effluent
Guidelines
Planning
into
the
Future
Draft
Strategy
presents
a
possible
approach
for
conducting
the
annual
review
and
planning
required
under
section
304(
m):

°
Built
largely
on
recommendations
from
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Task
Force.

°
Incorporates
several
new
concepts
suggested
by
participants
in
our
April
2001
Experts
Meeting.

°
Capitalizes
on
"
lessons
learned"
through
recent
effluent
guidelines.
17
Goals
of
the
Draft
Strategy
°
Reduce
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.

°
Involve
stakeholders
from
the
beginning.

°
Assure
transparent
decision­
making.

°
Evaluate
sound
information
against
broad
and
balanced
decision
criteria.
18
MAJOR
FACTORS
19
Four
Potential
Major
Factors
°
Risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.

°
Technology,
process
change,
or
pollution
prevention.

°
Economic
considerations.

°
Implementation/
efficiency
considerations.
20
1.
Potential
Risk
°
The
extent
to
which
a
discharge
category
is
discharging
pollutants
that
may
pose
a
risk
to:

 
human
health.

 
the
environment.
21
2.
Means
to
Address
Risk
°
Applicable
and
demonstrated
technology?

°
Applicable
and
demonstrated
process
change?

°
Applicable
pollution
prevention
approach?
22
°
Cost
°
Growth
°
Affordability
3.
Economic
Considerations
23
°
Industry
changes
made
existing
guidelines
inappropriate
or
inadequate?

°
Current
guideline
a
barrier
to
the
use
of
new
technologies?

°
Would
revising
an
existing
guideline
allow
reduction
of
more
pollutants
at
lower
cost?

4.
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
24
FLOW
OF
INVESTIGATIONS
25
Phased
Process
°
Screening
level
review
to
identify
categories
needing
further
investigation.

°
Prioritizing
candidates
using
selection
criteria.

°
In­
depth
review
to
characterize
industry
categories.

°
Decide
on
course
of
action.
26
Screening
Level
Review
°
Factor
1
 
 
human
health
and
environmental
impacts.

°
Factor
2
 
technology
advances,
process
changes,
pollution
prevention
opportunities.

°
Factor
3
 
economic
considerations.

°
Factor
4
 
implementation
&
efficiency
concerns.
27
Factor
1:
Human
Health
&

Environmental
Impacts
°
Concerns
raised
by
Stakeholders.

°
Office
of
Water
Data
and
Reports,
e.
g.:

 
fish
consumption
advisories.

 
fish
tissue
study.

 
National
Sediment
Surveys.

 
Beaches
program.

 
National
Water
Quality
Inventory.
28
Factor
1:
Human
Health
&

Environmental
Impacts
°
Risk
Screening
Environmental
Indicators
(
RSEI)
to
evaluate
Toxic
Release
Inventory
(
TRI)
discharges.

°
Other
Federal
Agencies'
Data
and
Reports:

 
USGS
NAWQA
program.

 
NOAA
Hypoxia
Studies.
29
Factor
2:
Technology
Advances,

Process
Changes,
Pollution
Prevention
°
Conference
on
Industrial
Wastewater
and
Best
Available
Treatment
(
BAT)
Technologies.

°
Other
Federal
Agencies'
Data
and
Reports:

Department
of
Commerce,
Department
of
Energy,
National
Academy
of
Science.
30
Factor
2:
Technology
Advances,

Process
Changes,
Pollution
Prevention
°
Review
of
technical
literature,
state
permits,

and
other
publicly
available
data.

°
Information
supplied
by
Stakeholders
in
industry.

°
Screener
questionnaire.
31
Factor
3:
Economic
Conditions
and
Trends
°
Department
of
Commerce's
Economic
Census
&
Bureau
of
Economic
Analysis.

°
Department
of
Energy's
"
Industries
of
the
Future"
and
"
Annual
Energy
Outlook".

°
Department
of
Labor's
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics.
32
Factor
3:
Economic
Conditions
and
Trends
°
Information
gathered
from
trade
associations.

°
Major
trade
publications'
forecasts.
33
Factor
4:
Implementation
&

Efficiency
Considerations
Stakeholder
Input:

°
Comments
on
2002/
2003
Plan.

°
Comments
on
draft
Strategy.

°
Feedback
gathered
from
pretreatment
coordinators
and
permit
writers
&

others.
34
Factor
4:
Implementation
&

Efficiency
Considerations
°
Other
EPA
Offices'
rankings
and
lists:

 
Office
of
Air.

 
Office
of
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assurance.

 
Office
of
Policy,
Economics,
and
Innovation.

°
Voluntary
loading
reductions.
35
Compile
Results
of
Factor
Review
Identify
the
discharge
categories
that
show:

°
Greatest
potential
concern
for
risk.

°
Greatest
potential
for
reduction
of
that
risk.

°
Identified
on
more
than
one
of
the
factors'

results.

°
Direct
discharging
facilities
without
effluent
guidelines
in
place.
36
Prioritizing
Candidates
For
this
review
cycle,
assign
lower
priority
to
categories
for
which:

°
Guidelines
are
under
development.

°
Guidelines
have
been
promulgated
within
7
years.

°
Significant
voluntary
loading
reductions
have
been
achieved.
37
In­
Depth
Review:

Technology
Characterize
Industry:

°
Number
of
facilities.

°
Current
wastewater
treatment
technology.

°
Process
changes.

°
Current
pollutants
discharged
and
amounts.

°
Potential
loading
reductions
and
pollution
prevention.
38
In­
Depth
Review:

Factor
1
Revisited
°
Thumb­
nail
environmental
assessment.

°
Link
water
quality
impairments
with
sources.

°
Data
to
supplement
stakeholder
concerns.
39
In­
Depth
Review:

Factor
2
Revisited
°
Screening
Questionnaire.

°
Waste
water
sampling
at
facilities.

°
Potential
loading
reductions
and
pollution
prevention.

°
More
detailed/
targeted
data
from
stakeholders.
40
In­
Depth
Review:

Factor
3
Revisited
°
Projected
costs
to
industry
as
a
whole.

°
Cost
reasonableness
/
cost
effectiveness.

°
Trends.

°
Capital
expenditures.

°
Expanded
information
provided
by
stakeholders.
41
In­
Depth
Review:

Factor
4
Revisited
°
Innovative
approaches
such
as
trading.

°
Opportunities
for
multi­
media
benefits
in
coordination
with
other
EPA
offices.

°
Potential
for
voluntary
loading
reductions.

°
Data
to
support
Stakeholder
concerns.
42
STAKEHOLDER
INVOLVEMENT
43
Stakeholder
Involvement
EPA
recognizes
the
wide
variety
of
stakeholders
whose
input
is
necessary
to
making
the
planning
process
work:

°
Industry.

°
Academics.

°
Environmental
interest
groups.

°
States.

°
POTWs.

°
Members
of
the
public.
44
Stakeholder
Information
Stakeholders
have
access
to
vast
amounts
of
information
that
is
critical
to
successful
implementation
of
this
planning
process,
including:

°
Water
quality
concerns
and
possible
risk
concerns.

°
Pollutants
currently
being
discharged.
45
Stakeholder
Information
(
cont.)

°
Available
technology.

°
Industry
processes
and
practices
essential
to
interpreting
available
data.

°
Changes
to
industry.

°
Barriers
to
implementing
current
regulations
and
potential
solutions.
46
Stakeholder
Involvement:

EPA's
Objective
To
establish
priorities
and
make
choices
in
consultation
with
the
public
and
regulated
communities.
47
Stakeholder
Involvement:

EPA's
Objective
(
cont.)

A
public
process
to
allow
greater
stakeholder
access
to
information
and
to
facilitate
input
on:

°
Available
data.

°
Methods
for
analyzing
that
data.

°
Ways
to
collect
additional
data.

°
Decisions
on
priorities
and
appropriate
regulatory
tools.
48
49
Stakeholder
Involvement
EPA
plans
to
engage
stakeholders
in
the
planning
process
in
several
ways:

°
Public
meetings.

°
Conferences
co­
sponsored
by
EPA
&

participation
in
other
meetings.

°
Focus
meetings.

°
Official
public
comment
periods.
50
Public
Meetings
EPA
plans
to
hold
public
meetings
regularly
throughout
the
planning
process:

°
After
the
2004/
2005
Plan
is
proposed,
in
late
spring
or
early
summer.

°
After
the
2004/
2005
Plan
is
released
in
February,
2004.
51
Conferences
Conference
on
Industrial
Wastewater
and
Best
Available
Treatment
(
BAT)

Technologies:

°
To
provide
a
forum
to
share
information
on
state­
of­
the­
art
techniques
for
water
pollution
control
and
prevention.

°
February
26
through
28
in
Nashville,
TN.

°
frontweb.
vuse.
vanderbilt.
edu/
bat/
52
Conferences
Water
Environment
Federation's
Industrial
Wastes
Technical
&
Regulatory
Conference:

°
To
focus
on
technical
research
on
industrial
environmental
issues.

°
To
provide
EPA
with
an
opportunity
to
discuss
the
initial
findings
of
their
analysis.

°
April
13
through
16
in
San
Antonio,
Texas.

°
www.
wef.
org/
conferences/
IW2003/
opening.
jhtml
53
Other
Meetings
Association
of
State
and
Interstate
Water
Pollution
Control
Administrators
Mid­

Year
Meeting:

°
To
provide
EPA
with
an
opportunity
to
discuss
the
initial
findings
of
their
analysis.

°
To
obtain
feedback
from
the
States
on
this
analysis.

°
March
9
through
12.

°
www.
asiwpca.
org/
events/
midyear.
htm
54
Focus
Meetings
°
Further
opportunity
to
gather
Stakeholder
insights
and
data.

°
Depends
on
results
of
analyses.

°
Possibly
industry­
specific.

°
Late
in
2003.
55
ISSUES
NEEDING
STAKEHOLDER
INPUT
56
EPA
Requests
Comment
About 

Key
Factors:

°
Are
these
appropriate?

°
For
both
existing
and
new
guidelines?

°
Should
these
factors
be
ranked/
weighted?
57
EPA
Requests
Comment
About 

Key
Factors
(
cont.):

°
Are
there
other
factors
EPA
should
consider?

°
How
to
prioritize
among
industry
categories
for
further
investigation?
58
EPA
Requests
Comment
About 

Sources
of
Pollutants
that
Contribute
to
Water
Quality
Impairments:

°
Sources
of
relevant
information
to
identify
sources
of
impairments?

°
For
indirect
dischargers?
59
EPA
Requests
Comment
About 

Voluntary
Loading
Reductions:

°
Should
EPA
indicate
a
quantitative
reduction
goal?

°
Is
there
a
source
for
this
information
other
than
the
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS)
database?
60
EPA
Requests
Comment
About 

Voluntary
Loading
Reductions
(
cont.):

°
How
to
evaluate
industries
with
changing
production
levels?
61
EPA
Requests
Comment
About 

Voluntary
Loading
Reductions
(
cont.):

°
How
to
evaluate
decreases
in
pollutant
loadings
to
water
relative
to
possible
increases
to
other
media?

 
volatilization
to
air
 
land
disposal
of
wastes
62
EPA
Requests
Comment
About 

Incentives
for
Technology
Innovation:

°
How
can
EPA
structure
the
effluent
guidelines
program
to
encourage
and
reward
technology
innovation?

°
What
role
should
market
incentives,

including
pollutant
trading,
play
in
this
program?
63
EPA
Requests
Comment
About 

Multi­
media
Pollutant
Reduction:

°
What
industry
categories
might
provide
an
opportunity
for
multi­
media
pollution
reduction?

°
To
what
extent
should
EPA
consider
multimedia
pollutant
reduction
opportunities
when
deciding
what
guidelines
to
develop
or
revise?
64
EPA
Requests
Comment
About 

Level
of
Effort
Devoted
to
Effluent
Guidelines:

°
The
same
level
of
effort
as
in
the
past?

°
More?

°
Less?
65
HOW
TO
SUBMIT
COMMENTS
66
Deadline
and
Methods
Submit
comments
on
the
draft
Strategy
by
February
27:

°
electronically
°
by
mail,
or
°
through
hand
delivery/
courier
67
Docket
Number
Be
sure
to
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment:

OW­
2002­
0020
68
Sending
Comments
Electronically
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/

Please
include:

­
your
name
­
mailing
address
­
an
e­
mail
address
or
other
contact
information.
or 
69
Sending
Comments
Electronically
(
cont.)

Email
to
OW­
docket@
epa.
gov,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OW­
2002­
0020
Please
include:

­
your
name
­
mailing
address
or 
70
Sending
Comments
Electronically
(
cont.)

Submit
comments
on
computer
disk
or
CDROM
using
mailing
address
(
next
slide).

­
Use
Word
Perfect
or
ASCII
format.

­
Avoid
special
characters
or
encryption.
71
Sending
Comments
by
Mail
Send
original
&
3
copies
of
your
comments
and
enclosures
(
including
references)
to:

Water
Docket
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Mailcode:
4101T
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
N.
W.

Washington,
DC
20460
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OW­
2002­
0020.
72
Sending
Comments
by
Hand
or
Courier
Deliver
your
comments
to:

EPA
Docket
Center,

EPA
West,
Room
B102,

1301
Constitution
Avenue,
N.
W.,

Washington,
DC,

Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OW­
2002­
0020.

Between
8:
30
a.
m.
and
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday
(
excluding
legal
holidays)
73
For
More
Details
°
Select
Federal
Register
notice
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
guide/
strategy
°
Federal
Register:
November
29,
2002
(
Volume
67,
Number
230)
Pages
71165­

71169
74
Questions?

EPA
Staff
Contacts
°
Sheila
Frace,
Division
Director
for
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division
until
January
31,
202/
566­
1000
°
Mary
T.
Smith,
Division
Director
for
EAD
after
February
3,
202/
566­
1000
°
Tom
Wall,
Branch
Chief,
202/
566­
1060
°
Pat
Harrigan,
Project
Lead,
202/
566­
1666