1 What is a Multijurisdictional Agreement? By Scott Mallery, P.E. Pretreatment Engineer September 2007 State of Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Program Eastern Regional Office 4601 N Monroe Street Spokane, Washington 99205

2  This Presentation is based on a True Story  However, some of the information may have been changed to:  Protect the Involved Individuals  and how things happened  Questions on the following information, may not be answer to protect the identities of those involved  All Entities must rely on advice of their legal counsel when evaluating the use of the information presented

3Outline  Overview of Federal Delegation of Pretreatment  Overview of State of Washington’s Water Quality and Pretreatment Program  Bottom Line of Your Pretreatment Program  Legal Authority and Area of Jurisdiction  Industrial User and Binding Them  What is in a Multijurisdictional Agreement?  What is this Agreement?  Case Study  Summary/Questions

4 Federal Requirements for Delegated Pretreatment Program  Public Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) that must have pretreatment programs:  Over 5.0 million gallons per day (MGD) (max. design flow) and Receiving Industrial Wastewater, or Receiving Industrial Wastewater, or Under 5.0 MGD and Receiving pollutants that pass through or interfere with POTW, or Under 5.0 MGD and Receiving pollutants that pass through or interfere with POTW, or Approval Authority or EPA finds a local program is needed to protect the POTW. Approval Authority or EPA finds a local program is needed to protect the POTW.

5 History of State Program  Water Pollution Control (RCW 90-48) 1973 Waters of the State—Surface and Ground (Land Application, etc)Waters of the State—Surface and Ground (Land Application, etc) Pollution Disclosure Act of 1971 (RCW 90-52)Pollution Disclosure Act of 1971 (RCW 90-52) --AKART: All Know, Available, and Reasonable Treatment  Delegation Process ( WAC) 1975  State Waste Discharge Permit Program ( WAC) 1983  Submission of Plans and Reports for Construction of Wastewater Facilities (WAC ) 1983 Engineering Report, Plans and Specifications, and Operations and Maintenance ManualEngineering Report, Plans and Specifications, and Operations and Maintenance Manual Requirement of Professional EngineerRequirement of Professional Engineer  State Pretreatment Program Manual 1986 Program required by EPA agreementProgram required by EPA agreement Implements state and federal regulationsImplements state and federal regulations

6 Key Features of the State Pretreatment Program  Ecology may permit industries for POTWs  POTWs not delegated have certain responsibilities by default  POTWs may assume additional responsibilities for their protection and/or to defer developing a full program.  NPDES and some State to Ground Permits identify requirements

7 Pretreatment Responsibilities  Delegated Programs Implement all federal and state requirementsImplement all federal and state requirements  Other (Non-Delegated) POTWs with Industries Have support obligations in NPDES permitHave support obligations in NPDES permit  Dept of Ecology Permits industries to non-delegated POTWsPermits industries to non-delegated POTWs Review Engineering Reports, Plans & Specs, & O & M ManualsReview Engineering Reports, Plans & Specs, & O & M Manuals Oversees delegated program implementationOversees delegated program implementation

8 Fully Delegated Pretreatment Program Components:  Technical Information IU Survey, Local Limits & Resource AssessmentIU Survey, Local Limits & Resource Assessment  Legal Authorities: Local Ordinance, Interjurisdictional Agreements, & Attorney’s Legal Sufficiency StatementLocal Ordinance, Interjurisdictional Agreements, & Attorney’s Legal Sufficiency Statement  Requisite Procedures Detection of businesses covered by programDetection of businesses covered by program Permitting, Compliance Tracking, FilesPermitting, Compliance Tracking, Files Sampling, analysis and InspectionSampling, analysis and Inspection Enforcement Response PlanEnforcement Response Plan

9 Bottom Line of YOUR Pretreatment Program  Responsibility of developing, implementing, and enforcing YOUR PROGRAM  Must Demonstrate you have the LEGAL AUTHORITY to:  Enforce federal, state, local pretreatment standards requirement again all industrial users  Procedures necessary for program implementation

10 Where does the legal authority come from?  State statute or regulations  Local Use ordinance or regulations  Through AGREEMENTS with other municipal entities

11 Where is Control Authority’s Area of Jurisdiction?  Geographical area within which Control Authority (CA) exercise regulatory powers (legal authority)  Geographical boundaries outlined in enabling legislation identify the perimeter within which discharges are subject to conditions of sewer ordinance

12

13 Where is the Industrial User and what to do about it?  If IU is outside Geographical area which CA exercise regulatory powers (legal authority), then IU is ‘extra jurisdictional industrial user’  This makes a Multijurisdictional program and the need to establish legally binding procedures to ensure IUs are subject to enforceable pretreatment standards and requirements

14 How to Legally Bind IUs?  Authority granted under State Statute  Annexation  Special Sewer Districts and Authorities  Contracts/Citizen Suits  Contributing Jurisdiction on NPDES Permit (co-permittee for pretreatment program  Multijurisdictional Agreement (aka interlocal agreements)  Direct Authority  Contributing Jurisdiction implements and enforces its own Pretreatment Program

15 What is in a Multijurisdictional Agreement? What is in a Multijurisdictional Agreement?

16 Interlocal Agreements  Wastewater Treatment Capacity Available to the contributing jurisdiction  Service fees for wastewater treatment  Ownership and maintenance of sewer lines and interceptors  Fiscal Responsibilities for future treatment plant or collection system expansion  Requirement that the total discharge from the contributing jurisdiction meet certain discharge limitations  Duration of agreement

17 Elements of Multijurisdictional Agreements  Sewer Use Ordinance  Local Limits  Control Mechanism  Transfer of Records  Right of Entry/Inspection and Sampling  Enforcement  Remedies for Breach  Residential Area

18 What is this Agreement?

19 What is this Agreement?

20 What is this Agreement?

21 What is this Agreement?

22 Case Study  We are going to look at How you would make sure that you can have the legal authority to ENFORCE your pretreatment Program.  You are newly founded Pretreatment Program, no industry outside of your boundary.  But, you will soon have industry from the County’s new sewer line.  So, what are you going to do?

23 Here are your Options?  Authority granted under State Statute  Annexation  Special Sewer Districts and Authorities  Contracts/Citizen Suits  Contributing Jurisdiction on NPDES Permit (co- permittee for pretreatment program  Multijurisdictional Agreement (aka interlocal agreements)  Direct Authority  Contributing Jurisdiction implements and enforces its own Pretreatment Program

24 Case Study  This is what happened Handout #4 This is combination of Interlocal Agreement and Multijurisdictional AgreementThis is combination of Interlocal Agreement and Multijurisdictional Agreement Multijurisdictional Agreement was giving the contributing jurisdiction responsibility for pretreatment for pretreatment Program implementation and enforcement (handout #3)Multijurisdictional Agreement was giving the contributing jurisdiction responsibility for pretreatment for pretreatment Program implementation and enforcement (handout #3)  One option may have been Handout #2 (giving the control Authority responsibility over pretreatment program implementation and enforcement)

25 Case Study (continue)

26 Case Study(continue)  State made the County and City Co-Permittees on the NPDES Permit  State wrote permits “in no man-land”  State did Audit and ‘threaten’ SNC on both of them  County found state statue for Enforcing Pretreatment Program in the Valley  City also started to Enforcing Pretreatment Program in the Valley City probably should have enforced on the County over their agreement (Handout #4)City probably should have enforced on the County over their agreement (Handout #4) City probably should have entered into an agreement with Valley giving the control Authority responsibility over pretreatment program implementation and enforcementCity probably should have entered into an agreement with Valley giving the control Authority responsibility over pretreatment program implementation and enforcement City and County should have updated their agreement to (Handout #3) (Contributing Jurisdiction implements and enforces its own Pretreatment Program)City and County should have updated their agreement to (Handout #3) (Contributing Jurisdiction implements and enforces its own Pretreatment Program)

27 Delegated Pretreatment Cities should use the following to enforce their programs  Authority granted under State Statute  Annexation  Special Sewer Districts and Authorities  Contracts/Citizen Suits  Contributing Jurisdiction on NPDES Permit (co- permittee for pretreatment program  Multijurisdictional Agreement  Direct Authority  Contributing Jurisdiction implements and enforces its own Pretreatment Program

28Summary  One of the best way to enforce the pretreatment program is to use Multijurisdictional Agreements Direct Authority Direct Authority Contributing Jurisdiction implements and enforces its own Pretreatment ProgramContributing Jurisdiction implements and enforces its own Pretreatment Program  Also even if a city isn’t a delegated pretreatment program, the can use a form of Multijurisdictional agreement to help protect their POTW from contributing jurisdiction

29 Manual to help in Agreements

30 Questions???? Contact information: Scott Mallery State of Washington Department of Ecology 4601 N. Monroe Street Spokane, WA 99205