Preparing for an EPA PCI/AuditDo’s and Don’ts andHow to SurviveJay PimpareEPA New EnglandRegional Pretreatment CoordinatorSeptember 15, 2015Pacific Northwest Pretreatment WorkshopVancouver, WashingtonSpecial thanks to www.POTW.com
What is a PCI?“Pretreatment Compliance Inspection”What is a PCA?“Pretreatment Compliance Audit”
Background - When do they occur? EPA HQ national audit goal is once every five years or 20% ofregional/state programs annually EPA HQ national PCI goal is twice every five years or 40% ofregional/state programs over five years Washington, Oregon and Alaska are delegated programs State oversight Idaho is non-delegated EPA Oversight 20% & 40 % Annual commitment is generally met in Region 10
Pre-Audit Procedures 30 – 60 Days advance notice is typically given (via phone call) Notify program of “what to expect” and what documents will be reviewed on site:–––––SIU File: permits, inspection reports, SIU and POTW monitoring, correspondence, NOVs, etc.SUO and ERPIndustrial waste surveys and BMP programs (if applicable)SIU inspections to be conducted (unannounced)Audit can last anywhere from 2-5 days depending on size of program Send audit checklist (February 2010) to be completed by POTW AHEAD of time- Section 1 (Data Review)- Attachment A – Program Statushttp://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/final pca checklist and instructions %20feb2010.pdf
EPA/State Pre-Audit Review Review NPDES permit for pretreatment requirementsReview latest annual reportReview latest audit/PCI reportsReview status of local limits, SUO and ERPAny other pertinent information that existsNotify State
POTW preparation – What you can do? Have your files in orderaka - Get your &*#%together!!!! Find a nice office space in your building wherethe auditor can have a little space
Remember! General Rule of Thumb: Organized files Good audit resultsDocumentation is a key component of the programAttention to detail .Need to keep accurate and clear notes– Cannot be stressed enough .
How to survive onceEPA/State on-site
On-Site Procedures Opening conference– Include all personnel related to program Review checklists and any other information previously requested Review SIU files – Standard checklist is used Review any other information as necessary Tour of POTW (time permitting) SIU Inspections (EPA/State or POTW lead) your chance to visit theDentists! Close-out conference
Follow-Up Report write-up– Requires POTW to respond to findings within 30-45 days Determine Reportable Noncompliance (RNC) or SignificantNoncompliance (SNC) Refer to enforcement (if necessary)
EPA will evaluate: RNC/SNC Failure to enforce against Pass Through or InterferenceFailure to issue/reissue permits to 90% of SIUsFailure to inspect or sample 80% of SIUs within past 12 monthsFailure to enforce Pretreatment Standards or reporting (morethan 15% of SIUs in SNC) Other: Other items of concern to the Approval Authority These are Significant Non-Compliance or Reportable NonCompliance triggers that result in EPA enforcement
Common Findings Failure to annual inspect SIUs Failure to properly categorize a CIU– Electroplating (413) vs. Metal Finishing (433)– Phosphating is Metal Finishing Failure to take timely and appropriate enforcement action Local limits vs. surcharge limits for conventional pollutants (BOD, TSS) in permits Local limits vs. categorical standards in permit (need to apply more stringent inpermit) Approved local limits not adopted into legal authority Toxic Organic Management Plan (TOMP) not on file SIU inspections could be more thorough– Develop a checklist
Common Findings (cont’d) Failure to update regulations to comply with 2005 PretreatmentStreamlining Rule and/or out of date Legal Authority Interjurisdictional agreements poor quality or non-existent Permits are missing required elements and permit fact sheets are notdocumenting decisions (flow vs. time composite, CWF, etc.) Enforcement authority in permits inconsistent with legal authority Permit applications of poor quality and completed permitapplications have blanks (not filled in) POTW has failed to maintain records for last local limits evaluation POTW has over allocated the MAIL through SIU permits POTW failed to follow its Enforcement Response Plan (ERP)- POTW failure to escalate enforcement when necessary
Common Findings (cont’d) Inspection reports are declining in quality. Inspectors using lastinspection and updating rather than a fresh form. No rotation ofinspectors. Inspections done same time each year The POTW needs checklist for reviewing SIU self-monitoring reports(data reviews are inconsistent) Staff training is inadequate resulting in stagnant program and missedindustrial processes Zero discharge status not verified (and permits have incorrectlanguage for zero discharge facilities) Enforcement: All violations need to have a timely and appropriateresponse. SNC violations need to be published in the largest dailynewspaper
Common Findings (cont’d) Files need to have a formal filing plan and archiving schedule All confidential information must be kept in a separate, locked filecabinet All reports that are received should be stamped to marked with a“Date Received” date Sector Control Programs (e.g. FOG, silver, dental mercury,perchloroethylene, Nonylphenol, etc.) do not appear to have gonethrough public participation IWS procedures do not integrate with building permits department.City missing IU changes and FOG facilities.
Common Findings (cont’d) Laboratory reports not signed by IU representative Incorrect analytical methods- SW 846 is not approved for wastewater- PH and temp must be analyzed immediately Chain of custody forms– Time, date, relinquished by– Grabs vs. composites
Recent New England Audit Findings Failure to enforce ERP to its fullest extent Failure to publish SIUs in SNC
EPA 2012 PQR Findings of State of Connecticut’s 40 CFR403.10(e) Industrial Pretreatment Program 1 - Connecticut must perform annual inspections of each of its Significant Industrial Users. 2 - Connecticut must perform annual monitoring of each of its Significant Industrial Users. 3 - Connecticut must reissue expired SIU permits to reduce the current backlog. 4 - Connecticut must evaluate local limits for each POTW that would otherwise be considered an approvedpretreatment program in accordance with 40 CFR 403.8(a). This is to ensure proper protection is providedor the State may demonstrate that this is not necessary as provided in EPA’s 2004 Local Limit GuidanceManual. 5 - Connecticut must submit an annual pretreatment report that describes pretreatment activities. 6 – Connecticut must evaluate whether each SIU has met the criteria for Significant Non Compliance (SNC).
CT Findings (Cont’d) 7 - Connecticut must annually publish all SIUs that meet the federal definition of Significant NonCompliance in the newspaper of general circulation that provides meaningful public notice within thejurisdiction served by the POTW. 8 - Connecticut must update their regulations in accordance with the 2005 Federal Streamlining Rule. 9 – Connecticut must update NPDES permits issued to POTWs to contain the following pretreatmentprogram language: Notification requirements for 40 CFR 122.42(b)(1) any new introduction of pollutants to the POTW Notification requirements for 40 CFR 122.42(b)(2) any substantial change in volume or character ofpollutants Notification requirements for 40 CFR 122.42(b)(3) quantity and quality of effluent to POTW andanticipated impact of the change in effluent to the POTW