2009 Closure

***Q. Isn’t it kind of hard to regulate pre-treaters if they’re dumping their stuff down the sewer drain? Is this one of those “on your honor” type situations, and we can only hope that the auto repair shop upstream is recycling their oil and not dumping it?
A. Most regulations can be circumvented by guile and diligence.  The “on your honor” is surprisingly effective with “deep pockets.” That is, businesses that have money. Today, most will not knowingly violate a standard.  The possibility of a disgruntled former employee blowing the whistle is too much to risk.  Most violations of standards are simply mistakes or oversights that perhaps someone later tries to cover up.  For the POTW, they might inspect the gas stations and make sure they actually have an oil water separator or other such devices.  For larger industries, there are regular reports that the POTW requires. 

**Q. Who/what triggers  an air quality monitoring system like we have here for certifying each vehicle's emissions? Does a community have to be in "Non-attainment" for a certain time before they impose that system? Why would a city that often has bad air quality in the winter and impose burn bans not be required to implement an emissions testing program (example Juneau, AK)?
A. There is a standard for number and timing of “violations” after which the region is in non-compliance.  Since it is hard for the federal EPA to make a “region” do something, the law allows the EPA to direct the federal DOT to not spend any more money in the region.  That is actually a region-wide fine, since the motorists in the region will still be required to pay the federal gasoline tax, but not get any federal highway funding back.  Once the EPA’s authority and willingness to do that is established, the region must persuade the EPA that they are trying to fix the situation.  What it takes to placate the EPA might vary quite a bit.  The problems in Fairbanks are local and are not affected by any of the fixes, including busses that nobody rides, or emission standards and inspections, since they did not cause the problem.   However if EPA is satisfied, things can go along.  The situation is Juneau has a very definite cause, the burning of wet wood and the air currents in the valley.  Banning wood burning would affect these directly.

**Q As I understand it, ADEC was supposed to take over regulatory authority as of November 2009. However, I just received and email from the EPA Region 10 Stormwater Program Manger that EPA is extending the GCP for Alaska for another yet. How can they do that if they no longer have primacy? This seems like a regulatory morass for the 2010 construction year. Will we still be submitting electronic NOIs and NOTs through the EPA or will they go the ADEC? Have you heard anything on this yet?
A. Yes, I’m working on some of those issues with the  DOT.  It may be a mess for a while.  EPA will always have the authority to enforce the CWA, if it chooses to.  However they delegate the enforcement to the state, on the presumption that the state has the same or more stringent standards.  The EPA can always step back in.  An interesting point, both state and the EPA can cite you for the same event.  That is not “double jeopardy” since they are two different laws, even though they have the same purpose and could have the same text.

** Q. I didn’t see Fecal Coliform listed anywhere. Would that be under Narrative Standards for discharges that have objectionable odors (i.e. dog waste), or for the numeric standards, or somewhere else?
A. Fece’s are a definite “water quality standard” but not a “primary pollutant.”  I suspect that the BOD and SS requirements get most of the fece’s.  But beyond that, it’s all a matter of permit stipulations and permit compliance.  The permit is related to the water quality of the receiving waters and the allowed discharges must not exceed those standards, that is, not cause the water body to exceed those standards.  Thus, if the agency felt the discharge of fece’s would cause the lake to exceed the allowable for that lake, the agency would not issue the permit. From there we would need to go into TMDL and “mixing zones,” two difficult topics.

** Q.First, I’m curious what you think about ocean sequestering of CO2 and other wastes and what kind of affects a process like that has? Some people propose up to a 15% reduction in global CO2 if we started this sequestering process, is it worth it?
A. I don’t regard anthropogenic CO2 as a pollutant, nor do I believe it has any effect on climate.  You can see more of my opinions here: http://www.faculty.uaf.edu/ffrap/Presentations/Climate_change.html   atmospheric CO2 is in equilibrium with surface waters based on their pH and temperature.  I’m not familiar with sequestration in the oceans.  I do know about the ideas for sequestering it in deep wells on land and those ideas are infeasible and dangerous.

**Q. Also, you mention in one of the Q&A's that the stack gas from your burning 2000 gallons of fuel weighs 26 tons.  Does that mean that when you burn fuel you must obtain a permit because it is over 10 tons?
A. No.  The CO2 and H2O are not pollutants.

**Q. In module 12B you mention that the pretreater is regulated first by the POTW rather than an agency.  I'm a bit confused with how these regulations are actually carried out.  Does the EPA delegate the administration/regulation of its pretreatment standards to the POTW?  In which case, is the POTW than responsible for monitoring discharges and ensuring compliance? 
A. The EPA’s pretreatment standards are very general and would apply to almost any situation – industry can’t put explosive gasses or poisons into the wastewater.  Beyond that, the issue is the NPDES permit from the POTW.  For example we all put lots of SS and BOD into the wastewater, it’s the POTW’s problem to take it out – that’s what we pay them for.  We also put oil and grease into the water, and they take that out too.  So the issue for an industry, say a restaurant, is how much grease do they put into the wastewater, relative to how much the POTW can take out.  If the POTW is having problems with grease, they will require the restaurant to remove the grease. 

*Q. Also on the topic of Oceans, it is kind of random, but what about sunken ships? They create a lot of ocean litter, wooden ships have treated wood, metal ones had lead based paints, all have cargo that could be hazardous. How are these regulated? Are there clean up requirements?
A. If the ship is within the waters of the US, they are regulated and the owner of the ship can be required to clean it up.  Leaking fuel from sunken ships is an issue for sure.  Most ships that sink are hazards to navigation and are thus controlled by the Corps of Engineers for removal of the hulk.  The pollution is regulated by the Coast Guard, in general.

*Q. My brother bought a boat 3 years ago (large/ocean ready), it has a toilet aboard, the manual stated that as long as you were 5 miles (maybe 10…I’m trying to bring this from memory) from shore you could dump the human sewage. Why? Has this changed?
A. Not sure.  There may be a de minimus standard for small boats.  The problem comes in harbors, if the boat does not have a holding tank or piping, people will dump in the harbor.  That is a problem. 

*Q. And one last question; stormwater seems like a losing battle to me, all contaminated very little of it is treated. What does the government do to account for highway run off, I would assume that this can be very contaminated, leaky cars and accidents would leave pollutants on the roads which are just allowed to wash off the road with the next rain fall? Seems like a double standards for state and country roads compared to parking lots and construction sites.
A. Indeed, I am doing research for the DOT about such pollution.  Again, you have to relate the costs of the problem to the costs of the solution.  After accidents, the owners of the vehicles must clean up, or the DOT/City will clean it and send you the bill.   The roads versus construction sites is an interesting one.  However, one untended construction site might put more silt and clay into the waters than a hundred years of rainfall on a paved road.

*Q. I was wondering what your thoughts were on the decision to give the sate supremacy over the NPDES program. Do you think that it will provide for better oversight of the program? Do you think the state has adequate resources to do this?
A. The state may be more flexible in implementing its standards and quicker to change details.  Both the green and un-green factions believe they can influence the state better than the feds, and I think they are both right.  The decisions will likely have more local relevance.  I believe they have enough resources to administer it.

* Q. I thought the foggiest section in this module was determining when something is part of the CAA, CWA or RCRA, it seems like there could be quite a variety of interpretations. It seems like many processes could be part of all three.
A. Yes.  In general, for most light industries, the CAA is most important in initial permitting, the CWA in NPDES permitting and compliance, and RCRA in its ongoing operations.

2007 Closure

*** Q. Concerning pretreatment in wastewater, one of it's purposes is to avoid "interference".  What is the possible interference that is referenced here?
A. It is a very general term for things that might foul up the treatment processes - kill the microorganisms. 

***Q. One thing really baffled me during this module.  After reading through the material, I was under the impression that POTW have the authority to direct pretreatment standards and that industries apply to them and not directly to a state agency or the EPA.  I know of a case in which a company in Alaska thought they were in compliance because they were following the POTW standards, but instead, ended up in trouble with the EPA because the ADEC and POTW did not have the oversight authority.  It is my understanding that the EPA is going to turn over the oversight authority to the ADEC soon (if it hasn’t happened already).  Does permitting depend on who has the oversight authority? 
A. The EPA has the ultimate authority under the CWA, but it often delegates it to the states.  Alaska has been back and forth.  Any POTW can refuse any industrial waste as a matter of policy.  Since they are publically owned, and/or regulated by the public utility commission (in Alaska it is the Regulatory Commission of Alaska) they can’t rob any industry but would need a good reason for prohibiting or limiting a particular wastewater. 
The EPA has some general pretreatment standards that all dischargers must meet.  These are not too stringent, for example, the waste can’t cause a fire at the treatment plant.  However the rub comes in the treatment plants discharge permit.  They can’t permit an industry to put so much of a chemical in the works that they exceed their own permit to discharge into the river. 

**Q. Concerning HAP, a permit is required if 10 tons of a particular
constituent is discharged per year and the max. acheivable control
technology must be employed.  What kind of control technology would then be required if 9 tons of the pollutant was discharged?  Furthermore, it seems odd to me that a single value of 10 tons can be applied to some 200 different chemicals.  I would expect different chemicals to have varying threshold values.
A. Yes.  However 10 tons is not too much.  Calculate how many tons of CO2 your woodstove put out.

*Q. Under the Clean Water Act, I found it interesting that the standards are more stringent for new polluters than existing.  I understand the financial burden it would place on an existing company to force them to bring their technology up to par each time an amendment is made, however, it doesn’t seem fair from an environmental perspective or from the perspective of a new competitor who has to fork out twice as much money  and still try to stay competitive with the older competition. 
A. True.  However for many facilities it is impractical to bring the old up to standards, but quite possible to build new that meet the standards. 

* Q. I grew up in a small town in Texas swimming and fishing from a local lake, that same lake is now contaminated with E.coli due to sewage runoff from an increased number of nearby septic fields. Here is a website that better explains the situation http://www.brazos.org/gbWPP.asp
My question is under what regulation does this situation apply since the pollutants are from residents and the contaminants are affecting both ground and surface waters? I understand it is due to faulty septic design, however, once the lake is contaminated, whose problem does it become?
A. Usually, when the water body is polluted beyond what is allowed (which depends on its use) the EPA will not permit new sources.  Part of the problem here is the notion of point sources.  Septic tanks are not point sources, but rather come under a special part of the Safe Drinking Water Act.  However the state can do that, if the state law allows.  So they might not allow new buildings until the situation gets better, or only allow buildings if they have sufficient treatment.  Once new development is stopped, people who want to build will agitate for some action.  One option is public sewers, but that may not be economically in some rural areas.  Tough problem.