EPA's Proposed Effluent
Guidelines Reflect Review Panel Input
At a public hearing held at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on August 18, 1998, Assistant Advocate Kevin Bromberg submitted oral comments on a proposed water pollution rule that would affect the transportation equipment cleaning industry. These comments followed a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel report submitted to the EPA concerning the same proposed rule. In his oral comments, Bromberg stated, "The Small Business Administration's (SBA's) Office of Advocacy applauds EPA's execution of the . . . panel process, which preceded this proposal, and the agency's subsequent adoption of the panel recommendations." He also offered further recommendations that would lessen the economic impact the rule would have on small businesses.
The proposed rule (published in the Federal Register on June 25, 1998 at 63 FR 34,685)[PDF File] was developed under the Clean Water Act and established technology-based effluent limitations guidelines for the direct discharge of pollutants to surface waters, as well as the indirect discharge to publicly owned treatment works of pollutants. The rule established, for the first time, water pollution limits and pre-treatment standards for transportation equipment cleaning (TEC) facilities. TEC facilities include firms that generate wastewater from cleaning the interior of tank trucks, rail tank cars, or ocean tankers.
In April 1997, the EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel for this proposal, due to the large number of small businesses that could be affected by the regulation. After the review panel submitted its report to the EPA on Sept. 23, 1997, the agency incorporated many of its suggestions into the proposed rule. One important recommendation was the exclusion of intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) from coverage under the rule. In the panel report, the Office of Advocacy argued that facilities that clean only IBCs do not discharge enough water pollution to warrant national regulation. The EPA adopted the Office of Advocacy's minority view in its new proposed rule.
Bromberg's testimony emphasized that despite the incorporation of many of the panel's recommendations, the rule still may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. In order to reduce this impact, Bromberg suggested the following alternatives to the proposed rule:
* More exemptions of facilities based on their levels of pollution discharge;
* Lower standards for required technology to reduce the cost to small businesses; or
* A small business cut-off that would exempt the smallest TEC firms based on the number of tank cars they wash.
Office of Advocacy Comments Web Comments
| Privacy | Viewing Utilities | Text Only |
*Last Modified: 02-22-2002