Document ID: EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274-0460
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2014-12-12T05:00Z

MEMORANDUM

TO:		Public Record for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule
		EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274 (www.regulations.gov)	

FROM:		Carey A. Johnston, P.E.
            USEPA/OECA/OC
            ph: (202) 566 1014
            johnston.carey@epa.gov

DATE:		13 November 2014

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT:	Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting (10 July 2014) [DCN 0181]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview 

      This was the sixteenth meeting for the EPA-state technical workgroup, which is discussing key issues related to the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (eRule). These discussions are informing the forthcoming supplemental Federal Register notice and they will continue beyond the publication of the supplemental notice to help EPA address state comments. EPA participants will include the OECA eRule Team as well as representatives from EPA's Office of Water and Office of Environmental Information. Technical workgroup members are listed below in Tables 1 and 2. The agenda for this meeting is also provided below. EPA is summarizing the notes from these discussions for the docket in order to provide transparency on EPA's outreach during the rulemaking process. The OECA eRule team will also be available for any other stakeholder group that would like to discuss the eRule. 
      
Meeting Notes
      
     EPA (Mr. Carey Johnston) started the meeting by reminding state participants that in addition to raising questions during the technical workgroup meetings, states can email their questions on the proposed rule (including the data elements) to EPA. Questions on all aspects of the proposed rule can be sent to Mr. Johnston. Mr. Johnston then asked teleconference participants to focus on the pretreatment data elements. This was the second discussion on the pretreatment data elements as the group was not able to fully review all the pretreatment data elements in first discussion on June 29th (see DCN 0141). The source of these data elements includes NPDES permit applications and Notices of Intent (NOI) (see 30 July 2013; 78 FR 46096-46098), State or EPA pretreatment inspections or audits (Page 46102-46103), and POTW Pretreatment Program Annual Report and SIU Periodic Compliance Reports in Municipalities without an Approved Pretreatment Program (Page 46111).  
     
     Mr. Johnston started the technical discussion by reading the name of each data element along with the corresponding data description and regulatory or policy citation. After reading about five to ten elements at a time, Mr. Johnston asked for input from the technical workgroup. Below are some questions and comments from the technical workgroup. The first set of data elements discussed were the data elements that relate to the Annual POTW Pretreatment Program report (Page 46108-46111).
     
* For the SNC Published in Newspaper Flag data element, Michigan DEQ suggested that EPA drop the requirement that SNC be published in a newspaper. Ms. Beth Graves (ECOS) also suggested that EPA doesn't need to specify `Newspaper' in the data element. 
   
* Michigan DEQ also noted that they have non-Federal POTW programs that they call `mini-programs.' They allow these mini-programs to implement the pretreatment program through oversight of industrial users and enforcement of Federal pretreatment standards.

* Texas noted that after a permit is re-issued the POTW needs to evaluate if any local limits need to be updated. Virginia DEQ noted that if a POTW is in compliance and nothing has changed then their agency doesn't make the POTW evaluate its local limits. New Jersey DEP state they it is a permit requirement in New Jersey permits that POTWs re-assess their local limits

* Tennessee, Michigan, and South Dakota noted that they require influent and effluent sampling at the POTW and to compare these data against the last technical evaluation. They also have the POTWs review their Industrial User (IU) list to see if there are any changes from the last review. 

* Michigan DEQ and Kansas suggested that EPA drop the data element requirements for Removal Credits as so few POTWs have this authority. EPA estimates that approximately 4 of the roughly 1,600 POTW Pretreatment Programs have this authority. 

* Michigan DEQ suggested that EPA add `current' to the Industrial User Control Mechanism Flag data element so that it reads as, "whether the Industrial User has a current Control Mechanism."

* Several states (MO, KS, TX, OK, and AR) ask EPA to make clear that the POTW Pretreatment Program Annual Report data elements apply the current reporting period. For example, they suggested that EPA add `in the reporting period' in the description of these data elements to make clear that the reported data is for that reporting period.

* Texas suggested that the data related to flow be simplified.

* With respect to the Control Authority Resources data element, Texas suggested that it might be difficult for POTW Pretreatment Programs to provide a dollar amount on their annual budget. The commenter suggested that EPA re-word this data element to capture EPA's intent, which is to have the pretreatment program state whether the pretreatment program has sufficient resources (e.g., budget, full-time equivalent labor) to fully implement its pretreatment program.

* Texas also suggested that EPA clarify that the reduced reporting data element applies to Middle Tier CIUs. 
   
After the meeting EPA received comments from the Kansas Department of Health & Environment and Washington State Department of Ecology. They are presented in Attachments 1 and 2 respectively.

      

      State Technical Workgroup Meeting  -  NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule
                                 10 July 2014
                                    Agenda

      1pm		Introduction/Roll Call 

      1:10	Discussion of pretreatment data elements 

      2:00		End of Call
      
      
Quick Reminder
   *    The technical workgroup is not a formal decision-making body. The workgroup is expected to develop, research, and evaluate options for consideration by EPA and state senior management.
   
   *    There are no formal quorum rules for the workgroup. Scheduled teleconferences will proceed with whichever workgroup members call in to participate.

   *    There will be no formal voting or consensus of the workgroup. Instead, the workgroup is expected to try to develop recommendations reflecting their various perspectives, not achieve consensus.

   *    Summaries of the workgroup's discussions will be prepared for and reviewed by the workgroup, for presentation to EPA senior management and other states and the rulemaking record. The discussions summaries will outline the major elements of the discussions, areas of agreement and any dissenting views.

Table 1: State Technical Workgroup Members

                                 Main Contact
                             State or Organization
                              Main Contact Email
                         State/Org. Present? (Yes/No)
                                 Sean  Rolland
                                     ACWA
                             srolland@acwa-us.org
                                      Yes
                                 Karen Lechner
                                      AK
                           karen.lechner@alaska.gov
                                      Yes
                                 Christy Monk
                                      AL
                             cvm@adem.state.al.us
                                      No
                                 Eric Cleckler
                                       
                          ecleckler@adem.state.al.us
                                       
                                  Glenda Dean
                                       
                             gld@adem.state.al.us
                                       
                                 Teresa Marks
                                      AR
                            marks@adeq.state.ar.us
                                      Yes
                                   Pat Goff
                                       
                             goff@adeq.state.ar.us
                                       
                                   Mo Shafii
                                       
                            shafii@adeq.state.ar.us
                                       
                                 Karen Bassett
                                       
                           bassett@adeq.state.ar.us
                                       
                                 David Ramsey
                                       
                            ramsey@adeq.state.ar.us
                                       
                                Ellen Carpenter
                                       
                          carpenter@adeq.state.ar.us
                                       
                                Wendy LeStarge
                                      AZ
                           lestarge.wendy@azdeq.gov
                                      No
                                 Robin Belley
                                       
                            belley.robin@azdeq.gov
                                       
                                  David Lelsz
                                       
                            lelsz.david@azdeq.gov;
                                       
                                  Andy Putnam
                                      CO
                           andrew.putnam@state.co.us
                             goff@adeq.state.ar.us
                                      Yes
                                 Elisa Willard
                                       
                           elisa.willard@state.co.us
                                       
                                 Bob Zimmerman
                                      DE
                         robert.zimmerman@state.de.us
                          stephanie.bower@state.de.us
                                      No
                                  Beth Graves
                                     ECOS
                               bgraves@ecos.org
                                      Yes
                                  Chris Klena
                                      FL
                         chris.m.klena@dep.state.fl.us
                                      Yes
                              Jessica Kleinfelter
                                       
                      jessica.kleinfelter@dep.state.fl.us
                                       
                                 Edward Smith
                                       
                        edward.c.smith@dep.state.fl.us
                                       
                               Frances Carpenter
                                       
                       frances.carpenter@dnr.state.ga.us
                                       
                               Frances Carpenter
                                      GA
                       frances.carpenter@dnr.state.ga.us
                                      No
                                 Tom Easterly
                                      IN
                             teasterl@idem.in.gov
                              ckoontz@idem.in.gov
                                      Yes
                               Jeremy Chenevert
                                       
                             jcheneve@idem.in.gov
                                       
                                 Mark Stanifer
                                       
                             mstanife@idem.in.gov
                                       
                               Courtney Cswercko
                                      IA
                        courtney.cswercko@dnr.iowa.gov
                                      Yes
                                 Ed Dillingham
                                      KS
                            edillingham@kdheks.gov
                                      Yes
                                 Steve Caspers
                                       
                              scaspers@kdheks.gov
                                       
                             Shelly Shores-Miller
                                       
                              sshoresm@kdheks.gov
                                       
                                Shawn Hokanson
                                      KY
                             shawn.hokanson@ky.gov
                                      No
                                  Grace Scott
                                      MI
                              scottg@michigan.gov
                                      Yes
                                Carla Davidson
                                       
                            davidsonc@michigan.gov
                                       
                                 Ruth Wallace
                                      MO
                            ruth.wallace@dnr.mo.gov
                                      Yes
                                  Walter Fett
                                       
                            walter.fett@dnr.mo.gov
                                       
                              Christopher Miller
                                       
                            epermitting@dnr.mo.gov
                                       
                                  Tamara Dahl
                                      MN
                            tamara.dahl@state.mn.us
                                      Yes
                                 Paul Scheirer
                                       
                           paul.scheirer@state.mn.us
                                       
                                  John Murphy
                                    NEIWPCC
                              jmurphy@neiwpcc.org
                                      No
                                 Jason Lonardo
                                      NJ
                         jason.lonardo@dep.state.nj.us
                                      Yes
                                 Julio Collazo
                                       
                         julio.collazo@dep.state.nj.us
                                       
                                 Robert Wither
                                      NY
                          rewither@gw.dec.state.ny.us
                                      Yes
                                 Joseph DiMura
                                       
                          jxdimura@gw.dec.state.ny.us
                                       
                             Shellie Chard-McClary
                                      OK
                       shellie.chard-mcclary@deq.ok.gov
                                      Yes
                                  Roy Walker
                                       
                             roy.walker@deq.ok.gov
                                       
                                 David Pruitt
                                       
                            david.pruitt@deq.ok.gov
                                       
                                 Jim Billings
                                      OR
                         billings.jim@deq.state.or.us
                                      Yes
                                 Sean Furjanic
                                      PA
                               sefurjanic@pa.gov
                                      No
                                Kent Woodmansey
                                      SD
                          kent.woodmansey@state.sd.us
                                      Yes
                                   Tim Flor
                                       
                             tim.flor@state.sd.us
                                       
                                Albert Spangler
                                       
                          albert.spangler@state.sd.us
                                       
                               Lawrence Bunting
                                      TN
                           lawrence.bunting@TN.gov  
                                      Yes
                                 Yatasha Moore
                                       
                            yatasha.moore@tn.gov   
                                       
                                  Kim Wilson
                                      TX
                           kim.wilson@tceq.texas.gov
                                      Yes
                               Rebecca Villalba
                                       
                        rebecca.villalba@tceq.texas.gov
                                       
                                 Lynley Doyen
                                       
                          lynley.doyen@tceq.texas.gov
                                       
                               Kimberly Shepard
                                       
                        kimberly.shepard@tceq.texas.gov
                                       
                                 Jeff Studenka
                                      UT
                              jstudenka@utah.gov
                                      No
                                 Jerome Brooks
                                      VA
                        jerome.brooks@deq.virginia.gov
                                      Yes
                                Deborah Debiasi
                                       
                       Deborah.DeBiasi@deq.virginia.gov
                                       
                                  Phani Eturu
                                       
                         phani.eturu@deq.virginia.gov
                                       
                                Stephen Bernath
                                      WA
                              sber461@ecy.wa.gov
                                      Yes
                                  Dave Knight
                                       
                              dakn461@ecy.wa.gov
                                       
                                  Nancy Kmet
                                       
                              nkme461@ecy.wa.gov
                                       
      

Table 2: EPA Technical Workgroup Members

                                     Name
                                  EPA Office 
                                     Email
                               Present? (Yes/No)
                                   Lisa Lund
                                  OECA/OC/IO
                               lund.lisa@epa.gov
                                      No
                                John Dombrowski
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
                            dombrowski.john@epa.gov
                                      No
                                  Andy Hudock
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
                             hudock.andrew@epa.gov
                                      No
                                Rochele Kadish
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
                            kadish.rochele@epa.gov
                                      No
                                Carey Johnston
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
                            johnston.carey@epa.gov
                                      Yes
                                 David Sprague
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
                             sprague.david@epa.gov
                                      Yes
                                Emery Harriston
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
                            harriston.emery@epa.gov
                                      Yes
                                 Rhonda Golder
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
                             golder.rhonda@epa.gov
                                      Yes
                                 Jackie Clark
                                  OW/OWM/WPD
                             clark.jackie@epa.gov
                                      Yes
                                  Roy Chaudet
                                 OEI/OIC/IESD
                              chaudet.roy@epa.gov
                                      No
                                 Chuck Freeman
                                 OEI/OIC/IESD
                            freeman.charles@epa.gov
                                      No
                                 Aditi Prabhu
                                    OGC/WLO
                             prabhu.aditi@epa.gov
                                      No
                                 David Apanian
                                   Region 4
                             apanian.david@epa.gov
                                      Yes
                                  Jan Pickrel
                                  OW/OWM/WPD
                              pickrel.jan@epa.gov
                                      Yes
                                  Glynis Hill
                                 OP/ORPM/PRAD
                              hill.glynis@epa.gov
                                      No

 Attachment 1  -  Comments from Kansas Department of Health & Environment
From: Steve Caspers [mailto:scaspers@kdheks.gov] 
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 11:58 AM
To: Johnston, Carey
Cc: Sean Rolland (srolland@acwa-us.org); Pickrel, Jan <Pickrel.Jan@epa.gov>; Pickrel, Jan <Pickrel.Jan@epa.gov>; Dave Knight (dakn461@ECY.WA.GOV); Grace Scott (scottg@michigan.gov); Rebecca Villalba (rebecca.villalba@tceq.texas.gov); Kirsch, Susan (skirsch@acwa-us.org)
Subject: Electronic Reporting - Pretreatment data - comments - Part 2

Carey, as per your request, below are written comments regarding our conference call yesterday, for your consideration. Note: Some of these comments may not have come directly from me, but are included if we endorse them. Hopefully other States will provide their input as well.

   (1) SNC with pretreatment schedule flag: Suggest the word "enforceable" be added so the wording is "enforceable pretreatment schedules". This needed since not all pretreatment schedules are enforceable, unless they are placed in an administrative order, permit or other enforceable document.

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We will make this change to Appendix A so that the data element reads as, "SNC with Pretreatment Enforceable Compliance Schedule Flag ."

   (2) Date of most recent adoption of technically based local limits and date of most recent technical evaluation of local limits: As noted on the phone, it appears these two data names and data descriptions were accidently switched. It is also not clear what is meant by the words "the date the CA evaluated the need for local limits". States have varied frequencies on how often they require head-works analysis to be performed and it also varies how extensive these re-evaluations are. In Kansas, local limits are required to be re-calculated when one of six criteria are met. (loss or gain of IUs, significant upgrade of a WWTP, change in WQ standards, a change in the city's NPDES limits, the 503 sludge limits change or if pass through or interference occurs). It is not necessarily based on whether the city's NPDES permit is expiring or not.  Maybe it would be more clear to ask for two items. One, the date the local limits were "last recalculated" and second, the date the last local limits "were adopted". These dates would be more clear, meaningful and easier to track.

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We will make the suggested change to these two data elements. EPA solicits comment on the following revisions to two data elements. EPA notes that if the Control Authority does not do an evaluation or adoption of local limits within a reporting period then these data elements can be left blank in that annual report. 

Local Limits Adoption Date: This is the most recent date on which the Control Authority has adopted new local limits within the reporting period. The date must be provided in YYYY-MM-DD format where YYYY is the year, MM is the month, and DD is the day.

Local Limits Evaluation Date: This is the most recent date on which the Control Authority evaluated the need for local limits within the reporting period. The date must be provided in YYYY-MM-DD format where YYYY is the year, MM is the month, and DD is the day.

   (3) POTW discharge contamination indicator: It was suggested that this item be separated into two elements. One, problems related to upset and bypass and the second, those problems related to interference and pass through.

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. EPA is using two data elements to track any issues at the POTW with one data element focusing on the discharge (POTW Discharge Contamination Indicator) and the other focusing on the biosolids management (POTW Biosolids Contamination Indicator). The first data element identifies "whether there have been any problems (e.g., pass-through or interference) with the receiving POTW's effluent discharge within the reporting period." The commenter's suggestion does not seem workable as the term `interference' includes events such as `upsets' and `bypass.' EPA is soliciting comment on retaining the two data elements and not trying to split  the POTW Discharge Contamination Indicator into two separate data elements.

   (4) Removal credits:  Since there are only a handful of programs in the nation with removal credits, it is suggested only the minimum amount of information that needs to be reported to OMB by EPA be requested and eliminate all of the other elements.

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We will delete the data elements related to removal credits from Appendix A.

   (5) Industrial user city: EPA indicated on the phone that it would not create a problem if the name of the city the IU was located in, was not the same name of the approved program the IU was located in. It was also pointed out that an IU could even be located in a different State than the approved program was located in, if the IU was near a state border.

EPA Response: Thank you for this comment. The tracking of locational data for Industrial Users is independent of the corresponding pretreatment program locational data. The commenter's scenario (different cities or states for an Industrial User and its pretreatment program) will not be a problem with EPA's electronic data collection tools or ICIS-NPDES.

   (6) IU control mechanism: It was suggested the words "active" be added to indicate that only control mechanisms that were active need to be reported, not the number of "expired or inactive" control mechanisms. 

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We will make the suggested change to these two data elements in Appendix A.

   (7) Number of IU sampling events: Not sure why this information is even being requested and why it would be important to know. The term "sampling events" could also be interpreted differently. For example, do "all" of the parameters mentioned in a permit need to be analyzed to be considered a "sampling event"? What if only a portion of the parameters were sampled, due to a non-compliance event?

EPA Response: Thank you for this comment. The tracking of IU sampling events, those performed by the IU and those performed by the Control Authority, provides important information on the adequacy and robustness of the pretreatment program. These data will help the Approval Authority improve their oversight of the Control Authority. EPA will provided additional clarity in the Appendix A data elements regarding the sampling events that must be counted and reported on the annual report.

   (8) IU process flow rate: The current data description asks for "process" flow but it appeared the intent was to gauge the impact of the IU, on the POTW. Therefore, it may be more appropriate to request the "total" flow of the IU. 

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We will simply the tracking of IU flow rate in Appendix A.

   (9) Control Authority budget resources: It appears the current data description requests the budget amount in dollars. This information will be very difficult to derive, since most programs do not have a line item budget. To better meet the intent of the regulations, it is suggested the data description be replaced with the following language or similar. "Does the POTW have adequate resources to properly implement and administer their pretreatment program?" This would be a "yes" or "no" answer.

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We will make the suggested change to the data element. EPA solicits comment on the following revision to this data element.

Control Authority Resources: A unique code/description that identifies whether the pretreatment program has sufficient resources (e.g., budget, full-time equivalent labor) to fully implement its pretreatment program.

Overall comments;

   (1) For items that will require a "yes or no" reply, it would be more clear to mention that in the data description. 
         
EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We added text in the data descriptions in Appendix A to provide more clarity on the data format.
 
   (2) There are inconsistencies when the data name refers to "Industrial Users" but the data description only specifies "Significant Industrial Users". SIUs are only a subset of IUs.
         
EPA Response: Thank you for this comment. We added text in the data descriptions in Appendix A to provide more clarity. EPA is soliciting comment on any additional text that can provide more clarity. 

   (3) The words "in the previous 12 months" is used often and can be interpreted differently on when the 12 months actually begin. Furthermore, not all programs use the calendar year that would better define the time period. Suggest the words "reporting period" be used in the data description, since this timeframe is clearly defined in control mechanisms. The down side is you will not be comparing all data for exactly the same time period, because varying report periods are utilized. However, you already have this problem with the current verbiage, because the 12 month time periods are not going to be the same either.
         
EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We used the term, `in the reporting period,' in the Appendix A data elements to provide clarity on what actions and data should be reported in each annual report. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments and look forward to working with EPA on making these changes a reality.

Steve Caspers, Pretreatment Specialist
Bureau of Water
Industrial Programs Section
Kansas Department of Health & Environment
E-Mail address:SCaspers@kdheks.gov
785.296.5551
Fax 785.296.0086

            Attachment 2  -  Washington State Department of Ecology

From: Knight, David J. (SWRO) (ECY) [mailto:dakn461@ECY.WA.GOV] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 2:46 PM
To: Johnston, Carey
Cc: Pickrel, Jan <Pickrel.Jan@epa.gov>; Grace Scott (scottg@michigan.gov); Rebecca Villalba (rebecca.villalba@tceq.texas.gov); Steve Caspers <scaspers@kdheks.gov>; Kmet, Nancy (ECY) <nkme461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: RE: Electronic Reporting - Pretreatment data - comments - Part 2

Carey, the electronic reporting rule (ERR) determines how data is collected and reported, and thus will have a significant bearing on program implementation.  Accordingly, I would like to make a few finer points I think are important to capture on this that haven't been brought to light.

Please consider changing Table 1 (data sources) of the FR notice NPDES Data Group #7 from "Pretreatment Control Authorities" to "POTWs that are Pretreatment Control Authorities".   Annual pretreatment reports are only required of POTWs administering pretreatment programs, not of States and EPA when they act as the Pretreatment Control Authority.  The referenced primary citation 403.12(i)) specifically only applies to delegated POTWs.  States assuming a POTW's responsibilities are required (by 40 CFR 403.10(e)) to carry out the provisions of 403.8(f), but are not required to submit annual reports per 403.12(i).  EPA has already developed a separate area (section 21  -  "Reports outside Delegated Pretreatment Programs" with data items 284-294) to capture the reporting needed on SIUs where States and EPA regions that act as control authorities.  Reporting requirements of states with respect to SIUs they permit (including middle tier CIUs, and NSCIUs) should be compiled there.

EPA Response: Thank you for this comment. We added text in Table 1 to provide more clarity that these annual reports are to be submitted by POTWs and not states that are acting as the Control Authority. In particular, we added `POTW' to the title of this report so that it now reads as: POTW Pretreatment Program Annual Report.

For data relating to POTW Annual Reports (section 25), eight of the data items list the data sources as both `7' (Pretreatment Control Authorities) and `8' (SIUs outside of delegated POTW pretreatment programs).   Please consider removing the `8' for these basic data fields which identify the User and their flows.  For SIU's permitted by the State or EPA, they duplicate information which States and EPA would enter in sections 1 (basic facility information) & 2 (basic permit information) for their Permittees.  It would be better if information on SIU's outside of delegated POTW programs not already addressed by Sections 1 and 2 was consolidated in section 21 "Reports Outside Pretreatment Programs" (data items 284-294).

EPA Response: Thank you for this comment. EPA has simplified the collection of facility and flow data in Appendix A. We are soliciting comments on these revisions. 

Please consider removing the reference to PCI's and Audits in the title of Section 13.  The title now reads: "Pretreatment Information on Permit Applications, Notices of Intent, (or Pretreatment Compliance Audit or Inspection)...".   However, a different section (#20 - Compliance Monitoring Activity  -  Pretreatment Inspections and Audits) already addresses information needed to be compiled from PCI's and Audits.  It would be unmanageable to attempt to collect and enter all data listed in section 13 (including a number of data items on each SIU) as part of a PCI or Audit.  EPA should compile in section 20 all data which EPA expects to be tabulated from a PCI or Audit (except perhaps basic inspection data such as inspector, date, etc.).

EPA Response: Thank you for this comment. We have made the suggested change to Appendix A.

With respect to Steve Casper's comments, I would add two things:

With respect to comment (7) below, I presume that EPA's reason for ERR data fields relating to POTW sampling and inspection activities is to ensure that the POTW has fulfilled their legal obligation to inspect each SIU at least once annually and annually perform oversight monitoring for each SIU for all pollutants for which the SIU has permit limits.  If this is the case, the data field descriptions might make this a bit clearer by asking this more directly. 

EPA Response: Thank you for this comment. We have made changes to Appendix A. See response to comment #7 above.

With respect to overall comment (2) below, I would add that the pretreatment rules have not been as clear they might about POTW obligations with respect to IU's which are not SIU's, and the ERR could help foster consistency in the degree of reporting of these "other IU's".  My understanding is that information relating to an IU that is not an SIU is only required to be reported when the IU meets applicable SNC criteria.  But EPA's definition of `SIU' allows (at 40CFR403.3(v)(3)) a CA to determine that an IU meeting the SIU criteria is not an SIU.  And while this provision requires the action be consistent with 403.8(f)(6), that doesn't stipulate how such determinations need to be documented, and listing of such Users isn't specifically reinforced in annual reporting 403.12(i)(1).  

Because 403.8(f)(6) is primarily focused on an initial list, and 403.12(i)(1) is focused on updates to prior lists, there may be any number of high flow and/or high strength industries which have at some point been delisted and are no longer permitted, tracked, or reported on in any manner.  Because the rules don't require specific documentation be kept or for the POTW to periodically revisit such de-listings, there is an unaddressed potential for inconsistent application of this provision.  To address this, I believe it would be appropriate and consistent with 403.8(f)(6) and 403.12(i) to specifically require POTWs annually provide an updated list of their IU's which includes all SIU's and all IU's which otherwise meet the criteria for being an SIU (at 403.3(v)(1)), but have been delisted, and give the reason for the delisting. 

EPA Response: Thank you for this comment. We have made changes to Appendix A so that POTWs can update their list of IUs through the annual report.

Dave Knight

David J. Knight P.E. 
Environmental Engineer 
Southwest Regional Office, Water Quality Program 
Washington State Department of Ecology 
PO Box 47775, Olympia WA 98504-7775 
Phone (360) 407-6277 
Email - david.j.knight@ecy.wa.gov