AMSA 2004 Pretreatment Streamlining Survey

The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) has advocated in support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA or the Agency) efforts to promulgate the Pretreatment Streamlining Rule for more than a decade. As the Agency is now poised to move forward with the rule, AMSA has been given a critical opportunity to provide EPA with data to support the provisions of the rule most important to the Association. The Agency will not be willing to include certain key provisions in the rule if it does not have data showing that the changes to the pretreatment program will not negatively impact the environment, but will reduce administrative burden and conserve resources. AMSA strongly urges every publicly owned treatment works (POTW) with a pretreatment program to take the time to answer this survey completely by filling in the boxes below and submitting it online by clicking on the “Submit” button at the end of the survey. Alternatively, the survey can also be downloaded in Microsoft Word format by clicking here, and submitted to Will Pettit, AMSA, via email at wpettit@amsa-cleanwater.org or via fax at 202/530-7191 by close of business on June 4, 2004.

For all survey questions for which you have information, it is imperative that your responses demonstrate that no negative impact on the environment would result from the recommended AMSA change, and that there would be burden reduction, in terms of overhead, fringe, personnel, postage, administrative, and/or any other savings that could be redirected to other more pressing pretreatment issues. For burden reduction estimates, please give employee time and dollars saved.

Please forward this survey to the person(s) responsible for the pretreatment program at your facility.

In the box below, enter the respondent’s name and title, agency name, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address.


Survey Questions

1. Equivalent Mass Limits for Concentration Limits
AMSA supports the proposed changes that allow Control Authorities flexibility in determining compliance with categorical parameters. While not limited to water conservation opportunities, this flexibility would spur Control Authorities to encourage water conservation practices, thus reducing hydraulic loading on the POTW. AMSA supports Control Authorities having the option to determine if an industry qualifies for equivalent mass limits on a case-by-case basis. AMSA is confident that POTWs will ensure that no additional toxics are discharged, both because it would result in permit violation and because their goal is to protect the waterways and the public they serve. To this end, under this provision of the Pretreatment Streamlining Rule, POTWs can use a worksheet similar to that required by the combined wastestream formula to verify that no additional toxics are discharged.

Survey Questions
1(a). Please provide specific examples of concentration limit violations which occurred, or would have occurred, only because there were water conservation efforts in place that led to a concentration of a particular pollutant that exceeded categorical standards.

1(b). For each of the examples you listed above, please identify the categorical standard and give estimates of resources that could be saved (i.e., violations prevented) if POTWs were given the flexibility to utilize mass limits under these certain circumstances, as well as the resources needed to calculate mass limits? Also, please note number of violations per calendar year that occurred or would have occurred had you not foreseen the event.

1(c). If given the flexibility to use mass limits, please give examples of how POTWs would ensure that no additional pollutants would be released into the environment and that normal POTW operations would be protected.

2. Definition of SIUs
AMSA recommends that the definition of Significant Industrial User (SIU) be changed to reflect criteria based upon the potential to impact the receiving POTW. AMSA recommends deleting the existing 25,000 gpd flow designation for non-categorical SIUs. This flow number is arbitrary and would have vastly different effects on variably sized POTWs. AMSA instead supports having a 5% of flow standard in all instances to determine if a facility is an SIU. This approach will still be protective since the majority of industrial users not considered to be SIUs are still regulated under POTW pretreatment programs through permits and/or local limits.

Survey Questions
2(a). Please provide specific examples where resources could be saved if POTWs were given the option of a 5% of flow standard for SIU determinations. Please quantify the burden reduction estimate, and the number of SIU designations in your jurisdiction that would be affected by this change.

2(b). If given this flexibility, please demonstrate how you would ensure that no additional pollutants would be released into the environment and that normal POTW operations would be protected.

3. De Minimis CIUs
AMSA supports exempting a newly defined class of “non-significant” categorical industrial users (NCIUs) from the definition of SIU. However, the Association feels that the 100 gpd ceiling that EPA proposed for this exemption is too low to reflect the local conditions and/or concerns of POTWs. In fact, EPA estimated that only two percent of categorical industrial users (CIUs) nationally would qualify for the proposed NCIU class distinction. AMSA would like the Agency to adopt a three-tiered classification system, with increasing amounts of oversight, to allow for an additional class of facilities that contribute minimally and have a good compliance history. The first tier, called de minimis CIU (DCIU), would include those facilities that do not discharge untreated categorical wastewater and discharge less than 100 gpd of other process wastewater. The middle tier, or NCIU, would be those facilities that constitute less than 0.01% (100 gallons per MGD) of POTW design flow and headworks loading of organics and categorically regulated pollutants. These NCIUs would also have to demonstrate a good compliance record (i.e., no Significant Non-Compliance (SNC) for 4 consecutive six-month periods). Lastly, any facilities not meeting these requirements would continue to be classified as SIUs, and would be subject to existing SIU oversight requirements. For the greatest burden reduction, AMSA proposes reduced oversight (both IU self-monitoring and Control Authority monitoring) for the DCIU and NCIU classes. This change could potentially result in the most significant resource savings for POTWs and IUs. Currently, there are numerous local requirements to ensure an appropriate level of oversight for DCIUs.

Survey Questions
3(a). Please provide specific examples where resources could be saved if POTWs were given the option of defining NCIUs as any facility that constitutes less than 0.01% of POTW flow, rather than the 100 gpd ceiling. Please quantify the burden reduction estimate and the percent of headworks loading these facilities represent.

3(b). If given this flexibility, please demonstrate how you would ensure that no additional pollutants would be released into the environment and that normal POTW operations would be protected.

4. Significant Non-Compliance Criteria
AMSA is concerned that, because of an overly broad definition of what constitutes “significant” non-compliance, some facilities are improperly being classified as SNC for reasons that have nothing to do with environmental compliance. Because of this, AMSA suggests the following fixes to the definition of SNC:

• The 30-day late reporting requirement should be extended to 45 days. If a report that is submitted late establishes compliance with all applicable pretreatment standards the late submittal will not be deemed SNC.
• EPA should develop Technical Review Criteria (TRC) that are more relevant to the objectives of the pretreatment program, developed in a manner that lends credence to the application of effluent guidelines and local limits, and are technically sound and defensible. The current TRC were “borrowed” from the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program and assume that discharges are immediately entering the environment, rather than passing through POTWs.
• SNC determinations should be based on static six-month periods and not on rolling quarters because some facilities are being classified unfairly as SNCs in two consecutive quarters for the same violation.

Survey Questions
4(a). Please provide specific examples where a compliant facility has been classified as in SNC for filing a report after the 30-day deadline. Please indicate how late the report was filed and identify the cause of the late report.

4(b). What percentage of your industries are categorized as SNC for late reporting reasons only (please provide the last five (5) calendar years of data).

4(c). Additionally, please estimate burden reduction that would result from each of the three proposed changes listed in the bullets above. Please give three separate estimates.

If you have any questions or further information please contact Will Pettit, AMSA, via email at wpettit@amsa-cleanwater.org or call 202/833-3280, or Guy Aydlett, Chair, AMSA Pretreatment & Hazardous Waste Committee, Director of Water Quality, Hampton Roads Sanitation District, Virginia Beach, Va., via email at gaydlett@hrsd.com or call 757/460-4220. Thank you.