Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-0231
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-12-24T05:00Z

COMMENTS
ON
THE
DRAFT
STRATEGY
FOR
NATIONAL
CLEAN
WATER
INDUSTRIAL
REGULATIONS
Outline
Draft
8/
27/
03
Introduction
Comment
Topics
on
Strategy
and
Four
Factors
Strategy
(
18
commenters)
Stakeholder
Input
­
General
(
12
commenters)
Four
Factors
­
General
(
14
commenters)
Factor
1
(
Human
Health
&
Environmental
Impacts)
(
10
commenters)
Factor
2
(
Technology
Innovation
and
Process
Changes)
(
6
commenters)
Factor
3
(
Cost,
Performance,
and
Affordability)
(
5
commenters)
Factor
4
(
Implementation
and
Efficiency)
(
7
commenters)
Ranking/
Weighting
the
Four
Factors
(
10
commenters)
Additional
Factors
(
8
commenters)
Selecting
Categories
for
New
or
Revised
Guidelines
Prioritizing
Categories
(
11
commenters)
Guidelines
to
Be
Revised
(
4
commenters)
New
Guidelines
(
5
commenters)

Comment
Topics
on
Issue
Areas
Identified
in
Strategy
Encouraging
Innovation
(
5
commenters)
Level
of
Effort
(
13
commenters)
Voluntary
Efforts
(
16
commenters)
Trading
(
7
commenters)
Multi­
Media
(
8
commenters)
Impairment
Information
(
8
commenters)

Other
Topics
Not
Directly
Discussed
in
Strategy
(
in
order
of
frequency)
Nonpoint
Sources
(
9
commenters)
Pretreatment
Program
(
5
commenters)
Enforcement/
Implementation
Issues
(
5
commenters)
Guidance
(
4
commenters)
50
POTW
Study
(
3
commenters)
Uncontrolled
Pollutants
(
3
commenters)
Tax
Incentives
(
2
commenters)
Other
Regulatory
Issues
(
4
commenters)
draft
8/
27/
03
Page
1
of
9
COMMENTS
ON
THE
DRAFT
STRATEGY
FOR
NATIONAL
CLEAN
WATER
INDUSTRIAL
REGULATIONS
Introduction
In
November
2002,
EPA
published
a
Notice
in
the
Federal
Register
(
November
29,
2002;
Volume
67,
Number
230)
announcing
a
draft
Strategy
for
National
Clean
Water
Industrial
Regulation,
which
describes
a
process
EAD
may
use
to
identify
industries
for
which
effluent
guidelines
need
to
be
revised
or
developed,
in
compliance
with
Section
304(
m)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
In
addition
to
welcoming
comments
from
our
stakeholders
on
the
draft
Strategy
as
a
whole,
EPA
solicited
comments
on
six
specific
issues
discussed
in
the
draft
document.
These
are:
°
Key
Factors
for
Evaluating
Existing
Effluent
Guidelines
°
Key
Factors
for
Developing
New
Effluent
Guidelines
°
Sources
of
Water
Quality
Impairments
°
Voluntary
Loading
Reductions
°
Technology
Innovation,
Market­
based
Incentives,
and
Multi­
media
Pollutant
Reduction
°
Level
of
Effort
Devoted
to
Effluent
Guidelines
The
comment
period
on
the
draft
Strategy
ended
on
February
27,
2003,
and
EPA
received
comments
from
26
commenters.
Most
of
the
comments
came
from
municipal
wastewater
agencies
or
industry
trade
associations,
with
two
comments
expressing
the
perspective
of
environmental
groups.

These
comments
generally
supported
EPA's
proposed
strategy
and
the
four
factors
for
determining
when
new
or
revised
effluent
guidelines
should
be
promulgated.
However,
two
commenters
(
the
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council
(
NRDC)
and
the
State
of
New
York's
Office
of
the
Attorney
General)
disagree
with
the
inclusion
of
risk
reduction
(
considered
under
Factor
1:
Human
Health
and
Environmental
Impacts),
noting
that
it
is
contrary
to
the
intent
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
Overall,
the
comments
universally
supported
the
idea
of
using
effluent
guidelines
in
a
targeted
fashion
(
i.
e.,
where
national
categorical
regulations
were
the
"
right
tool"
for
the
identified
risk).

The
paragraphs
that
follow
summarize
the
comments
received.
They
are
organized
into
three
sections:
1)
Comment
Topics
on
Strategy
and
Four
Factors,
2)
Comment
Topics
on
Issue
Areas
Identified
in
the
Draft
Strategy,
and
3)
Other
Topics
Not
Directly
Discussed
in
the
Draft
Strategy.
Attachment
I
presents
a
synopsis
of
comments
organized
by
commenter,
and
Attachment
II
presents
the
comment
synopsis
organized
by
topic,
as
presented
here.
draft
8/
27/
03
Page
2
of
9
I.
Comments
on
the
draft
Strategy
and
Four
Factors
In
November
2002,
EPA
announced
a
draft
Strategy
that
describes
a
process
EPA
proposed
to
use
to
identify
industries
for
which
effluent
guidelines
need
to
be
revised
or
developed,
in
compliance
with
Section
304(
m)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
The
process
would
allow
EPA
to
identify
existing
effluent
guidelines
the
Agency
should
consider
revising
or
industrial
categories
for
which
the
Agency
should
consider
developing
new
effluent
guidelines.

Two
overarching
goals
guided
the
development
of
the
draft
Strategy:
reducing
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
and
assuring
transparent
decision­
making.
In
order
to
accomplish
the
first
goal,
EPA
looked
at
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
identified
four
major
factors
for
deciding
if
it
is
appropriate
to
revise
or
develop
an
effluent
guideline.
EPA
received
comments
on
the
draft
Strategy,
the
importance
of
stakeholder
involvement
in
the
process,
and
the
four
factors.
Commenters
also
provided
specific
suggestions
on
ways
to
prioritize
the
results
of
the
process
outlined
in
the
draft
Strategy
along
with
recommendations
for
effluent
guidelines
the
Agency
should
consider
revising
or
developing.
The
paragraphs
below
summarize
these
comments.

Draft
Strategy:
In
total,
eighteen
commenters
addressed
the
draft
Strategy
directly.
Twelve
commenters
generally
support
it,
and
of
these
twelve,
six
commenters
specifically
support
the
primary
goal
of
reducing
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
Three
other
commenters
agree
with
the
Strategy
while
identifying
specific
concerns,
including
recommendations
that
EPA
°
correct
errors
or
omissions
in
existing
effluent
guidelines,
°
avoid
redundancy
with
other
regulations,
and
°
have
the
Strategy
reviewed
by
the
EPA
Science
Advisory
Board
(
SAB).
The
remaining
three
commenters
disagree
with
the
draft
Strategy
as
it
is
written.

Stakeholder
Input:
In
total,
twelve
commenters
specifically
mentioned
stakeholder
involvement
with
the
planning
process.
Nine
of
these
commenters
generally
endorse
the
stakeholder
involvement
described
in
the
draft
Strategy.
Three
others
agree
with
the
Strategy,
but
also
suggest
more
effective
ways
involve
stakeholders:
°
work
with
control
authorities
at
the
local
level
as
a
supplement/
alternative
to
regulations;
°
form
a
broad­
based
panel
of
stakeholders
to
work
more
closely
with
EPA
(
2
commenters),
and
°
develop
data
gathering
tools.

Four
Factors:
In
all,
twelve
commenters
addressed
the
four
factors
generally.
Eight
commenters
support
the
factors
as
identified
in
the
Strategy,
with
one
of
these
recommending
that
the
factors
should
be
the
same
for
both
existing
and
new
categories.
Another
two
commenters
agree
with
the
factors
in
general,
but
suggested
EPA
consider
additional
aspects
within
the
factors.
One
suggested
that
EPA
evaluate
and
compare
incremental
risks
(
included
under
Factor
1
in
the
draft
Strategy)
and
incremental
costs
(
included
under
Factor
3
in
the
draft
Strategy)
as
part
of
the
process.
Another
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
be
more
specific
about
the
implementation
of
the
Factors
for
greater
transparency.
Two
commenters
disagree
with
the
set
of
four
factors,
suggesting
that
EPA
can
or
should
use
only
some
of
the
identified
factors.
In
addition
to
these
draft
8/
27/
03
Page
3
of
9
general
comments,
several
commenters
provided
feedback
on
one
or
more
of
the
specific
factors
identified
in
the
draft
Strategy.

FACTOR
1
­
HUMAN
HEALTH
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS:
Twelve
commenters
specifically
discussed
Factor
1.
Three
of
these
commenters
support
Factor
1
as
the
primary
factor
to
use
before
applying
the
other
factors.
Six
others
suggest
specific
elements
to
be
included
in
Factor
1
application:
°
total
volumes
discharged,
°
different
relative
toxicity
scales
for
human
health
and
ecological
effects,
°
impacts
from
conventional
pollutants
(
e.
g.
grease)
on
sewer
function,
°
persistent
bioaccumulative
toxics
(
PBTs),
°
means
for
identifying
emerging
concerns,
and
°
more
broad
focus
than
human
health,
e.
g.
consider
ecological
impacts
of
nutrients
and
occupational
impacts
to
POTWs.
Three
other
commenters
disagree
with
the
use
or
definition
of
this
factor.
One
of
these
argues
that
risk
should
not
be
a
factor
at
all,
and
two
of
these
suggest
that
risk
be
defined
relative
to
water
quality
criteria
or
water
quality
issues.

FACTOR
2
­
TECHNOLOGICAL
ADVANCES
AND
PROCESS
CHANGES:
Seven
commenters
specifically
addressed
Factor
2.
One
of
the
seven
commenters
argues
that
this
factor
should
be
the
sole
determinant
for
selecting
industrial
categories
based
on
their
assertion
that
the
Clean
Water
Act
identifies
only
technology­
based
considerations
in
Section
304.
One
commenter
suggested
EPA
focus
data
gathering
on
industries
with
no
or
incomplete
effluent
guidelines.
Four
others
suggest
additions
to
this
factor:
°
consider
recent
technological
advancements
in
biological
methods,
°
evaluate
technologies
successfully
used
by
dischargers
on
impaired
waters,
°
identify
dischargers
significantly
below
the
norm
for
their
industry;
°
evaluate
technologies
not
yet
in
use
in
the
U.
S.
but
used
in
countries
with
more
stringent
regulations;
°
consider
economic
considerations
within
this
factor
by
requiring
that
technologies
considered
be
economically
achievable
and
demonstrated
for
the
pollutant
of
concern;
and
°
consider
multi­
media
impact
of
new
control
technologies/
process
changes/
pollution
prevention.
The
seventh
commenter
disagrees
with
the
application
of
this
factor.

FACTOR
3
­
COST,
PERFORMANCE,
AND
AFFORDABILITY:
Five
commenters
specifically
discussed
factor
3.
Two
commenters
support
this
factor.
Another
two
commenters
agree
with
this
factor
in
general
but
suggest
that
EPA
expand
it
to
also
consider
the
time,
expense,
and
effort
required
to
develop,
implement,
and
enforce
new
or
revised
effluent
guidelines;
and
to
also
consider
the
full
economic
impact
and
operation
restraints
of
control
technologies.
The
fifth
commenter
recommends
including
these
considerations
as
part
of
Factor
2
rather
than
as
a
separate
factor;
this
commenter
also
lists
seven
additional
costs
that
EPA
should
consider:
°
lost
opportunity
while
the
facility
is
shut
down
during
installation,
°
plant
closures
that
may
result
from
the
effluent
guidelines,
draft
8/
27/
03
Page
4
of
9
°
lost
tax
revenues,
°
increased
energy
usage,
°
increased
emissions
associated
with
increased
energy
demand
(
which
may
occur
elsewhere,
such
as
at
a
power
plant),
°
personnel
costs,
and
°
other
indirect
costs.

FACTOR
4
­
IMPLEMENTATION
AND
EFFICIENCY:
Seven
commenters
addressed
factor
4
specifically.
Two
of
these
commenters
support
this
factor,
both
in
its
consideration
of
other
EPA
programs
and
in
its
inclusion
of
stakeholder
input.
Another
four
commenters
agree
with
this
factor
in
general,
but
suggest
that
EPA
expand
it
to:
°
also
seek
information
on
emerging
technologies
from
ORD,
OECA,
and
Regions;
°
also
consult
with
Commerce,
Patent
Office,
and
wastewater
treatment
manufacturers
to
identify
emerging
technologies;
°
also
consider
whether
permit
writers
have
been
requesting
modifications
to
existing
effluent
guidelines
and
whether
those
changes
require
revision
of
the
existing
effluent
guidelines.
The
seventh
commenter
contends
that
this
factor
is
not
allowed
under
the
CWA.

RANKING/
WEIGHTING
FACTORS:
Ten
commenters
specifically
discussed
this
issue.
Three
of
the
ten
commenters
note
that
Factor
1
should
be
primary.
Four
other
commenters
propose
alternate
primary
rankings:
°
two
commenters
suggested
reducing
risk
(
Factor
1)
and
implementation/
efficiency
(
specifically
reducing
regulatory
burden)
(
Factor
4),
°
one
commenter
suggested
technology
advances
and
process
changes
(
Factor
2);
and
°
another
commenter
suggested
technology
advances
and
process
changes
(
Factor
2)
and
cost,
performance
and
affordability
(
Factor
3).
Three
of
the
ten
commenters
believe
the
factors
should
not
be
ranked.

ADDITIONAL
FACTORS:
Eight
commenters
suggest
a
total
of
fourteen
additional
factors
for
EPA
to
consider,
some
of
which
may
fit
under
the
existing
factors.
New
factors
suggest
that
EPA
also:
°
identify
opportunities
for
disseminating
pollution
prevention
information;
°
schedule
effluent
guidelines
revisions
relative
to
other
EPA
activities
to
support
addressing
multi­
media
concerns;
°
determine
whether
there
were
errors
and
omissions
made
when
existing
effluent
guidelines
were
originally
promulgated;
°
eliminate
consideration
of
interference
with
sewage
collection
or
treatment
when
it
could
be
addressed
through
local
regulation;
°
determine
whether
facilities
or
components
of
operations
that
are
being
limited
in
some
places
due
to
water
quality
concerns
within
industries
that
have
no
current
national
effluent
guidelines;
°
evaluate
the
resource
constraints
at
the
state
level
and
the
unfunded
mandate
created
for
state
permit
writers
when
EPA
fails
to
meet
its
section
304(
m)
obligations;
draft
8/
27/
03
Page
5
of
9
°
eliminate
industries
whose
existing
effluent
guidelines
have
already
been
revisited
and
revised
at
least;
°
evaluate
cross­
media
and
other
indirect
impacts,
such
as
the
risks
and
costs
associated
with
proper
handling,
treatment,
and
disposal
of
any
residual
generated
by
the
treatment
technology;
°
consider
the
extent
to
which
a
category
is
already
subject
to
existing
regulation,
under
either
the
NPDES
or
the
National
Pretreatment
Program
(
local
limits
already
in
place);
°
consider
the
effects
 
including
uncertainty
and
uneven
competitive
impacts
 
of
ongoing
environmental
rulemakings
or
implementation
of
major
environmental
rules;
°
evaluate
the
effects
of
major
industry
restructuring
(
e.
g.,
utility
deregulation),
°
determine
whether
significant
guidance
exists
that
in
effect
"
updates"
existing
effluent
guidelines;
°
require
that
the
cost­
benefit
ratio
must
be
(
much)
greater
than
one
to
justify
new
effluent
guidelines
or
revise
existing
effluent
guidelines;
and
°
investigate
the
extent
to
which
additional
pollutant
reduction
could
be
achieved
for
the
industrial
category
through
existing
EPA
programs
that
are
implemented
outside
of
the
effluent
guidelines/
NPDES
program.

Selecting
Categories
for
New
or
Revised
Effluent
Guidelines:
The
following
comments
were
received
on
this
topic
area.

PRIORITIZING
CATEGORIES:
Eleven
commenters
specifically
discussed
ways
to
prioritize
industrial
categories
for
potential
effluent
guidelines
development
or
revision,
using
or
modifying
elements
in
the
draft
Strategy.
(
See
Attachment
II
for
specifics.)
Seven
of
these
commenters
suggest
approaches
for
assigning
high
priority,
while
the
other
four
commenters
suggest
approaches
for
assigning
low
priority.

EFFLUENT
GUIDELINES
TO
BE
REVISED:
Four
commenters
made
specific
recommendations
on
existing
effluent
guidelines
to
be
revised.
Three
commenters
identify
five
specific
categories:
°
the
drum
reconditioning
subcategory
of
Transportation
Equipment
Cleaning;
°
electroplating;
°
hospitals
and
related
health
care
facilities;
°
metal
finishing;
and
°
metal
molding
and
casting.
The
third
of
these
three
commenters
also
suggested
that
EPA
revise
all
effluent
guidelines
where
the
technologies
they
require
are
no
longer
Best
Available
Technology
(
BAT)
for
existing
sources
or
Best
Conventional
Pollutant
Control
Technology
(
BCT)
for
new
sources.
The
fourth
commenter
warns
EPA
that
no
revisions
to
effluent
guidelines
will
prove
cost
effective.

NEW
EFFLUENT
GUIDELINES:
Five
commenters
made
specific
recommendations
draft
8/
27/
03
Page
6
of
9
regarding
categories
which
do
not
have
effluent
guidelines.
Four
of
these
commenters
identify
five
specific
categories
that
could
warrant
new
effluent
guidelines:
°
chemical
formulators*;
°
dental
facilities
(
two
commenters);
°
food
services;
°
laboratories
(
two
commenters)*;
and
°
printing
and
publishing*.
One
of
the
four
commenters
suggested
that
the
304(
m)
Team
review
a
list
developed
in
1988
to
identify
specific
industrial
categories
and
identify
any
categories
that
remain
unregulated
today.
After
a
review
of
the
referenced
Plaintiff's
Exhibit
G
(
submitted
to
the
federal
district
court
in
NRDC
v.
Reilly,
89­
2980),
EAD
identified
three
industrial
categories
in
that
Exhibit
which
had
not
yet
been
addressed;
these
are
the
items
marked
with
an
asterisk
in
the
list
above.
This
same
commenter
also
argues
that
effluent
guidelines
should
be
developed
for
all
point
sources
that
discharge
more
than
trivial
amounts
of
toxic
or
nonconventional
pollutants.
The
fifth
commenter
reminds
EPA
that
a
finding
of
"
significant
amounts"
of
toxic
pollutants
is
a
mandated
prerequisite
for
identifying
new
categories.

II.
Comment
Topics
on
Issue
Areas
Identified
in
the
Draft
Strategy
In
addition
to
comments
on
the
draft
Strategy
and
the
four
factors
it
describes,
EPA
solicited
comments
on
four
specific
topics
that
were
considered
in
the
development
of
the
draft
Strategy.
These
are
listed
in
the
order
presented
in
the
draft
document
and
discussed
in
the
paragraphs
that
follow.
°
Sources
of
Water
Quality
Impairments
°
Voluntary
Loading
Reductions
°
Technology
Innovation,
Market­
based
Incentives,
and
Multi­
media
Pollutant
Reduction
°
Level
of
Effort
Devoted
to
Effluent
Guidelines
Water
Quality
Impairment
Information:
Eight
commenters
specifically
addressed
this
topic.
Five
commenters
suggest
that
EPA
work
with
the
POTWs,
pretreatment
authorities,
and/
or
approval
authorities
to
obtain
information
and
data
on
impairments.
Another
commenter
recommends
using
NPDES
permit
renewal
applications,
especially
the
facility
fact
sheet.
The
remaining
two
commenters
argue
that
effluent
guidelines
cannot
address
the
causes
of
impairments.

Voluntary
Efforts:
Sixteen
commenters
specifically
addressed
this
topic.
Nine
of
the
sixteen
support
the
consideration
of
voluntary
efforts,
especially
where
there
has
been
significant
effort
and/
or
significant
reductions
in
discharges.
Only
two
of
these
nine
commenters
addressed
the
quantitative
goal
EPA
should
use.
One
commenter
agrees
that
the
10%
goal
is
a
good
starting
point,
while
the
other
commenter
stated
that
the
reduction
goal
should
be
no
lower
than
80%,
which
is
closer
to
the
typical
effluent
guidelines
loading
reductions
(
90%
to
99%).
Four
other
commenters
expressed
concerns
with
the
mechanics
of
evaluating
loading
reductions.
Their
suggestions
and
concerns
include
°
offering
an
effective
incentive
(
i.
e.
a
tax
credit);
draft
8/
27/
03
Page
7
of
9
°
addressing
the
caution
in
industry
toward
voluntary
efforts;
°
measuring
and
verifying
loading
reductions;
°
coordinating
with
the
National
Watershed
Trading
Policy;
and
°
reviewing
National
Metal
Finishing
Strategic
Goals
Program
components
(
specific
reductions
on
a
specific
time
line).
The
three
remaining
commenters
disagree
with
including
voluntary
efforts,
arguing
that
effluent
guidelines
are
a
more
equitable
approach
or
that
EPA
does
not
have
the
authority
to
consider/
include
voluntary
loading
reductions.

Encouraging
Innovation:
Five
commenters
specifically
addressed
ways
EPA
can
encourage
innovation.
Two
of
these
commenters
suggest
evaluating
the
effectiveness
of
EPA's
existing
programs.
Others
suggest
that
EPA:
°
encourage
EPA
programs
aimed
at
developing
technology
in
a
non­
effluent
guidelines
program
(
noting
that
incentives
in
the
form
of
variances
from
limitations
would
be
counter­
productive);
°
offer
pollution
training
incentives
(
though
they
may
prove
to
be
complex
and
difficult
to
carry
out);
°
assess
the
effectiveness
of
EPA's
current
technology
assistance
programs
such
as
the
National
Metal
Finishing
Resource
Center
and
the
Advanced
Diffusion
of
Pollution
Prevention
Technology
(
ADOP2T)
Program
at
the
Illinois
Waste
Management
and
Research
Center
(
two
commenters);
and
°
involve
stakeholders
in
development
of
effluent
guidelines
from
the
beginning
stages,
which
is
probably
the
best
way
to
encourage
technology
innovation.

Trading:
Seven
commenters
specifically
addressed
this
topic.
Two
commenters
endorse
EPA's
consideration
of
trading,
although
one
of
these
expressed
concerns
about
permit
language
and
anti­
backsliding.
Four
other
commenters
agree
conditionally,
specifying
that
trading
should
be
limited
to
trading
within
single
facilities
for
direct
dischargers
or
single
POTWs
for
indirect
dischargers.
One
of
these
commenters
presented
a
potential
approach,
but
also
identified
issues
with
trading
and
noted
that
Pretreatment
Regulations
would
have
to
be
revised
to
allow
it.
The
remaining
commenter
argues
that
in­
plan
trading
with
no
net
decrease
in
loadings
is
not
the
proper
subject
of
effluent
guidelines.

Multi­
Media
Impacts:
Eight
commenters
specifically
addressed
this
topic.
Two
commenters
generally
agree
with
consideration
of
multi­
media
impacts
during
the
planning
process.
Five
other
commenters
agree
with
considering
multi­
media
impacts,
but
offer
specific
considerations
for
EPA:
°
the
need
to
revise
other
media
standards
(
note
the
timing
issue
mentioned
by
a
commenter
under
"
Additional
Factors"
above);
°
the
need
to
develop
an
"
environmental
impact
equivalent"
to
compare
toxicity
across
media
(
2
commenters);
°
ways
to
utilize
stakeholder
information,
and
°
ways
to
utilize
the
Toxic
Release
Inventory
(
TRI)
for
media
transfer
information.
The
remaining
commenter
argues
that
multi­
media
data
and
strategies
are
inconsistent
with
the
CWA
and
therefore
invalid.
draft
8/
27/
03
Page
8
of
9
Level
of
Effort:
Thirteen
commenters
discussed
the
level
of
effort
devoted
to
the
effluent
guidelines
program
by
EPA.
Four
commenters
recommend
that
the
resources
allocated
be
sufficient
to
produce
high
quality
results,
e.
g.
meeting
statutory
obligations,
avoiding
duplication,
and
utilize
rigorous
science
methods
and
high
quality
analyses.
The
other
nine
commenters
recommend
that
EPA
redirect
the
resources
dedicated
to
the
effluent
guidelines
program
to
other
programs,
including
non­
point
source
discharges,
assistance
to
POTWs,
voluntary
load
reductions,
WQ
standards
attainment,
TMDLs,
pollutant
trading,
a
new
"
50
POTW
Study,"
and
implementing
the
Watershed
Strategy.

III.
Other
Topics
Not
Directly
Discussed
in
Draft
Strategy
(
in
order
of
frequency)

In
addition
to
the
comments
summarized
above,
a
number
of
commenters
addressed
topics
related
to
the
development
and
implementation
of
effluent
guidelines.
Although
EPA
did
not
solicit
comments
on
these
topics,
they
are
summarized
in
the
paragraphs
that
follow.

Nonpoint
Sources:
Nine
commenters
specifically
addressed
nonpoint
sources.
Commenters
note
the
concerns
and
challenges
posed
by
pollutant
discharges
from
nonpoint
sources.
Of
these,
three
commenters
note
the
resource­
intensive
nature
of
the
problem,
four
other
commenters
argue
that
effluent
guidelines
are
not
the
solution
to
the
problem,
and
the
two
remaining
commenters
recommend
that
the
effluent
guidelines
program
be
adapted
to
address
nonpoint
sources.

Pretreatment
Program:
Five
commenters
specifically
suggested
EPA
streamline
its
Pretreatment
Program.
Two
of
these
commenters
refer
EPA
to
the
AMSA­
WEF
pretreatment
streamlining
recommendations
made
in
1997
and/
or
1999.

Enforcement
and
Implementation
Issues:
Five
commenters
specifically
addressed
enforcement
and
implementation
issues.
These
commenters
assert
that
EPA
should:
°
enforce
more
strictly
existing
Clean
Water
Act
effluent
limits
for
industrial
pollutants,
°
proper
implementation
of
technically­
based
local
discharge
limitations
could
more
efficiently
address
the
risks
 
more
effective
with
less
burden
 
than
developing
new
national
ELGs,
especially
for
indirect
dischargers,
°
realize
that
New
York
unfairly
will
have
to
bear
additional
administrative
and
enforcement
costs
if
EPA
substitutes
programs
administered
by
the
states(
e.
g.
TMDL
program)
for
federal
implementation
of
the
CWA,
°
give
precedence
to
WQ­
based
standards
for
new
or
revised
NPDES
permit
limitations,
since
a
water­
quality
based
approach
will
provide
the
most
cost­
effective
approach
to
further
improvement
and
management
of
our
nation's
water
resources.
and
°
realize
that,
for
a
city
the
size
of
Duluth,
Minnesota
it
is
not
practical
to
regulate
small
businesses
using
conventional
structure
of
pretreatment
program
with
inspections,
sampling,
and
other
requirements.

Guidance:
Four
commenters
specifically
suggested
EPA
develop
guidance.
Commenters
recommend
guidance
to:
°
help
industry
make
informed
decisions,
°
assist
POTWs
in
implementing
a
pretreatment
program,
draft
8/
27/
03
Page
9
of
9
°
assist
POTWs
in
developing
(
WQ
based)
local
limits,
and
°
answer
the
many
questions
on
effluent
guidelines
interpretation.

50
POTW
Study:
Three
commenters
specifically
suggested
EPA
update
its
interference/
passthrough
analyses
(
referred
to
informally
as
the
"
50
POTW
Study").
They
note
that
the
data
used
by
EPA
to
conduct
this
analysis
was
collected
more
than
20
years
ago,
and
that
both
industrial
activities
and
POTW
operations
have
changed
significantly
since
then.

Uncontrolled
Pollutants:
Three
commenters
specifically
addressed
uncontrolled
pollutants.
Commenters
specifically
identified
carcinogens,
phthalates,
endocrine
disruptors,
bioengineered
products,
and
pharmaceutical
residues.
They
recommend
that
EPA
°
make
reducing
such
pollutants
the
Agency's
top
priority;
°
evaluate
the
best
way
to
control
newer
pollutants,
arguing
that
setting
limits/
issuing
permits
will
not
effectively
control
them
since
many
are
being
discharged
through
household
and
commercial
use
rather
than
by
large
dischargers;
and
°
evaluate
the
Activated
Sludge
Respiration
Inhibition
Test
and
issue
effluent
guidelines
for
the
introduction
of
the
test,
on
a
voluntary
basis
in
the
first
instance.

Tax
Incentives:
Two
commenters
specifically
addressed
tax
incentives.
One
commenter
recommends
considering
tax
credits
for
industrial
facilities
installing
wastewater
recycling
technologies.
The
other
commenter
suggests
that
EPA
consider
the
use
of
financial
incentives
in
the
form
of
tax
breaks
or
grants,
not
only
for
innovative
technologies,
but
also
for
technologies
that
go
beyond
the
accepted
BAT.

Other
Regulatory
Issues:
Four
commenters
included
seven
unique
suggestions
and
concerns
in
their
comments,
in
addition
to
the
areas
discussed
above:
°
EPA
needs
to
address
a
number
of
unimplemented
recommendations
on
the
effluent
guidelines
development
process
from
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Task
Force;
°
EPA
should
consider
developing
a
streamlined
process
to
develop
effluent
guidelines
that
apply
to
10
facilities
or
less;
°
Until
effluent
guidelines
are
developed
for
industries
with
10
facilities
or
less,
EPA
should
review
permits
to
ensure
the
technologies
required
meet
those
standards
that
are
the
equivalent
to
BAT,
NSPS,
etc.;
°
EPA
should
not
evaluate
indirect
dischargers,
as
they
do
not
pose
a
direct
risk
and
their
indirect
risk
is
difficult
to
estimate;
°
EPA
should
resolve
issues
with
the
use
of
surveys
and
TRI
data
by
collaborating
with
industry
to
design
a
meaningful,
understandable,
consistent
and
successful
survey;
°
Commenter
strongly
supports
EPA's
Watershed
Strategy;
and
°
Commenter
argues
that
the
CWA
does
not
require
annual
review
of
each
industry
category
or
a
set
schedule
for
effluent
guidelines
development.