Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0007-0121
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-09-21T04:00Z

April
13,
2004
Linda
Boornazian,
Director
Water
Permits
Division
USEPA
Office
of
Water
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW
(
MC:
4023M)
Washington,
DC
20460
Re:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Proposal;
Streamlining
the
General
Pretreatment
Regulations
for
Existing
and
New
Sources
of
Pollution
Dear
Sir/
Madam:

The
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
SOCMA)
appreciates
this
opportunity
to
provide
you
with
further
comment
and
information
for
EPA's
effort
to
move
forward
on
the
Proposal
to
Streamline
the
General
Pretreatment
Regulations
for
Existing
and
New
Sources
of
Pollution
(
64
Fed.
Reg.
39564,
July
22,
1999).
As
you
know,
SOCMA
has
been
involved
with
EPA's
streamlining
program
since
its
inception
and
supports
EPA's
efforts
to
streamline
the
program
and
provide
flexibility
to
both
industry
and
control
authorities
such
as
publicly
owned
treatment
works
("
POTWs").

SOCMA
is
a
trade
organization
serving
more
than
300
companies
that
have
a
common
interest
in
the
manufacture,
distribution
and
marketing
of
organic
chemical
products.
The
majority
of
SOCMA's
members
are
small
businesses
with
annual
sales
under
$
40
million.
SOCMA
members
are
representative
of
a
much
larger
number
of
organic
chemical
manufacturers
throughout
the
United
States.
Most
of
SOCMA's
manufacturing
member
companies
utilize
batch
processes
and
many
are
custom
chemical
manufacturers
who
produce
specialty
chemicals
by
contracting
with
larger
companies.
Additionally,
many
members
are
indirect
dischargers
that
direct
their
effluents
to
Publicly
Owned
Treatment
Works
(
POTWs).

Generally,
SOCMA
supports
regulatory
reform
and
EPA's
efforts
in
this
case
to
streamline
national
pretreatment
regulations.
SOCMA
member
companies
have
developed
much
experience
with
pretreatment
programs
across
the
country
over
the
last
25
years.
Our
manufacturing
plants
have
developed
good
relationships
with
their
local
municipalities
and
control
authorities.
We
support
regulatory
reform
that
will
allow
POTWs
increased
flexibility
in
managing
their
local
programs
and
controlling
industrial
discharges
to
their
sewer
systems.
We
strongly
urge
EPA
to
view
this
rulemaking
as
a
first
step
in
a
process
of
further
streamlining
measures
that
will
provide
the
POTWs
and
industry
with
the
flexibility
to
work
together
to
protect
our
nations
waters
without
unnecessary,
and
in
some
cases
counterproductive,
and
burdensome
regulatory
requirements.
To
the
extent
that
EPA
feels
it
is
unable
to
promulgate
a
rule
that
addresses
all
of
the
proposed
streamlining
provisions,
we
encourage
EPA
to
move
forward
with
a
rule
that
addresses
at
least
some
of
these
provisions
rather
than
delaying
the
entire
rule
until
all
of
the
proposed
provisions
can
be
included.

SOCMA
supports
the
majority
of
the
provisions
in
the
original
proposed
rulemaking
as
indicated
in
our
past
comments.
As
discussed
at
our
meeting
in
February,
we
have
a
couple
of
issues
that
are
perhaps
of
greatest
significance
to
our
membership:
mass
balance
limits
and
sampling
for
pollutants
not
present.
These
two
issues
potentially
afford
our
members
the
greatest
streamlining
benefit,
from
both
a
cost
and
an
administrative
burden
perspective.

I.
Mass
Balance
vs.
Concentration
Based
Limits:

SOCMA
supports
the
Agency's
proposal
to
allow
Control
Authorities
to
set
equivalent
mass
limits
as
an
alternative
to
concentration
limits
to
meet
concentration­
based
categorical
Pretreatment
Standards.
In
our
original
comments,
SOCMA
agreed
that
use
of
mass
limits
should
encourage
water
conservation
and
that
concentration­
based
limits
can
be
problematic
for
industrial
users
that
are
trying
to
minimize
water
use.
In
fact,
as
a
general
matter,
our
members
believe
that,
in
most
cases,
mass­
based
limits
are
more
appropriate
as
a
true
measurement
of
compliance
and
are
more
clearly
designed
to
address
the
underlying
goal
of
the
pretreatment
standards
 
avoiding
passthrough
or
interference
with
the
POTW.
Mass
limitations
are
required
under
the
OCPSF
pretreatment
standards
to
which
most
SOCMA
member
facilities
are
subject.
However,
many
of
our
members
are
subject
to
multiple
standards
due
to
the
nature
of
their
operations,
and
although
mass
limits
would
be
appropriate
for
many
of
those
discharges,
because
they
are
not
mandated
by
the
applicable
categorical
standards,
some
have
found
the
POTWs
and/
or
control
authority
reluctant
to
adopt
them.

In
some
cases,
having
the
option
of
mass
limits
may
facilitate
and
simplify
compliance
for
an
industrial
discharger.
For
example,
if
a
discharger
is
subject
to
more
than
one
categorical
standards
or
if
only
a
portion
of
the
wastewater
is
subject
to
categorical
standards,
and
the
remainder
only
to
non­
categorical
standards,
it
would
be
advantageous
if
the
discharger
can
elect
to
have
all
mass
limits,
rather
than
a
mix
of
mass
limits
and
concentration
limits.
From
an
administrative
standpoint,
this
may
be
advantageous
to
both
the
discharger
and
the
POTW.
Because
of
the
potential
implications
of
mass
limits
with
respect
to
production
levels
and
operational
flexibility
and
the
physical
and
budget
constraints
at
some
facilities
that
may
make
mass
limits
impractical
at
some
facilities,
the
conversion
from
concentration
limits
to
mass
limits
should
be
available
to
industrial
dischargers
at
their
option.
Moreover,
because
operating
conditions
can
vary
significantly
over
the
life
of
a
facility,
the
industrial
user
should
not
be
required
to
make
a
permanent
choice.

As
originally
proposed,
only
those
industrial
users
that
are
already
"
employing
water
conservation
methods
and
technologies
that
substantially
reduce
water
use"
are
eligible
to
seek
authorization
to
convert
their
concentration­
based
limits
to
mass­
based
limits.
SOCMA
believes
this
is
too
narrow
and
because
it
does
not
encourage
future
conservation
efforts
and
because
mass
limits
can
in
many
cases
assist
a
facility
in
measuring
and
maintaining
compliance,
SOCMA
does
not
consider
this
good
public
policy.

As
EPA
stated
in
the
proposed
rule,
in
order
to
establish
a
mass
limit,
the
Control
Authority
will
need
to
determine
an
appropriate
flow
from
the
industrial
user's
facility."
SOCMA
agrees
that
the
appropriate
flow
should
be
based
upon
a
reasonable
estimate
of
the
flow
required
to
achieve
production
goals
using
BAT
and
in
the
absence
of
the
water
saving
technology.
If
an
industrial
user
has
already
implemented
water
conservation
and
made
substantial
reductions
in
water
use,
it
should
not
be
penalized
for
such
efforts
by
having
its
mass
limits
based
on
the
after­
conservation
flows.
The
baseline
flow
for
mass
limit
calculation
should
be
that
before
or
without
water
conservation.
In
cases
where
it
is
not
feasible
to
accurately
measure
flow,
EPA
should
allow
alternate
bases
for
establishing
mass
limits,
such
as
a
"
reasonable"
estimate
of
flow.
For
example,
city
water
meters
or
estimation
by
engineering
analysis
might
provide
a
reasonably
accurate
estimate
of
water
use
in
cases
where
it
is
impractical
to
accurately
measure
flow.

The
Agency
also
requested
comment
in
the
original
proposal
on
whether
it
is
appropriate
to
require
public
and/
or
Approval
Authority
review
of
an
industrial
user's
proposed
mass
limit
prior
to
Control
Authority
approval.
SOCMA
does
not
believe
that
public
or
Approval
Authority
review
is
necessary.
SOCMA
believes
that
it
is
sufficient
to
require
that
the
Control
Authority
document
how
the
mass
limit
calculations
were
derived
and
make
the
documents
publicly
available.
SOCMA
facilities
are
covered
by
the
OCPSF
Pretreatment
Standards
as
part
of
40
C.
F.
R.
Part
414.
Within
this
regulation
and
its
preamble,
there
is
an
explicit
definition
of
what
constitutes
process
wastewater
and
guidance
on
determination
of
appropriate
flows
for
calculation
of
mass
limitations.
This
information
is
also
available
in
various
guidance
manuals
on
the
implementation
of
pretreatment
standards
and
other
related
EPA
documents.

SOCMA
also
supports
the
proposal
that
"
equivalent
mass
limits
may
be
authorized
by
the
Control
Authority
in
lieu
of
promulgated
concentration­
based
limits
for
industrial
users."
(
emphasis
added)
Mass­
based
limits
should
be
an
alternative
to
and
not
in
addition
to
concentration
limits.

This
would
provide
incentive
for
water
conservation
by
those
already
practicing
it
as
well
as
other
facilities
that
feel
constrained
by
concentration­
based
limits
from
further
reducing
water
usage.
Finally,
SOCMA
submits
that
mass­
based
limits
should
only
be
imposed
at
the
request
of
the
industrial
user.

SOCMA
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
allow
equivalent
concentration
limits
for
facilities
that
have
a
highly
variable
flow.
Control
Authorities
should
be
allowed
to
apply
concentrationbased
Pretreatment
Standards
directly
without
conversion
to
mass
limits
for
facilities
with
highly
variable
flow.
As
noted
by
EPA,
40
C.
F.
R.
§
403.6(
d)
will
prohibit
these
facilities
from
increasing
flow
in
order
to
comply
with
their
concentration­
based
limits.

The
great
majority
of
SOCMA
members
have
smaller
facilities
that
employ
batch
processes
to
manufacture
their
products.
These
processes
typically
generate
variable
volumes
of
wastewater.
However,
many
of
the
smaller
SOCMA
facilities
have
only
one
or
two
process
lines
with
high
flow
variability,
and
in
many
cases
although
there
is
variability
in
flow,
there
is
sufficient
data
to
accurately
predict
flows
for
these
purposes.

SOCMA
also
supports
and
encourages
the
Agency's
recognition
of
the
fact
that
Control
Authorities
should
have
discretion
to
determine
when,
under
site­
specific
conditions,
flow
is
"
highly
variable."
EPA
has
recommended
a
demonstration
that
average
flows
regularly
differ
from
the
long­
term
average
by
a
certain
minimum
amount
for
those
facilities
requesting
equivalent
concentration
limits
under
this
provision.
We
agree
with
the
proposed
guideline
of
+­
20%
flow
variation.
This
20%
variability
factor
is
consistent
with
the
"
Guidance
Manual
for
the
Use
of
Production­
based
Pretreatment
Standards
and
the
Combined
Waste
Stream
Formula"
published
by
EPA
in
September
1985
as
mentioned
in
the
proposal.

SOCMA
does
not
believe
however
that
"
highly
variable"
should
be
strictly
defined
in
the
final
regulation.
The
+­
20%
daily
average
over
long­
term
average
flow
variability
should
be
stated
in
the
context
of
a
guideline
or
an
example.
In
the
spirit
of
streamlining,
EPA
should
not
specify
a
numeric
definition
that
would
prevent
Control
Authorities
from
using
their
discretion
to
determine
what
is
"
highly
variable"
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
in
light
of
the
facts
and
circumstances.

EPA
has
also
asked
whether
this
alternative
should
be
limited
to
only
those
facilities
with
highly
variable
flow.
SOCMA
believes
that
there
are
other
circumstances
where
equivalent
concentration
limits
would
be
appropriate
in
lieu
of
flow
or
mass­
based
limits.
For
example,
some
manufacturing
facilities,
particularly
smaller
ones
that
have
intermittent
(
or
seasonal)
and
very
low
flows,
can
have
difficulty
accurately
measuring
their
total
discharge
volume.
Establishment
of
flow­
based
limits
for
such
facilities
can
be
impractical
and
the
cost
of
obtaining
accurate
discharge
flow
measurement
unjustified.

Therefore,
small
facilities
such
as
many
SOCMA
member
plants
that
have
highly
variable
and/
or
low
and
intermittent
discharges
of
process
wastewater
to
POTWs
should
be
given
the
option
to
be
regulated
under
concentration
limits
in
lieu
of
flow­
based
limits.

Public
and/
or
Approval
Authority
review
of
an
industrial
user's
proposed
concentration
limit
prior
to
Control
Authority
approval
should
not
be
required.
SOCMA
believes
that
local
authorities
should
be
able
to
responsibly
make
determinations
concerning
flow
variability
or
other
justification
for
alternative
concentration
limits
without
third
party
or
public
review
that
would
add
potentially
significant
costs
and
delays
to
the
process.

SOCMA
believes
that
the
question
of
whether
mass
limits,
concentration
limits
or
both
would
be
appropriate
in
a
particular
case
depends
upon
the
facts
and
circumstances.
SOCMA
believes
that
the
local
authority
and
the
facility
are,
in
most
cases,
in
the
best
position
to
evaluate
the
most
efficient
means
to
achieve
the
ultimate
goal
ensuring
reliable
and
consistent
compliance
by
the
facility
and
the
overriding
goal
of
the
pretreatment
program
of
preventing
pass­
through
or
interference
with
the
POTW.

II.
Sampling
for
Pollutants
Not
Present
The
pre­
proposal
draft
rule
included
an
option
of
reduced
monitoring
of
pollutants
not
present
for
all
industrial
users
subject
to
categorical
pretreatment
standards.
In
the
proposed
rule,
this
option
was
limited
by
excluding
the
Organic
Chemical,
Plastics
and
Synthetic
Fibers
(
OCPSF)
industrial
category.
In
the
proposal,
EPA
requested
comments
on
whether
this
relief
should
also
be
made
available
to
OCPSF
facilities.
In
our
comments
and
at
our
meeting
with
you,
SOCMA
questioned
why
OCPSF
facilities
are
being
singled
out
for
exclusion
in
this
regard.
SOCMA
believes
it
is
inappropriate
to
exclude
this
category
and
asserts
that
there
is
no
technical
basis
to
warrant
such
exclusion.
The
same
requirements
for
demonstration
through
prior
sampling,
knowledge
of
raw
material
use,
process
chemistry
and
potential
byproducts
should
be
sufficient
for
OCPSF
facilities
as
with
any
industrial
facility.
SOCMA
disputes
EPA's
statement
that
"
Because
the
constituents
in
the
effluent
from
organic
chemical
manufacturers
may
vary
significantly
over
time,
past
information
may
not
be
reliable
as
evidence
of
whether
the
pollutant
will
be
present
in
the
future."
[
64
Fed.
Reg.
at
39579]
Many
OCPSF
facilities
manufacture
the
same
products
over
time
and
have
a
very
consistent
effluent
composition.
Although
many
specialty
chemical
manufacturers
can
make
a
variety
of
products,
those
products
they
are
typically
in
the
same
chemical
"
family."
The
production
technology
and
processes
predictably
generate
waste
streams
that
contain
pollutants
within
a
limited
range
of
organic
chemical
groups.

At
OCPSF
manufacturing
plants,
it
is
not
uncommon
that
entire
organic
chemical
fractions
are
not
used
or
produced
and
therefore
will
not
be
present
in
its
process
effluents.
For
example,
the
effluent
of
some
OCPSF
facilities
may
never
have
any
reason
to
contain
pesticides
or
PCBs.
Others
may
never
use
or
produce
any
of
the
"
semi­
volatile"
compounds
on
the
priority
pollutant
list.
Similarly,
by
way
of
example,
plastics
manufacturing
plants
may
have
phthalates
in
their
effluent
but
never
detect
chloroform.
In
those
cases
where
past
sampling
has
demonstrated
the
absence
of
an
entire
pollutant
analysis
groups
and
there
is
no
reason
based
on
process
knowledge
or
production
plans
for
them
to
be
present
in
the
future,
the
monitoring
reduction
should
be
allowed,
whether
the
plant
is
subject
to
OCPSF
standards
or
another.
Given
the
long
history
of
sampling
under
the
OCPSF
and
the
technical
expertise
of
these
facilities,
there
will
be
many
circumstances
whether
a
facility
would,
if
given
the
benefit
of
this
provision,
be
able
to
streamline
its
sampling
and
reduce
costs.

Process
knowledge
has
been
accepted
by
the
Agency
as
an
effective
means
of
characterizing
wastes
and
predicting
presence
or
absence
of
pollutants
in
other
contexts.
An
example
where
EPA
has
permitted
all
industrial
categories
to
use
generator
knowledge
to
characterize
wastes
is
found
in
the
RCRA
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
for
Newly
Identified
and
Listed
Hazardous
Wastes
and
Hazardous
Soil
rule
[
63
Fed.
Reg.
28556,
28609
(
May
26,
1998)].
Under
that
rule,
generators
may
characterize
their
waste
based
either
on
knowledge
of
the
waste
or
on
analytical
data.
Treatment,
Storage,
and
Disposal
facilities
must
periodically
test
their
wastes;
however
at
times,
they
may
use
knowledge
to
characterize
their
waste.
Under
RCRA,
this
is
referred
to
as
using
"
Acceptable
Knowledge."
This
applies
to
all
industries.
None
are
excluded.
In
two
recent
rule
makings,
the
final
rule
for
Hazardous
Combustors
[
63
Fed.
Reg.
33782,
33796
(
June
19,
1998)
(
regarding
analysis
of
comparable
fuels)]
and
the
proposed
listing
of
hazardous
wastes
from
the
dye
and
pigment
industry
[
64
Fed.
Reg.
40192,
40210
(
July
23,
1998)],
EPA
also
permitted
the
use
of
acceptable
knowledge
as
a
basis
for
reduced
sampling/
monitoring
requirements.

The
OCPSF
effluent
limitation
guidelines
and
standards
cover
a
number
of
subcategories
and
thousands
of
products.
As
stated
in
the
proposal,
"
EPA
imposed
on
OCPSF
facilities
standards
for
a
wide
range
of
pollutants
because
of
the
diversity
of
sources
that
could
introduce
pollutants
into
the
wastewater."
[
64
Fed.
Reg.
at
39580]
However,
in
applying
the
streamlining
provisions
to
any
specific
OCPSF
facility,
the
POTW
will
generally
be
dealing
with
a
limited
range
of
pollutants
in
the
facility's
discharge
and
those
pollutants
can
be
documented
through
sampling
and
other
technical
data.

EPA
should
not
exclude
the
many
hundreds
of
indirect
discharging
OCPSF
facilities
from
this
streamlining
provision
merely
because
there
may
be
some
facilities
for
which
this
streamlining
provision
would
not
offer
any
relief.
The
proposed
requirements
to
demonstrate
that
a
specific
pollutant
is
not
present
above
background
water
supply
levels
provide
an
adequate
and
appropriate
standard
for
the
OCPSF
industry
as
for
the
other
categories
subject
to
pretreatment
standards.
SOCMA
believes
the
provisions
of
this
proposal
are
adequate
to
properly
regulate
indirect
discharges
and
protect
POTWs
from
excessive
pollutant
levels
from
all
industrial
categories.

As
EPA
has
stated:
[
64
Fed.
Reg.
at
39580]

 
"
An
industrial
user
that
is
allowed
to
not
sample
for
a
pollutant
is
still
subject
to
the
pollutant
limits
in
the
applicable
national
categorical
Pretreatment
Standard."

 
The
limits
would
continue
to
be
placed
in
the
CIU's
permit
and
the
Control
Authority
would
be
required
to
sample
and
analyze
for
all
regulated
pollutants
at
least
once
during
the
term
of
the
CIU's
permit.

 
The
industrial
user
would
be
required
to
certify
that
there
has
been
no
increase
in
the
pollutant
due
to
its
activities
and
is
still
liable
for
any
violations
of
categorical
standards
even
when
the
monitoring
requirement
for
a
pollutant
has
been
waived.

 
Finally,
"
if
any
new
information
indicated
that
a
CIU
was
in
fact
discharging
the
pollutant
at
greater
than
background
concentrations,
it
would
be
required
to
resume
monitoring."

As
EPA
noted
in
the
proposal,
changes
proposed
to
the
NPDES
regulations
in
40
C.
F.
R.
§
122.44.
(
a)(
2)
would
allow
permitting
authorities
to
forego
sampling
requirements
of
a
pollutant
found
in
Subchapter
N
if
the
discharger
demonstrated
through
sampling
and
other
technical
factors
that
the
pollutant
is
not
expected
to
be
present
in
quantities
greater
than
background
level.
No
industrial
categories
subject
to
effluent
limitation
guidelines
were
excluded
from
this
proposed
change
to
the
NPDES
regulations.
Similarly,
SOCMA
does
not
believe
that
the
OCPSF
industrial
category
should
be
excluded
from
this
proposed
pretreatment
streamlining
provision.

Allowing
relief
from
sampling
for
pollutants
not
present
is
sound
policy.
The
proposed
rule
is
carefully
crafted
to
provide
safeguards
that
apply
to
any
facility
seeking
to
benefit
from
the
provision.
Excluding
an
entire
sector
of
industry
from
this
policy
is
not
necessary
or
appropriate.
The
majority
of
SOCMA
members
are
small
businesses,
and
this
would
be
an
excessive
and
costly
burden
for
members.
Below
are
a
couple
of
examples
provided
by
our
members
that
demonstrate
the
costs
and
the
savings
that
could
be
incurred
by
the
Agency
on
behalf
of
small
businesses
if
they
are
required
to
sample
for
pollutants
not
present:

Sampling
for
Pollutants
not
Present:
Member
#
1
Example
 
If
EPA
allowed
companies
to
only
test
for
pollutants
known
to
be
present,
the
member
plant
would
save
$
1800
per
year
by
deleting
the
base/
neutral/
acid
tests.
That
would
decrease
our
annual
testing
by
approximately
40%.
Other
companies
that
do
not
manufacture
pharmaceutical
products
could
save
even
more
money
(
approximately
$
2500
per
year).
Thus,
it
is
reasonable
to
estimate
that
total
savings
to
SOCMA
members
could
approach
$
0.75
MM.
Member
#
2
Example:

Following
are
full
price
quotes
for
analytical
parameters
covering
OCPSF
pollutants.
The
number
of
samples
will
vary
for
the
facility
depending
upon
the
number
of
sampling
points,
QA/
QC
procedures,
and
the
actual
number
of
sampling
events
per
year.
Clearly,
if
a
site
has
to
sample
the
same
parameters
over
and
over
during
the
course
of
a
year
a
smaller
facility
would
incur
costs
that
are
not
warranted.

Parameters
Per
sample
cost
Volatiles
by
EPA
Method
624
­
regardless
of
number
of
parameters
$
220.

Base
Neutral
and
Acid
Extractables
by
EPA
Method
625
­
regardless
of
number
of
parameters
$
470
Cyanide
$
45
TAL
metals
$
275
At
our
meeting,
concern
was
expressed
regarding
small
businesses
not
remembering
to
make
any
necessary
adjustments
if
they
change
production.
This
is
simply
not
the
case
in
the
specialty
batch
chemical
manufacturing
industry.
Our
industry
is
a
highly
sophisticated
and
heavily
regulated
manufacturing
sector
and
if
production
changes
are
made,
the
facility
has
a
wide
of
range
of
requirements
to
be
considered
under
federal,
state
and
local
environmental
requirements.
Facilities
are
very
cognizant
of
production
changes
and
the
wastestreams
from
these
changes
in
the
air,
waste,
and
water
 
it
is
an
integral
part
of
environmental
management
at
batch
manufacturing
sites.
SOCMA
does
not
believe
that
this
provides
a
basis
for
excluding
OCPSF
facilities
from
the
benefits
of
this
provision.
We
believe
that
the
provision
is
sound;
that
the
proposed
rule
contains
adequate
safeguards
and
that
no
categorical
exclusions
should
be
made.

We
have
appreciated
the
open,
cooperative,
and
constructive
atmosphere
under
which
this
rule
has
been
developed.
We
encourage
the
Agency's
efforts
to
streamline
the
pretreatment
program
further
and
believe
that
there
are
additional
opportunities
for
improvement,
which
the
Agency's
will
hopefully
address
in
the
future.

If
you
have
any
questions
or
need
further
information,
please
contact
me
at
(
202)
721­
4198
or
at
gunnulfsenj@
socma.
com.

Sincerely,

Jeff
Gunnulfsen
Manager,
Government
Relations
SOCMA
CC:
Deborah
Nagle,
Chief,
Industrial
Branch
OWW,
EPA
Jan
Pickrel,
OWW,
EPA