As most of you are aware, EPA is in the "data gathering" phase of the Metal
Products and Machinery Effluent Guidelines for our industry. At the San
Jose IPC meeting, several people expressed concerns that the Phase I
effluent limitations were derived from mostly military installations, not
"real-world", commercial industries.
So here is your chance to shape future regulations. Mark Ingle of EPA has
written the following memo to all of us, detailing his desire to gather
data at real plants. As always there are pros and cons, and Mark has
detailed those in the memo. I urge each of you to evaluate your ability to
allow EPA to sample at your plants, then it is possible that we can have
a positive impact on some of these regulations. Especially those of us
who are processing several metal types. If you have anymore questions or
concerns, or if you think that maybe we should get together and discuss
this, get in touch with me.
John Sharp
Merix Corporation, Forest Grove, OR
503-359-9300 (ext. 5-4351)
503-359-1040 FAX
[log in to unmask]
John:
The attached file is the memo you requested in ASCII DOS format.
------------------- EPAMEM follows --------------------
E-MAIL TRANSMISSION
Headquarters, US EPA
401 M St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Date: April 9, 1996
To: John Sharp, Merix Corporation
Fr: Mark Ingle, Project Officer, United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Re: EPA Data Collection Activities
Introduction
On April 8, 1996, we had a telephone conversation regarding the development
of cooperative data collection efforts between the EPA and circuit-board
manufacturers. The purpose of this memorandum is to describe the possible
levels of participation in EPA data collection activities and to present some
of the legal rights companies have when participating in an EPA rulemaking
program.
Discussion
The following discussion describes data collection efforts EPA is
obligated to conduct under the 1977 Clean Water Act, as amended, to collect data
from industry sources for use in rulemaking. These data collection efforts are
in no way associated with state or federal enforcement activities and are
required to collect the technical and economic information EPA needs to produce
cost-effective regulations.
There are three primary means through which companies can participate in
the early phase of an EPA data collection effort. The following briefly
summarizes the different levels of participation companies can have in EPA
rulemaking programs and presents the "pros and cons" associated with
participation:
1. Site Visit. The least burdensome level of company participation in EPA
rulemaking activities is the site visit. During a site visit, EPA staff
make a brief (i.e., approximately 1/2 to 1 day) visit to a facility. The
objective of the visit is for EPA staff to observe plant operations,
review the wastewater treatment plant, and generally learn about plant
operations. EPA conducts a large number of these site visits at locations
around the country and then decides which specific sites are utilizing
"best available technology, economically achievable" for minimizing
wastewater pollutant discharges. Once these "best" sites are identified,
EPA will conduct a week-long, on-site wastewater sampling program at a
selected group of the facilities toured during the site visits. Upon
completion of the site visits, EPA always provides draft reports to the
facility for review and comment. Sites may declare any processes or
operations in their facilities "Confidential" and EPA is then obligated
to handle these data in manner that prevents public disclosure. The final
data collected as the result of these site visits is included in the MP&M
Phase II rulemaking record.
"Pros:" Plant staff have an opportunity to meet with EPA staff and
discuss regulatory issues. The site visit is short and requires
little plant effort.
"Cons:" Site visits may lead to sampling episodes.
2. Sampling Episode. After conducting a number of site visits, EPA selects
the "best" sites for sampling episodes. During a sampling episode, EPA
and contractor staff are typically on-site at the host plant for a solid
week. This week typically starts early Monday and continues
around-the-clock (in accordance with the number of shifts at the plant)
until late Friday evening. During this program, EPA and contractor staff
collect numerous wastewater samples from mutually agreed upon locations
around the plant. These samples are collected and analyzed at EPA
expense. The resulting pollutant loadings data are then used to develop
final effluent limits. Facility personnel may observe EPA sampling
activities and, if requested, EPA can split samples with the facility.
Because EPA/contractor staff are on-site for an entire week, EPA
can assist facilities in completion of the questionnaire that is
associated with the sampling episode. These questionnaires are the same
as those distributed to a broad segment of industry and include questions
about both the technical and economic data. EPA requires these data to
develop the cost basis for regulations. Upon completion of the sampling
efforts, EPA always provides draft reports to the facility for review and
comment. Sites may declare any processes or operations in their
facilities "Confidential" and EPA is then obligated to handle these data
in manner that prevents public disclosure. The final data collected as
the result of these sampling episodes will be included in the MP&M Phase
II rulemaking record.
"Pros:" Plant data becomes part of the database EPA uses to develop
the rule. As such, the plant's current operating practices
become one part of the overall basis by which all other plants
will be measured. Plants also obtain a complete water audit report
that can be used to identify waste streams and associated pollutant
loadings. Such a report would generally cost a plant approximately
$300K. Plants also obtain EPA assistance in responding to the
survey questionnaire. Such assistance can reduce the time plant
personnel must spend completing the questionnaire.
"Cons:" Plant staff must deal with approximately 8-10 EPA/contractor
staff on-site for a week. Plant staff must complete the survey
questionnaire.
3. Survey Questionnaires. The final means by which plants may participate in
the EPA data collection program is to complete a questionnaire. EPA has
developed a series of three questionnaires that are designed to collect
required information from industrial facilities. The questionnaires
range from a 1-page "screener" to a full-scale, 70-page "survey." Each
questionnaire is designed to collect only the data EPA requires from
facilities in a given size range. For example, EPA has a smaller, less
burdensome questionnaire for small facilities and only plans to send the
full-scale survey to major industrial sites. Thus, EPA has made every
effort to minimize the amount of effort industry must expend to
complete these questionnaire. EPA will select random sites to receive
thes surveys. However, if a company volunteers to complete a survey, EPA
can ensure that the same company will not receive another questionnaire, at
another location, during the random sample mailing.
"Pros:" Plants completing the questionnaires ensure that their economic
and technical information becomes part of the rulemaking data
package.\ Surveys can be completed at any time over a 30 - 90
day period, plants considerable staffing flexibility.
"Cons:" Plants must devote staff time to completing the surveys. Time
required to complete the surveys ranges from an estimated
1-hour for the screener to "hundreds of hours" to complete the
full-scale survey.
As with the sampling data, plants may declare portions of the survey to be
"Confidential." Attachments A and B describe the legal rights associated with
these confidentiality claims.
I also need to point out that although I will make every effort to collect
data in a cooperative manner, EPA has the legal authority to compel companies
to participate in data collection efforts. For example, when EPA conducts our
questionnaire mailing, the surveys will have a cover-letter stating that
recipients are legally required to reply to the survey and that legal penalties
may be assessed for non-compliance. Thus, companies cannot simply decide not
to participate in these data collection efforts.
Conclusions
I hope this summary answers your questions. By participating with EPA on
this data collection process, I believe the printed-circuit-board industry can
provide the additional data that EPA needs to develop cost-effective limits
that reflect current industry "best" practices.
ATTACHMENT A
AUTHORITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY
This request for information is made under authority provided by Section 308
of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1318 (CWA), and Section 3007 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended 42 U.S.C. 6927
(RCRA). Section 308 provides that: "Whenever required to carry out the
objective of the Act, including but not limited to . . . developing or
assisting in the development of any effluent limitation . . . pretreatment
standard, or standard of performance under this Act" the Administrator may
require the owner or operator of any point source to establish and maintain
monitoring equipment, sample effluents, and provide "such other information as
he may require." In addition, the Administrator or his authorized
representative, upon presentation of credentials, has right of entry to any
premise where an effluent source is located or where records which must be
maintained are located and may at reasonable times have access to and copy
such records, inspect monitoring equipment, and sample effluents.
Section 3007 of RCRA authorizes the Administrator or a designated officer
or employee of EPA "(1) to enter at reasonable times any establishment or other
place maintained by any person where hazardous wastes are generated,
stored, treated, disposed of, or transported from, [and/or] (2) to inspect
and obtain samples from any person of any such wastes and samples of any
containers or labeling for such wastes." In addition, the Administrator (or such
officer or employee) may request such person to furnish records relating to
such waste for inspection and/or copying.
Information may not be withheld from the Administrator or his authorized
representative because it is confidential. However, when requested to do so,
the Administrator is required to consider information to be confidential and
to treat it accordingly if disclosure would divulge methods or processes
entitled to protection as trade secrets. EPA regulations concerning
confidentiality of business information are contained in 40 CFR Part 2,
Subpart B (42 FR 36902-36924, September 1, 1976), as amended by 43 FR 39997
(September 8, 1978). These regulation provide that a business may, if it
desires, assert a business confidentiality claim covering part or all of the
information furnished to EPA. The manner of asserting such claims is
specified in 40 CFR 2.203 (b). Information covered by such a claim will be
treated by the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in the
Subpart B regulations. In the event that a request is made for release of
information covered by a claim of confidentiality of the Agency otherwise
decides to make a determination whether or not such information is entitled to
confidential treatment, notice will be provide to the business which furnished
the information. No information will be disclosed by EPA as to when a claim
of confidentiality has been made except to the extent and in accordance with
40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. However, if no claim of confidentiality is made
when information is furnished to EPA, the information may be made available to
the public without notice to the business.
At a later date, EPA may request that you substantiate any claim you have made
that information is confidential. Therefore, we encourage you to consult 40
CFR 2.208 and to claim as confidential only those items that you truly
believe satisfy the criteria for confidentiality.
Effluent data (as defined in 40 CFR 2.302 (s)(2)) may not be considered by
EPA as confidential. In addition, any information may be disclosed to other
officers, employees or authorized representatives of the United States
concerned with carrying out the Clean Water Act or RCRA or when relevant in
any proceeding under those statutes.
ATTACHMENT B
NOTICE OF INTENT TO TRANSFER CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
TO SELECTED EPA CONTRACTORS
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) intends to grant
access to confidential information collected under Section 308 of the Clean
Water Act to selected EPA contractors.
In accordance with 40 CFR 2.302 (h)(2-3), EPA may allow those contractors
identified below access to all data (including data claimed to be
confidential) collected during any Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M), Phase
II regulatory development analyses, as well as any follow-up communications
and submissions that the Agency may receive. EPA also may allow these
contractors access to all data (including data claimed to be confidential)
from selected field sampling and analysis surveys of in-plant and end-of-pipe
wastewater within the MP&M Phase II industries, which the Agency plans to
conduct under the authority of Section 308. Together, these items will
provide fundamental information about plant size and location, wastewater
treatment systems, wastewater volume, production processes, solid waste
disposal, and economic and financial practices. This information will assist
the contractors in analyzing, revising, and reviewing the technical and
economic data base which supports effluent limitations and standards and NPDES
permits required by the Clean Water Act.
The Agency has awarded a prime contract to Radian Corporation of Herndon, VA
(Contract No. 68-C4-0024) for technical support in connection with development
of the MP&M Phase II guidelines. The economic contract support will be
provided by Abt Associates, Inc. of Cambridge, MA (Contract No. 68-C4-0060).
The statistical contract support will be provided by Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC) of McClean, VA (Contract No. 68-C4-0046).
EPA has determined that it is necessary to transfer the information described
above to the designated contractors in order that they may carry out the work
required by their contracts. The contracts contain all confidentiality
provisions required by the EPA's confidentiality regulations (see 40 CFR
2.302 (h)(2)).
In accordance with this regulation, you are entitled to provide comments to
EPA regarding this notice of contemplated disclosure. Any such comments
should be submitted within 5 days of receipt of this notice to:
Mr. Mark Ingle
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
|
