Member Pipeline - Regulatory - Alert (RA 02-20)
To: Members & Affiliates
From: National Office
Date: October 16, 2002
Subject: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO EPA’S NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE TRACK PROGRAM
Reference: RA 02-20
Printer friendly versionAction Please By:
October 31, 2002
On September 27, Guy Aydlett, Director of Water Quality for the Hampton Roads Sanitation District, Virginia Beach, Virginia and Chair of AMSA's Pretreatment and Hazardous Waste Committee, testified on behalf of AMSA at a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hearing on proposed changes to the Agency's National Environmental Performance Track Program (67 Fed. Reg. 52675; August 13, 2002). AMSA’s testimony is available at: http://www.amsa-cleanwater.org/private/reg_outreach.cfm. The Federal Register notice is available at: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2002/August/Day-13/w20347.htm. The Performance Track Program is designed to recognize and reward top environmental performers who go beyond compliance with regulatory requirements, for example by implementing an environmental management system (EMS). Among other things, the proposed changes would incorporate elements of the 1999 Pretreatment Streamlining Proposal (64 Fed. Reg. 39564; July 22, 1999) as incentive for POTWs to join the Performance Track Program. AMSA voiced its opposition to the changes noting that while EPA originally proposed the streamlining measures for all POTWs, only Performance Track facilities would be able to benefit from the provisions if the changes are finalized.
Following the hearing, EPA asked AMSA to suggest incentives that POTWs would like to see incorporated into the Performance Track Program. In its comments on the proposal, AMSA hopes to suggest a number of incentives as alternatives to using the pretreatment streamlining measures. AMSA is seeking your input. What aspects of your agency’s operations, including NPDES permitting requirements, biosolids management standards, and air emission control provisions, could benefit from some sort of federal regulatory flexibility or relief (e.g., decreased monitoring or reporting frequencies) without having a negative impact on the environment? In other words, what incentives could EPA offer that would persuade your agency to join the Performance Track Program? Comments are due to EPA by November 12, 2002, so AMSA requests that all suggested incentives be submitted by October 31, 2002. Please provide any examples to Chris Hornback, AMSA at 202/833-9106 or chornback@amsa-cleanwater.org.
Background
EPA created the National Environmental Performance Track Program
in June of 2000 to recognize and reward those private and public entities that
go beyond compliance with regulatory requirements. Among other things, the
Performance Track Program requires participants to have a certified EMS in place
and have a record of sustained compliance with environment regulations. Of the
more than 270 Performance Track participants, only one is a POTW.
In 1999, EPA proposed to streamline the National Pretreatment Program after discussions with multiple stakeholders identified a number of areas where improvements could be made. Many of the pretreatment streamlining changes proposed in 1999 are similar to, and some identical to, those proposed for use in the Performance Track Program. In fact, the preamble to the August 13, 2002, Performance Track Federal Register makes reference to a workshop on streamlining that AMSA co-sponsored and cites the recommendations from that workshop as a source for the proposed changes to the Performance Track Program.
Proposed Changes to Performance Track Program
The proposed changes to the Performance Track Program would
provide the following:
- Performance Track POTWs would have the discretion to not publish certain instances of significant non-compliance (SNC) in a newspaper. The POTW would instead be allowed to provide such notice via their web site.
- Control Authorities that are approved Performance Track facilities may designate certain categorical industrial users as “non-significant.” In other words, users that would otherwise be considered significant industrial users (SIUs) could be handled as non-SIUs if the Control Authority can document that the user has no reasonable potential to adversely affect the POTW or violate any applicable Pretreatment Standard.
- Performance Track POTWs would be granted additional flexibility in providing notice of a request to modify their pretreatment program.
- The submission procedures for the required annual report would be modified and one element of the report would be streamlined.
The provision that would allow POTWs in the Performance Track Program to designate certain categorical users as non-significant is identical to the provision proposed in the Pretreatment Streamlining Rule. In its testimony, AMSA highlighted the fact that these pretreatment streamlining measures were developed by a multi-stakeholder process that included EPA’s Office of Wastewater Management. It was agreed at that time that every POTW in the nation should benefit from the changes, not a select few who may choose to meet the list of requirements for Performance Track. AMSA also noted that although these provisions may provide substantial incentives for POTWs, the burden for many POTWs to meet the Performance Track requirements would outweigh the benefits available to them.