Member Pipeline - Regulatory - Alert (RA 04-17)
To: Members & Affiliates, Pretreatment & Hazardous Waste Committee
From: National Office
Date: October 15, 2004
Subject: EPA’S OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL RELEASES FINAL REPORT EVALUATING THE NATIONAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
Reference: RA 04-17
Printer friendly versionOn September 28, 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA or Agency) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released its final Evaluation Report entitled EPA Needs to Reinforce Its National Pretreatment Program (Report)(http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/reports/2004/20040928-2004-P-00030.pdf). The Report outlines the OIG’s findings regarding three questions from their investigation: 1) How effectively have the pretreatment regulations controlled industrial user discharges? 2) What are the differences in how publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) with and without approved pretreatment programs oversee their industrial users and do these differences affect protection of the plant and receiving waters? And, 3) How well is EPA maintaining its program gains and addressing future needs and do EPA’s pretreatment program measures show the program’s progress?
The Report finds that the “reductions in industrial waste discharges to the nation’s sewer systems that characterized the early years of the pretreatment program have not endured.” The Report also notes that since the mid-1990s there has been little change in the volume of a broad list of toxic pollutants transferred to POTWs or in the risk associated with these pollutants. Dwindling federal resources in terms of funding and staff, the lack of enhancement of pretreatment systems by industrial dischargers in recent years, and the decreasing rate at which EPA has issued effluent guidelines since 1990 are some of the explanations given in the Report for these trends.
Unfortunately, the Report’s conclusions are somewhat flawed. The Report’s conclusions are based on data from the Toxics Release Inventory and Permit Compliance System. The Report itself recognizes some of the many flaws associated with these data sources. Additionally, the OIG fails to recognize the significant reduction of pollutants due to implementation of local limits along with the tremendous effort of POTWs to bring industrial users into compliance during the late 1980s and the 1990s. While there is still work to do, the vast majority of appropriate industrial user pollutant reductions have been accomplished. Furthermore, the Report, when describing “the decreasing rate at which EPA has issued effluent guidelines,” does not take into account the fact that EPA has actually reviewed quite a number of industrial categories and determined that pretreatment limitations were not warranted based on the good job already being done through municipal pretreatment programs. The Report does, however, provide several recommended improvements to the pretreatment program as a whole, including: 1) increased visible leadership from EPA Headquarters; 2) improved programmatic information; and 3) the adoption of results-based performance measures.
Report Supports Need for Streamlining Rule and Updated
50 POTW Study
The Report notes that EPA Headquarters has delayed
finalizing needed guidance and regulations intended to update the pretreatment
program by not allocating sufficient resources or requesting budget increases.
AMSA believes that among these much-needed but delayed guidance and regulations
is the Pretreatment Streamlining Rule, on behalf of which AMSA has advocated
since the late 1990s. Finalizing this rule – as recommended by the OIG (Report,
page 27) – this year will go a long way toward bringing the pretreatment program
up to date. Also, though not specifically mentioned in the Report, the
long-needed update of the more than 20-year-old study on the fate of priority
pollutants in POTWs, known as the “50 POTW Study,” is another initiative that is
absolutely critical to keeping the pretreatment program current. The original
study, Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works,
provides the underlying basis for regulating pollutants under current or any
future categorical pretreatment standards. AMSA has long argued to EPA that the
removal efficiencies, physical parameters, and process data in the study are no
longer valid and therefore need to be updated before the study is used to
evaluate the need for new or revised pretreatment standards. AMSA will use the
findings in the Report to support its advocacy efforts with EPA on both
of these issues.
Report Touts Successes of Approved Pretreatment Programs
Run by POTWs
The Report highlights the fact that, of the POTWs
reviewed, those with approved pretreatment programs were less than half as
likely to experience a pass through and/or interference event as POTWs without
an approved pretreatment program. Also noted was the finding that only 25
percent of POTWs with an approved pretreatment program discharge to an impaired
waterbody, while 60 percent of POTWs without an approved program did so. While
AMSA may take issue with the Report’s data sources, the Association does
agree that approved POTW pretreatment programs are much more effective than
oversight of industrial users by states or EPA Regions. Supporting this
position, the Report notes that EPA Regions and state agencies acting as
control authorities, where there is no approved POTW pretreatment program, do
not have standards for overseeing industrial users.
Office of Water Response to Draft Promotes Permitting
for Environmental Results Strategy
EPA’s Office of Water (OW), under the leadership of Acting
Assistant Administrator Benjamin H. Grumbles, has 90 days to provide the OIG
with a written response to the Report. Prior to the Report’s
finalization, OW was asked to respond to a draft of the report, transmitted on
July 19, 2004. OW’s response to the draft was generally supportive of the
recommendation to finalize long-awaited guidance documents, including those to
help POTWs without an approved pretreatment program regulate industrial user
discharges. A recommendation to promote training opportunities for all POTWs
receiving industrial user discharges also received a supportive response from OW.
When responding to recommendations to shift more control to POTWs without
approved programs, develop strategies to identify the data needed for
performance-based measures, and evaluate the resource needs to make further
reductions in industrial waste transfers and risk, OW repeatedly promoted its
Permitting for Environmental Results (PER) Strategy. The PER Strategy broadly
addresses the development and implementation of tools to continually assess
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program performance, to obtain
the necessary information for making adjustments to program activities, to
correct weaknesses, and to ensure continued success.
When asked in conjunction with the draft report to set milestones for finalizing the Pretreatment Streamlining Rule, local limits guidance, and other applicable documents, OW noted in its official response to the draft OIG report that they “continue to make progress in accordance with schedules established by the Office of Water.” While OW’s statement is true, AMSA continues to believe that most pretreatment resources have been assigned to a myriad of other water issues, leaving very little left for pretreatment initiatives. A case in point of this resource allocation dilemma is that, although the Local Limits Development Guidance was finalized and made available in July 2004, the process took nearly eight years. AMSA will send a letter to key OW officials regarding the Report and will encourage OW to finalize the Pretreatment Streamlining Rule and update the “50 POTW Study” as soon as possible as a demonstration of the Agency’s continued commitment to the pretreatment program. EPA’s response to the Report is due to the OIG by December 28, 2004.
AMSA will continue its advocacy efforts on the pretreatment front and will alert the membership of any developments. AMSA and OW officials will discuss the Report’s findings and EPA’s likely response at the National Pretreatment Coordinators Workshop, to be held in Norfolk, Va., October 27 – 29. For more information on the Workshop or the Report, please contact AMSA’s Manager of Regulatory Affairs, Will Pettit at 202/833-3280 or wpettit@amsa-cleanwater.org.