A. Specific Prohibition Regarding pH (40 CFR 403.5(b)(2))
Current: no pH < 5.0 is allowed in an industrial discharge at any time unless the POTW is specifically designed to handle them.
Proposed: "EPA is proposing to also allow POTWs with Approved Pretreatment Programs to accept temporary discharges with a pH below 5.0 to the extent that the POTWs can document that the discharges will not damage their systems. The proposal would authorize POTWs to allow nondomestic dischargers that continuously monitor the pH of their discharge to briefly discharge wastes with a pH below 5.0." The POTW would need to maintain a technical evaluation.

B. Equivalent Mass Limits for Concentration Limits (40 CFR 403.6(c))
Current: For Categorical Industrial Users (CIU's) which have only concentration-based limits, POTW can develop mass-based limits to prevent dilution, but both sets of limits must be enforced.
Proposed: "The Agency is proposing to allow Control Authorities to set equivalent mass limits as an alternative to concentration limits to meet concentration-based categorical Pretreatment Standards in cases where an industrial user has installed BAT treatment or a treatment technology that yields removal efficiencies that are equivalent to BAT, and the Industrial User is employing water conservation methods and technologies that substantially reduce water use." See full text for detailed requirements.

C. Equivalent Concentration Limits for Flow-Based Standards (40 CFR 403.6(c))
Current: Some CIU's (e.g., OCPSF) have mass limits only. They have to be derived from a set of concentration limits and a long term average flow for the industry. Sometimes, there is a problem in determining typical flows on which to base the calculations.
Proposed: Allow the Control Authority (C.A.) to apply the concentration limits which are supposed to be used for calculating the mass limits directly as concentration limits, but only where the flow from the IU is so variable that development of mass limits is impractical (e.g., average flows regularly differ from long term average by more than 20%). Dilution must still be prohibited; combined wastestream formula may need to be used.

D. Oversight of Categorical Industrial Users (40 CFR 403.3(u), 403.8(f) and 403.10(f))
"EPA is proposing to allow Control Authorities to exempt non-significant categorical industrial users from the definition of significant industrial user. Today's proposal would define non-significant categorical industrial users as (1) facilities that never discharge untreated concentrated wastes that are subject to the categorical Pretreatment Standard as identified in the development document for the standard, and never discharge more than 100 gallons per day (gpd) of other process wastewater, and (2) industrial users subject only to certification requirements after having met baseline monitoring report requirements (e.g., pharmaceutical manufacturers). Regardless of whether they are considered Significant Industrial Users (SIU's), all categorical industrial users would still be required to comply with applicable categorical Pretreatment Standards and the related reporting requirements in 40 CFR 403.12. Control Authorities would still be required to perform the same oversight of non-significant categorical industrial users that is required for other facilities that are not SIU's, including notifying the categorical industrial user of its status and requirements (40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(iii)); receiving and reviewing required reports (40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(iv) and 40 CFR 403.12(b), (d), & (e)); random sampling and inspection (40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v)); and investigating noncompliance as necessary (40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vi)). The POTW's annual report would provide a list of the facilities that are being regulated as non-significant facilities. After an initial list is provided, deletions and additions may be keyed to the previously submitted list."
Note that they are requesting comments on whether to extend this proposal to batch dischargers which discharge less than 500 gallons per week.

E. Categorical Industrial User Monitoring (40 CFR 403.12)
Proposed: For non-significant CIU's as defined above, there would be no minimum inspection and sampling requirements. The C.A. would determine the appropriate requirements. Also, the minimum reporting and certification of status as non-SIU (non-Significant Industrial User) would be a minimum of annually, and there would be no requirement for sampling data.
On an unrelated question, when sampling by the C.A. shows a violation, it is proposed that the C.A. must notify the IU as soon as the C.A. becomes aware of the violation, and it may require the IU to do the follow-up sampling which is required to be done within 30 days.

F. Slug Control Plans (40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v))
Proposed: Eliminate the requirement to evaluate the need for spill/slug control every two years. It would be come part of continuing oversight requirements. It may still be required whenever the plan is judged to be inadequate.

G. Sampling for Pollutants Not Present (40 CFR 403.12(e))
Proposed: The C.A. may reduce to less than twice annually-- or eliminate-- a CIU's requirement to sample for a pollutant not expected to be present at greater than the background level in the water supply with no increase due to regulated processes. The determination would be based on sampling data (3 years suggested) and other technical data such as raw materials, industrial processes, and potential byproducts. (This proposal would not apply to the OCPSF category.) The CIU must certify that the pollutant is not expected to be present above the background level as part of semi-annual report, similar to the TTO regulation in the metal finishing industry. The C.A. would have to sample once in the life of the permit.

H. Use of Grab and Composite Samples (40 CFR 403.12(b), (d), (e), (g) & (h))
Current: For the Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR) and 90-day compliance report, a minimum of four grab samples over a 24-hour period is required for certain parameters. For the others, a 24-hour composite is required, which is to be flow-proportioned unless that can be demonstrated to be unfeasible. There is no language about grab and composite samples with respect to periodic compliance reports.
Proposals:
Extend the language to periodic compliance reports, but allow the C.A. to determine the number of grab samples. (Continuously recorded pH records are acceptable for determining compliance rather than grab samples.)
Allow manual compositing in the lab of cyanide, VOC's, and other parameters which the C.A. finds unaffected by the compositing process as documented by approved EPA procedures.
The C.A. can authorize time-proportional rather than flow-proportional compositing if it believes that this will produce a representative sample, without demonstrating that it is infeasible. It may still require flow-proportional composites if it wishes.
Change language to say that, while a 24-hour composite must be taken within a 24-hour period, it should be collected only during the time of discharge from regulated processes. Otherwise it might be diluted by non-regulated flows.

I. Removal Credits (40 CFR 403.7)
IU's upstream of combined sewer overflows or sanitary sewer overflows would be ineligible for removal credits unless it can be established that discharges can be consistently treated (i.e., if they cease discharging during overflow or if treatment equivalent to the pretreatment standards (PS) are achieved at the overflow). (There are many other complexities involved in this topic.)

J. Electronic Filing and Storage of Reports
EPA is in the exploratory phase and is offering no proposals at this time.

K. General Permits (40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii))
Current: SIU's require individual permits (non-SIU's can be covered by general permits)
Proposed: allow general permits for SIU's covered by concentration-based standards or best management practices (BMP) requirements, if they have similar processes, the same type of wastes, the same effluent limits and monitoring requirements. It would not be allowed for SIU's with mass-based limits or if the combined wastestream formula is used. The use of general permits would be considered a substantial modification of the pretreatment program.

L. Best Management Practices (40 CFR 403.5, 403.8(f) and 403.12(b),(e) & (h))
Proposed: BMP's can be enforceable as local limits as an alternative to numerical local limits or can be supplemental. They would need to be included in the technical evaluation of local limits.

M. Significant Noncompliance Criteria (40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii))
Proposals:
Notice may be published in any newspaper of general circulation in the jurisdiction served by the POTW that provides meaningful public notice- not just the largest.
SNC rule would apply only to SIU's. Publication of non-SIU's would be optional. This was not specified in previous regulations
SNC could apply to other Pretreatment Standards, such as local limits narrative, not just to daily or monthly numerical limits
They are not considering any change in TRC (Technical Review Criteria) definition to take analytical variation into account. This is already factored in.
They are considering revising the criteria for SNC because of late reports, but are not making a proposal at this time because of the many differing suggestions received.
They are considering comments about "rolling quarters", but are making no proposals at this time. They are clarifying the matter of double publishing due to SNC in the last quarter of the previous pretreatment year.

N. Miscellaneous Changes
Signatory requirements: They are proposing language changes to make consistent with other regulations. See full text for details.
Net/Gross calculations: They are revising inconsistent language to allow CIU's to meet regulations on a "net" basis if the applicable PS allows.
Reporting all monitoring data: They are changing the language to require all SIU's, not just CIU's, to report all (i.e., any extra) monitoring of regulated parameters at the point of compliance sampling by a 40 CFR 136 approved method.
They are changing the language to require IU's to notify the C.A.-- not just the POTW-- of changes in the discharge.

Text by Joel Gordon

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page

Last update September 04, 1999