Document evRY77y9YqOex7YjBEnMQ3bZy

November 30, 2023 Rachel Stasik Industrial Pretreatment Program Coordinator Bucks County Water & Sewer Authority 1275 Almshouse Rd Warrington, PA 18976 Re: Bucks County Water & Sewer Authority Pretreatment Compliance Audit Dear Rachel Stasik: Thank you for your cooperation and participation during the Pretreatment Compliance Audit (PCA) conducted on September 13 and 14, 2023. PCAs provide EPA the opportunity to assist a Control Authority in building its capacity to implement a high-quality pretreatment program. The purpose of a PCA is to assess a program's compliance with the regulatory requirements of an applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit(s). Additionally, the audit identifies areas where the Control Authority's program require modification to ensure compliance with regulations. The audit of the Bucks County Water & Sewer Authority (BCWSA) publicly owned treatment works (POTW) pretreatment program revealed a well-established foundation. However, the enclosed audit report outlines specific findings that require your immediate attention and prompt corrective action to align the program with the General Pretreatment Regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 403. Please find attached a copy of the POTW Pretreatment Program Audit Report and relevant attachments. While the required and recommended changes to BCWSA's pretreatment program can be found at Section X of the report, a summary of the findings is as follows, which reflects the report's organization. The summary may not include all findings identified in the audit report. A. Legal Authority - Review of BCWSA's legal authority, Industrial Wastewater Discharge and Pretreatment Rules, revealed several discrepancies with the General Pretreatment Regulations. The Authority must revise this document to align inconsistencies or omissions of definitions, required reports, test procedures, remedies for non-compliance, and bypass provisions. In conjunction with these revisions, the Authority must ensure that the legal authority under which it operates is enforceable in federal, state, or local courts. This means maintenance of legally binding procedures enabling BCWSA to apply and enforce its program's pretreatment standards and requirements with respect to its entire service area. This includes those extra-jurisdictional industrial users (IUs) discharging to one of the seven POTWs owned and operated by the Authority. The necessary corrective actions regarding BCWSA's legal authority are located under Section X, Subsection A of the report and Attachment 1, POTW Legal Authority Review Checklist. Despite the need to revise and update language, the structure of BCWSA's existing legal authority closely resembles the EPA Model Pretreatment Ordinance (2007). Notably as well, review of the legal authority highlighted BCWSA's need to reevaluate its characterization of industrial users to meet the definition of "non-significant categorical industrial user" and "middle tier categorical industrial user". B. Application of Standards - Review of BCWSA's application of Pretreatment Standards showed multiple deficiencies, particularly the exclusion of local limits in addition to the application of categorical pretreatment standards. Of these categorical pretreatment standards, the Authority needs to reevaluate its categorization process when applying "Pretreatment Standards for New Sources" versus "Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources" in the control mechanism issued to the industrial user PH Tool, LLC. As required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued to the Harvey Avenue POTW owned and operated by BCWSA, the Authority needs to submit to EPA a reevaluation of its local limits based on a headworks analysis of the treatment plant as soon as reasonably available. The list of pollutants to be evaluated, as well as a sampling plan for collection of necessary data, also needs to be submitted to EPA. Routine reevaluation of local limits is not only statutorily required, but necessary to adequately protect the treatment works, its workers, and the environment. C. Control Mechanisms - Upon reviewing the wastewater discharge permits issued by BCWSA, it became evident that there were several inconsistencies and omissions in language when compared to the requirements of the General Pretreatment Regulations and BCWSA's legal authority, and other permits issued by the Authority. To align with these regulations, the Authority must revise its wastewater discharge permit template and ensure its issued permits reflect these changes. These corrective actions to BCWSA's legal authority are located under Section X, Subsection C of the report and Attachment 3, Control Mechanism Checklist. Crucially, the Authority needs to require and verify sampling from industrial users for all applicable effluent limitations. D. Compliance Monitoring - Industrial user sampling and inspections are the cornerstone of a program's pretreatment compliance and enforcement program. BCWSA must sample and inspect all significant industrial users (SIUs) at least once per year, with sampling being conducted for all pollutants with established effluent limitations. This includes any remaining SIUs not yet sampled or inspected by the Authority since its acquisition of the Bristol Borough POTW. Reports, as another means of ensuring compliance with pretreatment standards and requirements, must be received, and accepted primarily in hardcopy format. E. Enforcement - There being no discernable violations by industrial users, review of BCWSA's enforcement procedures could not be completed. Significantly, though, EPA noted that the Authority may not have an existing Enforcement Response Plan (ERP). As required by the General Pretreatment Regulations, and as an ERP is an effective enforcement program to address IU noncompliance, the Authority will need to demonstrate the existence of an ERP. If 2 an ERP is not found, the Authority must promptly develop one and submit the ERP to EPA. F. Data Management - Review of BCWSA's data management procedures demonstrated a wellkept records system. To maintain this system, the Authority's industrial user inventory must be kept up to date. The Authority needs to continue to determine if any facilities previously contacted meet the definition of an SIU, and, if they do, permit those facilities accordingly. G. Program Resources - The audit highlighted the need for BCWSA to allocate an adequate level of staffing towards the implementation of the Authority's pretreatment program. With a service area comprising seven POTWs, it is imperative the Authority continue to pursue your transition and training to a full-time pretreatment coordinator. Recorded training webinars and pretreatment publications may be found at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/nationalpretreatment-program. EPA requests BCWSA review the corrective actions summarized above and enclosed in the full audit report and provide a proposed action plan within 60 days of receipt of this report. For those items not immediately addressed, please include a planned completion date. EPA recommends completing Attachment 5, Audit Action Items to fulfill this request. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact Aron Possler of my staff at possler.aron@epa.gov or (215) 814-2780. Sincerely, JESSICA Digitally signed by JESSICA MARTINSEN MARTINSEN 14:43:42 -05'00' Date: 2023.11.30 Jessica Martinsen Chief Permits Section 3 Audit Date(s) 9/13/2023-9/14/2023 PRETREATMENT COMPLIANCE AUDIT Program Name Bucks County Water & Sewer Authority Contact Name Rachel Stasik Address E-Mail Address Title Engineering Technician, Industrial Pretreatment Program Coordinator 1275 Almshouse Rd., Warrington, PA 18976 s.rachel@bcwsa.net Should this be the person on the mailing list? Telephone (215) 343-2538 x134 Yes No X Participants Name Title Organization 1 Aron Possler Life Scientist U.S. EPA Region 3 2 Ryan Shuart Life Scientist U.S. EPA Region 3 3 Natalie Sanchez-Gonzalez Life Scientist U.S. EPA Region 3 4 Sarah Maurer Life Scientist U.S. EPA Region 3 5 Patrick Woolford Attorney-Adviser U.S. EPA Region 3 6 Erin Schulberger Director, Environmental Compliance BCWSA 7 Rachel Stasik Engineering Technician BCWSA Telephone (215) 814-2780 (215) 814-2714 (215) 814-2078 (215) 814-2715 (215) 814-2679 (215) 343-2538 ext. 112 (215) 343-2538 ext. 134 NOTE: For Sections I through VIII, complete background sections based on information in pretreatment files and all other sections based on discussion with POTW(s) personnel. SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION A. Background - Complete prior to onsite activity 1 Date of last annual report: 3/23/2023, reviewed 5/30/2023 List unresolved issues. Sampling Plan submission late (due 7/28/2022) Local Limits reevaluation submission late (due 4/28/2023) 2 Date of last audit: 8/5/2009 List unresolved issues. N/A 3 Date of last inspection: 5/17/2017 List unresolved issues. N/A 4 List any other outstanding issues. N/A 5 Number of treatment plants (verify during onsite activity): (7) Harvey Avenue (PA0021172) Green Street (PA0021181) Bristol (PA0027294) Upper Dublin (PA0029441) Kings Plaza (PA0051250) Birmingham (PA0053449) Tradesville (PA0056758) NPDES Number Issuance Date Expiration Date PA0021172 (Harvey Avenue) 4/28/2022 4/30/2027 PA0021181 (Green Street) 7/16/2020 7/31/2025 PA0027294 (Bristol) 8/12/2019 8/31/2024 PA0029441 (Upper Dublin) 3/10/2022 3/31/2027 PA0051250 (Kings Plaza) 10/24/2018 10/31/2023 PA0053449 (Birmingham) 11/1/2022 11/30/2027 PA0056758 (Tradesville) 5/5/2020 5/31/2025 2 of 45 6 a. Measures of Success - Compliance with NPDES limits (measure 5) Note: No evaluation done for Bristol, Birmingham, or Tradesville POTWs Year Category 1 Category 2 2022 Harvey Avenue 2022 Green Street 2022 Upper Dublin 2022 Kings Plaza NH3-N (1)1, Fecal Coliform (1)2 Fecal Coliform (3)3, Nitrite + Nitrate (2)4 2021 Harvey Avenue 2021 Green Street Cu (1)5 2021 Upper Dublin 2021 Kings Plaza Fecal Coliform (1)6 2020 Harvey Avenue 2020 Green Street Cu (4)7, TSS (2)8 2020 Upper Dublin 2020 Kings Plaza 2019 Harvey Avenue 2019 Green Street 2019 Upper Dublin 2019 Kings Plaza 2018 Harvey Avenue 2018 Green Street Nitrite + Nitrate (1)9 TDS (1)10 TSS (1)11, Ceriodaphnia dubia (1)12, Cu (1)13 NH3-N (1)14 Nitrite + Nitrate (1)15 Al (4)16 Pimephales promelas (1)17, TSS (1)18, Cu (1)19 3 of 45 Category 3 2018 Upper Dublin NH3-N (2)20, TSS (1)21, Fecal Coliform (1)22 2018 Kings Plaza TP (2)23, Fecal Coliform (1)24, Nitrite + Nitrate (2)25 b. Measures of Success - Compliance with sludge limits (measure 7) Note: No evaluation done for Bristol, Birmingham, or Tradesville POTWs Year Category 1 Category 2 2022 No violations 2021 No violations 2020 No violations 2019 No violations 2018 No violations Category 3 1 June 2022 2 October 2022 3 April, August, September 2022 4 August, October 2022 5 February 2021 6 October 2021 7 February, March, August, December 2020 8 January, August 2020 9 September 2020 10 March 2019 11 May 2019 12 September 2019 13 November 2019 14 May 2019 15 July 2019 16 January, February, March, May 2018 17 June 2018 18 November 2018 19 November 2018 20 May, June 2018 21 November 2018 22 December 2018 23 January, February 2018 24 May 2018 25 July, October 2018 4 of 45 7 Any effluent or sludge violations in the past 12 months? Parameter violated Aluminum Ammonia Nitrogen Ceriodaphnia dubia Copper Dissolved Oxygen Total Dissolved Solids Fecal Coliform Nitrite + Nitrate Total Phosphorus Pimephales promelas Date(s) 5/2018, 3/2018, 2/2018, 1/2018 6/2022, 5/2019, 6/2018, 5/2018 9/2019 12/2021, 8/2021, 3/2021, 2/2021, 2/2021, 11/2019, 11/2018 4/2023 3/2019 1/2023, 10/2022, 9/2022, 8/2022, 4/2022, 10/2021, 12/2018, 5/2018 10/2022, 8/2022, 9/2020, 7/2019, 10/2018, 7/2018 2/2018, 1/2018 6/2018 Yes No X Reported Cause(s) Unrelated to industrial discharge. Unrelated to industrial discharge. Unrelated to industrial discharge. Unrelated to industrial discharge. Unrelated to industrial discharge. Unrelated to industrial discharge. Unrelated to industrial discharge. Unrelated to industrial discharge. Unrelated to industrial discharge. Unrelated to industrial discharge. 5 of 45 Total Suspended Solids 8/2021, 1/2021, 5/2019, 11/2018, 11/2018 Unrelated to industrial discharge. 8 Does the permit(s) require pretreatment implementation? Yes No X Kings Plaza, Bristol, Birmingham, Tradesville 9 Does the permit(s) have a schedule for pretreatment Yes No program implementation/modification? X Activity Milestone Date Completion Date Submit list of pollutants and sampling plan 7/28/2022 Late Submit local limits reevaluation 4/28/2023 Late Submit response to comments on reevaluation Adopt local limits 10 List any pending program modifications and current status (verify during onsite activity). 11 Measures of Success - Overall Rating (measure 19) Year Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 2022 74.1% 2021 79.6% 2020 79.6% 2019 77.8% 2018 85.2% 6 of 45 SECTION II: LEGAL AUTHORITY A. Background - Complete prior to onsite activity 1 List all municipalities served by the POTW(s) and applicable legal authorities (verify during onsite activity). Municipality Name26 Ordinance Date Agreement Date Any IUs? (X all that apply) SIUs IUs None Bedminster Township X Bensalem Township X Bristol (City) X Buckingham Township X Doylestown Borough 4/19/1993? X Doylestown Township X Falls Township X Hulmeville Borough X Langhorne Manor Borough X Langhorne Borough X Lower Makefield Township X Middletown Township X New Britain Borough X New Hope (Town) X Newtown Joint Authority X Northhampton Township X Penndel Borough X Plumstead Township 1 Richlandtown Borough X Richlandtown Township X Solebury Township X Upper Dublin Township 2/2/2000? X 2 Was a complete legal authority review previously conducted? Yes No X Date 4/25 2007 Reviewer Stephen Copeland 7 of 45 Describe any inadequacies not yet corrected. Copies of all intermunicipal agreements. 3 Has the POTW(s) submitted legal authority revisions based on the streamlining amendments? Yes No X If no, attach ordinance review. If yes, list status. Approved (6/22/2021). 4 Does the POTW(s)' ordinance provide for variances and/or special agreements? Yes No X If yes, does it: Yes No N/A specifically prohibit changes to both categorical standards and other federal X pretreatment requirements (e.g., reporting)? establish a cap based on the current MAIL for revised local limits? X require that the revised limit or requirement be granted in writing? X B. Current 1 Update POTW(s)' progress on correcting deficiencies, including streamlining. Required streamlining provisions approved (10/29/2015), with optional streamlining provisions approved (6/22/2021). 2 Does the POTW(s) intend to adopt any additional optional streamlining provisions? BCWSA has adopted all required and some optional streamlining provisions, aside from the optional sampling waiver for pollutants not present language and the general control mechanism language. There are no plans to adopt any additional optional streamlining provisions in the future. 3 When did the POTW(s) last review its ordinance to ensure that it Early 2023. is consistent with the POTW(s)' current program implementation? 4 Do any outside agencies implement all or part of the pretreatment program within the POTW(s)' service area? Yes No X If yes, list agency and part of program implemented. Philadelphia Water Department. If yes, how does the POTW(s) ensure the adequacy of implementation in these areas? Annual coordination meetings. 26 https://www.bcwsa.net/about-us/ 8 of 45 SECTION III: APPLICATION OF STANDARDS A. Background - Complete prior to onsite activity 1 Has the POTW(s) stated in any annual reports in the last five years that problems (e.g., inhibition/upset, pass through, sludge contamination, corrosion, toxic fumes, etc.) have been caused by IU discharges? Yes No X If yes, describe the incident and actions taken. 2 a. Date of last local limits submission: 1/15/2018 b. Date of acceptance: 8/2/2018 c. Date of approval: BCWSA requested to maintain previous local limits. d. If not accepted and approved, list status: 3 Are the approved local limits allocated in the submission or left to be allocated in the permits? Local limits are allocated in the submission. 4 Does the POTW(s) have any BMPs approved as part of its local limits? Yes No X If yes, describe. 5 Did the POTW(s) include loadings from waste haulers in its local limit development? Yes No N/A X 6 Has the POTW(s) received approval for removal credits? Yes No X If yes, for what pollutants. 7 Has the POTW(s) revised or proposed to revise its approved program to establish the classification of nonsignificant categorical industrial users? Yes No X If yes, list current status of approval. Approved (6/22/2021). 8 Has the POTW(s) revised or proposed to revise its approved program to establish the classification of middle tier categorical industrial users? Yes No X If yes, list current status of approval. Approved (6/22/2021). 9 Has the POTW(s) revised or proposed to revise its approved program to Yes No provide for equivalent mass limits in place of concentration based categorical X standards? If yes, list current status of approval. Approved (10/29/2015). 9 of 45 10 Has the POTW(s) revised or proposed to revise its approved program to Yes No provide for equivalent concentration limits in place of mass based categorical X standards? If yes, list current status of approval. Approved (10/29/2015). 11 List all CIUs subject to productionbased standards (with category): PH Tool, LLC [Metal Finishing - 433] Down-Union Carbide [Plastics Molding and Forming -- 463?] 12 List all CIUs for which concentration- N/A based limits were applied in place of mass-based standards: 13 List all CIUs for which mass-based N/A limits were applied in place of concentration-based standards: 14 List all CIUs for which a pollutants N/A not present waiver has been granted: 15 Does the approved program include procedures for acceptance of hauled waste? Yes No X If yes, describe. 16 a. Measures of Success - Influent (measure 1) Year Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 2022 Hg Harvey Avenue 2021 Hg Harvey Avenue 2020 Hg Harvey Avenue 2019 Hg Harvey Avenue 2018 Hg Harvey Avenue 10 of 45 Year 2022 Harvey Avenue 2021 Harvey Avenue 2020 Harvey Avenue 2019 Harvey Avenue 2018 Harvey Avenue Year 2022 Harvey Avenue 2021 Harvey Avenue 2020 Harvey Avenue 2019 Harvey Avenue 2018 Harvey Avenue Year 2022 Harvey Avenue 2021 Harvey Avenue 2020 Harvey Avenue 2019 Harvey Avenue 2018 Harvey Avenue b. Measures of Success - Effluent (measure 2) Category 1 Category 2 CN CN As CN Category 3 c. Measures of Success - Sludge (measure 3) Category 1 Category 2 No exceedances No exceedances No exceedances No exceedances No exceedances d. Measures of Success - Data/Local Limits (measure 4) Category 1 Category 2 Hg Hg Hg Hg Hg Category 3 Category 3 CN CN As CN B. Industrial User Characterization 1 When was the last full IWS completed? 2 How does the POTW(s) locate new IUs? 5 years ago, in Upper Dublin Township. IUs request a questionnaire. 11 of 45 3 How does the POTW(s) investigate changes at Interviews. existing IUs (e.g., non-SIU to SIU, NSIU to CIU)? 4 How are changes discovered in contributing jurisdictions? The contributing jurisdictions inform the POTW. 5 Does the POTW(s) maintain a list of non-SIUs? Yes No Update freq. X C. Local Limits 1 Is the POTW(s) aware of instances of pass through, treatment plant Yes No inhibition/upset, sludge contamination, or other problems (excessive corrosion, X toxic fumes, sewer blockages, etc.) during the past year, including problems caused by conventional wastes? If yes, describe incident and actions taken. 2 Is the POTW(s) aware of any instances where workers have experienced industrial waste-related injuries or illnesses? Yes No X If yes, describe. 3 If the POTW(s) allocates local limits through the permits, do they have a mechanism to track the allocations? Yes No N/A X If yes, describe. 4 Has the POTW(s) encountered any problems implementing applicable BMPs? Yes No N/A X If yes, describe. 5 What has the POTW(s) done to address category 2 or 3 Exceedances were due to plant optimization ratings (most recent year) for influent, effluent, and sludge? with nitrates. D. Standards and Requirements for IUs 1 Does the POTW(s) report any questions/problems in the categorization of IUs? Yes No X If yes, describe. 2 List all IUs where the combined N/A wastestream formula was applied. 3 Does the POTW(s) have a list of new source dates for all categorical industries? Yes No X 12 of 45 4 Has the POTW(s) made a specific evaluation of process construction dates in Yes relation to the new source date of any applicable categorical standards? 5 List all IUs currently regulated under N/A Pretreatment Standards for New Sources. 6 If present27, does the POTW(s) regulate No. CIUs for which a no discharge standard exists? 7 Has the POTW(s) applied equivalent concentration limits to any users subject to Yes mass-based standards in place of mass limits, other than those listed in Section A.12? If yes, describe. 8 Has the POTW(s) applied equivalent mass limits to any users subject to Yes concentration-based standards in place of concentration limits, other than those listed in Section A.13? If yes, describe. 9 Has the POTW(s) granted any net/gross variances? Yes If yes, describe. E. Hauled Wastes 1 Does the POTW(s) accept wastes by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe (If no, go to Yes Section V) What types of waste are accepted? 2 Are any hauled wastes hazardous? Yes If no, how does the POTW(s) confirm this? 3 Has the POTW(s) designated a specific discharge point(s) for the waste Yes (403.5(b)(8))? If yes, where? No N/A X No N/A X No N/A X No X No X No X No X 27 CIUs with standards requiring no discharge include feedlots, inorganic chemicals manufacturing, fertilizer manufacturing, iron & steel manufacturing, nonferrous metals manufacturing, steam electric power generating, timber products, oil & gas extraction, paint formulating, ink formulating, pesticide chemicals, battery manufacturing, metal molding & casting, porcelain enameling, aluminum forming, and nonferrous metals forming & metal powders. 13 of 45 4 Does the POTW(s) have a control mechanism for regulating the waste (403.8(f)(1)(iii))? If yes, describe the mechanism and to whom it is issued. 5 Does the control mechanism include all applicable categorical and local standards (403.8(f)(2)(iii))? 6 Does the POTW(s) sample/require sampling of hauled waste? If yes, describe the sampling program. Yes No X Yes No N/A X Yes No X SECTION IV: CONTROL MECHANISM A. Background - Complete prior to onsite activity 1 Provide the # of IUs based on the most recent file information: SNIUs 0 CIUs MTCIUs 0 1 2 a. List all SIUs without control mechanisms or with expired control mechanisms (and the date of expiration). b. Identify which of these users have administratively extended control mechanisms. 3 According to the approved program, what type of control mechanism was intended to be used to regulate industrial discharges? 4 What industries does the approved program indicate will be regulated through this control mechanism? 5 What is the maximum control mechanism duration indicated in the approved program? 6 Has the POTW(s) revised or proposed to revise its approved program to allow for general control mechanisms? If yes, list current status of approval. 7 Does the annual report indicate that any users are covered by a general control mechanism? If yes, list the users that are covered by each general control mechanism. NSCIUs 0 Other 0 Total 1 Wastewater Discharge Permit All SIUs Not to exceed 5 years Yes No X Yes No X 14 of 45 8 Measures of Success - Permit issuance rate (measure 13 - see attachment) B. Control Mechanism 1 Give the current # of IUs: SNIUs CIUs 2 0 2 Have all expired SIU control mechanisms been re-issued? MTCIUs 1 NSCIUs 1 Yes Other 0 No If no, explain. 3 What type of control mechanism is currently being used? Individual Permits 4 Has the POTW(s) issued any general control mechanisms other than those listed in Section A.7? If yes, list the users that are covered by each additional general control mechanism. Yes No X Total 4 N/A X SECTION V: COMPLIANCE MONITORING A. Background - Complete prior to onsite activity 1 As required by the approved program, list the frequency for: SNIU POTW(s) sampling of IUs 1x/yr POTW(s) inspection of IUs 1x/yr IU self-monitoring (e.g., periodic compliance reports) 2x/yr IU reporting U 2 In the last year, indicate frequency of: SNIU POTW(s) sampling of IUs 1x/yr POTW(s) inspection of IUs 1x/yr IU self-monitoring 4x/yr IU reporting 4x/yr If less than required by the approved program or less than N/A 1/yr (403.8(f)(2)(v)), explain. CIU 1x/yr 1x/yr 2x/yr U CIU 1x/yr 1x/yr 4x/yr 4x/yr MTCIU 1x/2 yr 1x/2 yr 1x/yr U MTCIU 1x/yr 1x/yr 1x/yr 1x/yr NSCIU 0x/yr 0x/yr 0x/yr U NSCIU N/A N/A N/A N/A 15 of 45 3 List all SIUs that were found to have been not sampled or not inspected in the last annual report. Name of IU NS/NI/B28 Reason 4 Has the POTW(s) revised or proposed to revise its Yes No approved program to provide for waivers for pollutants X not present? If yes, list current status of approval. 5 Has the POTW(s) granted any monitoring waivers for Yes No pollutants not present? X If yes, list the user and the pollutants for which the waiver was granted. 6 Measures of Success - Sampling and Inspection Coverage (measures 11 and 12 - see attachment) B. POTW(s) Sampling and Inspection 1 Update status of users listed in the table in A.3: Name of IU PH Tool, LLC PH Tool, LLC NS/NI/B Sampled Inspected Date planned/completed 11/14/2022 11/22/2022 2 Does the POTW(s) conduct all of the sampling for any Yes No of its users? X If yes, does the POTW(s) re-sample within 30 days of Yes No N/A discovering a violation? X 28 NS = not sampled, NI = not inspected, B = both not sampled and not inspected. 16 of 45 3 Does the POTW(s) monitor for all categorical pollutants Yes No at least once per year? X If no, why not? Does the POTW(s) monitor for all local limit pollutants Yes No at least once per year? X If no, how does the POTW(s) determine which pollutants to sample? 4 For users with a monitoring waiver for pollutants not N/A present, how often does the POTW(s) monitor for the waived pollutants? 5 Does the POTW(s) have written standard operating Yes No procedures for sampling industrial users? X 6 Does the POTW(s) collect its own samples, or are they A contractor, M.J. Reider Associates, Inc. collects collected by a contractor? samples. 7 Are pH, oil & grease, cyanide, volatile organics, total Yes No N/A phenol, sulfide, and hexavalent chromium collected by X grab sample? 8 When collecting grab samples, how many grab samples are used? Has the POTW(s) documented the reasons for the number of grab samples used for each IU? 9 Are composite samples used for all other pollutants to Yes No N/A evaluate compliance with: Categorical standards? Local limits? Is any unannounced sampling conducted? 10 Is POTW(s) prepared to take samples on short notice X (i.e., vehicles, personnel, preservatives, etc. available)? 11 How much time normally elapses between sample collection and obtaining analytical results? 7-10 days. 12 Has the POTW(s) evaluated all of its users for the need Yes No for a slug control plan? X 13 Has the POTW(s) documented and maintained the Yes No N/A documentation of the slug control evaluations? X 17 of 45 14 What factors does the POTW(s) consider in determining whether a user is required to develop a slug/spill control plan? Chemical storage, floor drainage, chemical containment, washing of floors and equipment, previous slug discharges and/or spills. 15 Do the POTW(s)' annual inspections include an Yes No evaluation of facility changes that might impact the need for a slug control plan? X 16 Does the POTW(s) have procedures (e.g., identify Yes No waste, response personnel, identify key manholes, etc.) and equipment to investigate causes and sources of unknown slugs/spills to the POTW(s) (including X collection system)? If yes, describe. Identification via process of elimination manhole testing. C. IU Self-Monitoring and Reporting 1 When are user self-monitoring reports due (e.g., 30 days after the monitoring period)? 45 days after the monitoring period; due on the 28th of the month when the quarter ends. 2 How does the POTW(s) verify that IUs report No mechanism currently in place. all sample results if they sample more frequently than required? 3 Do any IUs discharge hazardous waste? Yes No X If no, how does POTW(s) verify this? Annual inspections. If yes, has the IU submitted the proper notifications Yes No N/A (403.12(p))? X 4 Does the POTW(s) have procedures to monitor and Yes No control IUs when they close? X If yes, describe. Monitored through billing; closure conference. SECTION VI: ENFORCEMENT A. Background - Complete prior to onsite activity 1 Has the POTW(s) revised its approved ERP based on the Yes No N/A new SNC definition? If yes, does it include all of the changes or only the required changes? 18 of 45 2 Based on the most recent file data, list the SIUs in SNC (indicate period). Name of IU 1st quarter of SNC SNC parameters Describe enforcement taken with date Scheduled compliance date 3 Measures of Success - SNC rates (measures 7, 8, 9, and 10 - see attachment) B. Enforcement 1 When the POTW(s) receives IU self-monitoring reports, The POTW manually compares the IU selfhow does it evaluate user compliance, including limits, monitoring report data to applied limits within completeness and timeliness of reports, and submission the IU permit of resampling data? When does this evaluation occur? Quarterly or annual based on the reporting requirements per IU 2 How often does the POTW(s) evaluate for SNC? Unrelated to industrial discharge. 3 Does the POTW(s) document its SNC evaluation? Yes For what period was the last evaluation completed? The most recent quarterly or annual period based on reporting requirements per IU 4 Is the POTW(s) using the new SNC definition? If yes, describe which parts of the new definition are used. Yes, all parts of the new definition are used 5 Have there been instances where the POTW(s) found the Yes No N/A responses in its ERP to be inappropriate? X If yes, explain. POTW was unable to provide the most recent ERP 6 Has POTW(s) taken enforcement against all instances of Yes No N/A pass through/interference in the last year? X If no, why? If yes, describe. 19 of 45 7 Update based on most recent SNC period (identify period). Name of IU 1st quarter of SNC SNC parameters Describe enforcement taken with date Scheduled compliance date SECTION VII: DATA MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A. Data Management 1 Are all records maintained for at least 3 years? Yes No X 2 How does the POTW(s) keep up to date on regulations and technical Email announcements from EPA guidance for the pretreatment program? Region 3 B. Public Participation 1 Are records available to the public (403.14(c))? 2 Have IUs requested that data be kept confidential? If yes, what type of data was it, and how has the POTW(s) handled it? Yes No X Yes No X SECTION VIII: PROGRAM RESOURCES 1 Approximately how many full-time employees does the POTW(s) devote to the pretreatment program? 0 FTE 2 In what areas does the POTW(s) need additional resources? Staffing necessary for program implementation 20 of 45 3 What additional activities (if any) has the POTW(s) undertaken to further the goals of the pretreatment program? School visits and tours 4 What has the POTW(s) done to incorporate P2 practices Bill stuffers, Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) program, into its pretreatment program? school visits 21 of 45 IU Name Category Address Comments IU Name Category Address Comments IU Name Category Address Comments IU Name Category Address Comments SECTION IX: INDUSTRIAL USER FILE EVALUATION PH Tool, LLC (MTCIU) Metal Finishing [433] PSES PWF29 6021 N Easton Rd., Pipersville, PA 18947 (Permit #2021-01) (IU1) 16.55 gpd Acme Uniforms (SNIU) N/A 420 Howell St., Bristol, PA 19007 (Permit #BB-2022-03) (IU2) PWF29 12,000 gpd Dow-Union Carbide (NSCIU) Unknown, potentially Plastics Molding and Forming [463] PSXS PWF29 270 gpd 310 George Patterson Blvd., Suite 102, Bridge Business Center, Bristol, PA 19007 (Permit #BB-2022-02) (IU3) Urban Outfitters, Inc. (SNIU) N/A 2401 Green Ln., Levittown, PA 19057 (Permit #BB-2023-04) (IU4) PWF29 5,000 gpd 29 Process waste flow 22 of 45 NOTE: Complete all questions with a "Y" (yes), "N" (no), "N/A" (not applicable), "U" (unable to determine), the appropriate number, or as directed in the question. Note that a copy of a typical permit should be obtained for the complete permit form review which is done separately and included as an attachment to the report. FILE REVIEW CHECKLIST IU1 IU2 IU3 IU4 PH A DUC UO A1. Industrial User Characterization 1. Is the IU categorical (CIU), non-significant categorical (NSCIU), middletier categorical (MTCIU), significant non-categorical (SNIU) or other (O)? MTCIU SNIU NSCIU SNIU 2. Is the IU properly categorized? N N/A U N/A A2. Non-Significant Categorical Industrial Users (complete past #1 only if the user is designated as an NSCIU) 1. Has the user been designated as an NSCIU? N N Y N 2. If yes, is there documentation in the file that shows that the user: never discharges more than 100 gpd of categorical wastewater? N/A N/A N N/A never discharges any untreated concentrated wastewater? N/A N/A N N/A consistently complied with all applicable pretreatment standards and N/A N/A N N/A requirements prior to and since the designation? 3. Has the user submitted the annual certification required by 403.12(q)? N/A N/A Y N/A 4. Are certifications signed by a responsible corporate official or authorized representative? N/A N/A Y N/A 5. If applicable, was the authorization made in writing? N/A N/A N/A N/A A3. Middle-Tier Categorical Industrial Users (complete past #1 only if the user is designated as a MTCIU) 1. Has the user been designated as a MTCIU? Y N N N 2. If yes, is there documentation in the file that shows that: the user's total categorical wastewater flow does not exceed: - 0.01% of the dry weather hydraulic capacity of the POTW(s) or 5000 gpd whichever is smaller? N N/A N/A N/A if yes, is the flow determination based on a continuous effluent N/A N/A N/A N/A flow monitoring device? - 0.01% of the design dry weather organic treatment capacity of the POTW(s)? U N/A N/A N/A - 0.01% of the MAHL for any local limit pollutant? the user has not been in SNC since at least two years prior to its designation as a MTCIU? N N/A N/A N/A Y N/A N/A N/A 23 of 45 FILE REVIEW CHECKLIST the user does not have flow rates, production levels, or pollutant levels that vary so significantly that the MTCIU designation is inappropriate? 3. Has the documentation been maintained for at least three years after expiration of the control mechanism? IU1 IU2 IU3 IU4 PH A DUC UO Y N/A N/A N/A Y N/A N/A N/A B. Application of Standards 1. Were local limits and/or categorical standards properly applied? N N N N 2. If applicable, were production-based standards correctly applied? N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. If applicable, was the combined wastestream formula correctly applied? U N/A U N/A 4. If applicable, were TTO requirements or alternatives correctly applied? Y U N/A N/A 5. Does the control mechanism include BMPs in place of local limits? If yes, is the BMP authorized in the POTW(s) ordinance? N N N N N/A N/A N/A N/A C1. Control Mechanism (also obtain a copy of a typical permit for the permit form review) 1. Does the file contain: an updated control mechanism application and/or survey questionnaire? Y Y Y Y a current control mechanism? Y Y Y Y documentation30 of how control mechanism limits and requirements N N N N were established? 2. Is the user regulated through an individual control mechanism (ICM) or ICM ICM ICM ICM general control mechanism (GCM)? 3. Does the control mechanism include: limits for all categorical and local limit pollutants? N N N N all applicable slug control requirements? Y Y U Y all applicable BMP requirements? N/A N/A N/A N/A monitoring requirements for all categorical and local limit pollutants? N N N N - if no, is there documentation of the reasons for excluding specific N N N N pollutants? 30 Categorization, new source, combined wastestream formula, production based standards, monitoring frequency, comparison of local limits to categorical standards, etc. 24 of 45 FILE REVIEW CHECKLIST IU1 IU2 IU3 IU4 PH A DUC UO sampling location and frequency? Y Y Y Y sample type, including appropriate use of grab and composite samples? N Y N N - if used, is there documentation on the use of time-proportional N/A N N/A N or grab samples in place of flow-proportional samples? if the user is an MTCIU, the requirement for notification of changes causing it to no longer meet the MTCIU criteria? N N/A N/A N/A a compliance schedule? N Y N N - if yes, does it stay applicability of permit requirements? N/A N/A N/A N/A 4. Is the permit effective for 5 years or less? Y Y Y Y 5. In the inspector's opinion, is the sample frequency sufficient to determine compliance? Y Y N Y C2. General Control Mechanism (complete past #1 only if the user has been issued a general control mechanism) 1. Is the user covered by a general control mechanism? N N N N 2. If yes, does POTW(s) documentation include: copy of general permit? N/A N/A N/A N/A user's request for coverage? N/A N/A N/A N/A demonstration that user meets eligibility criteria including: - similar types of operations as other covered users? N/A N/A N/A N/A - same types of waste as other covered users? N/A N/A N/A N/A - same effluent limits as other covered users? N/A N/A N/A N/A - same or similar monitoring as other covered users? N/A N/A N/A N/A - user not subject to production-based standards, mass-based standards, CWF, or net gross variance? N/A N/A N/A N/A demonstration that user appropriately covered by general permit? N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Has the documentation been maintained for at least 3 years after expiration of the control mechanism? N/A N/A N/A N/A 4. Did the user file a written request for coverage that identified its: contact information? N/A N/A N/A N/A production processes? N/A N/A N/A N/A 25 of 45 FILE REVIEW CHECKLIST IU1 IU2 IU3 IU4 PH A DUC UO types of waste generated? N/A N/A N/A N/A monitoring location? N/A N/A N/A N/A C3. Equivalent Mass Limits (complete past #1 only if the user has been issued equivalent mass limits in place of concentration based categorical standards) 1. Has the user been issued equivalent mass limits in place of concentration based categorical standards? N N N N 2. If yes, has the POTW(s) issued mass limits only for pollutants for which mass limits are appropriate (excludes pH, temperature, radiation, and N/A N/A N/A N/A other similar pollutants)? 3. Did the user submit documentation that establishes: that it employs water conservation? N/A N/A N/A N/A that it uses treatment adequate to achieve compliance? N/A N/A N/A N/A that it does not use dilution? N/A N/A N/A N/A the average daily flow based on monitoring? N/A N/A N/A N/A the long-term production rate? N/A N/A N/A N/A that its flow, production, and pollutant levels do not vary significantly? N/A N/A N/A N/A that it has consistently complied with categorical standards? N/A N/A N/A N/A 4. Were limits calculated based on actual average daily flow? N/A N/A N/A N/A 5. Did the POTW(s) reassess the limits based on changes in production? N/A N/A N/A N/A 6. Were mass limits retained in subsequent control mechanisms? N/A N/A N/A N/A If yes, was there a change in average flow from the previous control mechanism? N/A N/A N/A N/A - If yes, is there documentation that the flow reduction was solely N/A N/A N/A N/A the result of water conservation? 7. Is there documentation in the file that demonstrates that the user: has maintained and operated its treatment equipment? N/A N/A N/A N/A uses continuous flow monitoring? N/A N/A N/A N/A records and reports production rates? N/A N/A N/A N/A has provided notification where production rates have varied by more than 20% from the production rate used at the time that the mass N/A N/A N/A N/A limits were established? 26 of 45 FILE REVIEW CHECKLIST IU1 IU2 IU3 IU4 PH A DUC UO continues to employ water conservation? N/A N/A N/A N/A C4. Equivalent Concentration Limits (complete past #1 only if the user has been issued equivalent concentration limits in place of mass based categorical standards) 1. Has the user been issued equivalent concentration limits in place of mass based categorical standards? N N N N 2. If yes, is the user subject to a categorical standard other than 40 CFR 414, 419, or 455? N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Does the control mechanism include the concentration limits from the N/A N/A N/A N/A categorical standard? 4. Is there documentation that the user does not use dilution? N/A N/A N/A N/A C5. Pollutants Not Present (complete past #1 only if the user has been granted a monitoring waiver for pollutants not present) 1. Has the user been granted a monitoring waiver for pollutants not present for any pollutants regulated by an applicable categorical standard? N N N N 2. If yes, has the user demonstrated through sampling and other technical N/A N/A N/A N/A factors that the pollutant is neither present nor expected to be present? 3. Does the user's request for the waiver include: at least one sample result prior to treatment that is representative of N/A N/A N/A N/A all process wastestreams? use of non-detectable results only where the approved test method with the lowest detection level is used? N/A N/A N/A N/A appropriate signature and certification? N/A N/A N/A N/A 4. Is the waiver included in the user's control mechanism? N/A N/A N/A N/A 5. Is the waiver valid for no longer than the user's current control mechanism? N/A N/A N/A N/A 6. Does the control mechanism require the user to: notify the POTW(s) if the pollutant is found or expected to be present? N/A N/A N/A N/A begin at least semiannual monitoring if pollutant is found or expected N/A N/A N/A N/A to present? 7. Has the user reapplied for the waiver with each subsequent control mechanism application, including new data? N/A N/A N/A N/A 27 of 45 FILE REVIEW CHECKLIST 8. Has documentation of the granting of the waiver been maintained for at least 3 years after expiration of the waiver? 9. Has the user submitted the required certification with each selfmonitoring report? IU1 IU2 IU3 IU4 PH A DUC UO N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A D. POTW(s) Inspections of IUs 1. How many POTW(s) inspections were conducted and documented in the last 12 months? 1 1 1 0 2. Does the inspection report include: inspector name? Y Y U N/A inspection date/time? Y N U N/A name of IU official contacted? Y Y U N/A evaluation of manufacturing facilities? Y Y U N/A evaluation of discharge of process baths or other chemicals? Y Y U N/A verification of production data if needed? Y N U N/A identification of wastewater sources, flow, and types31 of discharge? Y Y U N/A evaluation of pretreatment facilities? Y Y U N/A evaluation of chemical storage areas? Y Y U N/A evaluation of spill/slug control procedures? Y N/A U N/A if applicable, evaluation of compliance with BMPs? N/A N U N/A evaluation of general housekeeping? Y Y U N/A potential hazardous waste discharge? Y N U N/A evaluation of self-monitoring equipment and techniques? Y Y U N/A evaluation of lab procedures? Y Y U N/A evaluation of monitoring records? Y Y U N/A E. POTW(s) Sampling of IUs 1. How many sampling visits were conducted and documented in the last 1 0 0 0 12 months? 31 continuous, intermittent, batch, etc. 28 of 45 FILE REVIEW CHECKLIST 2. Do the sampling reports include: all analytical results? name of sampling personnel? sample date/time? sample type? sample location? wastewater flow during sampling? sample preservation? chain of custody? analytical methods used? analysis date? name of analyst? 3. Were all regulated parameters monitored? 4. Were 40 CFR 136 analytical methods used? 5. If POTW(s) does not require self-monitoring, has the POTW(s) resampled within 30 days after a violation? IU1 IU2 IU3 IU4 PH A DUC UO N N/A N/A N/A Y N/A N/A N/A Y N/A N/A N/A Y N/A N/A N/A Y N/A N/A N/A N N/A N/A N/A Y N/A N/A N/A Y N/A N/A N/A Y N/A N/A N/A Y N/A N/A N/A Y N/A N/A N/A N N/A N/A N/A Y N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A F. IU Self-Monitoring and Reporting 1. Has the IU submitted all required self-monitoring reports in the last 12 Y U Y U months? 2. Did the report include measured or estimated flow data? Y U Y Y 3. Were all regulated parameters monitored at the required frequency? Y U N U 4. If applicable, was information provided to determine compliance with applicable BMPs? N/A N/A N/A N/A 5. Is there documentation that the IU notified the POTW(s) within 24 hours of becoming aware of a violation? N/A U U U 6. Has the IU resampled and reported within 30 days after a violation? N/A U U U 7. Are reports signed and certified by a responsible corporate official or authorized representative? Y U U Y 8. If applicable, was the authorization made in writing? N/A U U N/A G. Slug/Spill Control 29 of 45 FILE REVIEW CHECKLIST IU1 IU2 IU3 IU4 PH A DUC UO 1. Is there documentation in the file that the POTW(s) conducted a slug Y Y Y N evaluation? 2. If yes, does it include an inventory of process baths and other chemicals on site along with an evaluation of the potential for discharge of those N baths and chemicals? N/A N/A N/A 3. Have any slugs/spills been documented in the file? N U U N/A 4. If yes, did the user provide 24-hour notification? N/A U U N/A 5. Was there a written report from the user addressing the slug/spill including: N/A U U N/A cause of the slug/spill? N/A U U N/A steps taken to minimize damage from the slug/spill? N/A U U N/A steps taken to ensure that the slug/spill does not recur? N/A U U N/A 6. Did the POTW(s) require development of a slug/spill control plan? Y Y Y Y 7. Has the IU developed a slug/spill control plan? Y U U U 8. Does the slug/spill plan contain: description of discharge practices? N U U U description of stored chemicals? N U U U procedures to prevent slugs/spills? Y U U U procedures to notify POTW(s) of slugs/spills? N U U U follow-up practices to minimize damage from slugs/spills? N U U U H. Enforcement 1. Did the POTW(s) respond to all IU violations in the last 12 months? 2. Was SNC status correctly reported on last AR? 3. Is the IU currently in SNC? 4. Is the IU under a formal enforcement action? 5. Did the POTW(s) escalate action in accordance with the ERP? N/A U U U No N/A N/A N/A SNC N U U U N U U U N/A N/A N/A N/A I. Summary 1. Is the file well organized and readily accessible? Y U U U 30 of 45 FILE REVIEW CHECKLIST 2. Does the file indicate that the POTW(s) has implemented only those streamlining options for which it has obtained approval? IU1 IU2 IU3 IU4 PH A DUC UO Y Y Y Y 31 of 45 SECTION X: FINDINGS, REQUIREMENTS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. LEGAL AUTHORITY (Bucks County Water & Sewer Authority, Industrial Wastewater Discharge and Pretreatment Rules, "BCWSA Rules") Attachment 1 provides the full "POTW Legal Authority Review Checklist". Whether a finding is required or recommended can be differentiated in this attachment. Refer to the following for sewer use ordinance required and recommended language: EPA Model Pretreatment Ordinance o https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/pretreatment_model_suo.pdf 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1) o https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-N/part-403#p403.8(f)(1) Term or Topic A. Definitions "Pretreatment Requirement" "Significant Industrial User" D. Required Reports Develop compliance schedule for installation of technology Reporting Requirements, Baseline monitoring report, Measurement of pollutants Reporting Requirements, Notification of changes affecting potential for a slug discharge Other Reporting Requirements, Recordkeeping Requirement, Including documentation associated with Best Management Practices E. Test Procedures Finding Typo Inconsistent Inconsistent Inconsistent Absent Inconsistent Corrective Action Correct "substance" to "substantiative" Move BCWSA Rules 1.4(GG)(3) to 1.1(U). Correct ". . . any provision of this Part, a wastewater discharge directing that the User come into compliance within a specific time" to ". . . any provision of this Part, a wastewater discharge permit, or order issued hereunder, or any other Pretreatment Standard or Requirement, the Director may issue an order to the User responsible for the discharge directing that the User come into compliance within a specific time". Add language of Model SUO 6.1(B)(2)(b)- (c),(e)-(f). The language of Model SUO 6.1(B)(2)(a) is already captured. Add language of Model SUO 6.6(D). Correct "This includes BMP compliance records" to "This includes documentation associated with Best Management Practices". 32 of 45 Sample collection Absent Add Model SUO 6.11(C). procedures G. Remedies for Non-compliance (Enforcement) Non-emergency response, Typo Correct to reflect the language of Model SUO Injunctive relief 11.1. Several typos and mismatches of text in comparison are noted. Non-emergency response, Inconsistent Correct ". . . for a maximum civil penalty of per Civil/Criminal penalties violation, per day" to ". . . for a maximum civil penalty of [INSERT maximum civil penalty allowed under State law but not less than $1,000] per violation, per day". I. Optional Provisions Equivalent mass limit for Inconsistent Replace BCWSA Rules 2.2(E)(a) with Model SUO concentration limits 2.2(E)(3)(a). Model SUO 2.2(E)(3)(c) is erroneously duplicated to BCWSA Rules 2.2(E)(a). Bypass Notification Inconsistent Correct "which could not reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass" to "which can be reasonably expected to occur in the absence of a bypass" 1. 40 CFR 403.8(c) outlines the process of incorporation of an approved pretreatment program in an NPDES permit. FINDING: BCWSA owns and operates seven POTWs. Of these, the NPDES permits issued to the POTWs of Bristol (PA0027294), Kings Plaza (PA0051250), Birmingham (PA0053449), and Tradesville (PA0056758) do not include approved program pretreatment program language; therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that the Authority request minor modification, pursuant to 40 CFR 122.63(g), from PADEP to ensure these conditions are incorporated into the referenced POTW NPDES permits appropriately. 2. FINDING: BCWSA owns and operates seven POTWs within a service area encompassing several municipal jurisdictions; therefore, it is REQUIRED that the Authority demonstrate or demonstrate development towards legally binding procedures ensuring all extrajurisdictional industrial users are subject to enforceable pretreatment standards and requirements. Refer to Multijurisdictional Pretreatment Programs (https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/owm0248.pdf) for guidance regarding intermunicipal agreements. 3. 40 CFR 403.12(e)(3) allows POTWs to reduce the submission frequency of required periodic monitoring reports of a CIU and the POTW's obligation to inspect and sample the CIU. This is allowable so long as the criteria of the cited section are met. A CIU may be designated by the Control Authority as a Middle Tier CIU if its discharge of categorical wastewater does not exceed the following: 0.01 percent of the design dry weather hydraulic capacity of the POTW, or 5,000 gpd, whichever is smaller; 33 of 45  0.01 percent of the design dry weather organic treatment capacity of the POTW; and 0.01 percent of the maximum allowable headworks loading for any pollutant for which approved local limits were developed by a POTW. In order to classify a CIU as a Middle Tier CIU, the Control Authority must also demonstrate that the CIU has not been in significant noncompliance for any time in the past 2 years and that the reduced reporting requirements would still result in data that is representative of conditions occurring at the facility and in the discharge during the reporting period. FINDING: BCWSA improperly classifies PH Tool, LLC as a MTCIU; therefore, it is REQUIRED that the Authority reclassify PH Tool, LLC as a CIU, revise reporting requirements to reflect this change, and reissue the permit to the CIU. The applicable categorical pretreatment standards for this CIU will still apply. Based on DMR daily water discharge monitoring logs submitted to the Authority by PH Tool, LLC on April 21, 2021, April 26, 2022, and April 27, 2023, the IU is noted to have discharged categorical wastewater in an amount greater than 0.01% of the Harvey Avenue POTW design dry weather hydraulic capacity (1.6 MGD) above the calculated 160 gpd threshold. The local limit for BOD is not properly applied in the permit issued to PH Tool, LLC. Because of this, no sampling has been done for BOD, and the percentage of design dry weather organic treatment capacity of the POTW discharged by the IU cannot be determined. Based on self-monitoring reports submitted to the Authority by PH Tool, LLC on April 21, 2021, April 26, 2022, and April 27, 2023, all sampled parameters for which local limits exist are greater than 0.01% of the maximum allowable headworks loading (and calculated maximum allowable headworks concentration). Because the Authority has not properly applied all local limits within the permit issued to PH Tool, LLC, whether the IU exceeded these respective thresholds cannot not be determined. 4. 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2) allows POTWs to reduce the sampling and reporting requirements of a CIU. This is allowable as long as the criteria of the cited section are met. An NSCIU is a CIU designated by the Control Authority as "non-significant." To qualify as an NSCIU, the CIU must never discharge more than 100 gallons per day (gpd) of total categorical wastewater (excluding sanitary, non-contact cooling, and boiler blowdown wastewater, unless specifically included in the categorical pretreatment standard). The CIU must also: Have consistently complied with all applicable Pretreatment Standards; Annually submit a certification statement (40 CFR 403.12(q)); and Never discharge any untreated concentrated wastewater. FINDING: BCWSA improperly classifies Dow-Union Carbide as an NSCIU; therefore, it is REQUIRED that the Authority reclassify Dow-Union Carbide as a CIU, revise reporting 34 of 45 requirements to reflect this change, and reissue the permit to the CIU. The applicable categorical pretreatment standards for this CIU will still apply, as well as, sampling to ensure compliance with these standards. Based on DMR reports submitted to the Authority by Dow-Union Carbide on January 5, 2023, the IU is noted to have discharged categorical wastewater at a rate greater than 100 gpd on November 16, 2022, and discharges an average greater than 100 gpd on all but one reported weekly reading. Weekly was interpreted as being five days. 5. 40 CFR 403.3(v) defines the term "Significant Industrial User" as "[a]ny other Industrial User that: discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of process wastewater to the POTW". FINDING: On September 13, 2023, BCWSA stated that the Bucks County Jail may meet the definition of significant industrial user, potentially discharging over an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of process wastewater to the POTW; therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that the Authority continue to determine if this facility meets the definition of a significant industrial user, and, if so, permit the facility accordingly. B. APPLICATION OF STANDARDS 1. 40 CFR 403.8(f)(4) and 40 CFR 403.5(c)(1) requires POTWs with approved pretreatment programs to develop and continue to develop local limits as necessary. FINDING: BCWSA was reissued an NPDES permit on April 28, 2022; therefore, it is REQUIRED that the Authority, in accordance with C.II(E) of its NPDES permit, "submit to EPA a reevaluation of its local limits based on a headworks analysis of its treatment plant within one (1) year of permit issuance, and . . . a sampling plan for collection of necessary data . . . within three (3) months of permit issuance. As the local limits reevaluation and sampling plan were to be submitted by April 28, 2023, and July 28, 2022, respectively, please submit these documents as soon as they are reasonably available. 2. 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(3) requires issued control mechanisms to contain effluent limits, based on applicable general pretreatment standards, categorical pretreatment standards, local limits, and state and local law. 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1) requires POTWs to operate pursuant to legal authority enforceable in Federal, State, or local courts. FINDING: BCWSA does not consistently apply applicable effluent limits; therefore, it is REQUIRED that the Authority apply all existing local limits within its issued permits. The Authority will need to revise and reissue permits where not all adopted local limits are currently applied. For example, the local limits for arsenic, beryllium, BOD, cyanide, mercury, selenium, total phenols, and total suspended solids are not applied in the permit issued to PH Tool, LLC. Section 2.4 of the BCWSA Industrial Wastewater Discharge and Pretreatment Rules states "[n]o person shall discharge wastewater containing in excess of the following instantaneous maximum allowable discharge limits". 35 of 45  The Authority will need to revise and reissue permits where effluent limits are less stringent than applicable existing local limits. For example, the permits for Acme Uniforms, Dow-Union Carbide, and Urban Outfitters, Inc. apply a limit for 5-day biochemical oxygen demand greater than the value of "300 mg/L" at Section 2.4 of the BCWSA Industrial Wastewater Discharge and Pretreatment Rules. o Overall, the Authority appears to be generally applying effluent limits that were previously applied in permits issued by the Borough of Bristol before acquisition of the POTW by the Authority. While it is allowable to apply limits which are more stringent than those currently adopted by the Authority, the Authority should not be enforcing the legal authority of a municipality unless there exists contracts or joint power agreements between the Authority and the Borough. o The table below compares the effluent limits applied in the permits issued by the Authority to the local limits listed at 2.4 of the BCWSA Industrial Wastewater Discharge and Pretreatment Rules and 18-202.4 of the Borough of Bristol, PA Rules and Regulations for the Introduction of Pollutants into the Sewer System. BCWSA effluent limits are shown in green, Bristol Borough in blue. Where effluent limits applied are less stringent than those adopted by the Authority, the values are indicated in bold red. Pollutant Ammonia Nitrogen Arsenic Beryllium 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand Cadmium Chemical Oxygen Demand Chromium Chromium, Hexavalent Cobalt Copper Cumene Cyanide Dichloromethane Lead Mercury Nickel Oil and Grease pH Phenols Selenium Silver BCWSA Acme Uniforms 4.23 0.1 Absent 2 Absent 300 600 0.5 0.5 1200 2 2 2 0.5 0.2 0.01 1 50 5 to 9 1 0.01 0.3 2 0.84 0.5 0.2 0.01 1 100 6 to 9 1 Absent DowUnion Carbide Absent Absent 600 1 1200 Absent 4 0.11 3 0.42 0.005 0.32 0.1 2.5 Absent Absent Absent PH Tool, LLC Absent Absent Absent 0.5 1 Urban Outfitters, Inc. 4.23 Absent Absent 1200 1 2400 4 Bristol Borough 4.23 600 1 1200 4 1 3 3 0.84 0.5 1 1 0.2 Absent 1 50 6 to 9 Absent 0.4 0.1 2.5 50 6 to 9 1 0.4 0.1 2.5 100 6 to 9 0.3 Absent 36 of 45 Sulfate Temperature Toluene Total Phosphorus Total Residual Chlorine Total Suspended Solids Total Toxic Organics 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene Zinc 600 <150F <150F <150F 0.028 15 15 2 2 300 300 600 Absent 1200 600 2.13 2.13 0.015 0.015 0.013 0.013 2 2 1.05 1 2.5 2.5 3. FINDING: BCWSA has improperly categorized the permitted SIU, PH Tool, LLC, therefore; it is REQUIRED that the Authority revise and reissue the control mechanism for PH Tool, LLC to reflect effluent limits per 40 CFR 433.17 "Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS)" "Metal Finishing Point Source Category", not "Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES)" under the same category. During the IU site visit of PH Tool, LLC on September 14, 2023, representatives of the SIU stated that the facility has been in operation for approximately nine years. Pursuant to 40 CFR 403.3(m)(1), the term "new source" means any "building, structure, facility or installation from which there is or may be Discharge of pollutants, the construction of which commenced after the publication of proposed Pretreatment Standards . . . which will be applicable to such source". With Subpart A of 40 CFR 433 having been published as proposed on July 15, 1983, the PSNS applies. 4. 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(3) requires issued control mechanisms to contain effluent limits, based on applicable general pretreatment standards, categorical pretreatment standards, local limits, and state and local law. FINDING: BCWSA improperly applies categorical pretreatment standards in permits issued to categorical industrial users; therefore, it is REQUIRED that the Authority, in addition to applying existing local limits, include daily maximum and monthly average categorical pretreatment standards where applicable. For example, the Authority will need to revise and reissue the permit for PH Tool, LLC to reflect application of all local limits and categorical PSNS for the metal finishing category as both types of effluent limits apply to the discharge of the CIU. 37 of 45 5. 40 CFR 403.6(e) allows POTWs (or IUs with concurrence of the POTW) to derive fixed alternative discharge limits when process effluent is mixed prior to treatment with wastewaters other than those generated by the regulated process. FINDING: Representatives of PH Tool, LLC indicated, during the IU site visit on September 14, 2023, that the SIU may be mixing reverse osmosis water with process water prior to discharge to the POTW; therefore, the combined wastestream formula may--if it is not already--be utilized in application of the categorical pretreatment standards (required to be revised to "PSNS for Metal Finishing"). Refer to 40 CFR 403.6(e) for guidance on utilizing the combined wastestream formula. 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(iii) requires POTWs to develop and implement procedures for notifying IUs of applicable pretreatment standards, such as categorical pretreatment standards. 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(3) requires these standards to be applied in the form of effluent limits in issued control mechanisms. C. CONTROL MECHANISM Attachment 3 provides the full "Control Mechanism Checklist" for the wastewater discharge permit issued to PH Tool, LLC. Whether a finding is required or recommended will be identified in this attachment. Where applicable, the corrective actions noted above should also be corrected in the PH Tool, LLC. industrial user discharge permit. Refer to the following for individual control mechanism required and recommended language: Sample Permit Fact Sheet and Industrial User Permit o https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/202107/appendix_e_samplepermitfactsheetandpermit_2012.pdf 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B) o https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-N/part-403#p403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B) 38 of 45 Provision Inappropriate signature by IU representative Statement of appeal rights Nontransferability Pollutants creating a fire or explosion hazard (140 F or 60 C) Heat in amounts inhibiting biological activity resulting in interference (40 C or 104 F at POTW) Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in amounts causing interference or pass through Pollutants resulting in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes causing acute worker health and safety problems Trucked or hauled pollutants, except as designated Medical wastes Failure of a toxicity test Surfactants Applicable effluent limits Upset Bypass Finding Inconsistent Absent Inconsistent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Corrective Action Remove; refer to Section X., Subsection C. Control Mechanism. Add; refer to section 5.3(B) of the Model SUO. Add a requirement to provide a copy of the existing control mechanism to the new owner or operator. Additionally, the statement of "[t]his permit is not transferrable" is inconsistent with Section K of the permit issued to PH Tool, LLC. Add; cite 40 CFR 403.5(b)(1). Add; cite 40 CFR 403.5(b)(5). Add; cite 40 CFR 403.5(b)(6). Add; cite 40 CFR 403.5(b)(7). Add; cite BCWSA Rules 2.1(B)(8). Add; cite BCWSA Rules 2.1(B)(14). Add; cite BCWSA Rules 2.1(B)(15). Add; cite BCWSA Rules 2.1(B)(16). Add; refer to Section X., Subsection B. Application of Standards. Add; cite 40 CFR 403.16. Add; cite 40 CFR 403.17. 39 of 45 Sampling frequency Sampling location Sample types (grab or composite) Representative sampling Reporting requirements Requirement to submit more frequent than required monitoring Statement of applicable civil and criminal penalties Notice of potential problems, including slugs Notification of change affecting the potential for a slug discharge 24-hour notification of violation and resample requirement Discharge of hazardous waste notification Inconsistent Vague Vague Absent Absent Absent Inconsistent Inconsistent Absent Absent Absent Add; sampling frequency should be listed in line with respective pollutant and effluent limitation. Additionally, the sampling frequency for pH is not indicated. Sampling location should be described sufficiently to be identifiable by any individual. Sample type should be listed in line with respective pollutant and effluent limitation. Add; cite 40 CFR 403.12(b)(5)(ii). Add; cite 40 CFR 403.12. Add; cite 40 CFR 403.12(g)(6). Refer to Section X., Subsection A. BCWSA Rules 11.2(A) erroneously omits a maximum civil penalty value. Add; cite 40 CFR 403.12(f). Add; cite 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vi). Add; cite 40 CFR 403.12(g)(2). Add; cite 40 CFR 403.12(p)(1). 1. 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B) requires issued control mechanisms to be enforceable in accordance with federal, state, and local law. FINDING: BCWSA does not maintain consistent issued permits; therefore, it is REQUIRED that the Authority ensure all permits issued are consistent with and are as stringent as the General Pretreatment Regulations, its Industrial Wastewater Discharge and Pretreatment Rules, and applicable state law. The permits issued to the IUs discharging to the Bristol POTW differ significantly from those issued to the IU discharging to the Harvey Avenue POTW. It is recommended that the Authority utilize a single template permit document in issuance of permits in the future. 2. FINDING: BCWSA requires applicants to sign issued wastewater discharge permits; 40 of 45 therefore, it is REQUIRED that the Authority remove this requirement or state clearly that a signature is merely an acknowledgement of having received the permit and in no way indicates that, by signing, the permittee agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of the permit. As referenced from the Industrial User Permitting Guidance Manual, such a statement could, depending on the circumstances, be misconstrued as changing the legal nature of the document from a permit to a contractual agreement; thereby affecting the interpretations and enforceability of the terms and conditions of the permit. The use of contracts or contractual agreements as a control mechanism does not provide a POTW with the requisite penalty authority for an approved program and are not an adequate control mechanism for POTWs with an approved program. A control mechanism signed by the permittee may be deemed a contract and thus lose its effectiveness as a control mechanism. 3. FINDING: BCWSA requires an obligation of the Authority within its issued permits; therefore, it is REQUIRED that the Authority revise and reissue the permits issued to Acme Uniforms and Urban Outfitters, Inc. to remove this language. The "Facility Inspection" section of each permit states that "[a] facility inspection shall be conducted annually by BCWSA or its consulting engineer". An obligation of the Authority within a permit could, depending on the depending on the circumstances, be misconstrued as changing the legal nature of the document from a permit to a contractual agreement; thereby affecting the interpretations and enforceability of the terms and conditions of the permit. 4. Pursuant to 40 CFR 403.12(h), the POTW must require appropriate reporting from those industrial users with discharges not subject to categorical pretreatment standards. Significant non-categorical industrial users must submit to the POTW at least once every six months (or dates specified by the POTW) a description of the nature, concentration, and flow of pollutants required to be reported by the POTW. FINDING: BCWSA requires sampling inconsistently within its issued permits; therefore, it is REQUIRED that the Authority revise and reissue the permits issued to Acme Uniforms and Urban Outfitters, Inc. to reflect required sampling. a. Effluent limits for 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, phenols, and temperature are applied in each permit, but no accompanying requirement to sample and report for these pollutants is indicated. b. An effluent limit for total toxic organics is applied in the permit issued to Acme Uniforms, Inc., but no accompanying requirement to sample and report for this pollutant is indicated. Additionally, the Authority should ensure that all issued permits incorporate required sampling and reporting for pollutants with applied limits. 5. 40 CFR 403.12(g)(3) requires the measurement of pollutants to be taken via grab sampling for pH, cyanide, total phenols, oil and grease, sulfide, and volatile compounds. For all other pollutants, 24-hour composite samples must be obtained. FINDING: BCWSA improperly designates sample types within its issued permits; therefore, it is REQUIRED that the Authority revise and reissue the permits issued to 41 of 45 Acme Uniforms and Urban Outfitters, Inc. to reflect appropriate sample types. o Composite samples are required for cyanide. The sample type must be grab. o Grab samples are required for total phosphorus. The sample type should be 24hour composite unless authorized by the Authority. Additionally, the Authority should ensure that all issued permits apply appropriate sample types. 6. FINDING: BCWSA incorporates inconsistent slug control plan development requirements within its issued permits; therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that the Authority revise and reissue the permits issued to Acme Uniforms and Urban Outfitters, Inc. to modify this language. Section G of the permits states "[t]he Permittee shall maintain and implement a spill/slug control plan", but Section E states "[t]he permittee may be required to develop a plan to control slug discharges". The first statement is mandatory, the second is permissive. The Authority should incorporate appropriate language dependent on the permitted IU being evaluated to develop a slug control plan. 7. 40 CFR 403.12(b)(7) defines the term compliance schedule as a schedule of additional pretreatment and/or operation and maintenance required to meet pretreatment standards. 40 CFR 403.3(e) defines the term best management practice as a schedule of activities, prohibitions or practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to implement the general and specific prohibitions. BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw materials storage. FINDING: BCWSA improperly applies the definition of a compliance schedule in its issued permits; therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that the Authority revise and reissue the permit issued to Acme Uniforms to incorporate a best management practice. Section F of the permit includes a "compliance schedule" requiring the "[p]ermittee . . . not leave manholes associated with the onsite oil-water seperator open and unattended". This condition as a best management practice would be better suited for the intended effects. D. COMPLIANCE MONITORING 1. 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v) requires POTWs to inspect and sample the effluent from each significant industrial user at least once a year. FINDING: As of September 13, 2023, BCWSA indicates one out of three significant industrial users have been sampling and two out of three SIUs have been inspected during the 2023 reporting year; therefore, it is REQUIRED that the Authority sample (Acme Uniforms and Urban Outfitters, Inc.) and inspect (Urban Outfitters, Inc.) the remaining SIUs prior to the end of the reporting year. 2. 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v) requires POTWs to randomly sample and analyze the effluent from industrial users and conduct surveillance activities in order to identify, independent of information supplied by industrial users, occasional and continuing noncompliance with 42 of 45 pretreatment standards (e.g., local limits). FINDING: Sampling of IUs conducted by the BCWSA's contractor is incomplete; therefore, it is REQUIRED that the Authority ensure sampling done on its behalf includes all pollutant parameters with applicable pretreatment standards. For example, the monitoring report indicating sampling done on PH Tool, LLC does not include samples or analysis for silver or pesticides as part of TTO: Dieldrin Chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites) 4,4-DDT 4,4-DDE (p,p-DDX) 4,4-DDD (p,p-TDE) Alpha-endosulfan Beta-endosulfan Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide (BHC-hexachloro cyclohexane) Alpha-BHC Beta-BHC Gamma-BHC Delta-BHC (PCB-polychlorinated biphenyls) PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242) PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254) PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221) PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232) PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248) PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260) PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016) Toxaphene 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 3. 40 CFR 403.12(l) requires that reports submitted by industrial users "shall be signed". Under current interpretation, a signed report means those with a certified, nonelectronic, "wet" ink signature. Pursuant to 40 CFR 3.1000(a), "[a] state, tribe, or local government that receives or plans to begin receiving electronic documents in lieu of paper documents to satisfy requirements under an authorized program must revise or modify such authorized program to ensure that it meets the requirements of [40 CFR Part 3, Subpart D]". FINDING: BCWSA accepts reports and certifications of non-significant categorical industrial user status from certain industrial users primarily in electronic format without 43 of 45 CROMERR approval; therefore, it is REQUIRED that the Authority accept the submittal of reports in paper format until such time that CSB is approved under the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR). Note, the Authority may receive electronic submissions so long as they are duplicative to an original paper format with "wet" ink signature where necessary. For more information on CROMERR, you may navigate to: https://www.epa.gov/cromerr 4. FINDING: Based on observations made during the IU site visit of PH Tool, LLC on September 14, 2023, it is RECOMMENDED that the Authority ensure the IU is using unexpired pH buffer solutions or is relabeling containers with transferred solution to reflect the expiration date of the solution. E. ENFORCEMENT 1. 40 CFR 403.8(f)(5) requires POTWs with approved pretreatment programs to develop and implement an enforcement response plan. This plan must contain detailed procedures indicating how a POTW will investigate and respond to instances of industrial user noncompliance. At a minimum, this plan must: (i) Describe how the POTW will investigate instances of noncompliance; (ii) Describe the types of escalating enforcement responses the POTW will take in response to all anticipated types of industrial user violations and the time periods within which responses will take place; (iii) Identify (by title) the official(s) responsible for each type of response; (iv) Adequately reflect the POTW's primary responsibility to enforce all applicable pretreatment requirements and standards, as detailed in 40 CFR 403.8 (f)(1) and (f)(2)." FINDING: BCWSA does not maintain a formal enforcement response plan; therefore, it is REQUIRED that the Authority develop and implement an enforcement response plan in accordance with those minimum components above. This plan should be submitted to EPA for review and approval. Refer to Guidance for Development Control Authority Enforcement Response Plans (https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/202107/owm0015.pdf). 2. FINDING: Several exceedances of the mercury influent goal at the Harvey Avenue POTW (maximum allowable headworks concentration) are noted during 2018-2022; therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that BCWSA investigate the cause(s) of these exceedances. On September 13, 2023, BCWSA stated during the audit interview that these exceedances may be due to a jewelry business in the service area of Harvey Avenue POTW. F. DATA MANAGEMENT 44 of 45 1. 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(i) requires POTWs to identify and locate of all IUs that might be subject to the pretreatment program. 40 CFR 403.8(f)(6) requires this list to be maintained and any modifications made to it to be submitted to EPA. FINDING: BCWSA indicates on the document titled "Central Bucks IUs" that the most recent industrial waste survey was completed in 2018; therefore, it is REQUIRED that the Authority implement a system to ensure this IU inventory is updated as needed and independent of submitted questionnaires from IUs. Further, it is REQUIRED that BCWSA determine whether any IU marked as "TDB" is considered a significant industrial user pursuant to 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2). 2. 40 CFR 403.12(b)(5)(ii) requires IUs to submit the results of sampling and analysis identifying the nature and concentration of regulated pollutants in the discharge from each regulated process. FINDING: BCWSA does not implement a mechanism to verify that reports submitted by IUs include all sample results if the IU elects to sample more frequently than required; therefore, it is REQUIRED that the Authority verify and continue to verify IUs submit all sample results if or when additional sampling is done. G. PROGRAM RESOURCES 1. 40 CFR 403.8(f)(3) requires POTWs to have sufficient resources and qualified personnel to carry out the legal authority and procedures of the pretreatment program. FINDING: BCWSA allocates zero full-time employees to the implementation of its pretreatment program; therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that the Authority pursue allocation of dedicated staffing towards the implementation of the pretreatment program or contractor support. Attachments Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 POTW Legal Authority Review Checklist File Review Worksheets 2.1 - Control Mechanism Worksheet 2.2 - Sampling Worksheet 2.3 - Enforcement Worksheet Control Mechanism Checklist PH Tool, LLC IU Site Visit Report 4.1 - PH Tool, LLC 4.2 - Dow-Union Carbide Audit Action Items Checklist 45 of 45 Attachment 1: POTW LEGAL AUTHORITY REVIEW CHECKLIST NAME OF CONTROL AUTHORITY: NPDES #s: DATE OF REVIEW: MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE CITATION: Bucks County Water & Sewer Authority PA0021172 (Harvey Avenue) PA0021181 (Green Street) PA0027294 (Bristol) PA0029441 (Upper Dublin) PA0051250 (Kings Plaza) PA0053449 (Birmingham) PA0056758 (Tradesville) 07/17/2023 Industrial Wastewater Discharge and Pretreatment Rules, revised February 2021 NONE = No revision necessary REQ = Require Revision A. Definitions [403.3 & 403.8(f)(2)] 1. Act, Clean Water Act 2. Authorized or Duly Authorized Representative of the User 3. Best Management Practices or BMPs 4. Categorical Pretreatment Standard or Categorical Standard 5. Indirect Discharge or Discharge 6. Industrial User (or equivalent) 7. Interference 8. National Pretreatment Standard, Pretreatment Standard or Standard 9. New Source 10. Pass Through Part 403 Citation 403.3(b) 403.12(l) 403.3(e) 403.3(i) 403.3(j) 403.3(k) 403.3(l) 403.3(m) 403.3(p) REC = Recommend Revision Model REVISIONS SUO Section NONE REQ REC 1.4 A X 1.4 C X 1.4 E X 1.4 F X 1.4 M X 1.4 LL X 1.4 O X 1.4 BB X 1.4 T X 1.4 V X 1 POTW Ordinance Section 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 Comments / Notes 11. Pretreatment Requirement 403.3(t) 1.4 AA 12. Publicly Owned Treatment Works or POTW 403.3(q) 1.4 DD X 13. Significant Industrial User 403.3(v) 1.4 GG [NOTE: 1.4 GG(3) is an optional streamlining provision for Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User classification.] 14. Significant Noncompliance 403.8(f)(2)(vii) 9 (A-H) X X 1.4 Typo: "substance" instead of "substantive" 1.4 X 1.4 40 CFR 403.8(f)(6) referenced applies only to categorical industrial users 1.4 2 NONE = No revision necessary 15. Slug Load or Slug Discharge 16. Other definitions based on terms used in the POTW Ordinance B. National Pretreatment Standards - Prohibited Discharges 1. General Prohibitions a. Interference b. Pass Through 2. Specific Prohibitions [403.5(b)] a. Fire/Explosion Hazard (60 C or 140 F flashpoint) b. pH/Corrosion c. Solid or Viscous/Obstruction d. Flow Rate/Concentration (BOD, etc.) e. Heat; exceeds 40 C (104F) f. Petroleum/Nonbiodegradable Cutting/Mineral Oils g. Toxic Gases/Vapor/Fumes h. Trucked/Hauled Waste REQ = Require Revision Part 403 Citation 403.8(f)(2)(vi) Model SUO Section 1.4 HH REC = Recommend Revision REVISIONS NONE REQ REC X 403.5(a) 2.1A X 403.5(a) 2.1A X 403.5(b)(1) 2.1B(1) X 403.5(b)(2) 2.1B(2) X 403.5(b)(3) 2.1B(3) X 403.5(b)(4) 2.1B(4) X 403.5(b)(5) 2.1B(5) X 403.5(b)(6) 2.1B(6) X 403.5(b)(7) 2.1B(7) X 403.5(b)(8) 2.1B(8) X POTW Ordinance Section 1.4 Comments / Notes 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 Complete prohibition on hauled waste 3 NONE = No revision necessary REQ = Require Revision 3. National Categorical Standards 4. Local Limits Development [NOTE: POTWs may develop Best Management Practices (BMPs) to implement the prohibitions listed in 40 CFR 403.5(a)(1). Such BMPs shall be considered local limits and Pretreatment Standards.] 5. Prohibition Against Dilution as Treatment 6. Best Management Practices Development [NOTE: Optional streamlining provision.] C. Control Discharges to POTW System 1. Deny/Condition New or Increased Contributions 2. Individual Control Mechanism (e.g., permit) to ensure compliance - Permit Content a. Statement of Duration b. Statement of Nontransferability c. Effluent Limits Part 403 Citation 403.8(f)(1)(ii) 403.5(c) & (d) 403.6(d) 403.5(c)(4) 403.8(f)(1)(i) 403.8(f)(1)(iii) 403.8(f)(1)(B) (1) 403.8(f)(1)(B) (2) 403.8(f)(1)(B) (3) Model SUO Section 2.2 2.4 REC = Recommend Revision REVISIONS NONE REQ REC X X 2.6 X 2.4C X 4.8 & X 5.2 4.2 X 5.1 & X 5.2A(1) 5.2A(2) X 5.2A(3) X POTW Ordinance Section 2.2 2.4 2.6 N/A 4.7, 5.2 4.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 Comments / Notes 4 NONE = No revision necessary REQ = Require Revision d. Best Management Practices [NOTE: This is a required streamlining provision for CIUs with BMP requirements as part of its Categorical Standards. But if BMPs are being applied to other CIUs or noncategorical SIUs without categorical BMP requirements, then this provision would be optional and is only required if the POTW has incorporated the use of BMPs ( 2.4 C).] e. Self-Monitoring Requirements f. Reporting & Notification Requirements g. Recordkeeping Requirements h. Process for Seeking a Waiver for Pollutants Not Present or Expected to be Present [NOTE: Optional streamlining provision. Required only if the POTW has incorporated 6.4B o the Model SUO.] i. Statement of Applicable Civil and Criminal Penalties j. Slug Discharge Requirements (if necessary) [NOTE: Required streamlining change. Where the POTW has determined that slug controls are necessary, the ordinance must provide authority Part 403 Citation 403.8(f)(1)(B) (3) 403.8(f)(1)(B) (4) 403.8(f)(1)(B) (4) 403.8(f)(1)(B) (4) 403.8(f)(1)(B) (4) & 403.12(e) (2) 403.8(f)(1)(B) (5) 403.8(f)(1)(B) (6) Model SUO Section 5.2A(3) REC = Recommend Revision REVISIONS NONE REQ REC X 5.2A(4) X 5.2A(4) X 5.2A(4) X 5.2A(5) X 5.2A(6) X 5.2A(7) X POTW Ordinance Section 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 N/A 5.2 5.2 Comments / Notes 5 for the POTW to include such requirements in IU permits.] 6 NONE = No revision necessary REQ = Require Revision k. Specific waived pollutant [NOTE: Optional streamlining provision. Required only if the POTW has incorporated 6.4B of the Model SUO.] l. Permit Application/Reapplication Requirements [NOTE: Optional permit provision] m. Permit Modification [NOTE: Optional permit provision] n. Permit Revocation/Termination [NOTE: Optional permit provision] o. Proper Operation and Maintenance [NOTE: Optional permit provision] p. Duty of Halt/Reduce [NOTE: Optional permit provision] q. Requirement to submit Chain-of-Custody forms with monitoring data [NOTE: Optional permit provision] 3. General Control Mechanism to ensure compliance [NOTE: Optional streamlining provision. Required only if the POTW has incorporated the use of General Permits ( 4.6 of the Model SUO).] - Permit Content Part 403 Citation 403.8(f)(1)(B) (4) 403.8(f)(1)(iii) (A) Model SUO Section 5.2A(8) REC = Recommend Revision REVISIONS NONE REQ REC X 5.3 & X 5.7 5.4 X 5.6 & X 10.8 3.1 X 10.7 X X 4.2 & X 4.6 POTW Ordinance Section N/A 5.3 5.4 5.6 3.1 10.7 N/A N/A Comments / Notes 7 NONE = No revision necessary D. Required Reports REQ = Require Revision Part 403 Citation Model SUO Section REC = Recommend Revision REVISIONS None REQ REC POTW Ordinance Section Comments / Notes 1. Develop compliance schedule for installation 403.8(f)(1)(iv) 5.2b(2) X of technology & 10.4 2. Reporting Requirements [403.12] Types of Reports a. Baseline monitoring report 403.12(b) 6.1 X (i) Identifying Information 403.12(b)(1) 6.1B(1) X & 4.5A(1)a (ii) Other Environmental Permits Held 403.12(b)(2) 6.1B(1) X & 4.5A(2) (iii) Description of operations 403.12(b)(3) 6.1B(1) X & 4.5A(3)a (iv) Flow measurements 403.12(b)(4) X 6.1(b)(2) & 4.5A(6) (v) Measurement of pollutants 403.12(b)(5) 6.1B(2) X (vi) Certification 403.12(b)(6) 6.1B(3) X (vii) Compliance schedule 403.12(b)(7) 6.1B(4) X b. Compliance schedule progress report 403.12(c) 6.2 X c. Report on compliance with categorical 403.12(d) 6.3 X Pretreatment Standard deadline d. Periodic reports on continued compliance - From categorical users 403.12(e) 6.4A X - From significant non-categorical users 403.12(h) 6.4A X 8 5.2, 10.4 Partially absent 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 Partially absent 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.4 NONE = No revision necessary REQ = Require Revision e. Notice of potential problems to be reported immediately (including slug loads) f. Notification of changes affecting potential for a slug discharge [NOTE: Required streamlining revision] g. Notice of violation/sampling requirement [NOTE: Required streamlining revision.] h. Requirement to conduct representative sampling i. Notification of changed discharge j. Notification of discharge of hazardous waste Other Reporting Requirements k. Data accuracy certification & authorized signatory l. Recordkeeping Requirement (3 years or longer) Part 403 Citation 403.12(f) 403.8(f)(2)(vi) 403.12(g)(2) 403.12(g)(3) 403.12(j) 403.12(p) 403.6(a)(2)(ii) & 403.12(l) 403.12(o) Model SUO Section 6.6 REC = Recommend Revision REVISIONS NONE REQ REC X 6.5 & X 6.6 6.8 X 6.4E X 6.5 X 6.9 X 6.4D & X 6.14 6.13 X - Including documentation associated 403.12(o) 6.13 X with Best Management Practices [NOTE: Required streamlining provision.] m. Submission of all monitoring data 403.12(g)(6) 6.4F X [NOTE: Required streamlining revision] n. Annual certification by Non-significant 403.3(v)(2) 4.7C & X categorical Industrial Users 6.14B [NOTE: Optional provision, required only if the POTW has incorporated 1.4GG(3) of the Model SUO.] 9 POTW Ordinance Section 6.7 Comments / Notes 6.7 Absent 6.8 6.5 6.6 N/A 4.7, 6.4 6.12 6.12 Not only compliance records 6.4 1.4 NONE = No revision necessary REQ = Require Revision o. Certification of pollutant not present [NOTE: Optional provision, required only if the POTW has incorporated 6.4 B of the Model SUO] E. Test Procedures [40 CFR Part 136 & 403.12(g)] 1. Analytical procedures (40 CFR Part 136) [NOTE: Required streamlining provisions] 2. Sample collection procedures [NOTE: Required streamlining provisions] F. Inspection and Monitoring Procedures [403.8(f)] 1. Right to enter all parts of the facility at reasonable times 2. Right to inspect generally for compliance 3. Right to take independent samples 4. Right to require installation of monitoring Equipment 5. Right to inspect and copy records G. Remedies for Non-compliance (Enforcement) [403.8(f)(1)(vi)] 1. Non-emergency response a. Injunctive relief b. Civil/Criminal penalties Part 403 Citation 403.12(e)(2)(v ) 403.12(g) 403.12(g)(3) & (4) 403.8(f)(1)(v) 403.8(f)(1)(v) 403.8(f)(1)(v), 403.8(f)(2)(v) & 403.8(f)(2)(vii) 403.8(f)(1)(iv) 403.12(o)(2) 403.8(f)(1)(vi) 403.8(f)(1)(vi) Model SUO Section 6.14C REC = Recommend Revision REVISIONS NONE REQ REC X 6.10 6.11 X X 7.1 X 7.1 X 7.1 X 7.1 X 7.1 X 11.1 11.2 & 11.3 X X POTW Ordinance Section N/A Comments / Notes 6.9 6.10 Partially absent 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 11.1 11.2, 11.3 Typos Civil penalty amount is omitted 10 NONE = No revision necessary REQ = Require Revision 2. Emergency response a. Immediately halt actual/threatened discharged 3. Legal authority to enforce Enforcement Response Plan H. Public Participation 1. Publish list of Industrial Users in Significant Noncompliance [NOTE: Required streamlining revision] 2. Access to data [403.8(f)(1)(vii) & 403.14] a. Government b. Public I. Optional Provisions Part 403 Citation 403.8(f)(1)(vi) (B) 403.8(f)(1)(vi) 403.8(f)(2)(viii ) 403.14(a) & (c) 403.14(b) REC = Recommend Revision Model SUO REVISIONS Section NONE REQ REC 10.7 X 11.4 X 9 X 8 X 8 X 1. Net/Gross adjustments [streamlining 403.15 2.2 D X provision] 2. Equivalent mass limits for concentration 403.6(c) 2.2 E X limits [streamlining provision] 3. Equivalent concentration limits for mass 403.6(c) 2.2 F X limits [streamlining provision] 4. Upset Notification 403.16 13.1 X 5. Waive monitoring for pollutant not present 403.12(e)(2) 6.4B X or expected to the present [streamlining provision] 6. Reduce periodic compliance 403.12(e)(3) 6.4C X 11 POTW Ordinance Section Comments / Notes 10.7 11.4 9 8 8 2.2 2.2 Model SUO 2.2(E)(3)(c) is erroneously duplicated to BCWSA Rules 2.2(E)(a) 2.2 12.1 N/A N/A reporting [streamlining provision] 7. Other special agreement or waivers (excluding wavier of National Categorical Pretreatment Standards and Requirements) 12 NONE = No revision necessary REQ = Require Revision 8. Hauled Waste Reporting/Requirements 9. Grease Interceptor Reporting/Requirements 10. Authority to issue Notice of Violations (NOVs) 11. Authority to issue Administrative Orders (AOs) 12. Authority to issue Administrative Penalties 13. Authority to enforce again falsification or tempering 14. Any other supplemental enforcement actions as noted in the POTW's enforcement response plan 15. Permit Appeals Procedures 16. Penalty or Enforcement Appeals Procedures 17. Bypass Notification Part 403 Citation 403.17 Model SUO Section 3.4 3.2 C 10.1 REC = Recommend Revision REVISIONS NONE REQ REC X X X X 10.6 X X 13.3 X X X POTW Ordinance Section N/A 3.2 10.1 Comments / Notes Prohibited 10.4, 10.5 10.6 11.3 5.3 10.6 12.3 Typo: "could not reasonably be expected to occur" to "can be" Document(s) submitted for review: Industrial Wastewater Discharge and Pretreatment Rules, revised February 2021 Name of Reviewer: Aron Possler 13 INDUSTRY NAME PERMIT EFFECTIVE DATE PARAMETER LOCAL LIMITS Arsenic Beryllium BOD Cadmium Chromium Copper Cyanide Lead Mercury Nickel Oil and Grease Selenium Silver Phenols, Total TSS Zinc (0.1 mg/L) (2.0 mg/L) (300 mg/L) 0.5 mg/L (2.0 mg/L) (2.0 mg/L) 0.5 mg/L 0.2 mg/L (0.01 mg/L) 1.0 mg/L 50.0 mg/L (0.01 mg/L) 0.3 mg/L (1.0 mg/L) (300 mg/L) (2.0 mg/L) Attachment 2: CONTROL MECHANISM WORKSHEET 02/28/2021 CATEGORICAL STANDARD MONTHLY AVERAGE DAILY MAXIMUM PH Tool, LLC PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE PERMIT LIMIT MONTHLY AVERAGE DAILY MAXIMUM 0.07 mg/L 1.71 mg/L 2.07 mg/L 0.65 mg/L 0.43 mg/L 2.38 mg/L 0.11 mg/L 2.77 mg/L 3.38 mg/L 1.20 mg/L 0.69 mg/L 3.98 mg/L 0.24 mg/L 0.43 mg/L None None None None None None None None 0.5 mg/L 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L 0.5 mg/L 0.2 mg/L 1.0 mg/L 50 mg/L 0.3 mg/L 1.48 mg/L 2.61 mg/L None 1.0 mg/L 2/28/2024 REQUIRED SAMPLE TYPE REQUIRED SAMPLE FREQUENCY Grab 1x/yr Grab 1x/yr Grab 1x/yr Grab 1x/yr Grab 1x/yr Grab 1x/yr Grab 1x/yr Grab 1x/yr Grab 1x/yr INDUSTRY NAME PERMIT EFFECTIVE DATE PARAMETER LOCAL LIMITS Total Toxic Organics pH Temperature 02/28/2021 CATEGORICAL STANDARD MONTHLY AVERAGE DAILY MAXIMUM 2.13 mg/L PH Tool, LLC PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE PERMIT LIMIT MONTHLY AVERAGE DAILY MAXIMUM None 2.13 mg/L None None 6.0-9.0 150F 2/28/2024 REQUIRED SAMPLE TYPE REQUIRED SAMPLE FREQUENCY Grab 1x/yr Grab Not specified Grab 1x/yr INDUSTRY NAME DATE SAMPLE COLLECTED 11/14/2022 11/14/2022 POLLUTANTS NOT SAMPLED Silver TTO Pesticides IS THIS A RESAMPLE? N N N REPORT DUE DATE Attachment 2.2: SAMPLING WORKSHEET PH Tool, LLC CONTROL AUTHORITY MONITORING VIOLATIONS? (Y/N/PARAMETER) DATE SAMPLE COLLECTED POLLUTANTS NOT SAMPLED N N INDUSTRIAL USER SELF-MONITORING REPORT RECEIVED SAMPLE DATE(S) POLLUTANTS NOT SAMPLED 4/21/2021 3/9/2021 N/A 4/26/2022 3/21/2022 N/A 4/27/2023 4/11/2023 N/A VIOLATIONS? (Y/N/PARAMETER) VIOLATIONS? (Y/N/PARAMETER) N N N INDUSTRY NAME DATE OF VIOLATION TYPE OF VIOLATION N/A Attachment 2.3: ENFORCEMENT WORKSHEET TYPE OF ACTION AND DATE PH Tool, LLC ERP REQUIRED RESPONSE IU RESPONSE DATE DATE COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED Attachment 3: CONTROL MECHANISM CHECKLIST PH Tool, LLC Control Mechanism Provision 40 CFR Citation Appropriate signature by POTW representative Inappropriate signature by IU representative POTW legal authority citation Identification of discharge authorized Statement of appeal rights Requirement to reapply prior to expiration Statement of duration (5 years) Statement of nontransferability without prior notification or approval Specific prohibitions Pollutants creating a fire or explosion hazard (140 F or 60 C) Pollutants causing corrosive structural damage (pH <5.0) Solids or viscous pollutants causing interference Pollutants discharged at flow rates causing interference Heat in amounts inhibiting biological activity resulting in interference (40 C or 104 F at POTW) Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in amounts causing interference or pass through Pollutants resulting in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes causing acute worker health and safety problems Trucked or hauled pollutants, except as designated 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(1) 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(2) 403.5(b)(1) 403.5(b)(2) 403.5(b)(3) 403.5(b)(4) 403.5(b)(5) 403.5(b)(6) 403.5(b)(7) 403.5(b)(8) Corrective Action None Rec. Req. Reference X pg. 1 X pg. 1 X pg. 1 X pg. 1 X X pg. 6 X pg. 1 X pg. 5 X X pg. 2 X pg. 2 X pg. 3 X X X X  Medical wastes X Failure of a toxicity test X Surfactants X Applicable effluent limits Local limits 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(3) X Exhibit A Categorical standards 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(3) X Exhibit A Best management practices 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(3) X Upset 403.16 X Bypass 403.17 X Identification of pollutants to be monitored 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(4) X Exhibit A Sampling frequency 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(4) X pg. 7 Sampling location 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(4) X pg. 7 Sample types (grab or composite) Use of 40 CFR 136 analytical methods Representative sampling 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(4) 403.12(b)(5)(v) & X 403.12(h) 403.12(g)(3) X pg. 7 pg. 7 X Reporting requirements 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(4) Best management practice compliance 403.12(b)(5)(ii) & X reports 403.12(h) Requirement to submit more frequent than required monitoring 403.12(g)(6) Record-keeping requirements (e.g., retain monitoring for 3 years) 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(4) & X 403.12(o) Analytical reports X X pg. 4 Sample date 403.12(o)(1)(i) X IDMR Sample place 403.12(o)(1)(i) X IDMR Sample method 403.12(o)(1)(i) X IDMR Sample time 403.12(o)(1)(i) X IDMR  Name of sample collector 403.12(o)(1)(i) X Analysis date 403.12(o)(1)(ii) X Name of sample analyst 403.12(o)(1)(iii) X Analytical results 403.12(o)(1)(v) X Statement of applicable civil and criminal 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(5) X penalties Compliance schedules or progress reports (if 403.8(f)(1)(iv) X applicable) Notice of potential problems, including slug loading 403.12(f) Notification of significant change in discharge 403.12(j) X Notification of change affecting the potential for a slug discharge 24-hour notification of violation and resample requirement 403.8(f)(2)(vi) 403.12(g)(2) Discharge of hazardous waste notification 403.12(p)(1) Requirements to control slug discharges, if determined by the POTW to be necessary 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(6) & X 403.8(f)(2)(vi) Right of entry 403.8(f)(1)(v) X Dilution as a substitute for treatment 403.6(d) X prohibition IDMR IDMR IDMR IDMR pg. 5 X pg. 4 X X X pg. 4 pg. 4 pg. 4 Date: Industry name: Address: Attachment 4.1: IU SITE VISIT REPORT 9/14/2023 Time: PH Tool, LLC 6021 Easton Road, Pipersville, PA 18947 9:15 AM Contact name(s) Title Phone Jeff Malosiecki Manufacturing, Director (267) 203-1600 Chris Senf Facilities/Shipping, Manager (267) 203-1600 Jeffrey Barndt Foreman (CNC Department) (267) 203-1600 Persons conducting visit: Name Title Affiliation Aron Possler Life Scientist U.S. EPA Region 3 Natalie Sanchez-Gonzalez Life Scientist U.S. EPA Region 3 Ryan Shuart Life Scientist U.S. EPA Region 3 Sarah Maurer Life Scientist U.S. EPA Region 3 Patrick Woolford Attorney-Adviser U.S. EPA Region 3 Rachel Stasik Engineering Technician BCWSA Purpose for visit: Observed inspection by Bucks County Water & Sewer Authority. Brief facility description: Electroless nickel plating for steel parts. Comments/Findings: Refer to Section X: Findings, Requirements, and Recommendations of the POTW Pretreatment Program Audit Report. Date: Industry name: Address: Attachment 4.2: IU SITE VISIT REPORT 9/14/2023 Time: Dow-Union Carbide 310 George Patterson Boulevard, Bristol, PA 19007 1:11 PM Contact name(s) Title Phone Ron Mazzoni N/A N/A Javier Rosado N/A N/A Peter Flook N/A N/A Persons conducting visit: Name Title Affiliation Aron Possler Life Scientist U.S. EPA Region 3 Natalie Sanchez-Gonzalez Life Scientist U.S. EPA Region 3 Ryan Shuart Life Scientist U.S. EPA Region 3 Sarah Maurer Life Scientist U.S. EPA Region 3 Rachel Stasik Engineering Technician BCWSA Purpose for visit: Observed inspection by Bucks County Water & Sewer Authority. Brief facility description: Research and development of the production of resins and plastic coatings. Comments/Findings: Refer to Section X: Findings, Requirements, and Recommendations of the POTW Pretreatment Program Audit Report. Attachment 5: AUDIT ACTION ITEMS -- Bucks County Water & Sewer Authority (BCWSA) Audit Date -- 9/13/2023-9/14/2023 Findings Several required and recommended revisions to CSB's sewer use ordinance. Refer to Section X, Subsection A and Attachment 1 of the audit report. Standard pretreatment conditions are not in all NPDES permits issued to POTWs owned and operated by BCWSA. Not all intermunicipal agreements may be in place. PH Tool, LLC is improperly classified as a MTCIU. Dow-Union Carbide is improperly classified as a NSCIU. Bucks County Jail may meet the definition of an SIU, and, accordingly, may need permitted. Sampling plan has not been received. Status Legal Authority Application of Standards Completion Date (Estimate) 1 of 4 Findings Local limits reevaluation has not been received. Not all local limits are applied in issued permits. PH Tool, LLC is improperly categorized under the PSES Metal Finishing Point Source Category. Categorical pretreatment standards are not applied in addition to local limits in issued permits. Combined wastestream formula may be utilized in application of categorical pretreatment standards for PH Tool, LLC. Several required and recommended revisions to the wastewater discharge permit template. Refer to Section X, Subsection C and Attachment 3 of the audit report. Wastewater discharge permits are not consistent across permitted IUs. Wastewater discharge permits are required to be signed by the applicant. Status Control Mechanism 2 of 4 Completion Date (Estimate) Findings An obligation of BCWSA is included in issued permits. Required sampling is inconsistent with applied effluent limits. Sample types are improperly designated. Slug control plan development requirements are inconsistent. Acme Uniforms: Definition of compliance schedule is improperly applied. Not all SIUs have been inspected or sampled. Sampling by BCWSA is not conducted for all pollutants limited in issued permits. Reports are accepted primarily in electronic format. PH Tool, LLC: Expired buffer solutions may have been used. A formal ERP is not maintained. Status Compliance Monitoring Enforcement 3 of 4 Completion Date (Estimate) Findings Repeated exceedances of the mercury influent goal at the Harvey Avenue POTW are noted. Existing IU inventory may not be up to date. Potential sampling more frequent than required may not have been verified. BCWSA does not have adequate staffing numbers to implement a pretreatment program. Status Data Management Program Resources Completion Date (Estimate) 4 of 4