Appendix D1 - Pretreatment Rule Text

Appendix D.1
Pretreatment Streamlining Rule

60134

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9, 122 and 403
[OW–2002–0007; FRL–7980–4]
RIN 2040–AC58

Streamlining the General Pretreatment
Regulations for Existing and New
Sources of Pollution
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

SUMMARY: Today’s final rule revises
several provisions of the General
Pretreatment Regulations that address
requirements for, and oversight of,
Industrial Users who introduce
pollutants into Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTWs). This final
rule includes changes to certain
program requirements to be consistent
with National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements for direct dischargers to
surface waters. Today’s action will
reduce the regulatory burden on both
Industrial Users and State and POTW
Control Authorities without adversely
affecting environmental protection and
will allow Control Authorities to better
focus oversight resources on Industrial
Users with the greatest potential for
affecting POTW operations or the
environment.

This regulation is effective
November 14, 2005. For judicial review
purposes, this final rule is promulgated
as of 1 p.m. (Eastern Time) on October
28, 2005, as provided at 40 CFR 23.2.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. OW–2002–0007. All documents in
the docket are listed in the EDOCKET
index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
DATES:

copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in
EDOCKET or in hard copy at the EPA
Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West,
Room B102, y1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW, Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the Water Docket Office is
(202) 566–2426).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jan
Pickrel, Water Permits Division, Office
of Wastewater Management, Office of
Water, (4203), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: 202–564–7904, e-mail address:
[email protected]. Greg Schaner,
Water Permits Division, Office of
Wastewater Management, Office of
Water, (4203), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: 202–564–0721, e-mail address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
A. General Information
1. Does This Final Rule Apply to Me?
2. How Can I Get Copies of This Document
and Other Related Information?
3. What Process Governs Judicial Review of
This Rule?
B. Under What Legal Authority Is This
Final Rule Issued?
C. How Is This Preamble Organized?
D. What Is The Comment Response
Document?
E. What Other Information Is Available To
Support This Final Rule?
I. Background Information
II. How Was This Final Rule Developed?
III. Description of Final Rule Actions
A. Sampling for Pollutants Not Present (40
CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v) and 403.12(e))
B. General Control Mechanisms (40 CFR
403.8(f)(1)(iii))

C. Best Management Practices (40 CFR
403.5, 403.8(f) and 403.12(b), (e), and (h))
D. Slug Control Plans (40 CFR
403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(6) and 403.8(f)(2)(vi))
E. Equivalent Concentration Limits for
Flow-Based Standards (40 CFR
403.6(c)(6))
F. Use of Grab and Composite Samples (40
CFR 403.12(b), (d), (e), (g), and (h))
G. Significant Noncompliance Criteria (40
CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii))
H. Removal Credits—Compensation for
Overflows (40 CFR 403.7(h))
I. Miscellaneous Changes (40 CFR
403.12(g), (j), (l), and (m))
J. Equivalent Mass Limits for Concentration
Limits (40 CFR 403.6(c)(5))
K. Oversight of Categorical Industrial Users
(40 CFR 403.3(v), 403.8(f)(2)(v), and
403.12(e), (g), (i), (q))
IV. Description of Areas Where EPA Is Not
Taking Action on the Proposed Rule
A. Specific Prohibition Regarding pH (40
CFR 403.5(b)(2))
V. Changes to part 122
VI. Considerations in Adopting Today’s Rule
Revisions
VII. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act

A. General Information
1. Does this final rule apply to me?
Entities potentially affected by this
action are governmental entities
responsible for implementation of the
National Pretreatment Program and
industrial facilities subject to
Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements. These entities include:

Category

Examples of regulated entities

Local government ...............................................
State government ...............................................

Publicly Owned Treatment Works.
States and Tribes acting as Pretreatment Program Control Authorities or as Approval Authorities.
Industrial Users of POTWs.
EPA Regional Offices acting as Pretreatment Program Control Authorities or as Approval Authorities.

Industry ...............................................................
Federal Government ...........................................

This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists
the types of entities that EPA is now

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

aware could potentially be regulated by
this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be
regulated. To determine whether your
organization or facility is regulated by

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria in 40
CFR 403.3, 403.5, 403.6, 403.7, 403.8,
403.12, and 403.15 of Part 403 of Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
If you have questions about the
applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
2. How can I get copies of this document
and other related information?
a. Docket. EPA has established an
official public docket for this action
under Docket ID No. W–00–27. The
official public docket consists of the
documents specifically referenced in
this action, any public comments
received, and other information related
to this action. Although a part of the
official docket, the public docket does
not include Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
The official public docket is the
collection of materials that is available
for public viewing at the Water Docket
in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC)
EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is (202)
566–1744, and the telephone number for
the Water Docket is (202) 566–2426.
b. Electronic Access. You may access
this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ or at the
‘‘Pretreatment’’ page at http://
cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/
home.cfm?program_id=3.
An electronic version of the public
docket is available through EPA’s
electronic public docket and comment
system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA
Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/
to view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access
those documents in the public docket
that are available electronically.
Although not all docket materials may
be available electronically, you may still
access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket
facility identified in section A.2.a. Once
in the system, select ‘‘search’’, then key
in the appropriate docket identification
number (OW–2002–0007).
3. What process governs judicial review
of this rule?
Under Section 509(b)(1) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA), judicial review of
today’s rule may be obtained by filing a
petition for review in the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals within 120
days from the date of promulgation of
this rule. For judicial review purposes,

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

this final rule is promulgated as of 1
p.m. (Eastern time) on October 28, 2005
as provided at 40 CFR 23.2. Under
section 509(b)(2) of the CWA, the
requirements of this regulation may not
be challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce
these requirements.
B. Under What Legal Authority Is This
Final Rule Issued?
Today’s final rule is issued under the
authority of Sections 101, 208(b)(2)
(C)(iii), 301(b)(1)(A)(ii), 301(b)(2)(A)(ii),
301(h)(5) and 301(i)(2), 304(e) and (g),
307, 308, 309, 402(b), 405, and 501(a) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
as amended.
C. How is This Preamble Organized?
There is an outline for the preamble
to today’s final rule in the opening of
this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section. For each distinct issue of the
final rule, the preamble is written in a
question-and-answer format that is
designed to help the reader understand
the information in the rule. Under each
issue, there are subsections that provide
the context for the final rule, including
a discussion of the rules in place prior
to today’s rulemaking, the changes that
were proposed, the changes that are
being finalized (including significant
differences from the proposal), and a
summary of major comments and EPA
response.
List of Acronyms
BAT—best available technology
economically achievable
BCT—best conventional pollutant
control technology
BOD—biochemical oxygen demand
BPJ—best professional judgment
BMP—Best Management Practice
BPT—best practicable control
technology currently available
CIU—Categorical Industrial User
CFR—Code of Federal Regulations
CWA—Clean Water Act
ELG—effluent limitations guideline
EMS—environmental management
system
EPA—Environmental Protection Agency
EQIP—Environmental Quality
Incentives Program
FR—Federal Register
ICR—Information Collection Request
IU—Industrial User
NODA—Notice of Data Availability
NOI—notice of intent
NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
NSCIU—Non-Significant Categorical
Industrial User
NTTAA—National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act
OMB—U.S. Office of Management and
Budget

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60135

POTW—Publicly Owned Treatment
Works
PSES—Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources
RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act
SBA—U.S. Small Business
Administration
SBAR (panel)—Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel
SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act
SIU—Significant Industrial User
SNC—Significant Noncompliance
SRF—State Revolving Fund
UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act
WWTP—wastewater treatment plant
D. What Is the Comment Response
Document?
EPA received more than 220
comments on the proposed rule. EPA
evaluated all the significant comments
submitted and prepared a Comment
Response Document containing the
Agency’s responses to those comments.
The Comment Response Document
complements and supplements this
preamble by providing more detailed
explanations of EPA’s final actions. The
Comment Response Document is
available at the Water Docket. See
Section E below for additional
information.
E. What Other Information Is Available
To Support This Final Rule?
In addition to this preamble, today’s
final rule is supported by other
information that is part of the
administrative record, such as the
Comment Response Document, and the
key supporting documents listed below.
These supporting documents and the
administrative record are available at
the Water Docket and via e-Docket:
• Information Collection Request
• Past EPA guidance manuals and
policy documents
• Stakeholder communications
• EPA data collected in support of
this rulemaking
I. Background Information
A. What Is the National Pretreatment
Program?
The National Pretreatment Program is
part of the Clean Water Act (CWA)’s
water pollution control program. The
program is a joint regulatory effort by
local, state, and Federal authorities that
require the control of industrial and
commercial sources of pollutants
discharged to municipal wastewater
plants (called ‘‘Publicly Owned
Treatment Works’’ or ‘‘POTWs’’).
Control of pollutants prior to discharge
of wastewater to the sewer minimizes

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60136

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

the possibility of pollutants interfering
with the operation of the POTW and
reduces the levels of toxic pollutants in
wastewater Discharges from the POTW
and in the sludge resulting from
municipal wastewater treatment.
The Pretreatment Program is a core
part of the CWA’s National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program, and it has helped
communities:
• Maintain and restore watershed
quality;
• Encourage pollution prevention;
• Increase beneficial uses of sewage
sludge;
• Prevent formation of poisonous
gases in the sanitary sewer system;
• Meet wastewater Discharge
standards; and
• Institute emergency-prevention
measures.
B. What Regulation Is EPA Revising?
EPA is today streamlining and
clarifying various provisions of the
General Pretreatment Regulations for
Existing and New Sources of Pollution
codified at 40 CFR Part 403. The CWA
directs EPA to develop regulations in
order to control pollutants which may
pass through or interfere with POTW
treatment processes or contaminate
sewage sludge. On June 26, 1978, EPA
promulgated the General Pretreatment
Regulations, which established
standards and procedures for
controlling the introduction of wastes
into POTWs (43 FR 27736). There have
been a number of revisions to the
General Pretreatment Regulations. The
last major revisions were to implement
improvements arising from the
Domestic Sewage Study (Report to
Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous
Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works) (55 FR 30082, July 24, 1990).
The General Pretreatment Regulations
require POTWs that meet certain criteria
to develop Pretreatment programs to
control industrial Discharges into their
sewage collection systems. These
programs must be approved by either
EPA or states acting as the Pretreatment
‘‘Approval Authority.’’ More than 1,400
POTWs have developed Approved
Pretreatment Programs pursuant to the
regulations in 40 CFR 403.8. These
POTWs act as the Pretreatment ‘‘Control
Authority’’ with respect to the Industrial
Users that discharge to their systems. In
the absence of an approved POTW
Pretreatment Program, the State or EPA
Approval Authority serves as the
Control Authority.
Industrial Users of POTWs must
comply with Pretreatment Standards
prior to introducing pollutants into a
POTW. POTWs are required to impose

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

‘‘local limits’’ to prevent Pass Through
and Interference from the pollutants
discharged into their systems. The
General Pretreatment Regulations also
include general prohibitions that forbid
Industrial Users from causing Pass
Through and Interference, and specific
prohibitions against the discharge of
pollutants that cause problems at the
POTW such as corrosion, fire or
explosion, and danger to worker health
and safety. EPA has also developed
National categorical Pretreatment
Standards that apply numeric pollutant
limits to Industrial Users in specific
industrial categories. The General
Pretreatment Regulations include
reporting and other requirements
necessary to implement these
categorical Standards (40 CFR 403.12
(b)).
Today’s final rule modifies several
provisions of the existing Pretreatment
Regulations. The rule includes a variety
of changes which will be described
further in Section E.
C. Why Is EPA Revising the Existing
General Pretreatment Regulations?
By finalizing today’s rule, EPA is
working to improve the National
Pretreatment Program to protect public
health and the environment, while
maintaining or improving the program’s
effectiveness. Although adoption of the
General Pretreatment Regulations has
resulted in more consistent
implementation of the Pretreatment
program on a national basis, many
individual POTWs and Industrial Users
have experienced problems
implementing various requirements.
EPA’s objective in finalizing today’s
streamlining regulation is to achieve
better environmental results at a lower
cost by allowing Control Authorities to
better focus oversight resources where
they will do the most good. The
revisions in today’s final rule achieve
this objective by reducing the burden of
technical and administrative
requirements that EPA has determined
provide minimal environmental benefit
but consume significant resources of
Industrial Users, and POTW and state
Control Authorities. In designing these
revisions, EPA took care to ensure that
the changes being finalized do not
reduce the current environmental
protections in place.
The importance of finalizing today’s
streamlining rule was highlighted in
two recent reports. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
included the issuance of the final rule
among a list of steps the Federal
government would take to reduce the
cost burden on the manufacturing
sector. See Regulatory Reform of the

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

U.S. Manufacturing Sector (OMB, 2005),
which is posted at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/
reports/manufacturing_initiative.pdf.
EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG)
also recommended that the Office of
Water set milestones for finalizing this
streamlining rule as part of a broader
effort to improve the effectiveness of the
National Pretreatment Program. See
Recommendation # 4.2 of EPA Needs to
Reinforce Its National Pretreatment
Program (OIG, Report 2004–P–00030,
September 2004), posted at http://
www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2004/
20040928–2004–P–00030.pdf.
D. What Are the Roles of Key Entities
Involved in the Final Rule?
EPA recognizes the role of many
interested parties in the development of,
and, ultimately, the successful
implementation of this final rule. To the
greatest extent possible, EPA has
attempted to strike a reasonable balance
among the many interests. A short
summary of their roles is provided
below.
1. POTWs. Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTWs) collect wastewater from
homes, commercial buildings, and
industrial facilities and transport it via
a series of pipes, known as a collection
system, to the treatment plant. Today,
there are an estimated 14,800 POTWs.
Most POTWs are not designed to treat
the toxics in commercial and industrial
wastes which can cause serious
problems. The General Pretreatment
Regulations require POTWs that meet
certain criteria to develop Pretreatment
programs to control industrial
Discharges into their sewage collection
systems. These POTWs act as the
Pretreatment ‘‘Control Authority’’ with
respect to the Industrial Users that
discharge to their systems. POTWs play
a key role in the enforcement of the
Pretreatment program through the
development and implementation of
Enforcement Response Plans.
2. States. Thirty-four states are
authorized to serve as Approval
Authorities for implementation of the
Pretreatment Program. In the absence of
an Approved POTW Pretreatment
Program, the state may serve as the
Control Authority.
3. EPA. EPA’s statutory responsibility
is to establish national regulations such
as those covering the Pretreatment
Program, which protect and restore the
chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation’s waters. EPA
also develops policy and guidance and
provides training and oversight for
program implementation. EPA’s
regional offices also serve as the
Approval Authority for state

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Pretreatment programs, where the state
is not authorized to run the program,
and as the Control Authority for POTWs
without an approved Pretreatment
Program in these states.
4. Industrial Dischargers. Industrial
Users of POTWs must comply with
Pretreatment Standards prior to
introducing pollutants into a POTW.
The General Pretreatment Regulations
include general prohibitions that forbid
Industrial Users from causing Pass
Through and Interference, and specific
prohibitions against the discharge of
pollutants that cause problems at the
POTW such as corrosion, fire or
explosion, and danger to worker health
and safety.
EPA has also developed National
categorical Pretreatment Standards that
apply numeric and narrative pollutant
limits to Industrial Users in specific
industrial categories. The General
Pretreatment Regulations include
reporting and other requirements
necessary to implement these
categorical Standards (40 CFR
403.12(b)).
5. Other stakeholders. Trade
associations, professional organizations,
environmental interest groups, and the
public have an interest in the
Pretreatment of industrial and
commercial waste and have been
involved in this rulemaking through
comments and participation in
stakeholder meetings.
E. What Principles Guided EPA’s
Decisions in This Rule?
EPA has considered the
implementation of the current General
Pretreatment Regulations, changes in
industry, the comments on the proposed
rule, and relevant studies, data, and
reports in developing this final rule. The

Agency has tried to ensure this final
rule is based on sound science, protects
existing water quality gains, and is
consistent with current Pretreatment
guidance and policy documents. EPA
made this final rule as simple and easy
to understand as possible, and has
attempted to provide a clear
understanding of who is affected and
what they are expected to do. The
hallmark of this rule is that it reduces
the burden of compliance with the
General Pretreatment Regulations, while
at the same time protecting the
environment.
F. What Are the Major Elements of This
Final Rule? Where Do I Find Specific
Requirements?
This section provides a summary of
the major elements of this final rule and
a brief index on where each of the
requirements is located in the final
regulations. The rule makes the
following changes:
• Provides POTWs with the authority
to grant monitoring waivers to industrial
facilities where they document that
pollutants are not present at the facility
or anywhere in the wastestream. EPA
notes that this authority is already
available in the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
regulations for point sources
discharging directly to surface waters.
• Authorizes POTWs to use general
control mechanisms (e.g., permits) to
regulate multiple industrial dischargers
that share common characteristics.
• Clarifies that POTWs can use Best
Management Practices (BMPs) as an
alternative to numeric limits that are
developed to protect the POTW, water
quality, and sewage sludge.
• Clarifies certain requirements
regarding the frequency of on-site

Issue

II. How Was This Final Rule
Developed?
EPA initiated this effort in response to
a Presidential Report on ‘‘Reinventing
Environmental Regulations’’ (March
1995). The Report pledged to provide

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

industrial facility inspections to
evaluate the adequacy of controls for
‘‘Slug Discharges’’.
• Provides greater flexibility in the
use of certain sampling techniques, and
establishes greater consistency with the
sampling protocols in other parts of
EPA’s regulations.
• Provides the Control Authority with
the discretion to authorize the use of
equivalent concentration limits in lieu
of mass limits for certain industrial
categories, and allows the conditional
use of equivalent mass limits in lieu of
concentration-based limits where
appropriate to facilitate adoption of
new, water-conserving technologies.
• Authorizes POTWs to establish
alternative sampling, reporting, and
inspection requirements for certain
classes of categorical Industrial Users
(CIUs).
• Clarifies the definition of significant
noncompliance (SNC) as it applies to
violations of instantaneous and
narrative requirements, and late reports,
and provides additional options for
publishing lists of industrial facilities in
SNC annually in the newspaper. The
rule also retains existing rules and
policies regarding the application of
Technical Review Criteria (TRC) and the
use of the ‘‘rolling quarter’’ approach in
determining SNC status.
• Provides updated references
relating to requirements that POTWs
must meet to adjust removal credits for
combined sewer overflows (CSOs).
• Makes other miscellaneous changes
designed to maintain consistency with
the NPDES regulations or to correct
typographical errors.
The following table indicates where
these changes can be found in the
General Pretreatment Regulations at 40
CFR part 403.

Section of 40 CFR 403 rules

Sampling for pollutants not present .........................................................
General control mechanisms ....................................................................
Best Management Practices ....................................................................
Slug control plans .....................................................................................
Equivalent concentration limits for flow-based Standards .......................
Equivalent mass limits for concentration-based Standards .....................
Use of grab and composite samples .......................................................
Significant noncompliance criteria ............................................................
Removal credits ........................................................................................
Non-Significant CIU ..................................................................................
Middle Tier CIU ........................................................................................
Miscellaneous changes ............................................................................

VerDate Aug<31>2005

60137

403.8(f)(2)(v), 403.12(e)
403.8(f)(1)(iii)
403.5, 403.8(f), 403.12(b), (e), (h)
403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(6), 403.8(f)(2)(vi))
403.6(c)(6)
403.6(c)(5)
403.12(b), (d), (e), (g), (h)
403.8(f)(2)(viii)
403.7(h)
403.3(v)(2), 403.8(f)(2)(v), (6), 403.12(e)(1), (g), (i), (q)
403.8(f)(2)(v)(C), 403.12(e)(3), (i)
403.12(g), (j), (l), (m)

‘‘more common sense and fairness in
our regulations’’ with an ultimate goal
of providing greater flexibility, reducing
burden, and achieving greater
environmental results at less cost. In
1995, EPA’s Office of Wastewater

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Management started an evaluation of all
of the General Pretreatment Regulations
in order to identify streamlining
opportunities. Based on input from
various stakeholders, EPA developed
issue papers that summarized 11 areas

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60138

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

in which the Pretreatment Regulations
might be streamlined.
In May 1996, the issue papers were
distributed to stakeholders (States,
cities, trade associations, professional
organizations, and environmental
interest groups) for comment. The
Agency also considered
recommendations developed through a
joint Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agency (‘‘AMSA’’, now the
‘‘National Association of Clean Water
Agencies’’) and Water Environment
Federation workshop held in 1996,
which included Pretreatment experts
from many stakeholder perspectives. In
response to comments received on the
issue papers and the joint workshop’s
recommendations, EPA prepared a draft
proposal and preamble and distributed
it for comment in May 1997. The
proposed rule was published in the
Federal Register on July 22, 1999 (64 FR
39564).
EPA received 221 sets of comments
on the proposed rule. Comments were
received from individual POTWs and
Industrial Users, trade groups
representing those interests, states, and
one environmental organization (the
Natural Resources Defense Council). In
finalizing this rule, EPA carefully
reviewed the issues raised in the public
comments. Due to the intervening time
between the proposed and final rules,
EPA also revisited the major
assumptions underlying each rule
change to verify that these assumptions
were still valid. In a few areas, this
process required research or additional
data to support certain provisions, and
discussions with stakeholders
expressing continued interest in the rule
regarding their comments on the
proposed rule.

pollutant if the Industrial User
demonstrates through sampling and a
technical evaluation of its facility
operations, that a given pollutant is
neither present nor expected to be
present in the Discharge, or is only
present at background levels from intake
water without any increase in the
pollutant due to the activities of the
Industrial User. There is similar
language in EPA’s NPDES permitting
regulations for direct dischargers. See 40
CFR 122.44(a)(2). The POTW Control
Authority to which the Industrial User
discharges may also reduce its
monitoring for the pollutant to once
during the term of the Categorical
Industrial User’s control mechanism.
Note that in the discussion of this issue,
when EPA uses the phrase ‘‘pollutants
not present’’ it is using this phrase as
short-hand for ‘‘pollutants neither
present nor expected to be present
above background levels’’. In addition,
because the requirements of 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2) apply to POTWs with
approved Pretreatment programs rather
than Control Authorities in general, the
discussion here distinguishes between
the authority granted to Control
Authorities in 40 CFR 403.12(e) to
waive monitoring for pollutants not
present, and the reduction in
monitoring requirements for POTWs for
these pollutants in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v).

III. Description of Final Rule Actions
Today’s final rule addresses 12
specific issues and a few miscellaneous
changes pertaining to the General
Pretreatment Regulations. This section
describes the context of these changes,
records how the proposal and final rule
differ, and summarizes EPA’s rationale
for specific actions and how the Agency
responded to significant comments.
EPA notes that capitalized terms in
this and other sections (e.g., categorical
Pretreatment Standards, Interference,
Pass Through, etc.) should signal to the
reader that these are terms defined in 40
CFR 403.3.

1. What Were the Rules in Place Prior
to Today’s Rulemaking?
Section 403.12(e)(1) required
Industrial Users subject to categorical
Pretreatment Standards to submit
reports to the Control Authority at least
twice each year indicating the nature
and concentration of all pollutants in
their effluent that are limited by an
applicable Standard. Prior to today’s
rulemaking, the Control Authority was
not authorized to reduce monitoring of
pollutants regulated by the applicable
categorical Pretreatment Standard to
less than twice per year. 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(v) also required POTWs to
sample these Industrial Users at least
annually to independently verify
compliance with the Standard.
Semiannual sampling by the Industrial
User and annual sampling by the POTW
was required for all pollutants limited
by the categorical Pretreatment Standard
even if certain pollutants regulated by
the Standard were not reasonably
expected to be present.

A. Sampling for Pollutants Not Present
(40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v) and 403.12(e))
Today’s rule allows the Control
Authority to authorize an Industrial
User subject to categorical Pretreatment
Standards to forgo sampling of a

2. What changes did EPA propose?
The proposal would amend the
current regulation to authorize the
Control Authority to waive the sampling
requirements for an Industrial User
subject to a categorical Pretreatment

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Standard for a pollutant if the pollutant
was not expected to be present in the
wastestream in a quantity greater than
the background level present in its
water supply, with no increase in the
pollutant in the wastewater attributable
to the industrial process. In lieu of
monitoring for the pollutants
determined not present, the Industrial
User would submit a certification as
part of its semiannual monitoring
reports that there had been no increase
in the pollutant in its wastewater due to
its activities. This change would also
reduce a POTW’s sampling requirement
once it had determined that a pollutant
was not expected to be present.
However, as proposed, the reduced
sampling would not have been available
to facilities subject to the Organic
Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic
Fibers (OCPSF) guidelines, 40 CFR part
414.
3. What changes is EPA finalizing in
today’s rule?
Today, EPA is adopting the proposed
changes which authorize a Control
Authority to waive the monitoring
requirements in semiannual reports
required under 40 CFR 403.12(e) for
individual pollutants, including
indicator or surrogate pollutants, for an
Industrial User subject to a categorical
Pretreatment Standard. A Control
Authority may waive this requirement if
it determines that the pollutant is
neither present nor expected to be
present, at levels greater than that of the
intake water, without any increase in
the pollutant due to the activities of the
Industrial User. The waiver will not be
available for monitoring required for the
baseline monitoring report required
under 40 CFR 403.12(b) or the 90-day
compliance report required under 40
CFR 403.12(d). The Industrial User must
continue to conduct at least twice-peryear monitoring until the waiver is both
granted by the Control Authority and
incorporated into the Industrial User’s
control mechanism. The POTW’s annual
monitoring requirements for the
pollutant for which a monitoring waiver
is granted may be reduced to a
minimum of once during the effective
period of the Industrial User’s control
mechanism.
In finalizing the rule, EPA is making
the following changes to the proposed
rule:
Coverage for OCPSF Facilities: EPA
has determined that it is appropriate for
the monitoring waiver to be available to
Industrial Users subject to the OCPSF
guidelines and is not limiting the
availability in any way different from
other Categorical Industrial Users.

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Industrial User Sampling Data: The
final rule requires that to demonstrate
that the pollutant is not present, the
Industrial User must provide the results
of one or more samples prior to
treatment which are representative of all
process wastewater.
Notice to Control Authority if
Pollutant Found to be Present: The final
rule includes a provision which requires
that in the event that a pollutant is
subsequently found to be present or is
expected to be present, the Industrial
User must immediately resume
monitoring and notify the Control
Authority.
Control Mechanism Issues: EPA
clarifies that the Control Authority must
include any waiver granted to an
Industrial User in the User’s control
mechanism. The Control Authority must
also document the reasons for
authorizing the waiver and maintain
any information submitted by the User
in support of the waiver for at least
three years after expiration of the
waiver. The waiver is valid only for the
duration of the control mechanism. In
order to continue the waiver for the
period of the next control mechanism,
the Industrial User will need to reapply
for the waiver, including the submission
of appropriate monitoring data. The
control mechanism must include the
requirement for the Industrial User to
immediately notify the Control
Authority in the event that the pollutant
is found or suspected to be present, and
to resume monitoring at least
semiannually. The control mechanism
still must include all applicable
categorical Standards, even those
Standards for which monitoring has
been waived.
Waiver Does Not Supercede Other
Certifications: EPA has included a
provision which states that the waiver
of monitoring requirements cannot
replace any certification requirements
that have been established in specific
categorical Pretreatment Standards.
4. Summary of Major Comments and
EPA Response
How does EPA define ‘‘not present?’’
In the preamble to the proposed
amendments, EPA specifically
requested comment on how to define
what is meant by ‘‘not present.’’ Several
commenters suggested that a precise
definition was not necessary based on
the regulatory context. Other
commenters suggested that it be defined
in terms of a percentage of the
applicable limit, while others suggested
that the term be defined as at or below
the levels found in the water supply.
The final regulatory language clearly
indicates that monitoring for a pollutant

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

can be waived as long as the levels in
the untreated wastewater do not exceed
the levels in the intake water based on
‘‘sampling and other technical factors.’’
EPA did not promulgate a definition of
not present when the similar NPDES
revision was finalized, and EPA
continues to view the final regulatory
language as sufficiently clear to avoid
confusion.
In response to commenters that
suggested that ‘‘not present’’ be defined
as a percentage of the applicable
categorical Standard, EPA notes that
today’s waiver is not for pollutants that
are not reasonably expected to violate
the Standard, but rather for pollutants
that are neither present nor expected to
be present in the Discharge above
background levels. Therefore, the level
of pollutant in the Discharge in relation
to the Standard is not the relevant
benchmark for the Control Authority’s
determination whether the waiver
request should be granted. Instead, what
matters in the determination is whether
the Industrial User’s practices or
industrial processes add the pollutant.
The Control Authority already has the
ability to reduce monitoring to as
infrequently as twice per year for any
pollutants that are in the Discharge but
are not reasonably expected to violate
the Standard. However, if the
background level from the Industrial
User’s intake water already exceeds the
applicable categorical Standard, a
waiver of the monitoring requirements
would not be available unless the
Control Authority has adjusted the
categorical Standard using the net/gross
provision of 40 CFR 403.15, and the
pollutant is not added to the wastewater
by the discharger’s practices or
processes.
Several commenters also suggested
that if a pollutant is added in
‘‘negligible’’ amounts or in amounts
equal to ‘‘typical’’ domestic levels, the
Control Authority should still be
authorized to grant the monitoring
waiver. EPA addressed this issue in the
preamble to the final NPDES regulation
dealing with a waiver of monitoring
requirements for direct dischargers.
There, EPA stated:
‘‘EPA declines to allow monitoring waivers
for pollutants that are added by dischargers
in minute amounts (e.g., use of common
cleaners or from research operations) because
human activity might lead to substantial
increases in those pollutant Discharges
which may threaten the aquatic environment.
Consequently, there is a continuing need to
monitor those pollutants. EPA also notes that
at least one national effluent guideline
addresses the introduction of incidental
amounts of pollutants from cleaning,
maintenance, or research operations and EPA
does not believe it is appropriate to apply the

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60139

waiver to a pollutant that is added to the
wastestream and subject to an effluent
guideline. See 40 CFR 414.11(b) (applying
the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and
Synthetic Fibers Effluent Guidelines to
wastewater Discharges from research and
development operations). Metals or other
pollutants that can leach from pipes may also
pose a threat to the environment and EPA
believes monitoring should be retained for
such Discharges. With respect to pollutants
which occur in amounts below ‘‘levels of
concern’’, the discharge of such pollutants
can also increase from human activity and
EPA believes that monitoring is necessary to
ensure that an appropriate level of treatment
continues to be provided.’’ (65 FR 30892,
May 15, 2000).

Nothing submitted by commenters has
changed the Agency’s mind in the case
of indirect dischargers with respect to
its earlier conclusion.
Some commenters also suggested that
EPA clarify that the term ‘‘quantities’’ as
used in the proposal may mean mass
loading in addition to concentration.
EPA agrees that there may be instances
where the use of mass may be more
appropriate than concentration, and
therefore will allow Control Authorities
to use pollutant mass to compare the
levels of pollutants in the wastewater to
the levels of pollutants in the intake
water. If the Industrial User can
demonstrate through its technical
evaluation that a specific pollutant is
not added, and can demonstrate through
a mass balance that any increases in the
wastestream concentration are due only
to evaporative losses or other similar
reductions in the volume of wastewater
discharged, then a monitoring waiver
may be approved by the Control
Authority. Note that accurate flow
measurements will be necessary to
perform the appropriate mass-balance
calculations and demonstrate that small
amounts of the pollutant are not added
in the course of the facility activity. One
example submitted by a commenter
notes that cooling tower maintenance
chemicals may add the pollutant of
concern to the wastestream. If the
pollutant of concern is added by the
User in any way to the wastestream,
then the Industrial User would not be
eligible for the waiver. To the extent
that the concentration is increased
significantly such that it may impact the
POTW, EPA would expect that a
monitoring waiver would not be
granted. In response to this comment,
EPA is revising the language in the final
regulation to refer to the ‘‘levels’’ of
pollutants in the intake water rather
than the ‘‘concentration’’ of pollutants
in the intake water. This wording
change is consistent with the similar
NPDES permitting requirement for

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60140

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

direct dischargers (see 40 CFR
122.44(a)(2)(i)).
One commenter noted that EPA’s use
of the phrase ‘‘with no increase in the
pollutant due to the regulated process’’
could create confusion in how to handle
pollutants that are added in other
facility wastestreams that are not
regulated by the applicable categorical
Pretreatment Standard. EPA agrees that
the phrase ‘‘with no increase in the
pollutant due to the regulated process’’
is not appropriate. Although the phrase
was used in the preamble to the
proposal and not the proposed
regulation, EPA is revising the final
regulatory language to include the
phrase ‘‘without any increase in the
pollutant due to the activities of the
Industrial User’’. This phrase better
reflects EPA’s intent that the waiver
would not be available for a pollutant
where the Industrial User may add the
pollutant through means other than the
regulated industrial process (except for
sanitary wastewater—see below).
Should Industrial Users have the
authority to waive sampling
requirements rather than the Control
Authority? Several commenters
suggested that it would be appropriate
for the Industrial User to have the
authority to make the determination on
whether a pollutant is present and
monitoring requirements should be
waived rather than the Control
Authority. EPA disagrees that Industrial
Users rather than the Control Authority
should have the authority to waive
monitoring for pollutants not present.
The Control Authority is the regulatory
agency responsible for ensuring
compliance with applicable Standards,
and is therefore the most appropriate
agency for determining the monitoring
requirements necessary for it to fulfill
that responsibility. In addition, placing
the authority with the Industrial User
eliminates oversight that, in EPA’s view,
is necessary to ensure that this
provision is implemented correctly.
What information is necessary to
determine if a pollutant is not present
at a facility? EPA received many
comments suggesting what type of data
is needed in order to make an informed
decision on whether a pollutant is
neither present nor expected to be
present. Commenters noted that
information contained in control
mechanism applications and baseline
monitoring reports, as well as data
obtained through a thorough facility
inspection could all be used to support
a determination that a pollutant is not
present. The commenters noted that
these are all mechanisms for obtaining
data on the raw materials, products, and
by-products used and generated at an

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

Industrial User. EPA agrees that these
are valid sources of information that can
contribute to an Industrial User’s
demonstration that a pollutant is neither
present nor expected to be present. EPA
notes that the Industrial User
monitoring waiver in today’s rule
applies to the semiannual monitoring
required under 40 CFR 403.12(e), and
does not apply to monitoring required
for the baseline monitoring report or the
90-day compliance report. EPA has also
concluded that if the Control Authority
uses a control mechanism application
form, such a form is an appropriate
place for the Industrial User to request
the monitoring waiver, although the
mechanism for how the request is made
is largely up to the discretion of the
Control Authority.
Commenters also suggested that
material safety data sheets would be a
valuable tool in determining whether
specific pollutants are present in the
raw materials or other chemicals used at
the facility. EPA notes that material
safety data sheets do not identify all of
the pollutants present in a given
material, and therefore cannot be relied
upon to determine whether a pollutant
is present in the raw materials or other
chemicals at the Industrial User’s
facility. In order for the Control
Authority to accurately determine the
presence of a pollutant in a given raw
material or other chemical, the
Industrial User will need to analyze the
material in question, or obtain a
certificate of analysis from the
manufacturer of the material
demonstrating the absence of the
pollutant. In addition, the evaluation
needs to include materials not
necessarily used for the product, such as
chemicals used in equipment cleaning
and wastewater treatment. Although
wastewater treatment chemicals are
used to reduce the levels of pollutants
in the Discharge, analysis of the
chemicals can show significant levels of
contaminants that can be added to the
wastewater stream. Additional
information, such as intermediate
products, final products, and
byproducts generated in the process will
need to be considered as well, and
therefore a detailed knowledge and
evaluation of the process chemistry
involved in the manufacturing
operations will be necessary.
Some commenters suggested that the
determination of whether a pollutant is
present should be based exclusively on
a review of available information. While
available information should certainly
be used in the determination, and EPA
would expect that most Industrial Users
requesting the waiver would have a
fairly extensive knowledge of the

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

pollutants present in their wastewater,
because the pollutants are either
directly added or generated as
byproducts, an Industrial User cannot
assume that a pollutant is not present in
its Discharge simply because it has not
generated any information to suggest
otherwise. EPA notes that the Industrial
User has the burden to demonstrate that
the pollutant is not present, and if this
demonstration cannot be made to the
satisfaction of the Control Authority, the
waiver may not be granted.
EPA does agree that the determination
of whether a pollutant is present should
be based on whether or not that
pollutant would have the potential to
enter the wastestream to the POTW.
Such an evaluation must include the
potential for the pollutants to enter the
wastestream through spills and other
potentially infrequent events, in
addition to whether the pollutant would
be routinely expected to enter the
wastestream. Therefore, in order for
monitoring for the pollutant to be
waived, there must be a high degree of
certainty that the pollutant will not
show up in the Discharge to the POTW.
EPA also notes that for facilities that
use the combined wastestream formula,
‘‘unregulated’’ wastestreams may be
covered by the categorical Standard
through the adjusted Standard.
Therefore, EPA has concluded that it is
not appropriate to allow a monitoring
waiver where wastestreams other than
those regulated by the categorical
Standard contribute the pollutant of
concern. However, since pollutants,
especially metals, may be present in
sanitary wastestreams at higher than
background concentrations, and because
sanitary wastestreams are not typically
regulated through categorical Standards
specifically or the Pretreatment program
in general, the revised regulation
provides that waivers may be granted
where the only source of the increase in
the pollutant from human activity is
sanitary wastewater, provided that the
sanitary wastewater is not regulated by
an applicable categorical Standard and
does not include the pollutant at levels
that are significantly higher than typical
domestic levels for the POTW’s service
area. See 40 CFR 403.12 (e)(2)(i).
One commenter noted several
industries that claimed that a pollutant
was not present in their Discharge, only
to have it show up in monitoring
results. EPA is aware of similar
instances and knows of circumstances
where the pollutants are later detected
in the sampling data at fairly high
levels. This is one of the reasons why
EPA is requiring that the technical
evaluation of the facility to determine
the presence of the pollutant be

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
supported by sampling data, including
data prior to treatment. Even though
EPA is generally not requiring a
minimum amount of data (with the
exception of the one sample required
prior to treatment), Control Authorities
are expected to have sufficient sampling
data to support the technical evaluation.
Where monitoring data shows that the
pollutant is present at levels above the
background intake water level, the
Control Authority must deny the request
for the monitoring waiver.
How much sampling data is necessary
to make a determination that a
pollutant is not present? Comments on
this issue varied from suggesting that no
sampling is necessary to providing
suggestions on specific sampling
frequencies for the intake water as well
as the effluent Discharge. One
commenter suggested that no influent
monitoring data was necessary if the
effluent data shows no detectable levels
of the pollutant. Although EPA has
concluded that some sampling data is
necessary to document the absence of a
pollutant in the Discharge, the amount
of sampling necessary for the
determination is most appropriately
determined on a site-specific basis, and
will depend, in part, on how convincing
are the arguments regarding the ‘‘other
technical factors’’. Therefore, EPA is not
establishing a minimum monitoring
frequency. This is also consistent with
the NPDES regulations, which do not
establish a minimum sampling
frequency. EPA is, however,
establishing a minimum requirement
that one sample be collected prior to
treatment. Data prior to treatment is
necessary to demonstrate that the
measured levels reflect any pollutants
that are added to the wastewater rather
than the levels after they have been
reduced by treatment, since effective
treatment could become less effective
over time. Other data that may be used
in the evaluation include final effluent
data and in many cases the facility
intake water.
It is important to note that the
pollutant monitoring waiver is based on
a facility-wide evaluation and, therefore,
sampling data must be representative of
all wastestreams, as well as any seasonal
or other variability in the Discharge. In
addition, note that the monitoring
waiver is for pollutants that are neither
present nor expected to be present, and
not for pollutants which are added but
for which no violation of the applicable
Standard is expected. In some cases, the
existing monitoring data will be
sufficient to evaluate the presence of the
pollutant in the Discharge. The data
prior to treatment is less likely to have
been collected in the past, although

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

historic data, if still representative, can
be used.
EPA has concluded that a sequential
approach to sampling is the most
appropriate way to evaluate the request
for a monitoring waiver based on
sampling data. If monitoring of the
Industrial User’s wastewater prior to
treatment (and after treatment where
appropriate) shows no detectable levels
of the pollutant based on the most
sensitive EPA approved method, then
no sampling of the intake water is
necessary because the levels of the
pollutant in the Discharge will already
have been shown to be at or below the
levels in the intake water. However, if
a pollutant is present in the Industrial
User’s wastewater, data on the levels in
the influent water are necessary to
determine whether the presence of the
pollutant is solely the result of levels in
the influent water, or the result of the
Industrial User adding the pollutant to
some extent. Background levels of
pollutants in an Industrial User’s
influent water will vary from POTW to
POTW, and possibly from Industrial
User to Industrial User based on many
factors. If historical data is available,
based on prior sampling by either the
Industrial User or the POTW, or based
on drinking water system data that is
representative of the Industrial User’s
intake water, additional sampling may
not be necessary.
EPA notes that data for intake water
must be representative of the water
typically used at the facility, but prior
to any water treatment or conditioning
provided by the Industrial User. This
generally means that the data, especially
for lead and copper, should reflect
pollutant levels of intake water that
have been running continuously for at
least several minutes, rather than
pollutant levels of intake water that
have been sitting in the pipes for several
hours. Water system data for lead and
copper will typically reflect the levels of
pollutants in the water after it has been
sitting in the pipes for at least six hours.
Because this data is not generally
representative of the levels of lead and
copper in the typical facility intake
water, drinking water data for lead and
copper may not be representative of the
Industrial User’s actual intake water and
should not be used unless the Industrial
User can demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the Control Authority that the lead
and copper levels are actually
representative.
How should Control Authorities and
Industrial Users address analytical
variability when determining if a
pollutant is present above background
levels? One commenter requested
clarification on how to handle a

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60141

situation where the Industrial User and
the Control Authority had determined
that a pollutant was not present, but
subsequently found slightly higher
levels based on monitoring data. EPA
acknowledges that there is some
variability in sample results. Therefore,
it is possible that slightly higher levels
of pollutants may be measured in the
Industrial User’s wastewater than in the
intake water. If the higher levels are
within the method variability and the
technical evaluation shows that the
pollutant is neither present nor
expected to be present, then the results
should be considered equal. If the
higher levels are above the method
variability, then the pollutant should be
considered to be present unless the
Industrial User can demonstrate that the
sample result was in error, or that the
intake levels of the pollutant have risen
to the same extent. EPA notes that the
burden is on the Industrial User to
demonstrate that an analytical error has
occurred through re-analysis of the
sample or other similar means. An
unexpected result is not sufficient
justification to consider a sample result
to be in error since, as noted above,
sampling data at times finds pollutants
which were not expected to be present.
Likewise, the Industrial User would
need to provide sampling data
demonstrating that the levels of the
pollutant in question have risen in the
intake water if it believes that this is the
reason for the higher levels of the
pollutant in its wastewater.
Should any ongoing POTW
monitoring be required to demonstrate
that the waived pollutant continues to
be absent from the Discharge? Not all
commenters agreed with the EPA
proposal requiring POTW’s to monitor
for any waived pollutants at least once
during the effective period of the
Industrial User’s control mechanism.
These commenters believed that the
combination of the certification and the
requirement to report changes in the
Discharge were sufficient to ensure that
the Control Authority would become
aware of changes that would require a
resumption of monitoring. Other
commenters believed that the once per
control mechanism term was
appropriate and would not burden
POTWs, while other commenters
believed that monitoring once per year
for the waived pollutants was
appropriate. EPA disagrees that annual
monitoring will be necessary to
determine whether or not the pollutant
is present. As stated in the preamble of
the proposal, EPA asserts that if the
Control Authority has determined,
based on both sampling data and a

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60142

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

technical evaluation, that a pollutant is
not present at levels above background,
and if the Industrial User continues to
certify that there is no increase in the
pollutant in its wastewater due to the
activities of the Industrial User, then it
is appropriate to allow the Control
Authority to determine whether to
sample the facility more frequently than
once during the term of the control
mechanism. EPA received no data to
suggest that more frequent monitoring is
necessary. EPA notes that the Control
Authority has the discretion to
determine that the Industrial User must
monitor for a pollutant despite the User
having demonstrated that it is not
present. Where the Control Authority
elects to require monitoring in such
circumstances, it may determine the
appropriate frequency of monitoring,
including frequencies that are less than
twice per year. In addition, the
Industrial User may also monitor on its
own, even though the requirement to do
so has been waived, but in this case the
Industrial User must report the results
of that monitoring to the Control
Authority in accordance with 40 CFR
403.12(g)(6).
Although EPA is not requiring annual
monitoring by the POTW, EPA has
concluded that at least one effluent
sample during the term of the Industrial
User’s control mechanism is necessary
to confirm that no changes have
occurred, and that the monitoring
waiver is still appropriate. EPA is
requiring that this monitoring be done
by the POTW to ensure an independent
assessment of the Industrial User. EPA
has concluded that the most appropriate
time for the monitoring to occur is
during the renewal of the control
mechanism. However, EPA also asserts
that the timing is best left to the
discretion of the POTW and, therefore,
is not requiring that the monitoring
occur at any specific time during the
duration of the control mechanism.
Should the waiver be available for
pollutants that in the past have caused
Pass Through or Interference, or
otherwise caused problems at the
POTW? One commenter suggested that
the monitoring waiver for pollutants not
present should not be available for
pollutants which have been problematic
for the POTW in the past. EPA agrees
that POTWs must be more careful when
waiving the monitoring requirements for
pollutants for which the POTW has
previously experienced problems. In
these instances, more monitoring data
and a more careful review of the
technical evaluation is warranted.
However, if the pollutant is truly not
present at the facility or in the Discharge
and there is no potential for spills or

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

slug loads of the pollutant, EPA does
not view it as necessary to require
monitoring at that Industrial User’s
facility merely because the pollutant
was associated with past POTW
problems and, therefore, will not
prohibit granting a waiver in these
circumstances. Granting the waiver is at
the discretion of the Control Authority,
and where there has been a history of
problems with a pollutant at the POTW,
the Control Authority may deny a
waiver, if it deems this necessary to
prevent future problems.
Is the waiver available for facilities
subject to the Organic Chemicals,
Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers category?
Most comments supported allowing
waiver of the monitoring requirements
for pollutants not present for facilities
subject to the OCPSF Standards. EPA
agrees that Control Authorities should
be able to grant the monitoring waiver
to OCPSF dischargers if appropriate.
Several commenters indicated that they
know of OCPSF facilities that
manufacture a limited number of
products and have fairly consistent
Discharges. A monitoring waiver for
some regulated pollutants may be
appropriate for such facilities and,
therefore, a blanket exclusion for all
OCPSF facilities from the waiver would
not be appropriate. However, EPA notes
that production and Discharges from
OCPSF facilities can be highly variable.
Control Authorities must ensure that
sufficient information, including
sampling data, is available to assess
whether a particular pollutant is present
at any time, taking into consideration all
of the variability in production. When a
particular pollutant may be present at
some time based on the products that
are manufactured at the facility, even if
the pollutant is not currently present, a
monitoring waiver for that pollutant
would not be appropriate. If any
facility’s operations, regardless of
whether they are subject to OCPSF
Standards or not, are sufficiently
variable that a reasonable determination
cannot be made as to whether a
pollutant will consistently be absent
from the Discharge, the Control
Authority may not grant a waiver.
How does the waiver for pollutants
neither present nor expected to be
present affect other waivers specifically
included in a categorical Pretreatment
Standard, such as the option under the
metal finishing Standards allowing for
implementation of a toxic organics
management plan in lieu of monitoring
for total toxic organics? Several
commenters compared the waiver of
monitoring for pollutants not present
being promulgated today to other
monitoring waivers such as the

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

management plan and certification
option under the metal finishing
Standards in lieu of total toxic organics
monitoring. In order to avoid any
potential confusion, EPA is adding
specific language to today’s regulations
which states that the monitoring waiver
and certification for a pollutant that is
not present cannot be used in place of
any certification process established in
categorical Pretreatment Standards.
Therefore, today’s monitoring waiver
would not be available, for example, for
total toxic organics under the metal
finishing regulations. Rather, in order to
reduce its monitoring for total toxic
organics, a metal finisher would need to
use the management plan and
certification process contained in 40
CFR 433.12. Since the metal finishing
and other category-specific certifications
were established for an identified set of
facilities based on an evaluation of those
facilities, while today’s monitoring
waiver is being established generally
without a reevaluation of each
categorical Pretreatment Standard, EPA
has concluded that it is not appropriate
for today’s waiver to supercede these
more specific certifications. EPA notes
that the equivalent NPDES Permit
requirement includes this same
provision. See 40 CFR 122.44(a)(2)(v).
However, while the general waiver for
pollutants neither present nor expected
to be present cannot substitute for a
category-specific certification
requirement, the data and analyses that
would otherwise be used to support
such a waiver may be relevant to, and
if so form part of the basis for, the
category-specific certification.
While today’s rule provides that the
monitoring waiver and certification for
a pollutant that is not present cannot be
used in place of any certification
process already established in existing
categorical Pretreatment Standards, the
monitoring waiver is available for
pollutants that are analyzed as
surrogates for other pollutants.
What happens if a facility’s
operations change so that a pollutant
for which a monitoring waiver has been
granted is now present at the facility?
Several commenters correctly noted that
40 CFR 403.12(j) requires that Industrial
Users provide notification of any
substantial changes in the volume or
character of pollutants in the Discharge.
This notification requirement would
apply in the event that a pollutant for
which monitoring was waived became
present at the Industrial User for any
reason. However, the language in 40
CFR 403.12(j) refers to pollutants in the
Industrial User’s Discharge rather than
any pollutant at the facility which is or
may be added to the wastestream.

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Therefore, in order to clarify the
requirement for waived pollutants, EPA
has added language to the final
regulation that states that notification is
necessary, and that the Industrial User
must immediately resume monitoring, if
the pollutant is found or suspected to be
present. The requirement to resume
monitoring would apply even before the
Industrial User’s control mechanism is
revised to reflect the resumed
monitoring. Control mechanisms that
include the monitoring waiver must also
include language requiring notification
and the resumption of monitoring in the
event that a pollutant is subsequently
determined to be present at the facility.
Failure to provide the required
notification or to resume monitoring is
a violation of the Industrial User’s
control mechanism and the General
Pretreatment Regulations. EPA also
recommends that any control
mechanism issued incorporating a
monitoring waiver includes a reopener
clause which allows the Control
Authority to revise or revoke the waiver
if appropriate.
Where a facility has been granted a
waiver of monitoring for a pollutant that
has been determined not to be present
and it installs or constructs new
production lines or processes, the
Industrial User must evaluate the new
production lines or processes and
determine whether they may cause the
pollutant to be present, in which case
the facility must resume monitoring.
How often will certification that the
pollutant is not present in the Discharge
be required? EPA proposed that
certification that a pollutant is not
present at the facility be submitted
twice-per-year with the semiannual
reports otherwise required under 40
CFR 403.12(e). Several commenters
supported this approach, while others
believed that a once-per-year
certification would be sufficient, or that
no certification should be required,
especially since the Industrial User is
required to report changes at the facility
to the POTW. EPA has concluded that
twice-per-year certification will not
impose a significantly greater burden on
Industrial Users than once-per-year
certification since in most cases the
reports would still be submitted at least
twice-per-year even if monitoring for
some pollutants is waived. In addition,
it often may be easier for the Industrial
User to include the certification with
every report rather than determining
which reports need the certification and
which do not. Although required to
report changes in the facility, an
Industrial User’s willingness to certify
that the pollutant is not present in the
Discharge provides an additional

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

assurance that the pollutant is not
present above background levels.
Accordingly, EPA has decided to
maintain the twice-per-year certification
requirement.
In addition, EPA has clarified the
language of the certification requirement
to state that once an Industrial User has
received a monitoring waiver, the
certification is required and is not
optional. If the Industrial User is no
longer certain that the pollutant is not
present, it must notify the Control
Authority and immediately begin
monitoring. EPA intends that the
monitoring waiver be used in instances
where a pollutant is consistently not
present at a facility, and is not to be
used for short periods of time when the
pollutant is not present.
It should be noted that the
certification provided in the 40 CFR
403.12(e)(2)(v) includes two blank
spaces which are to be filled in by the
Industrial User. In the first blank space,
the Industrial User is to specify the
applicable Pretreatment Standard(s) that
apply to the facility (e.g., 40 CFR
433.15). In the second blank space, the
Industrial User is to list the pollutants
for which the monitoring waiver has
been granted. As noted above, the
certification must include all of the
pollutants for which a monitoring
waiver has been granted. The Control
Authority may also fill in the blank
spaces before incorporating the
certification language into the Industrial
User’s control mechanism for use by the
Industrial User with the semiannual or
more frequent reports.
Should the waiver be available for
new Industrial Users, or during an
Industrial User’s first control
mechanism? EPA noted in the preamble
to the proposed rule that the equivalent
NPDES provision did not allow the
monitoring waiver to be granted to New
Sources/New Dischargers for the term of
their first NPDES Permit. Comments on
this issue were divided, with some
commenters noting that the term of the
first control mechanism is a good time
to collect data on the presence of the
pollutant at the facility, while other
commenters believed that the Control
Authority would generally be able to
determine the presence of the pollutant,
even for the first control mechanism. It
is EPA’s view that the Control Authority
may need time to collect enough data to
appropriately assess whether pollutants
at a new Industrial User are consistently
not present and, therefore, should be
cautious in approving a waiver for new
Industrial Users. Time may be necessary
to determine whether there are seasonal
or other variations in the operations that
would result in the pollutants being

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60143

present periodically. However, the
length of time needed to collect the data
and make the assessment will vary
depending on site-specific factors.
Therefore, EPA has not included
language in the regulation restricting the
eligibility of a new Industrial User for a
monitoring waiver for pollutants that
are not present.
What documentation of the waiver is
required? Several commenters noted the
need to document the waiver when it is
approved by the Control Authority. EPA
agrees that this documentation is
important for the Approval Authority
and the general public to ensure that
waivers are properly granted. Pursuant
to 40 CFR 403.14, this information must
be made publicly available. It has
always been EPA’s intent that any
monitoring waivers would be
documented in the Industrial User’s
control mechanism. Today’s regulation
also specifically requires that the
Control Authority’s rationale for
granting the waiver and any information
submitted by the Industrial User in its
request for a monitoring waiver be
maintained by the Control Authority for
at least three years after the expiration
of the waiver.
B. General Control Mechanisms (40 CFR
403.8(f)(1)(iii))
Today’s final rule clarifies that
POTWs may use general control
mechanisms, such as general permits, to
regulate the activities of groups of
Significant Industrial Users (SIUs).
Provided that the necessary legal
authority exists, the POTW may use a
general control mechanism for any
facilities that meet certain minimum
criteria for being considered
substantially similar.
In the NPDES permitting context, the
use of general permits (see 40 CFR
122.28) allows the permitting authority
to allocate resources in a more efficient
manner and to provide timelier permit
coverage. For example, direct
dischargers with common
characteristics may be covered under a
general permit without the permitting
authority expending time and money to
issue individual permits to each of these
facilities. The use of a general permit
also ensures consistency of permit
conditions for similar facilities. In the
Pretreatment context, POTWs might
benefit from the use of control
mechanisms for Discharges from SIUs to
POTWs which are similar to the general
permits used in the NPDES program.
This modification should help
POTWs by providing a cost-effective
method to cover large numbers of
similar facilities under a single
mechanism. This is expected to reduce

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60144

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

the administrative burden of issuing
separate mechanisms to similar
facilities.
1. What were the rules in place prior to
today’s rulemaking?
Prior to today’s rulemaking, the
Pretreatment Regulations allowed
POTWs to use general control
mechanisms to control non-Significant
Industrial Users, but required individual
control mechanisms for SIUs. Section
403.8(f)(1)(iii) required POTWs to
‘‘Control through, order, or similar
means, the contribution to the POTW by
each Industrial User to ensure
compliance. * * * In the case of
Industrial Users identified as significant
* * *, this control shall be achieved
through s or equivalent individual
control mechanisms issued to each such
User.’’ The preamble to the regulation
which originally required control
mechanisms for SIUs emphasized the
importance of POTWs evaluating SIUs
on an individual basis to determine the
need for individual requirements as
necessary. See 55 FR 30082 (July 24,
1990).
2. What changes did EPA propose?
EPA proposed to revise the regulation
by authorizing POTWs to use ‘‘general
permits’’ to regulate SIUs in certain
circumstances. Under the proposal, all
of the facilities to be covered by a
general permit must employ the same or
substantially similar types of industrial
processes; discharge the same types of
wastes; require the same effluent
limitations; and require the same or
similar monitoring. These requirements
reflect the existing criteria for using
general permits for direct dischargers at
40 CFR 122.28(a)(2)(i). EPA also
indicated that the use of a general
permit does not relieve the SIU from
any reporting or compliance obligations
under Part 403.
3. What changes is EPA finalizing in
today’s rule?
In today’s rule, EPA is finalizing the
proposed rule’s change to allow the use
of general control mechanisms for SIUs.
Section 403.8(f)(1)(iii) contains the
revisions which authorize general
control mechanisms.
EPA notes that today’s rule replaces
the term ‘‘general permit’’ with ‘‘general
control mechanism’’. This terminology
is more consistent with the existing
Pretreatment Regulations which require
that SIUs be controlled through
‘‘permits or equivalent individual
control mechanisms.’’ Just as EPA has
not precluded the use of an ‘‘order or
similar means’’ to regulate individual
SIUs, it also is not ruling out the use of

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

other mechanisms besides permits to
address groupings of SIUs. This
decision is based on the rationale EPA
provided when the Agency first
promulgated the requirement that
POTWs regulate SIUs through
individual control mechanisms to SIUs.
See 55 FR 30107, July 24, 1990. EPA is
including the relevant passage from this
final rule for reference:
‘‘* * * the Agency will require issuance of
‘‘individual Discharge permits or equivalent
control mechanisms.’’ An adequate
equivalent control mechanism is one which
ensures the same degree of specificity and
control as a permit. To clarify that the
conditions of the individual control
mechanism must be enforceable against the
Significant Industrial User through the usual
remedies for noncompliance (set forth in 40
CFR 403.8(f)(1)(vi)(A), EPA has amended the
language of 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(vi)(B) to
provide that Pretreatment requirements
enforced through the remedies of 40 CFR
403.8(f)(1)(vi)(A) shall include the
requirements set forth in individual control
mechanisms. In addition, the Agency has
added to proposed 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii) a
statement that individual control
mechanisms must be enforceable.

What types of facilities may be subject
to a general control mechanism? SIUs
that are covered by concentration-based
Standards and Best Management
Practices may be subject to general
control mechanisms. However, due to
the requirement that all facilities
covered under the same mechanism
‘‘require the same effluent limitations’’,
facilities regulated by categorical
Standards expressed as mass limits,
which are inherently unique to each
individual User, can not receive
coverage under a general control
mechanism. The one exception to this
exclusion would be situations where the
POTW has imposed the same massbased local limit on a number of
facilities, and any categorical Standards
are expressed as concentration limits or
BMPs. In addition, general control
mechanisms are not available for
Industrial Users whose limits are based
on the Combined Wastestream Formula
or Net/Gross calculations, or other
calculated categorical Pretreatment
Standard equivalents (40 CFR 403.6(e)
and 40 CFR 403.15).
How does an SIU apply for coverage
under a general control mechanism? For
an individual SIU to be covered by a
general control mechanism, it must file
a ‘‘written request for coverage’’ with
the POTW. Through the request for
coverage, the Industrial User should
identify its production processes, the
types of waste generated, and the
monitoring location or locations at
which all regulated wastewaters will be
monitored. The request for coverage

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

should also include a finding that the
SIU properly falls within the category of
facilities covered by the general control
mechanism. In addition, the SIU’s
request for coverage should include an
indication of whether the User is
requesting a monitoring waiver for
pollutants not present.
The POTW does not necessarily need
to establish an entirely new application
process for SIUs seeking coverage under
a general control mechanism. Existing
procedures or forms may be used to
provide coverage. The POTW may find
that it is necessary to supplement
existing procedures or forms to add the
information EPA recommends for
inclusion in the requests for coverage, as
discussed in the preceding paragraph.
How does the POTW adopt general
control mechanisms? A POTW must
have the necessary legal authority if it
wants to issue general control
mechanisms. Legal authority changes
would include the adoption of
ordinance language consistent with
today’s changes to 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)
and the development of any policies or
procedures that would support the
issuance and implementation of general
control mechanisms. Refer to Section VI
for a more detailed discussion of
Program modifications.
In addition, general control
mechanisms have to be enforceable to
the same extent as an individual control
mechanism. The POTW should also
have enforcement authority to take
action against Industrial Users that fail
to file the required request for a general
control mechanism, i.e., an IU that fails
to file is subject to enforcement for
discharging without authorization.
The POTW should develop the
general control mechanism and provide
notice that it is available. The general
control mechanism should, of course,
specify exactly what characteristics or
conditions make an Industrial User
eligible for coverage. The general
control mechanism must also impose all
of the conditions of individual control
mechanisms listed in 40 CFR
403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(1)–(6).
A POTW may make coverage by the
general control mechanism mandatory
or optional. In either case, if an
Industrial User is to be covered by the
general control mechanism, it must file
the written request for coverage to be
covered by the general control
mechanism. The POTW should consider
how it will notify SIUs, subsequent to
their filing a written request for
coverage, that they are authorized to
discharge under the general control
mechanism, including how it will
memorialize certain facility-specific
factors such as sampling location. EPA

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
notes that the POTW’s annual report
should indicate which SIUs are covered
by each general permit.
Today’s final rule does not preclude
POTWs from requiring individual
control mechanisms for specific
Industrial Users, even if they might
otherwise satisfy the conditions for a
general control mechanism, where
necessary or otherwise determined to be
appropriate by the POTW. Today’s final
rule also does not restrict POTWs’
existing authority to use general control
mechanisms to regulate facilities that
are not considered Significant Industrial
Users.
What significant changes were made
to the proposed rule?
Today’s rule makes the following
changes to the proposed rule:
Criteria for Coverage: In proposing the
criteria for coverage under a general
control mechanism, EPA omitted one of
the criterion used in the NPDES general
permit requirements. In today’s final
rule, EPA is adding this criterion, which
is similar to 40 CFR 122.28(a)(2)(i)(E), to
the list of criteria for coverage. The
following language is included in 40
CFR 403.8(f)(1)(A)(5): ‘‘in the opinion of
the POTW, [the SIUs] are more
appropriately controlled under a general
control mechanism than under
individual control mechanisms.’’
Request for Coverage: EPA has deleted
all references to the requirement to
submit a ‘‘Notice of Intent’’ (NOI) to be
covered under a general control
mechanism. The NOI is an instrument
that is applicable to the NPDES general
permit program. Although the proposal
indicated that an alternative instrument
could be used by the POTW, EPA has
concluded that the ‘‘written request for
coverage’’ better reflects the Agency’s
intention not to restrict the POTW’s
decision about the type of application it
chooses to use in covering SIUs with a
general control mechanism.
Coverage for SIUs with Monitoring
Waivers for Pollutants Not Present: EPA
makes coverage under a general control
mechanism available for SIUs which are
requesting monitoring waivers for
pollutants neither present nor expected
to be present. The proposal did not state
whether such facilities could still meet
the required criteria for being
considered substantially similar. EPA
also specifies that the monitoring waiver
is effective in the general control
mechanism only after the SIU obtains
written approval from the POTW that
the monitoring waiver request has been
approved.
Coverage for SIUs with Mass Limits:
The proposed rule excluded all facilities
subject to mass limits from coverage
under a general control mechanism.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

Today’s final rule provides one
exception to that exclusion. EPA
clarifies in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(A) that
general control mechanisms are
unavailable for facilities subject to
categorical Standards expressed as mass
of pollutant discharged. This language
does not prevent a POTW from using a
general control mechanism for a group
of SIUs that all have the same massbased local limits (as distinguished from
mass-based categorical Standards), as
long as the SIUs are not subject to
categorical Standards that are massbased. In addition, the final rule also
clarifies that the mass-based categorical
Standards excluded from coverage
under a general control mechanism
includes those limits that are expressed
as mass of pollutant discharged per day
or that are production-based.
Recordkeeping Requirements: EPA is
adding a requirement for the POTW to
maintain for three years after the
expiration of the general control
mechanism, a copy of the general
control mechanism itself,
documentation to support the POTW’s
determination that the group of SIUs to
be covered meets the required criteria,
and copies of all related requests for
coverage. This documentation will serve
as a record for the POTW to support its
actions in establishing the facility
category and for authorizing coverage
under the general control mechanism
for individual facilities.
4. Summary of Major Comments and
EPA Response
Is use of a general control mechanism
in conflict with EPA’s original intent in
requiring individualized control
mechanisms for SIUs? One commenter
expressed concern that using general
control mechanisms would not provide
the specificity of control over SIUs that
the Domestic Sewage Exclusion (DSE)
study (Report to Congress on the
Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to
Publicly Owned Treatment Works—EPA
530–SW–86–004) indicated was
necessary. Today’s rule provides an
exception to the requirement that the
POTW issue SIUs ‘‘permits or
equivalent individual control
mechanisms’’. The commenter is correct
in observing that the adoption of the
requirement to issue control
mechanisms to SIUs after EPA’s
issuance of the DSE study in 1986, was
intended to provide a mechanism for
the POTW to impose individualized
Pretreatment requirements on SIUs. See
55 FR 30105–30110 (July 24, 1990).
However, EPA has now concluded that
general control mechanisms can provide
an equivalent level of control for
facilities that meet all of the

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60145

requirements in 40 CFR
403.8(f)(1)(iii)(1–6), and will not lessen
the POTW’s enforcement capabilities.
Use of a general control mechanism
does not relieve the POTW of any of its
oversight or implementation
requirements under its Pretreatment
program. The purpose of the general
control mechanism is to streamline the
administrative requirements associated
with issuing control mechanisms to
multiple Industrial Users that are
substantially similar. The level of
control over an SIU with a general
control mechanism should not be any
different than if that User were covered
by an individual control mechanism.
Both individual and general control
mechanisms must be enforceable and
must contain the minimum conditions
provided in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(1–
6). In addition, EPA notes that it is
within the POTW’s discretion to
exclude particular Industrial Users from
general control mechanisms in order to
treat those dischargers with more
individually tailored requirements.
EPA’s intent is to leave these case-bycase determinations to the POTW,
which should be in the best position to
determine whether it is appropriate to
use a general control mechanism for a
particular User.
Is a Notice of Intent (NOI) required for
an SIU requesting coverage under a
general control mechanism? Several
commenters found EPA’s use of the
term ‘‘Notice of Intent’’ (NOI)
problematic because it suggested that
POTWs would be required to use such
an instrument. These commenters
requested that EPA delete the reference
to NOI or make it clear that the POTW
can choose the appropriate mechanism
for SIUs to use in seeking coverage
under a general control mechanism.
EPA acknowledges these concerns, and
has removed the reference to ‘‘notice of
intent’’ in today’s final rule. The revised
rule instead refers only to a ‘‘written
request for coverage.’’ The decision
regarding the type of application to use
for general control mechanisms is
entirely the POTW’s. EPA emphasizes,
however, that regardless of the type of
instrument chosen, the request for
coverage must identify, at a minimum,
the information required under new 40
CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(A). POTWs must
also request basic contact information
(e.g., contact name, address, phone
number, etc.) and specification of the
general control mechanism category for
which the SIU is seeking coverage. See
40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(A). The POTW
will need to obtain sufficient
information to verify that the User is
appropriately classified under the
general control mechanism, such as

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60146

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

information to determine the
applicability of categorical Standards.
Should there be additional criteria for
a User to be eligible for coverage under
a general control mechanism? One
commenter requested that EPA include
additional criteria for determining
whether a group of Users are
substantially similar enough to merit
use of a general control mechanism. The
criteria included in the proposal (e.g.,
that facilities to be covered involve the
same or substantially similar types of
operations, discharge the same types of
wastes, require the same effluent
limitations, and require the same or
similar monitoring) are taken from the
criteria used for general permits for
direct dischargers in 40 CFR
122.28(a)(2)(i). The direct Discharge
criteria contain one additional
limitation, not included in the proposal,
requiring the NPDES permitting
authority to document that, in his or her
opinion, the dischargers ‘‘are more
appropriately controlled under a general
permit than under individual permits.’’
See 40 CFR 122.28(a)(2)(i)(E). In
consideration of the commenter’s
request, and to be consistent with the
criteria used for grouping direct
dischargers within general permits, EPA
has modified the proposed list of
criteria to include a similar requirement
that the POTW document why it
believes that its SIUs are more
appropriately regulated by a general
control mechanism. EPA does not
expect that this added criterion will
impose additional burden on the POTW.
This criterion merely requires that the
POTW provide some written record of
why it believes a particular grouping of
SIUs is substantially similar, using the
criteria in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(A)(1–
5).
Another commenter suggested that an
SIU’s compliance record should be used
as an additional criterion for
determining whether to allow general
control mechanism coverage for a
facility. EPA agrees that there will be
factors, outside of the criteria in 40 CFR
403.8(f)(1)(iii)(A), which may support a
POTW’s decision to exclude a particular
Industrial User from general control
mechanism coverage. EPA also agrees
that the need to impose a compliance
schedule or enforcement order on a
particular Industrial User is a good
example of an additional criterion that
the POTW may use to exclude an SIU
from general control mechanism
coverage. EPA notes that the criteria
listed in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(A) are
minimum requirements. The POTW
may include additional criteria if it
chooses. However, EPA is reluctant to
add additional criteria at this time, as

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

the Agency has concluded that many of
these factors will be site-specific and are
best left to the POTW to judge whether
they are appropriate for use in their
program.
One commenter suggested that
general control mechanisms not be
available for SIUs that have multiple
sampling locations, are subject to more
than one categorical Standard, or have
both federal categorical and noncategorical wastestreams. EPA agrees
that situations such as this make it
difficult to use a general control
mechanism in some cases. However,
EPA declines to adopt the additional
criteria suggested by the commenter.
The minimum required criteria in 40
CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(A) provide some
flexibility regarding the availability of
coverage for any particular User. EPA
prefers to leave to the POTW the sitespecific judgments as to whether a class
of dischargers meets the substantially
similar criteria. The POTW may
determine that a User which has
multiple sampling points or which is
subject to both categorical Standards
and non-categorical requirements is
sufficiently dissimilar from other Users
to justify precluding that discharger
from general control mechanism
coverage. There may be some instances
where these differences may still be
accommodated under a general control
mechanism, and therefore EPA has
concluded that eliminating this
flexibility is inappropriate.
Additionally, a general control
mechanism may still be used to cover a
class of Users subject to more than one
categorical Standard as long as they are
covered by the same Standards, in
addition to meeting all other criteria for
coverage. This is consistent with the
requirement that all Users share the
same effluent limits. See 40 CFR
403.8(f)(1)(iii)(A)(3). However, EPA
expects that where there is one User in
the class which is subject to at least one
different categorical Standard than the
others, even if it has one or more
categorical Standards in common with
the other Users, such a User would be
unable to obtain coverage under a
general control mechanism covering the
other Users due to the differences in
effluent limits.
Must the SIUs be exactly the same to
be covered under a general control
mechanism? Several commenters
questioned EPA’s intentions behind
requiring that facilities meet the
‘‘substantially similar’’ criteria in order
to qualify for use of a general control
mechanism. Some of these commenters
were concerned that the criteria would
be interpreted too restrictively, and that
industries would essentially have to be

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

identical to be included in a general
control mechanism group. One
commenter believed that industries
which are similar in many respects, but
which are different in terms of
operations and wastewater Discharges,
should not be excluded from coverage.
EPA’s view is that the criteria for
inclusion in a general control
mechanism category are appropriate as
stated. The opportunity to develop and
issue the same control mechanism for
multiple SIUs comes with the tradeoff
that these industries share certain
minimum characteristics. In response to
the commenter’s observation that
general control mechanisms should be
available for industries which are
similar in many respects, but different
in terms of operations and wastes
discharged, EPA agrees and notes that
the criteria require that the operations
be ‘‘the same or substantially similar’’
and the Discharge be of ‘‘the same types
of wastes.’’ EPA does not intend for
these criteria to be interpreted as
requiring the operations and wastes
discharged to be exactly the same;
rather, the intent is that industries
covered under the same control
mechanism be substantially similar.
EPA acknowledges that industries are
rarely the same in every respect. In
order for an SIU to be included in a
general control mechanism category, it
must meet the criteria in 40 CFR
403.8(f)(1)(iii)(A). With the exception of
the SIU’s effluent limits, which must be
the same as other SIUs in the general
control mechanism category, EPA does
not expect each SIU in a general control
mechanism category to be identical.
Can a general control mechanism be
used for facilities which obtain a
monitoring waiver for pollutants neither
present nor expected to be present? One
commenter recommended that general
control mechanisms not be made
available for SIUs which receive a
monitoring waiver for pollutants neither
present nor expected to be present at the
facility. The commenter reasoned that
such facilities require individual control
mechanisms due to the variation in
sampling requirements from other
facilities. EPA disagrees with the
commenter. Categorical Industrial Users
(CIUs) that qualify for a sampling waiver
for pollutants neither present nor
expected to be present can still be
accommodated under a general control
mechanism even if other Users in the
same general control mechanism
category are still required to sample for
all pollutants. There is flexibility
inherent in the criterion requiring all
industries covered by a general control
mechanism to be subject to the ‘‘same or
similar monitoring’’. If a particular CIU

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
is similar in every other respect to other
CIUs, except for a sampling waiver for
pollutants neither present nor expected
to be present, it is EPA’s view that a
general control mechanism may still be
used to cover this discharger. However,
a POTW could choose as a matter of its
own discretion to exclude CIUs with
sampling waivers from coverage under
the general control mechanism.
To assist the POTW in coordinating
the implementation of general control
mechanisms and processing requests for
monitoring waivers, EPA is requiring
Users to include in their requests for
general control mechanism coverage any
sampling waiver requests. Such a
requirement will ensure that the POTW
is able to process both the sampling
waiver request and the general control
mechanism application simultaneously,
and provide the POTW with sufficient
opportunity to determine what type of
control mechanism is most appropriate.
Where the POTW chooses to still cover
those CIUs which receive monitoring
waivers under a general control
mechanism, 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(A)
specifies that the monitoring waiver is
effective only after the POTW has
specifically notified the affected CIUs.
Also, because all control mechanisms
must include SIU self-monitoring
requirements, unless all of the
monitoring requirements and waivers
for all pollutants are the same, the
POTW will need to establish a common
set of monitoring requirements in a
general control mechanism and
determine what mechanism it will use
to incorporate site-specific monitoring
waivers into a general control
mechanism. Some possible mechanisms
for addressing facility-specific
monitoring waivers include issuing a
separate monitoring supplement to the
general control mechanism for
individual CIUs, using the waiver
approval notice as a site-specific
modification to the general control
mechanism, or appending the general
control mechanism with specific
monitoring waivers. See Section III.A.
for discussion of requirements
associated with monitoring waivers.
Can an SIU opt out of an existing
general control mechanism? Several
commenters expressed opinions on one
side or the other in terms of whether
general control mechanisms can be
made mandatory or optional by the
POTW. Industrial facilities generally
commented that EPA should prevent
POTWs from making general control
mechanisms mandatory, while POTW
commenters supported keeping this
decision a matter of the local program’s
discretion. EPA is sensitive to the
concerns regarding the need for

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:17 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

flexibility on the type of control
mechanism used for individual SIUs.
The industry commenters argue that the
SIU should be able to choose whether it
wants to be covered by an individual or
general control mechanism. EPA does
not specify in today’s rule whether the
use of general control mechanisms
should be optional or mandatory.
However, provided that the SIUs in a
category meet the required criteria, the
POTW has the discretion to determine
whether coverage under the general
control mechanism is required or
whether the Industrial User will have
the option of being covered under an
individual control mechanism. EPA
emphasizes that there should be
minimal if any difference between an
individual and general control
mechanism since the POTW is required
to include in a general control
mechanism all of the conditions of
individual control mechanism listed in
40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(1)–(6). Even if
the POTW chooses to make general
control mechanism coverage mandatory,
the SIU may be able to demonstrate to
the POTW that it does not meet one of
the criteria and therefore should be
issued an individual control
mechanism.
C. Best Management Practices (40 CFR
403.5, 403.8(f) and 403.12(b), (e), and
(h))
Today’s final rule clarifies that Best
Management Practices (BMPs) may be
used in lieu of numeric local limits.
EPA also clarifies the reporting
requirements that apply when BMPs are
used as Pretreatment Standards.
1. What are the existing rules?
What are Best Management Practices?
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
are management and operational
procedures that are intended to prevent
pollutants from entering a facility’s
wastestream or from reaching a
Discharge point. BMPs are distinguished
from numeric effluent limits that
regulate the pollutants once they enter
a wastestream. Although the General
Pretreatment Regulations have not
previously defined BMPs, the NPDES
regulations at 40 CFR 122.2 define
BMPs as schedules of activities,
prohibitions of practices, maintenance
procedures, and other management
practices to prevent or reduce pollution.
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 material
storage.

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60147

There are two different circumstances
in which BMPs may be Pretreatment
Standards. The first is when a POTW
establishes BMPs as local limits to
implement the general and specific
prohibitions. The second is when the
BMPs are categorical Pretreatment
Standards established by EPA.
What regulations address the use of
BMPs as local limits?
Prior to today’s rule, the Pretreatment
Regulations did not specifically address
the use of BMPs as local limits. Thus,
40 CFR 403.5(c) required POTWs to
develop ‘‘specific limits’’ and ‘‘specific
effluent limits’’, without defining the
term ‘‘limits.’’ (emphasis added)
The Local Limits Development
Guidance (EPA 833–R–04–002A, July
2004) includes a discussion in support
of BMPs as local limits, and provides
references and case studies to illustrate
situations where BMPs have been
utilized. EPA indicates also that the
development and implementation of
numeric local limits is not always the
only appropriate or practical method for
preventing pollutant Pass Through and
Interference, or for protecting POTW
worker health and safety. For instance,
control of chemical spills and Slug
Discharges to the POTW through formal
chemical or waste management plans
can go a long way toward preventing
problems. A local requirement for an
Industrial User to develop and submit
such a plan can be considered as a type
of narrative local limit and can be a
useful supplement to numeric limits.
What regulations address the use of
BMPs as categorical Standards?
Certain categorical Pretreatment
Standards allow the use of BMPs as an
alternative means of complying with, or
in place of the established numeric
effluent limit. For example, facilities
may develop toxic organic management
plans in lieu of sampling to demonstrate
compliance with the total toxic organic
limit in 40 CFR Part 433 (Metal
Finishing category). The Pesticides
Formulating, Packaging, and
Repackaging (PFPR) regulation provides
a pollution prevention alternative as an
option that may be chosen rather than
complying with the ‘‘zero discharge’’
limitations. See 40 CFR Part 455 (61 FR
57518, November 6, 1996).
Although the PFPR and some other
categorical Standard regulations have
provided for reporting compliance data
related to BMPs, the Part 403
Pretreatment Regulations did not. See
40 CFR 403.12(b), (d), and (e). Those
requirements focused on sampling data
to demonstrate compliance with
numeric limits rather than

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60148

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

documentation to determine compliance
with a BMP.
2. What changes did EPA propose?
EPA proposed to clarify the
regulations to provide specifically that
BMPs developed by POTWs may serve
as local limits required by 40 CFR
403.5(c)(3). The BMPs would be
enforceable under 40 CFR 403.5(d).
They would be included as local control
mechanism requirements under 40 CFR
403.8(f)(1)(iii)(C).
EPA also proposed to modify 40 CFR
403.12(b), (e), and (h) to clarify the
reporting requirements that apply when
BMPs are used as Pretreatment
Standards. This would include any
documentation required by the Control
Authority or the Standards themselves
to demonstrate compliance with BMPs
that are included in categorical
Standards, as well as any
documentation required by the Control
Authority to demonstrate compliance
with BMPs that serve as local limits.
EPA also proposed a change to the
definition of significant noncompliance
(SNC) to facilitate POTW oversight of
these practices. The proposal would
broaden the SNC definition at 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(vii)(C) to include nonnumeric violations such as BMPs. In
addition, EPA proposed to revise the
reference to ‘‘pretreatment effluent
limit’’, and replace it with the more
inclusive reference to ‘‘Pretreatment
Standard or Requirement’’.
3. What changes is EPA adopting today?
Today’s rule adopts the proposed rule
changes to the Pretreatment Regulations
relating to the use of BMPs as local
limits, and the reporting requirements
when BMPs are used as national
categorical Standards.
What significant changes were made to
the proposed rule?
The only significant change made to
the proposed rule was the inclusion in
40 CFR 403.3(e) of a definition of BMPs
consistent with the NPDES definition.
4. Summary of Major Comments and
EPA Response
Does the CWA authorize POTWs to
require implementation of BMPs as
local limits? A few commenters
questioned the authority under the
CWA for POTWs unilaterally to require
Industrial Users to implement BMPs
instead of or in addition to numeric
local limits. POTW authority to
establish limits and other controls on
Discharge derives from state law, not the
CWA. The Act, together with the
Pretreatment Regulations, specifies
authorities that POTWs must have, and

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

establishes the conditions under which
local requirements become federally
enforceable. There is nothing under the
Act that would preclude POTWs from
setting BMP-based limits, or EPA from
making such limits established by a
POTW federally enforceable.
How are BMPs defined? Several
commenters felt that the use of the
NPDES definition of BMPs would be
appropriate in the Pretreatment context.
EPA agrees that such a definition would
be useful, and is adopting the NPDES
definition, modified slightly to reference
relevant Pretreatment Standards.
Is a regulatory change needed for
BMPs developed by POTWs to be
considered enforceable local limits?
Some commenters expressed the view
that BMPs could already serve as
enforceable local limits, and that a
regulatory change was unnecessary. As
discussed in the preamble to the
proposal, the existing regulations do not
specifically address this issue, although
EPA has supported their use in its local
limits guidance. EPA has concluded that
revision of the regulations is necessary
to clear up any questions on this issue.
As will be discussed below, by
providing this clarification EPA is
ensuring that POTWs have additional
means at their disposal as they seek to
control pollutants and sources not
amenable to more traditional numeric
limits.
Will POTWs be limited in their ability
to develop BMPs as local limits? Some
commenters recommended that the
POTW’s ability to use BMPs as local
limits be limited to certain situations,
such as where it is impracticable to
obtain representative sampling data
from a type of discharger, the Discharge
flow is minimal or variable, or where
operations or processes of a type of
discharger are similar enough that
effective BMPs can be established. In
general, EPA anticipates that POTWs
will choose to use BMPs instead of
numeric local limits where
determination of compliance with
numeric limits is infeasible, or as a
supplement to numeric limits as
appropriate to meet the requirements of
the CWA. As the commenters pointed
out, BMPs may be appropriate for
regulating releases when the types of
pollutants vary greatly over time, when
chemical analyses are impracticable,
and when other Discharge control
options are inappropriate. It may also be
appropriate for IUs to be required to
comply with both BMPs and numeric
limits. While use of BMPs is not
appropriate in all situations, their use,
either in conjunction with or instead of
numeric limits, will be at the discretion

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

of the POTW, with oversight by EPA
and the state Approval Authority.
What are some specific situations
where BMPs would be appropriate?
Numerous commenters representing
POTWs, Industrial Users and trade
associations provided specific examples
where BMPs would be well-suited to
address certain types of industrial or
commercial Discharges, either in lieu of
or in addition to numeric local limits.
Examples involving requirements for
photoprocessors to use silver recovery
systems and/or management practices
were frequently cited to address silver
Discharges from large numbers of
commercial facilities. Also cited were
requirements for dental facilities to
follow BMPs to control mercury
Discharges from dental amalgam where
individual monitoring on a large scale is
impractical and where Discharges are
episodic in nature. Similarly, other
commenters referred to use of shop
towel management and other BMPs to
address Discharges from printing
facilities, or setting requirements for ‘‘no
Discharge’’ of tetrachloroethene from
dry cleaning facilities as an alternative
to complying with a numeric limit. The
Agency agrees that these are good
examples of situations where BMPs may
be appropriate.
BMPs may also be used to supplement
categorical Standards or numeric local
limits at larger facilities. One
commenter described the use of
chemical management plans to address
specific pollutants in individual IU
Permits. These plans, which were
required by the POTW, require IUs to
identify within 60 days of Permit
issuance all sources of a given pollutant
within the plant site; specify actions to
be taken to control these identified
sources; provide a schedule for
implementing the plan; and identify
individuals responsible for
implementation of the plan. Upon
approval by the POTW, the chemical
management plan is incorporated into
the IU’s Permit as an enforceable
requirement.
Who decides whether a POTW will
require an IU to comply with a BMP or
numeric limit? Some industries and
trade associations asked EPA to ensure
that IUs have the option of whether to
meet BMPs or numeric limits. While
POTWs are encouraged to work with
affected Users in developing local
limits, and must comply with applicable
public participation requirements, the
POTW is responsible for developing,
implementing and enforcing local limits
as it deems appropriate to meet its
program requirements. As discussed
above, whether BMPs are used in
conjunction with or instead of numeric

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
limits will be at the discretion of the
POTW, upon approval by the Approval
Authority.
How are BMPs factored into the
technical evaluation of local limits? The
preamble to the proposed rule stated
that for BMPs to be considered local
limits under 40 CFR 403.5(c), the
practices must protect against Pass
Through and/or Interference. This will
require the POTW to evaluate the BMPs
during the technical evaluation of its
local limits. Some commenters raised
questions regarding whether a POTW
would need to quantify the effects of a
BMP in its calculation of its maximum
allowable industrial loading (MAIL),
and if so, how that should be done.
As discussed in the preamble to the
proposal, BMPs are expected to be used
where calculation of numeric effluent
limitations is not feasible, such as when
the types of pollutants vary over time or
when chemical analyses are
inappropriate. Nevertheless, a POTW
needs to assign an allocation of
pollutants to Users covered by the BMP
either in its calculation of Maximum
Allowable Industrial Loadings (MAIL),
or in calculation of separate allowable
loadings for commercial facilities. For
instance, a POTW could estimate the
loading of a pollutant from a given
sector prior to imposition of BMPs by
multiplying the average loading per
User by the number of facilities.
Expected loading reductions from
required BMPs could then be estimated
and incorporated into the MAIL. Thus,
the POTW should be able to provide an
evaluation that implementation of the
numeric limit plus implementation of
BMPs for specific sectors will result in
the calculated Maximum Allowable
Headworks Loading (MAHL) being met.
Where it is expected to take a significant
amount of time for BMP-based
reductions to be realized, the ApreBMP’’ loading from the sector should be
used in the MAIL calculations. Initial
estimates of loading reductions could
then be verified through sampling of
selected Users that have implemented
the BMPs or evaluating influent
loadings for pollutants being addressed
by BMPs to see if adjustments are
needed for the allowable headworks
loadings, the numeric limits or BMPs for
any affected sectors.
May States and EPA Regions establish
BMPs as local limits? One commenter
observed that the language in 40 CFR
403.5(c)(4), allowing POTWs to develop
BMPs as local limits, would not pertain
to states that administer authorized
Pretreatment programs. The commenter
supported broadening this language to
allow authorized states and Regions,
acting in their capacity as Control

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

Authorities, to develop and enforce
BMPs. Section 40 CFR 403.5(d), states
that ‘‘where specific prohibitions or
limits on pollutants (i.e., local limits)
are developed by a POTW in accordance
with (40 CFR 403.5(c)), such limits shall
be deemed Pretreatment Standards for
the purposes of section 307(d) of the
Act.’’
An authorized state which does not
approve POTW programs but assumes
local responsibility by acting as the
Control Authority under 40 CFR
403.10(e) is required to implement all
elements of the Pretreatment program
established for POTWs in 40 CFR
403.8(f), including the establishment of
local limits (40 CFR 403.8(f)(4)). Local
numeric limits or BMPs established in
this situation would be federally
enforceable Pretreatment Standards
under 40 CFR 403.5(d) provided such
limits are authorized by state law.
An authorized state acting as the
Approval Authority, and as Control
Authority for Industrial Users which
discharge to a POTW without an
approved program, may develop and
implement BMPs or other local limits
applicable to those Industrial Users
provided such limits are authorized by
state law. In the case where EPA acts as
the Approval Authority and Control
Authority, for a local limit to be
federally enforceable under 40 CFR
403.5(d), the limit would need to be
incorporated into the local POTW’s
sewer use ordinance or other legal
authority.
What are some of the common
elements of an enforceable BMP? Many
commenters expressed the view that
without additional guidance on the
structure of BMPs, their use could be
subjective and difficult to evaluate or
enforce. Others felt that because of their
subjective and potentially arbitrary
nature, BMPs should not be allowed to
serve as local limits. BMPs developed
by a POTW to protect against Pass
Through and Interference can be
structured in such a manner that
compliance with their terms can be
verified by a POTW, and can provide a
useful alternative to numeric limits in
situations where such limits are
infeasible or impractical. In addition,
BMPs established by POTWs as local
limits will be subject to oversight from
the POTW’s state and EPA Region.
These BMPs will be evaluated by states
and EPA based on factors such as legal
authority, effectiveness, and
enforceability.
Based on EPA’s experience and
observations of situations where BMPs
have been effective, enforceable BMPs
should generally include the following
elements. Depending on the sector being

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60149

controlled, however, certain elements
such as installation of treatment or
prohibitions on practices may not be
applicable.
• Specific notice to IUs of
requirements and enforceability. This
notice, provided through POTW sewer
use ordinances or individual or general
control mechanisms, should make clear
which Users are subject to the BMPs,
and what affected Users must do to
comply with their requirements.
• Installation of treatment. POTWs
should provide criteria or specifications
that the equipment must satisfy. For
example, a requirement for use of oil/
water separators at auto repair facilities
could include sizing or design criteria.
EPA cautions POTWs to avoid
endorsing the use of specific brands or
vendors.
• Requirements for or prohibitions on
certain practices, activities or
Discharges. POTWs should include
specific requirements or prohibitions
where necessary to ensure that the use
of such BMPs is protective. An example
would be a prohibition on Discharges of
tetrachloroethene from dry cleaning
facilities.
• Requirements for operation and
maintenance (O&M) of treatment units.
POTWs should spell out their O&M
expectations to ensure that treatment
systems continue to perform as designed
and installed. For example, restaurants
could be required to have grease
interceptors cleaned out at a specified
frequency.
• Timeframes associated with key
activities. POTWs should provide
timeframes for when management
practices must be implemented, or
when required treatment must be
installed and fully operational. Other
milestones should be added to the
schedule where necessary to facilitate
the oversight of BMP implementation.
• Compliance certification, reporting
and records retention. Establishing
specific procedures for such
requirements will enable POTWs to
verify whether required equipment has
been installed, or whether required
maintenance has been performed at the
specified frequency.
• Provision for re-opening or revoking
the BMP conditions. As with numeric
limits, POTWs should include language
in the sewer use ordinance and/or
facility control mechanisms that enables
them to revoke the control mechanism
at any time to include modified numeric
limits or BMPs. For example, the POTW
may find it necessary to revoke an
Industrial User’s control mechanism
where the POTW determines that the
User has not complied with applicable
BMPs, or where the POTW determines

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60150

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

that it is easier to determine compliance
with a numeric limit.
• Other requirements as determined
by the POTW.
What local legal authority changes
will be necessary? POTWs wishing to
establish BMPs instead of or in addition
to numeric local limits will need to
evaluate their sewer use ordinances to
ensure they provide adequate authority
to require compliance with BMPs by
affected Users. Further, BMP
requirements such as those discussed
above, and which IUs they cover,
should be specified in POTW sewer use
ordinances and/or Industrial User
control mechanisms.
How will compliance and significant
noncompliance be determined?
Concerns were expressed regarding the
ability of Control and Approval
Authorities to determine whether a User
is in compliance with BMPs. In EPA’s
view, BMPs that set specific
requirements, incorporating as
appropriate the common elements
presented above, (i.e., requirements or
prohibitions on practices, activities or
Discharges; requirements for
installation, operation and maintenance
of treatment units; timeframes for key
activities; reporting and records
retention; certification and reporting of
compliance, etc.) will aid POTWs and
Approval Authorities in their
compliance determinations. Once these
requirements are established for one or
more facilities in a sector, an IU’s
compliance status should be able to be
verified through a combination of selfreporting and verification inspections.
Where a facility subject to BMPs has not
satisfied the requirements in the sewer
use ordinance or control mechanism,
the POTW would need to use its
enforcement response plan (ERP) to
determine the appropriate response, and
relevant significant noncompliance
criteria to assess whether the facility is
in significant noncompliance. For
example, a facility that fails to install
required treatment equipment within a
specified timeframe would generally be
viewed as being in significant
noncompliance 90 days after the
schedule date. See 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(vii)(E). Likewise, a facility
would be in significant noncompliance
if it failed to submit a compliance
certification within 45 days from the
due date. See 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii)(F).
POTWs adopting BMPs as local limits,
or that have Categorical Industrial Users
whose categorical Standards include
BMPs, should evaluate their ERPs to
ensure that they reflect the need to
enforce non-numeric requirements.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

D. Slug Control Plans (40 CFR
403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(6) and 403.8(f)(2)(vi))
Today’s final rule addresses the
requirement that POTWs evaluate the
need for a slug control plan for SIUs
every two years. The rule will provide
POTWs with the flexibility to determine
how frequently to evaluate the need for
such plans, based on local conditions.
At the same time, the new rule specifies
that an evaluation must be undertaken
for each SIU once within a specified
timeframe. Today’s rule also clarifies
that an actual slug control plan (e.g., the
physical document itself) is not the
POTW’s only option for controlling
facilities with a higher potential for Slug
Discharges. The regulation states that
the POTW may choose to require that
the SIU take specific, preventative
actions instead of requiring the
development of a slug control plan.
Regardless of the requirements imposed
by the POTW, today’s rule will require
that where actions to control Slug
Discharges are determined to be
necessary, the SIU’s control mechanism
must include provisions addressing
those requirements.
These revisions do not alter current
requirements regarding annual
monitoring and inspections of SIUs.
POTWs are still required to conduct
their annual facility inspections and
effluent monitoring for each of their
SIUs. The revisions also do not change
the POTW’s requirement to prevent
disruptions caused by Slug Discharges.
EPA expects that, as an integral part of
its ongoing oversight of all SIU facilities,
the POTW will consider whether
adequate measures are in place to avoid
Slug Discharges. The POTW is
authorized to use its own discretion in
determining the timing, level of detail,
and commitment of resources necessary
to ensure the facility has adequate
measures in place to protect against
Slug Discharges. POTWs may still
require the SIU to develop a slug control
plan or take specified preventative
measures to prevent Slug Discharges
whenever the facility’s slug control
measures are judged to be inadequate.
Today’s rule does not impose any new
requirements on Industrial Users. SIUs
remain subject to current requirements
to eliminate or mitigate the effects of a
Slug Discharge. These actions may
include constructing physical
containment facilities as well as
implementing sound management
practices to prevent Slug Discharges.
1. What were the rules in place prior to
today’s rulemaking?
A Slug Discharge is defined as ‘‘* * *
any Discharge of a non-routine, episodic

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

nature, including but not limited to an
accidental spill or non-customary batch
Discharge’’ (40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v)). EPA
notes that the subparagraph numbers
have changed slightly in the final rule
due to other, unrelated modifications.
The appropriate rule reference is now
40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vi). The regulations
require POTWs to ensure that Industrial
Users have policies and procedures in
place to prevent or mitigate the effects
of Slug Discharges. Section 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(v), prior to today’s
rulemaking, required POTWs to ‘‘* * *
evaluate, at least once every two years,
whether each such Significant Industrial
User needs a plan to control Slug
Discharges.’’ The function of such a
plan is to ensure that an SIU has a
planning and implementation tool to
prevent Interference at a POTW
treatment facility by a non-routine or
accidental Discharge. The minimum
elements required in a slug control plan
are (1) a description of Discharge
practices, (2) a description of all stored
chemicals at the facility, (3) procedures
for immediately notifying the POTW of
the Slug Discharge and providing
written follow-up notification, and (4) a
variety of procedures (e.g., inspection
and maintenance of chemical storage
areas) for preventing adverse impacts
from any accidental spills (40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(v)(A) to (D)).
The requirement for a once every two
years review of the need for a slug
control plan was part of the Domestic
Sewage Study rulemaking (55 FR 30082,
July 24, 1990). In the preamble
discussion to that rulemaking, EPA
explained the need for POTWs to
implement slug control programs. As
part of the discussion, EPA referenced
the guidance manual, Control of Slug
Loadings to POTWs (EPA 21W–4001,
February 1991, see http://www.epa.gov/
npdes/pubs/owm021.pdf), which was
then under preparation. This manual
provides detailed guidance for POTWs
to evaluate whether SIUs need to
develop slug control plans. It also
provides guidance for SIUs in
developing those slug control plans. In
addition, the manual recognizes that
POTWs need to determine whether
existing on-site conditions may impact
their treatment works, while industries
are in the best position to solve
problems relative to their physical
plants or production processes. Part 403
requires that, where found to be
necessary, a POTW must require an SIU
to develop a plan or impose some
specified control actions to prevent Slug
Discharges.

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
2. What changes did EPA propose?
The proposed rule suggested
eliminating the requirement that
POTWs evaluate the need for a slug
control plan for each SIU every two
years. Instead, EPA proposed giving
POTWs the flexibility to review the
need for slug control plans or other
actions as part of their ongoing oversight
of Industrial Users. The proposal would
have added language to clarify that
requiring an actual slug control plan is
one of several options the POTW has at
its disposal for controlling facilities
with a higher potential for Slug
Discharges. The proposed rule would
have clarified that a POTW could
choose to require that the SIU take
certain specified preventative actions to
control the Slug Discharge potential,
instead of developing a slug control
plan. In addition, to ensure that slug
controls are enforceable to the same
extent as other Standards and
requirements, the proposal would have
added language to require that, where a
slug control plan or other action is
found to be necessary, appropriate
requirements would be placed in the
Industrial User’s control mechanism.
3. What changes is EPA finalizing in
today’s rule?
In today’s final rule, consistent with
the proposal, EPA removes the required
minimum frequency for conducting
POTW evaluations for the need for slug
control plans or other control actions.
The final rule also formalizes the
requirement for SIUs to address Slug
Discharges by requiring that the POTW
include language in the User’s control
mechanism to control Slug Discharges,
if it determines that a slug control plan
or other action is necessary. These rule
revisions appear in 40 CFR
403.8(f)(1)(iii)(F) and 403.8(f)(2)(vi).
What significant changes were made to
the proposed rule?
Today’s rule makes the following
changes to the proposed rule:
Minimum evaluation frequency:
Today’s rule specifies that POTWs must
evaluate at least once the SIU’s need for
a slug control plan or other action to
control Slug Discharges. See 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(vi). While the POTW may
choose how frequently to assess slugrelated concerns, it is EPA’s view that
it is important to impose a minimum
frequency of one time per SIU to ensure
that each SIU receives at least one
thorough evaluation. The provision
specifies that this evaluation must have
occurred within one year of the effective
date of today’s rule for SIUs identified
as significant (yet never evaluated for

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

the need for a slug control plan) prior
to the rule’s effective date. Also, SIUs
identified as significant after the
effective date of the rule must be
evaluated for the need for a slug control
plan within one year of being identified
as significant.
Notification of significant facility
change: EPA also adds a requirement
that SIUs must notify the POTW
immediately of any changes at their
facilities, not already addressed in their
slug control plan or other slug control
requirements, which may affect the
potential for a Slug Discharge. This
requirement is especially relevant in the
case of those Users for which the POTW
has determined, from some prior
assessment, that a slug control plan or
other action is unnecessary. However,
EPA emphasizes that this requirement
affects all SIUs, even those that already
have slug control plans or other
measures in place. See 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(vi). This provision places an
affirmative duty on such Users to
provide the POTW with updated
information on the potential slug risks
that are posed by industrial process
changes. This provision is consistent
with, but differs from the existing
notification of changed Discharge in 40
CFR 403.12(j), which focuses on
advance notice of change in the volume
or character of pollutants in the
Discharge itself.
4. Summary of Major Comments and
EPA Response
The following summarizes the major
comments received and EPA’s response.
Should POTWs be required to conduct
annual inspections of SIUs to determine
the adequacy of slug control plans? One
commenter supported the proposed rule
change, but recommended adding
language to require the POTW to verify
during an inspection that a slug control
plan, if required, is adequate. EPA
agrees with the commenter that the
POTW should be assessing the adequacy
of existing slug control plans during its
annual inspection of SIUs. However,
EPA has not included a specific
requirement in the regulation to this
effect since existing inspection and
sampling guidance already recommend
that POTWs assess the adequacy of slug
control plans during the POTW’s annual
inspection.
EPA emphasizes that this provision
does not affect the POTW’s
requirements to conduct inspections of
its SIUs, nor has EPA changed its
recommendations about how to assess
slug-related issues at each facility.
According to EPA’s Industrial User
Inspection & Sampling Manual for
POTWs (1994) (http://www.epa.gov/

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60151

npdes/pubs/owm0025.pdf), POTW
inspectors should ask SIU staff if they
are familiar with slug control
procedures, and request that a copy of
the slug control plan be provided for an
assessment of its adequacy. EPA’s
guidance document Control of Slug
Loadings to POTWs (1991) (http://
www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm021.pdf)
recommends that inspectors verify
compliance with slug control
requirements and plans (see p. 2–44). In
addition, EPA’s slug loading guidance
indicates that ‘‘the inspector should
ascertain the Industrial User’s status
with regard to compliance with the
Plan, report any deficiencies observed
in the Industrial User’s current Plan,
and suggest alternatives or
modifications’’ (see p. 2–44).
Can existing control measures or
planning documents substitute for slug
control plan requirements at SIU
facilities? Several commenters, while
supporting the proposal, requested that
EPA clarify that existing spill
containment procedures or plans may
adequately fulfill the Pretreatment
requirements concerning slug control
plans. EPA agrees with the commenter
that there will be situations where
existing containment and spill planning
documents at an Industrial User facility
describe adequate means for protection
against Slug Discharges. EPA recognizes
that a number of existing requirements
under other statutes and regulations
could serve as components of slug
control plans. For example, Spill
Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasures (SPCC) plans may
address some components of a slug
control plan. A POTW could also
consult existing Emergency and
Hazardous Chemical Inventory reports
(EPCRA Section 312, 40 CFR 370)
typically submitted to local fire
marshals or other Local Emergency
Planning Committee offices for the
facility. If an SIU is covered by any of
these pre-existing plans, the POTW may
accept such plans in partial or complete
fulfillment of the slug control
requirements, as long as each element
set forth in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vi)(A)–(D)
is addressed in an acceptable manner in
some document or collection of
documents, and a reference to the need
to comply with these procedures is
included in the User’s control
mechanism pursuant to 40 CFR
403.8(f)(1)(iii)(F). However, EPA notes
that many of these pre-existing plans
have been developed for purposes other
than control of Slug Discharges to
POTWs, and the POTW must carefully
review the plans to ensure that they

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60152

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

meet the requirements of a slug control
plan and the needs of the POTW.
In summary, under today’s rule, a
POTW has the discretion to determine,
based on an initial inspection or
previous evaluations, that existing
procedures and control measures at the
facility make the development of a slug
control plan unnecessary. The POTW
should document this finding as part of
its records, and, consistent with existing
EPA guidance, should annually assess
the adequacy of these existing
procedures and control measures as part
of its annual inspections. Also,
implementation of these procedures or
control measures should be included as
requirements in the facility’s control
mechanism.
How should the POTW determine how
often to conduct evaluations at
individual facilities concerning whether
a slug control plan is needed? One
commenter pointed out that how
frequently a POTW should evaluate the
need for a slug control plan may vary for
different facilities. The commenter
emphasized that at some facilities,
conducting such an evaluation once
every two years may not be sufficient.
Regarding the commenter’s concerns
about the frequency of Slug Discharge
evaluations, under today’s rule, each
POTW will need to determine what
evaluation frequency is appropriate for
its program and/or for individual
facilities. EPA also recommends that
POTWs consult with the Agency’s
guidance document, Control of Slug
Loadings to POTWs (1991) (http://
www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm021.pdf),
which suggests different ways to
prioritize industrial facilities according
to Slug Discharge potential and
strategies for assessing the adequacy of
existing plans and programs. To ensure
that POTWs are provided with sufficient
notice of a change in Slug Discharge
potential, EPA has added an additional
requirement for SIUs which are not
required to develop a slug control plan
to notify the POTW immediately of any
changes at their facilities affecting the
need for plans or other actions to
address Slug Discharges. It is EPA’s
position that placing the affirmative
duty on the SIUs to notify the POTW of
such changes further reduces the
potential for Slug Discharge in the time
between on-site inspections.
Although supporting the proposal,
several commenters suggested that EPA
adopt further criteria for determining
when a slug control plan is necessary at
an individual facility. Among the
suggested criteria were the following: (1)
Slugs from an industrial facility violated
the Pretreatment requirements or
otherwise harmed the POTW; or (2) the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

amount of stored materials, the absence
of sufficient secondary containment,
and the proximity of drains to the sewer
create a significant risk of a harmful
slug. EPA agrees with the commenter in
general that criteria suggesting when a
slug control plan should be developed
would assist POTWs in making this
decision. On the other hand, EPA
decided that it should not develop rigid
criteria in its regulation establishing
when slug control plans should be
required.
EPA emphasizes that a POTW is in
the best position to make such
determinations and, since such
requirements will help ensure
continued compliance with its NPDES
Permit, it is in the interest of the POTW
to do so. However, in lieu of providing
a list of strict criteria, EPA suggests that
POTWs and SIUs consult the Agency’s
guidance document, Control of Slug
Loadings to POTWs (1991) (http://
www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm021.pdf),
for recommendations on significant
factors and types of industries to
consider in determining which facilities
pose a greater risk of Slug Discharge,
and, therefore, should be required to
develop a slug control plan. For
instance, the guidance document
highlights the following as the most
significant factors to consider: Quantity
and types of materials used or stored at
an IU and their potential for causing
violation of local limits or the general or
specific prohibitions; potential for such
materials to enter the sewer system and
cause damage (i.e., whether control
measures are in place); and adequacy of
existing controls to prevent any
potential slug loading (see p. 2–19). EPA
points out, though, that the guidance
also clarifies that these evaluations
should be conducted on a plant-by-plant
basis and that the list of factors and
target industries provides
generalizations from which to start. (see
p. 2–7).
In response to the commenter’s
recommended criteria, EPA agrees that
facilities which have had Slug
Discharges, thus violating the
Pretreatment Requirements or otherwise
harming the POTW, will need a slug
control plan. The slug control plan
requirements were adopted to provide
POTWs with a mechanism to prevent
slug-related impacts. EPA is concerned
that this criterion may suggest to
POTWs that it is sufficient to wait for
circumstances to arise (e.g., an instance
of Interference at the treatment plant)
before addressing the need for a slug
control plan at a potentially higher risk
facility. EPA does not agree that the
only situations where an SIU should be
required to develop a slug control plan

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

are those where a violation of the
POTW’s Pretreatment program
requirements has occurred. Part of what
the POTW must evaluate at each SIU is
whether there is the ‘‘reasonable
potential’’ for Interference or Pass
Through from a Slug Discharge, thereby
necessitating a slug control plan or other
preventative action. EPA suggests that
waiting for a violation to occur before
requiring a slug control plan conflicts
with the proactive intent behind 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(vi) and may result in
unnecessary Interference or Pass
Through occurrences.
EPA does agree that the commenter’s
second suggested criterion, that the
amount of stored materials, the absence
of sufficient secondary containment,
and the proximity of drains to the sewer
create a significant risk of a harmful
slug, would be appropriate POTW
considerations for requiring the
development of a slug control plan.
These considerations are contemplated
in the above referenced guidance.
How does the rule affect the current
practice of evaluating SIUs annually for
the adequacy of slug controls? A few
commenters were opposed to the
proposal because they considered it to
be unnecessary. These commenters
emphasized the limited burden imposed
by the current biannual review
requirement and the current practice of
conducting annual SIU inspections
which focus on, among other things, the
adequacy of controls or existing plans
for addressing the potential for Slug
Discharges. Another commenter
objected to the proposal because of
concern that POTWs would no longer
dedicate the necessary attention to
evaluating SIU facilities for the potential
for Slug Discharges.
The evaluation of slug control
procedures and measures is already
occurring at POTWs on an annual basis,
typically during the inspection of the
SIU. This practice is consistent with
EPA’s guidance document, Industrial
User Inspection and Sampling Manual
for POTWs (1994) (http://www.epa.gov/
npdes/pubs/owm0025.pdf). EPA’s
modification of the frequency of the
POTW’s evaluation of the necessity of
slug control plans should not affect the
POTW’s practice of conducting annual
inspections of relevant slug control
procedures and measures. The final rule
changes do not absolve POTWs from the
requirement to prevent disruptions
caused by Slug Discharges. In many
instances, operating conditions at an
SIU will not have changed significantly
since the issuance of its individual
control mechanism and the facility will
be in compliance with all of its Permit
conditions. Under these circumstances,

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
the requirement to review and evaluate
the need for a slug control plan or other
preventative actions could be an
unproductive use of resources by the
POTW. In addition, today’s revision to
40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vi) requires that each
POTW evaluate the need for a slug
control plan or other action at least one
time at every SIU. Following this
evaluation, the POTW may determine
its own schedule for conducting further
evaluations for the need for a plan.
In practical terms, EPA expects
POTWs to take the following actions
with regard to Slug Discharges: Evaluate
all of their SIUs at least once for the
need for a slug control plan, conduct
follow-up evaluations for facilities not
required to develop a slug control plans
or take other actions as necessary, and
inspect each SIU annually to determine
the adequacy of and compliance with
existing procedures and control
measures. While today’s revision may
reduce the administrative resources
currently devoted to biannual reviews
for the need for a slug control plan, the
POTW’s overall level of oversight over
Slug Discharges will not be reduced.
EPA also points out that Approval
Authority audits and Pretreatment
Compliance Inspections (PCIs) of POTW
Pretreatment Programs will offer a
valuable opportunity to evaluate how
today’s revisions are being
implemented. During these audits or
PCIs, the POTW will need to
demonstrate that each SIU has been
evaluated at least once (or that there is
a plan to conduct such an evaluation
within the coming year). EPA suggests
that where a slug control plan or other
action was not deemed necessary, a plan
to re-evaluate the SIU for the need for
a plan or other action as necessary
exists. The POTW may choose a
specified frequency level to re-evaluate
the SIU, or it may choose to re-evaluate
the facility following a notification of
changed Discharge pursuant to 40 CFR
403.12(j) or 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vi). EPA
notes that SIUs will now be required to
notify the POTW of any changes at their
facility that affect the need for a slug
control plan or other actions to address
Slug Discharges, although POTWs still
have the responsibility during the
facility inspections to ensure that these
notifications have been made. In
addition, during the audit or PCI, the
Approval Authority should determine
whether the POTW is conducting an
assessment of the SIU’s on-site
procedures and measures to control for
potential slug-related Discharges.
Does the slug control plan, if required,
need to be included in the SIU’s control
mechanism? One commenter was
opposed to what it interpreted as EPA’s

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

requirement in 40 CFR
403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(6) to include the entire
slug control plan document in the SIU’s
control mechanism. The commenter
further emphasized that the slug control
plan should be retained as a separate
document, and suggested that the plan
be incorporated by reference into the
control mechanism requiring
compliance with the approved plan.
EPA disagrees with the commenter as
far as reading 40 CFR
403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(6) to require the
inclusion of the entire slug control plan
in the SIU’s control mechanism. Section
403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(6) provides that the
control mechanism must include
‘‘requirements to control Slug
Discharges.’’ EPA expects that POTWs
will include language in the control
mechanism that requires control of Slug
Discharges, rather than the terms of a
particular SIU’s plan. Including the
entire slug control plan may prove to be
administratively burdensome since
changes made to the plan during the
term of the control mechanism would
potentially require that the control
mechanism be modified, or be reopened
and reissued.
E. Equivalent Concentration Limits for
Flow-Based Standards (40 CFR
403.6(c)(6))
Today’s amendment to the
Pretreatment Regulations authorizes the
use of concentration-based limits in lieu
of flow-based mass limits for the
facilities in the Organic Chemicals,
Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)
(40 CFR part 414), Petroleum Refining
(40 CFR part 419), and Pesticide
Chemicals (40 CFR part 455) categories.
The Control Authority may use the
concentration limits listed in the
categorical Pretreatment Standards for
these three categories as an alternative
to the current requirement to convert
those concentration limits to flow-based
mass limits. Control Authorities
establishing concentration-based
Pretreatment Standards instead of massbased limits must document that
dilution is not being used as a substitute
for treatment (see §§ 403.6(d),
414.111(a), 419, and 455). Additionally,
the Control Authority is required to
adjust Permit limits using the combined
wastestream formula in § 403.6(e) when
the wastestream used for demonstrating
compliance with the Permit limits is
mixed with non-process wastewater or
wastewater from other processes.
1. What are the current rules?
What is a flow-based mass limit?
National categorical Pretreatment
Standards establish limits on pollutants

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60153

discharged to POTWs by specific
industrial sectors. The Standards
establish limitations on the amount of
pollutants to be discharged by
individual dischargers in different ways
for different categories. The regulations
establishing Pretreatment Standards for
new and existing indirect dischargers in
the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and
Synthetic Fibers Category (OCPSF), for
new indirect dischargers in the
Petroleum Refining category, and for
new and existing indirect dischargers in
the Pesticide Chemicals category
currently require limits of certain
pollutants to be expressed in terms of
mass, based on the promulgated
concentrated-based Standards and the
average daily flow rate of the Industrial
User’s regulated process wastewater (see
§§ 414.111(a), 419.17(b), 419.27(b),
419.37(b), 419.47(b), and 419.57(b),
455.26, 455.27). For an OCPSF indirect
discharger, a pesticide chemicals
indirect discharger, or a new petroleum
refining indirect discharger, the Control
Authority develops a mass limit by
multiplying the applicable pollutant
concentration that EPA promulgated in
the effluent guidelines (expressed in
terms of mass of pollutant per volume
of Discharge) by the average daily flow
rate of the Industrial User’s regulated
process wastewater (expressed in terms
of volume per day). The result is a
Permit limit on the mass of pollutants
per day (see 58 FR 36890, July 9, 1993).
The average daily flow rate should be
based upon a reasonable measure of the
Industrial User’s average daily flow for
at least a 30-day period (see 40 CFR
403.6(e)(1)). Additionally, EPA
‘‘strongly urges the Control Authority to
develop an appropriate process
wastewater flow for use in computing
the mass effluent or internal plant
limitations based on water conservation
practices,’’ (see 58 FR 36890, July 9,
1993). Finally, a Permit may be
modified during its term, either at the
request of the permittee (or another
interested party) or on the Control
Authority’s initiative, to increase or
decrease the flow basis in response to a
significant change in production (40
CFR 124.5, 122.62). A change in
production could be an ‘‘alteration’’ of
the permitted activity or ‘‘new
information’’ that would provide the
basis for a Permit modification (40 CFR
122.62(a)(1),(2)) (see 58 FR 36891, July
9, 1993).
Why was the mass limit approach
developed?
Effluent guidelines may be specified
in a number of ways including
production normalized (mass-pollutant/
production unit) and concentration-

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60154

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

based limitations (mass-pollutant/
volume of wastewater). These two types
of effluent guidelines limits can be
converted to a mass-based Standard by
using a reasonable measure of the
Industrial User’s actual long-term daily
production (for production normalized
limitations) or the Industrial User’s
actual long-term average daily flow rate
(for concentration-based limitations).
EPA prefers setting production
normalized limitations, where feasible,
since production normalized limitations
can require flow reduction and reduces
any potential for the substitution of
dilution for treatment. Specifically,
production normalized limitations are
calculated from production normalized
flows (volume of wastewater/
production unit) and incorporate
wastewater flow reductions representing
Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT)
(technology basis for Pretreatment
Standards for Existing Sources, or PSES)
or New Source Performance Standards
(technology basis for Pretreatment
Standards for New Sources, or PSNS).
EPA has established concentrationbased Standards when production and
achievable wastewater flow cannot be
correlated nationally. EPA has
explained how to calculate a mass limit
in the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and
Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) regulation. A
mass limit is developed from the
concentration-based Standard by
multiplying the promulgated
Pretreatment Standard (expressed as a
concentration) by the Industrial User’s
actual long-term average daily flow rate.
This approach re-enforces the
requirements of the combined
wastestream formula (see 40 CFR
403.6(e)) to minimize the potential for
dilution of process wastewaters by nonprocess wastewater. The combined
wastestream formula of Section 403.6(e)
applies to indirect dischargers where
process wastewater is mixed prior to
treatment with wastewater other than
that generated by the regulated process.

average daily flow rate of the Industrial
User’s regulated process wastewater
may be infrequent or low and difficult
to monitor; and (2) production tends to
be more variable as the installation of
equipment to provide flow equalization
may not be practical.
In addition, testing for compliance
with the flow-based mass limit requires
having accurate information on the flow
from all regulated processes at the time
the sample is taken. Testing for
compliance with a concentration limit
only requires taking the wastewater
sample and comparing the sampled
concentration to the limit. In particular,
since promulgation of the OCPSF
Pretreatment Standards, there have been
difficulties in getting Control
Authorities and OCPSF facilities to
correctly calculate flow-based mass
limits, and to provide necessary data to
determine compliance with the
Standards. Deficiencies in Permits and
control mechanisms have in the past
hindered enforcement actions against
these facilities. Enforcing mass-based
Standards also becomes more
complicated because there is an
additional factor in the formula to
calculate mass-based limits. In order to
measure compliance, both flow and
concentration of the pollutant need to
be accurate and verified in order to
produce legally enforceable mass-based
results.

What are the problems with mass limits
based on flow?
Flow-based mass limits can, however,
be difficult for the Control Authority to
implement. To develop a flow-based
mass limit, the Control Authority must
determine the average daily flow rate of
the Industrial User’s regulated process
wastewater and then multiply that value
by the appropriate promulgated
concentration Standard. This may be
difficult in situations where the facility
has highly variable production that
leads to flows that often vary week-toweek or day-to-day. This is especially
true for smaller facilities where: (1) The

2. What changes did EPA propose?
EPA proposed to allow Control
Authorities to use promulgated
concentration-based limits instead of
flow-based mass limits in establishing
limits for Industrial Users in the OCPSF,
Petroleum Refining, and Pesticide
Chemicals categories. EPA proposed
that the Control Authority would be
allowed to apply such equivalent
concentration limits only if the flow
from the facility is so variable that the
development of mass limits is
impractical. EPA stipulated that 40 CFR
403.6(d) would continue to prohibit
facilities from increasing flow in order

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

May alternative limits be developed for
flow-based categorical Standards?
Currently, 40 CFR 403.6(c) allows
Control Authorities to apply an
equivalent concentration limit in
addition to a current mass limit to
implement a Pretreatment Standard.
However, the regulations do not allow
equivalent concentration limits in lieu
of mass limits when the Pretreatment
Standard requires a mass limit to be
calculated from the promulgated
concentration-based Standards and the
average daily flow rate of the Industrial
User’s regulated process wastewater.

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

to meet their concentration limits
through dilution.
3. What changes is EPA finalizing in
today’s final rule?
The final rule allows Control
Authorities to use concentration-based
limits instead of flow-based mass limits
for new and existing indirect
dischargers in the OCPSF category, new
indirect dischargers in the Petroleum
Refining category, and new and existing
indirect dischargers in the Pesticide
Chemicals category. EPA is not limiting
the Control Authority’s authority to
develop concentration limits to
circumstances in which the Control
Authority determines that the facility’s
flow is ‘‘so variable as to make mass
limits impracticable.’’ EPA notes that
Section 40 CFR 403.6(d) will continue
to prohibit facilities from increasing
flow in order to meet their
concentration limits through dilution.
As with other concentration limits, the
Control Authority should be certain that
dilution is not occurring and that the
Discharge represents regulated process
wastewater flows. The concentration
may need to be adjusted using the
combined wastestream formula in 40
CFR 403.6(e) if the wastestream is
mixed with non-process wastewater or
wastewater from other processes.
New 40 CFR 403.6(c)(6), applicable
only to facilities in the OCPSF,
Petroleum Refining, and Pesticide
Chemicals categories, requires Control
Authorities to document that dilution is
not being substituted for treatment. To
verify that equivalent concentration
limits are not subsequently being met
through use of dilution flows, Control
Authorities should note that 40 CFR
403.12(e)(1) requires Categorical
Industrial Users to provide information
regarding maximum and average daily
flows in their periodic reports, and
enables them to require more detailed
flow data as necessary. Using this
authority, EPA recommends that
Control Authorities consider specifying
appropriate flow monitoring
requirements and including evaluation
of flow data in the review of periodic
reports for Industrial Users subject to
equivalent concentration Standards.
This will enable Control Authorities to
determine if there have been changes in
flows that may indicate dilution, such
as increases in process, non-process or
overall flows, especially those not
accompanied by production increases.
When are the equivalent concentration
limits effective?
EPA notes that flow-based mass
Standards, like all National categorical
Pretreatment Standards, are self-

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
implementing for new and existing
indirect dischargers in the OCPSF
category and for new indirect
dischargers in the Petroleum Refining
category. Facilities to which these
Standards are applicable must comply
with the flow-based mass Standards
unless a Permit or other control
mechanism is issued by the Control
Authority which establishes equivalent
concentration limits under 40 CFR
403.6(c)(6). Where the Control Authority
has not issued a control mechanism that
establishes categorical concentrationbased limits, the Industrial User must
comply with the default flow-based
mass limits as established in the
applicable categorical Pretreatment
Standard.
EPA notes that, for the Pesticides
Chemicals category, in certain
circumstances, an Industrial User may
already be subject to concentration
based limits rather than the otherwise
required mass limits. Where the Control
Authority has not established flowbased mass limits as required, Sections
40 CFR 455.26 and 455.27 provide that
Industrial User must comply with the
default concentration-based limits as
established in the categorical
Pretreatment Standard.
EPA emphasizes that for facilities in
the OCPSF, Petroleum Refining, and
Pesticide Chemicals categories, where
the Control Authority has properly
authorized the use of an equivalent
concentration limit and has
incorporated that limit into the
Industrial User’s control mechanism,
the concentration limit replaces the
mass limit. The final rule requires that
an Industrial User must comply with the
equivalent limit in lieu of the
promulgated categorical Pretreatment
Standard once the limit is incorporated
into its control mechanism. The Control
Authority may also determine that an
Industrial User should be subject to both
the flow-based mass limit as well as the
concentration-based limit. When
incorporated into the issued control
mechanism, the Industrial User would
have to comply with both limits. As
with other equivalent concentration
limits, as currently provided in 40 CFR
403.6(c), the equivalent limits being
authorized under today’s final rule are
Pretreatment Standards for the purposes
of Sec. 307(d) of the Clean Water Act
and are federally enforceable.
4. Summary of Major Comments and
EPA Response
A majority of the commenters
supported the proposed rule as written,
and most of the remaining commenters
stated qualified support. Only one
commenter opposed the proposal. The

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

following section summarizes the most
significant comments received and
EPA’s response.
Is Approval Authority review required
of an Industrial User’s proposed
concentration limit prior to Control
Authority approval? A total of 22
commenters disagreed that it would be
appropriate to require Approval
Authority review of an Industrial User’s
proposed concentration limit prior to
Control Authority approval. The
primary reasoning stated was that such
a requirement is not necessary and
would create additional burden.
EPA notes that this provision is
intended to allow the permit limit to be
expressed in alternate units. It is not
anticipated that this revision will
change the Control Authority’s enabling
legislation to issue and enforce a control
mechanism. As such, EPA does not
consider this provision to be a
modification of a POTW Pretreatment
Program under 40 CFR 403.18, and,
therefore, finds that a POTW’s use of
this provision is not subject to the
specified approval procedures in this
section. The new equivalent limit is
subject to review as part of routine
Approval Authority oversight activities,
such as a Pretreatment Compliance
Inspection or a Control Authority audit.
In accordance with current regulations,
Industrial User control mechanisms and
information necessary for determining
permit limitations and compliance must
be publicly available.
Is this provision limited to highly
variable flows? Numerous commenters
addressed the question of whether this
provision should only be applied to
highly variable flows as well as how to
define the term ‘‘highly variable flow.’’
A total of 12 commenters stated that the
rule should not be limited to only
highly variable flows. Many mentioned
the existence of factors in addition to
highly variable flows that make
implementation of flow-based mass
limits impractical, such as the cost of
obtaining accurate samples or the
difficulty of sampling at facilities with
very low flows. Ten commenters
suggested that the Control Authority
have the ability to define ‘‘highly
variable flows’’ on a case-by-case basis
since the basis for such a determination
is highly site-specific and can vary from
seasonal variations in flow to hourly
variations in flow. Ten commenters
thought that a 20 percent deviation from
average flow is an adequate measure for
‘‘highly variable flow,’’ while five
commenters requested that EPA not
specify a definition for ‘‘highly variable
flow’’ in the regulations.
EPA acknowledges that the there are
numerous factors, many of which are

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60155

site-specific, involved in determining
that a facility has ‘‘highly variable
flow(s)’’, and agrees that it would be
difficult to establish a clear-cut
definition of ‘‘highly variable flow’’ that
would apply to all facilities. To be
consistent with the goals of providing
flexibility in this rule, and to support
the Control Authority’s discretion on
this site specific issue, EPA has decided
to allow Control Authorities to
determine when the acceptable
circumstances exist to allow the use of
concentration limits.
Is this provision consistent with the
Clean Water Act? The commenter that
opposed this provision stated that EPA
lacks the authority to create a variance
or an alternative implementation
mechanism and therefore will violate
sections 307 and 402 of the Clean Water
Act. The commenter also questioned the
need for this proposed change,
suggested that it will interfere with
ongoing enforcement of the categorical
Standards and the statutory deadlines
for achieving them, and suggested that
the record does not demonstrate that
this proposed change will protect
POTWs and the environment.
EPA is promulgating the changes to
its Pretreatment Regulations in part
under section 307(b) of the Clean Water
Act. Section 307(b) clearly authorizes
EPA from time to time to revise
Pretreatment Standards as ‘‘control
technology, processes, operating
methods or other alternatives change.’’
Therefore, today’s action is not in
violation of section 307(b) to the extent
this provision amends the Pretreatment
Standards for the OCPSF, the Petroleum
Refining, and the Pesticide Chemicals
Categories. As EPA has explained, the
amendments to the regulations will
facilitate both User’s compliance and
POTW oversight. EPA notes that
compliance evaluation and enforcement
will be more straightforward and less
burdensome with new equivalent
concentration limits.
Moreover, the current regulations
prohibit introduction of pollutants that
will adversely affect POTW operations
and receiving waters quality. Currently,
40 CFR 403.5 requires approved
pretreatment programs and POTWs
receiving pollutants from Industrial
Users with potential to pass through or
interfere with the POTWs’ operations to
develop and implement local limits to
protect the POTW operations and
prevent Pass Through and Interference.
Consequently, the use of concentration
limits in lieu of mass limits would not
be authorized if it resulted in a violation
of local limits approved under 40 CFR
403.5. Furthermore, this provision may
be implemented only following

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60156

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

determination of its feasibility by
Control Authorities, and not unilaterally
by Industrial Users. Control Authorities’
local limits will continue to ensure
protection of the POTW operations and
its receiving environment.

accurate determination of pH,
temperature, total phenols, oil and
grease, sulfide, volatile organic
compounds, and cyanide requires
properly collecting and carefully
preserving grab samples.

F. Use of Grab and Composite Samples
(40 CFR 403.12(b), (d), (e), (g), and (h))

What are composite samples?

This section discusses: (1) The
application of minimum required grab
samples for pH, cyanide, total phenols,
oil and grease, sulfide, and volatile
organics to the periodic compliance
reports; (2) when a time-proportional
sample may be used instead of a flowproportional sample; (3) when multiple
grab samples may be composited prior
to analysis; (4) whether four grab
samples are required whenever grab
sampling is appropriate; and (5) the
sampling of facilities that discharge less
than 24-hours per day. Other issues
raised by commenters are also
discussed.
1. What are the existing rules?
What are ‘‘grab samples’’?
A grab sample is ‘‘* * * a sample
which is taken from a wastestream
without regard to the flow of the
wastestream and over a period of time
not to exceed 15 minutes’’ (Industrial
User Inspection and Sampling Manual
for POTWs, EPA 831/B–94–001, April
1994, http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/
owm0025.pdf). Grab samples of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) must be
collected almost instantaneously (i.e.,
less than 30 seconds of elapsed time)
and properly preserved (Comparison of
Volatile Organic Analysis Compositing
Procedures, EPA 821/R–95–035,
September 1995). An analysis of an
individual grab sample provides a
measurement of pollutant
concentrations in the wastewater at a
particular point in time. Grab samples
are usually collected manually, but can
be obtained with a mechanical sampler.
Grab samples are required in order to
accurately analyze those pollutant
parameters that may be affected by
biological, chemical, or physical
interactions and/or exhibit marked
physical and compositional changes
within a short time after collection. Grab
samples should be used when: (1)
Wastewater characteristics are relatively
constant; (2) parameters to be analyzed
are likely to be affected by the
compositing process, such as the
procedures used for oil and grease; (3)
composite sampling is infeasible or the
compositing process is liable to
introduce artifacts of sampling; and (4)
the parameters to be analyzed are likely
to change with storage. In particular,

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

A composite sample is formed by
mixing discrete samples or ‘‘aliquots.’’
For a ‘‘flow-proportional’’ composite
sample, each individual aliquot is
collected after the passage of a defined
volume of Discharge (e.g., every 2,000
gallons). For a ‘‘time-proportional’’
composite sample, the aliquots are
collected after the passage of a defined
period of time (e.g., once every two
hours), regardless of the volume or
variability of the rate of flow during that
period. Flow-proportional compositing
is usually preferred when effluent flow
volume varies appreciably over time.
The number of discrete samples
necessary for a composite sample to be
representative of the Discharge depends
upon the variability of the pollutant
concentration and the flow.
Automatically collected composite
samples are usually preferred to
collecting grab samples and then
manually compositing the grabs into a
single sample. Possible handling errors
made during the compositing process
could yield a sample that is not truly
representative of the Discharge.
However, composite samples can be
prepared from manually collected grab
samples if each grab contains a fixed
volume that is retrieved at intervals that
correspond to the periods of wastewater
Discharge or time of the facility’s
operation.
When may the requirement for flowproportional composite samples be
waived?
The regulations in effect prior to
today’s rule allowed Control Authorities
to waive the requirement for flowproportional compositing of samples for
baseline monitoring reports and 90-day
compliance reports in limited
circumstances. These regulations
allowed the Control Authority to accept
sample data that are obtained from timeproportional composite sampling or a
minimum of four grab samples if flowproportional sampling is infeasible (e.g.,
the facility cannot accurately measure
flow) and the Industrial User
demonstrated that these alternative
sampling techniques will provide a
representative sample of the effluent (40
CFR 403.12(b)(5)(iii)). The section on
periodic compliance reports was silent
on the subject of grab and flowproportional sampling.

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

2. What changes did EPA propose?
EPA proposed to clarify the sampling
requirements in 40 CFR 403.12 in the
following ways:
Do the sampling requirements apply
to periodic reports on continued
compliance? EPA proposed to extend
the requirements of 40 CFR
403.12(b)(5)(iii), which were explicitly
applicable to the baseline monitoring
reports and 90-day reports required by
40 CFR 403.12(b) and (d), to the
periodic reports required in 40 CFR
403.12(e) and (h). These changes would
be accomplished by consolidating the
new requirements for all of the reports
in 40 CFR 403.12(g). Redundant sections
would be removed.
Is a minimum frequency required for
grab samples? EPA proposed that for
periodic monitoring reports, a minimum
of four grab samples would not need to
be taken in all instances to measure pH,
cyanide, total phenols, oil and grease,
sulfides, and volatile organic
compounds. Instead, Control
Authorities would have the flexibility to
determine the appropriate number of
grab samples required for periodic
compliance reports. For new facilities,
the Industrial User would still be
required to take a minimum of four grab
samples to measure pH, cyanide, total
phenols, oil and grease, sulfide, and
volatile organic compounds to meet
baseline monitoring and 90-day
compliance report requirements. For
existing facilities, where historical
sampling data are available, the Control
Authority may authorize a lower
minimum.
When and what type of grab samples
can be manually composited? EPA
proposed to explicitly state that
compositing of certain types of grab
samples prior to their analysis would be
permitted.
When can time-proportional or grab
samples be used in lieu of flowproportional composite samples? EPA
proposed that Control Authorities may
authorize time-proportional or grab
sampling in lieu of flow-proportional
sampling as long as the samples are
representative of the Discharge.
What are the sampling requirements
for those facilities that do not discharge
continuously? EPA proposed language
intended to clarify that, although a ‘‘24hour composite sample’’ must be taken
within a 24-hour period, the sample
should only be collected during that
portion of the 24-hour period that the
Industrial User is discharging from the
regulated process and/or from the
treatment unit.

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
3. What changes are being finalized by
EPA in today’s rule?
EPA is finalizing language intended to
clarify the sampling requirements in 40
CFR 403.12. Specific changes to the
regulations, as well as pertinent details
related to their implementation, are
discussed below.
Do the sampling requirements apply
to periodic compliance reports? Today’s
rule finalizes the extension of sampling
requirements, which previously were
only explicitly applicable to the
baseline monitoring reports and 90-day
reports required by 40 CFR 403.12(b)
and (d), to the periodic reports required
in 40 CFR 403.12(e) and (h). These
changes are accomplished by
consolidating the new requirements for
all of the reports in 40 CFR 403.12(g).
Redundant sections are removed.
Is a minimum frequency required for
grab samples? The final regulatory
changes eliminate the requirement that
a minimum of four grab samples be
taken in all instances to measure pH,
cyanide, total phenols, oil and grease,
sulfides, and volatile organic
compounds. Control Authorities will
have the flexibility to determine the
appropriate minimum number of grab
samples Industrial Users are required to
take. The Control Authorities will be
responsible for documenting the sitespecific circumstances in the Industrial
User’s file. New facilities and facilities
that make changes or install new
treatment are still required to take a
minimum of four grab samples to
measure pH, cyanide, total phenols, oil
and grease, sulfide and volatile organic
compounds to meet baseline monitoring
and 90-day compliance report
requirements. For facilities where
historical sampling data are available,
the Control Authority may authorize a
lower minimum number of grab
samples.
There are some cases where a single
grab sample can be reasonably expected
to be representative of a Discharge.
Appendix V to the EPA guidance
(Industrial User Inspection and
Sampling Manual for POTWs, EPA 831/
B–94–001, April 1994, http://
www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/
owm0025.pdf) lists cases where a single
grab sample may appropriately be
substituted for a single composite
sample, including small batch
Discharges. For example, a
homogeneous batch Discharge is
consistent with existing guidance on the
appropriate use of a single grab sample.
When and what type of grab samples
can be manually composited? Today’s
final rule clarifies that multiple grab
samples for cyanide, total phenols,

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

sulfide, oil and grease, and volatile
organic compounds collected during a
24-hour period may be composited prior
to analysis. Control Authorities also will
be allowed to authorize manually
composited grab samples for other
parameters that are unaffected by
compositing procedures. Using
protocols (including appropriate
preservation) specified in 40 CFR Part
136 and appropriate EPA guidance, EPA
clarifies in the rule that multiple grab
samples collected during a 24-hour
period may be composited prior to the
analysis as follows: for cyanide, total
phenols, and sulfides, the samples may
be composited in the laboratory or in
the field; for volatile organics and oil
and grease, the samples may be
composited in the laboratory.
It is important that a composite
sample provides an accurate
representation of the pollutant in the
wastewater. The composite sample
should provide analytical results that
are comparable to averaged results of
the individual grab samples taken over
a specific time interval. In all cases
where a series of grab samples is
manually composited, those parameters
that have preservation requirements in
40 CFR Part 136 must be properly
preserved and/or stored at the time of
collection as required by the specific
analytical method employed prior to
compositing. In addition, EPA wishes to
reaffirm that some pollutants are not
amenable to the compositing process.
For example, total residual chlorine, pH,
and temperature samples cannot be
‘‘composited’’ under any circumstances
because the results would be changed
by the compositing process. Today’s
final rule does not allow Control
Authorities to authorize composite
samples for these parameters.
Although analytical procedures for
compositing oil and grease samples
have been developed, the general
consensus among laboratory experts is
that current techniques do not provide
consistently reliable results. However,
continuing advances in analytical
technology may provide methodologies
that will make accurate compositing of
oil and grease samples technically less
cumbersome and more cost effective in
the future. Under today’s rule, the
Control Authority has the flexibility to
allow Industrial Users to submit data
from composited oil and grease samples
as long as the samples were composited
in the laboratory and the sampling and
analytical procedures used are
sanctioned by EPA in 40 CFR Part 136.
EPA guidance (Industrial User
Inspection and Sampling Manual for
POTWs, EPA 831/B–94–001, April 1994,
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60157

owm0025.pdf) describes procedures for
manually compositing individual grab
samples that will provide accurate
results. The reader should also consult
the regulations in 40 CFR Part 136 to
identify the accepted analytical
protocols for specific classes of
compounds or individual parameters. A
separate guidance manual (Comparison
of Volatile Organic Analysis
Compositing Procedures, EPA 821/R–
95–035, 1995, http://www.epa.gov/
clariton/clhtml/pubtitleOW.html)
discusses procedures for accurate
compositing of volatile organic
compounds.
When can time-proportional or grab
samples be used in lieu of flowproportional composite samples?
Today’s final rule will allow Control
Authorities to waive the requirement
that Industrial Users collect flowproportional samples. The regulation no
longer requires Control Authorities to
require the Industrial User to
demonstrate that flow-proportional
samples are ‘‘infeasible.’’
The Industrial User must demonstrate
that the time-proportional or grab
samples are representative of the
Discharge before the Control Authority
may allow the Industrial User to submit
such samples. Where time-proportional
composite sampling or grab sampling is
authorized by the Control Authority, the
samples must be representative of the
Discharge and the decision to allow the
alternative sampling must be
documented in the individual Industrial
User records for that facility. The use of
statistical approaches to determine
representativeness may be appropriate
in certain circumstances. See for
example, the March 2, 1989, Office of
Water Regulations and Standards
(OWRS) Memorandum to Region 9
describing the results of a statistical
analysis of sampling data from a single
industrial facility. Refer to http://
www.epa.gov/region09/water/
pretreatment/program_impl.html. In
addition to demonstrating that the
samples are representative, the Control
Authority must ensure that compliance
samples are taken with sufficient care to
produce evidence admissible in
enforcement proceedings or in judicial
actions as required by the section
modified today at 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(vii).
What are the sampling requirements for
those facilities that do not discharge
continuously?
As will be discussed below in the
response to comments section, the final
rule does not include the sentence in
the proposed rule that read, ‘‘For those

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60158

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

Industrial User Discharges subject to
categorical Pretreatment Standards that
do not operate on a 24-hour per day
schedule, the samples must be collected
at equally spaced intervals during the
period that process wastewater is being
discharged.’’ EPA interprets a ‘‘day’’ to
be a 24-hour period which does not
have to occur within a calendar day.
This interpretation is consistent with
the definition of ‘‘daily discharge’’ in
the NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.2.
Daily discharge means the ‘‘discharge of
a pollutant’’ measured during a calendar
day or any 24-hour period that
reasonably represents the calendar day
for purposes of sampling. During parts
of the day when there is no discharge of
process wastewater, standing water
should not be disproportionately
sampled and analyzed as it would not
be representative of the Discharge from
the facility. As always, the Control
Authority must prescribe a sampling
protocol that produces representative
results. The selected protocol should
take into consideration all of the
operation conditions and the physical
configuration of the Industrial User
facility.
What significant changes were made to
the proposed rule?
EPA did not make significant changes
to the proposed rule. The changes made
from the proposal to the final rule
include minor wording changes, a
clarification to compositing methods,
the reinstatement of a sentence that was
removed in the proposal, and the
removal of a sentence from the proposal.
The changes (other than minor
wording changes intended to provide
clarification) are as follows:
The following sentence, which had
been deleted in the proposal, is returned
to the regulations: ‘‘The Control
Authority shall require that frequency of
monitoring necessary to assess and
assure compliance by Industrial Users
with applicable Pretreatment Standards
and Requirements.’’ (EPA notes that
non-significant CIUs (NSCIUs) may
satisfy this requirement through
certification.) This sentence had been
taken out in the proposed rule.
However, because the sentence adds
clarity, EPA has decided to retain it. The
rationale is discussed in the response to
comments section below.
The following sentences at 40 CFR
403.12(g)(3) were removed from the
regulations: ‘‘For those Industrial User
Discharges subject to categorical
Pretreatment Standards that do not
operate on a 24-hour per day schedule,
the samples must be collected at equally
spaced intervals during the period that
process wastewater is being discharged.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

Multiple grab samples for cyanide and
volatile organic compounds that are
collected during a 24-hour period may
be composited in the laboratory prior to
analysis using protocols specified in 40
CFR Part 136 and appropriate EPA
guidance.’’ The rationale is discussed in
the response to comments section
below.
For parameters that require grab
sampling, EPA explicitly states which
parameters may be composited in the
field and the laboratory and which
parameters may only be composited in
the laboratory. This addition further
clarifies the issue of compositing for
samples that require collection by grab
methods in order to preserve sample
integrity.
4. Summary of Major Comments and
EPA Response
Commenters were generally
supportive of the sampling changes that
EPA proposed. Some of the comments
requested further clarification of issues.
The following section summarizes
EPA’s response to these comments.
Will the final rule on compositing
increase workload for sampling
personnel? A commenter stated that
manually compositing cyanide and
volatile organics samples should be
avoided for sample integrity and
workload increase.
Regardless of whether multiple grab
samples are individually analyzed or
composited, samples must be properly
preserved. Therefore, any workload
change will likely occur at the
laboratory, and increased workload for
compositing the sample would be offset
by decreased workload for analysis. EPA
further clarifies in the final rule which
parameters currently may be
composited in the laboratory and which
ones may be composited in the field.
Under the current EPA-approved
methods, oil and grease, and volatile
organics may only be composited in the
laboratory. Whether samples are
composited in the lab or the field,
sample integrity must be preserved,
including preserving each grab sample
in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136.
May Industrial Users determine the
appropriate sampling flexibility without
Control Authority approval? Industrial
Users commented that EPA should give
more flexibility to Industrial Users to
determine what sampling schemes are
appropriate for their facility. EPA
disagrees. Control Authorities are
responsible for ensuring that
compliance samples are taken with
sufficient care to produce evidence
admissible in enforcement proceedings
or in judicial actions as required by 40
CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii) and for ensuring

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

compliance by IUs with Pretreatment
Standards and Requirements. To the
extent that sampling is representative of
the Discharge, the Control Authorities
will be able to determine the
appropriate sampling flexibility. The
Control Authorities retain the
responsibility for documenting sitespecific circumstances and allowing
alternate sampling by including the
alternate sampling in the Industrial User
control mechanisms.
May Control Authorities determine
the appropriate number of grab samples
for baseline monitoring and 90-day
compliance reports? EPA requested
comment on whether Control
Authorities should be allowed the
flexibility to determine the appropriate
number of grab samples required to
meet baseline monitoring and 90-day
compliance report requirements for
facilities without historical sampling
data. Commenters supported the
proposal to eliminate the requirement
that a minimum of four grab samples be
taken to measure pH, cyanide, total
phenols, oil and grease, sulfides, and
volatile organic compounds.
Commenters stated that Control
Authorities should be given flexibility
to determine the appropriate number of
grab samples required to meet reporting
requirements, but did not provide
concrete reasons as to how this would
ensure that the sampling was
representative of the Discharge.
EPA stresses that the flexibility
should only be provided to the extent
that the sampling is representative. The
Control Authority will be responsible
for documenting site-specific
circumstances and allowing alternate
sampling in the Industrial User control
mechanisms. Baseline Monitoring
Reports (BMRs) will likely provide the
first samples for a parameter, and 90day compliance reports will provide
samples after any treatment has been
added. Therefore, it is likely that at a
minimum this data will be needed in
order to document that alternative
sampling is representative. Because it is
unlikely that a Control Authority could
properly document that sampling is
representative without data from BMRs
and 90-day compliance reports, EPA
retains the requirement for a minimum
of four grab samples for BMRs and 90day compliance reports in order to
document potential future sampling
decisions for new facilities. For existing
facilities where there is historic data
representative of the current Discharge,
Control Authorities may authorize a
lower minimum number of grab samples
for pH, cyanide, total phenols, oil and
grease, sulfides, and volatile organic
compounds. Of course, where there has

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
been a change to existing facilities, for
example, the addition of treatment,
historic data that does not represent the
current Discharge would not be able to
be used to justify a lower minimum of
grab samples.
As stated previously, Control
Authorities must ensure that
compliance samples are taken with
sufficient care to produce evidence
admissible in enforcement proceedings
or in judicial actions as required by 40
CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii). To further
strengthen this point, the following
sentence, which the proposed rule
would have deleted, is retained in 40
CFR 403.12(g)(3): ‘‘The Control
Authority shall require that frequency of
monitoring necessary to assess and
assure compliance by Industrial Users
with applicable Pretreatment Standards
and Requirements.’’ Sampling and
analysis techniques must yield
analytical data that is representative of
the Discharge. The Control Authority
will still need to document how
alternate sampling techniques are
representative of the Discharge, and may
require that more than four grab samples
be taken and separately analyzed to
ensure that sampling is representative.
Where the Control Authority cannot
verify that previous techniques were
representative, such data will not
support the use of this alternative
practice. EPA notes that ‘‘nonsignificant CIUs’’ (discussed in Section
III.K of the final rule) may be authorized
to substitute annual certification for
sampling and analysis. See 40 CFR
403.12(q).
Will EPA define ‘‘representative’’
sampling in the rule? Commenters noted
that the rules repetitively use the
concept of ‘‘representative’’ samples,
but do not precisely define what the
samples are supposed to represent. In
the proposed rule preamble (64 FR
39582, July 22, 1999), EPA indicated
that it would not offer a comprehensive
definition of what constitutes a
‘‘representative sample’’ or specific
guidance. EPA is not defining
‘‘representative sample’’ in the final
rule. Guidance on the subject may be
found in Industrial User Inspection and
Sampling Manual for POTWs (EPA,
1994, http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/
owm0025.pdf).
Sampling methods to yield a
representative sample may vary
depending on the site-specific situations
of an individual discharger and the
parameter that must be analyzed. Issues
for the Control Authority to consider
and document in prescribing sampling
protocols include: (1) The appropriate
sampling period (e.g., 24 hours or
during the period of discharge); (2) use

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

of flow proportional versus timeproportional methods; (3) use of grab
samples versus composite samples; (4)
use of grab samples for pH monitoring;
(5) use of grab samples for degradable
and volatile parameters; (6) allowing
manual compositing of samples when
the methodology is approved by EPA;
and (7) applying the criteria to
instantaneous, daily maximum, and
monthly average limits.
Is EPA providing further clarifying
language for collection of samples
during process wastewater Discharges in
the final rule? A commenter asked EPA
to clarify whether a sample taken during
a 24-hour period must be taken during
a calendar day, or whether a sample
may be taken over the course of two
days. For example, if a facility
discharges 24 hours per day, must the
sample be taken from midnight to
midnight, or may it be taken for other
twenty-four hour periods (e.g., noon to
noon)?
EPA interprets a ‘‘day’’ to be a 24hour period and does not require that it
occur within a calendar day. This is
consistent with the definition for ‘‘daily
discharge’’ in the NPDES regulations at
40 CFR 122.2. Daily discharge means
the ‘‘discharge of a pollutant’’ measured
during a calendar day or any 24-hour
period that reasonably represents the
calendar day for purposes of sampling.
For pollutants with limitations
expressed in units of mass, the ‘‘daily
discharge’’ is calculated as the total
mass of the pollutant discharged over
the day. For pollutants with limitations
expressed in other units of
measurement, the ‘‘daily discharge’’ is
calculated as the average measurement
of the pollutant over the day. This is
existing policy and was not proposed to
be modified in the rule, and therefore
has not been added to the final rule.
EPA recognizes that Control Authorities
may define a more specific sampling
period.
Another commenter asked for EPA to
clarify whether a sample may be taken
over the course of two calendar days in
other circumstances. For example, if a
facility discharges from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.,
must a sample be taken from 7 a.m. to
7 p.m., or may a sample be taken from
noon on one day to noon on the next
day so long as only regulated
wastewater is sampled? In the example
provided, the sampling for compliance
would need to be representative of the
categorical process Discharge, and
would need to account for other factors
such as ensuring that stagnant water is
not sampled if the facility is not
discharging, and that process
wastewater is not being discharged
during the 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. period (for

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60159

instance in an overtime situation).
Where a sampler is placed from noon to
noon, and wastewater samples (with
volume proportionate to Discharge) are
only collected during the discharge
period (e.g., there is not a process
wastewater Discharge, and no samples
are collected from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m.), and
the samples are properly preserved,
then it is likely that the sample would
be appropriate for use to determine
compliance during a 24-hour period.
Since this example addresses a sitespecific situation, EPA is not inclined to
revise the rule to address one particular
set of circumstances. While other
industries may have similar situations,
the Control Authorities will need to
consider all of the site-specific
circumstances in detailing the sampling
requirements for the facility in the
individual Industrial User’s control
mechanism.
A commenter expressed concern with
the proposed language pertaining to
required sampling periods. The section
originally clearly pertained only to
sampling required for reporting under
subsections 40 CFR 403.12(b), (d) and
(e), of all categorical streams. As revised
in the proposal, the requirements also
apply to reports required under
subsection (h) as well as to all other
non-categorical waste streams. The
commenter stated that the discussion in
the preamble to the proposed rule
seemed to indicate these very specific
requirements only apply to categorically
regulated wastestreams. However, the
commenter indicated that this intent
was not adequately stated in the
regulation itself.
The commenter went on to state,
‘‘Local limits are developed based on
total daily average influent loadings and
total daily flows from all sources
tributary to the receiving treatment
plant. Many IUs, particularly larger
ones, will have wastewater flows, from
sources such as cooling systems, boilers,
etc. that continue throughout the 24hour day, as well as flows from
maintenance and clean-up activities that
often occur during non-process periods.
In some cases, continuing composite
sampling during these ‘off-process’
periods may, in fact, reduce the daily
average concentration of a pollutant. In
other cases, pollutant Discharges during
maintenance or clean-up activities, may
contribute higher levels of pollutants
than during normal processing periods.
In either case, to determine compliance
with local limits, it seems sampling
should be conducted throughout the
period of discharge, regardless of
whether or not ‘process’ operations are
occurring the entire time.’’

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60160

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

In response, EPA removed the
sentence from the proposed rule that
read, ‘‘For those Industrial User
Discharges subject to categorical
Pretreatment Standards that do not
operate on a 24-hour per day schedule,
the samples must be collected at equally
spaced intervals during the period that
process wastewater is being
discharged.’’ It would be too
complicated to try to address all local
limits variations in this section of the
regulation, and as indicated by the
commenter, the proposed language did
not clarify the issue.
G. Significant Noncompliance Criteria
(40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii))
1. What were the rules in effect prior to
today’s rule?
How is ‘‘Significant Noncompliance’’
(SNC) currently defined?
The previous 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii)
defined ‘‘Significant noncompliance’’
(SNC), as it applies to Industrial Users
to include violations that meet one or
more of eight criteria. The criteria are:
(1) Chronic violations of Discharge
limits (where 66 percent or more of all
measurements taken for the same
pollutant parameter during a six-month
period exceed the daily maximum limit
or the average limit); (2) Technical
Review Criteria (TRC) violations (where
33 percent or more of all measurements
taken for the same pollutant parameter
during a six-month period equal or
exceed the product of the daily
maximum limit or the average limit
multiplied by the applicable TRC (TRC
equals 1.4 for BOD, TSS, fats, oil and
grease and 1.2 for all other pollutants
except pH)); (3) any other violation of a
Pretreatment effluent limit that the
Control Authority determines has
caused, alone or in combination with
other Discharges, Interference or Pass
Through; (4) any discharge of a
pollutant that has caused imminent
endangerment to human health, welfare
or to the environment or has resulted in
the POTW’s exercise of its emergency
authority to halt or prevent such a
discharge; (5) failure to meet, within 90
days after the schedule date, a
compliance schedule milestone
contained in a local control mechanism
or enforcement order for certain
activities; (6) failure to provide required
reports within 30 days after the due
date; (7) failure to accurately report
noncompliance; and (8) any other
violation or group of violations which
the Control Authority determines will
adversely affect the operation or
implementation of the local
Pretreatment Program.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

What are the background and purpose of
the SNC criteria?
On July 24, 1990, EPA modified 40
CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii) to include the
existing definition of SNC (55 FR
30082). The purpose of this
modification was to provide some
certainty and consistency among
POTWs for publishing their lists of
Industrial Users in significant
noncompliance. EPA modeled the
modification after the criteria under the
NPDES program used to determine SNC
violations for direct dischargers. By
making the modifications, EPA also
established more parity in tracking
violations by direct and indirect
dischargers.
What happens when an Industrial User
facility is in SNC?
POTWs are required to publish
annually a list of Industrial Users in
SNC at any time during the previous
twelve months. In the previous rules,
the POTW was required to publish this
list in the largest daily newspaper
published in the municipality in which
the POTW is located.
The Agency has emphasized that
Industrial Users are liable for any
violation of applicable Pretreatment
Standards and Requirements, and has
strongly encouraged Control Authorities
to take some type of enforcement
response for each such instance of
noncompliance. Supporting this
approach, EPA notes that the very
underlying premise of the Enforcement
Response Plan (40 CFR 403.8(f)(5)) is
that there be some type of POTW
response for each instance of
noncompliance. Appropriate types of
enforcement responses are addressed in
the POTW’s Enforcement Response
Plan, although EPA guidance
recommends that violations rising to the
level of SNC be met with some type of
formal enforcement action like an
enforceable order (Guidance For
Developing Control Authority
Enforcement Response Plans, EPA 832–
B–89–102, September 1989, (see http://
www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/
owm0015.pdf.)
2. What changes did EPA propose?
EPA proposed the following
modifications to the SNC provision in
1999:
a. Publication
EPA proposed to amend the previous
40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii) to allow
publication of the SNC list in any paper
of general circulation within the
jurisdiction served by the POTW that
provides meaningful public notice
rather than in the largest daily

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

newspaper published in the
municipality as is currently required.
b. Applicability
EPA proposed to amend the SNC
criteria to apply only to Significant
Industrial Users (SIUs). Under the
existing regulations, SNC can apply to
any Industrial User.
c. Daily Maximum or Average Limit
Violations
EPA proposed to amend the previous
40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii)(A), (B), and (C) to
include a broader set of violations than
just daily maximum and average limits.
d. Other Issues
EPA also took comment on several
other issues, but did not propose
specific changes. These issues include
Technical Review Criteria (TRC), late
reports, and rolling quarters.
3. What changes is EPA finalizing in
today’s rule?
EPA is finalizing four changes to
amend 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii).
a. Publication
EPA is amending 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(vii) (now 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(viii)) to allow publication of
the SNC list in any paper of general
circulation that provides meaningful
public notice within the jurisdiction
served by the POTW. EPA’s intent in
modifying this requirement is to be
consistent with the July 17, 1997
amendments to Part 403 regarding
modifying POTW Pretreatment
Programs (62 FR 38406). Under the
amended 40 CFR 403.11(b)(1)(i)(B),
publication can be in any paper of
general circulation within the
jurisdiction served by the POTW that
provides public notice. It is EPA’s view
that this new performance standard for
publishing SNC violations properly
balances the need to give the POTW the
flexibility to choose an appropriate
newspaper within its community, with
the need to ensure effective public
notice and deterrence of ‘‘bad actors.’’
b. Applicability
EPA is amending the SNC criteria so
that SNC will apply only to SIUs and to
those Industrial Users that have caused
Pass Through or Interference, have a
Discharge that resulted in the POTW’s
exercise of its emergency authority to
halt or prevent such a Discharge, have
caused imminent endangerment to
human health, welfare, or the
environment, or have otherwise
adversely affected the POTW’s ability to
operate its Pretreatment program. This
approach is consistent with the NPDES

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
SNC policy which only applies to major
dischargers. See ‘‘Revision of NPDES
Significant Noncompliance (SNC)
Criteria to Address Violations of NonMonthly Average Limits,’’
memorandum from Steven A. Herman,
Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, September 21, 1995.
Additionally, EPA emphasizes that the
SNC criteria apply not only to SIUs, but
also to IUs that cause significant adverse
impacts to the POTW, human health or
the environment. These modifications
should cut down on administrative
burdens and allow better resource
targeting. These modifications ensure
the POTW’s ability to address all
potentially problematic Users
adequately. The Agency wants to make
it clear that this change is focused only
on the POTW’s publication and
reporting requirements. EPA fully
expects POTWs to take appropriate
enforcement actions against any
Industrial User that violates a
Pretreatment Standard or requirement.
POTWs still have the option of
publishing non-significant Industrial
Users with violations that do not fall
within one of the above-mentioned
categories.
c. Daily Maximum or Average
Limitations
EPA is amending 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(vii)(A) and (B) (now 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(viii)(A) and (B)) to apply to a
broader range of violations such as other
numeric limits, instantaneous limits,
narrative limits, or operational
standards, and amending 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(vii)(C) (now 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(viii)(C)) to address other
Pretreatment Standards and
requirements. This change is important
since some local limits may be
expressed as instantaneous limits or
narrative limits. The revised language
addresses other types of requirements
like operational standards. The
amendment is generally consistent with
EPA’s revision to its NPDES SNC policy
where EPA broadened the criteria to
address non-monthly average
limitations. See ‘‘Revision of NPDES
Significant Noncompliance (SNC)
Criteria to Address Violations of NonMonthly Average Limits,’’
memorandum from Steven A. Herman,
Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, September 21, 1995.
d. Late Reports
EPA is amending 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(vii)(F) (now 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(viii)(F)) so that SNC applies
to reports that are provided more than

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

45 days after the due date, instead of to
reports that are 30 days late. The change
applies to required reports such as
baseline monitoring reports, 90-day
compliance reports, periodic selfmonitoring reports, and reports on
compliance with compliance schedules.
EPA is making this change because
many Control Authorities and Industrial
Users that commented on the late report
issue argued that the 30-day timeframe
was too restrictive. EPA notes that
Industrial Users that submit reports
even one day late are in violation.
4. What significant changes were made
to the proposed rule?
a. Applicability
EPA modified the proposal by adding
to the scope of SNC those nonsignificant IUs that cause Pass Through
or Interference, have a Discharge that
resulted in the POTW’s exercise of its
emergency authority to halt or prevent
such a Discharge, cause imminent
endangerment to human health, welfare,
or the environment, or otherwise
adversely affect the POTW’s ability to
operate its Pretreatment program.
b. Daily Maximum or Average Limit
Violations
In the proposal, EPA proposed to
modify the provisions of the then
current 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii)(A), (B)
and (C) (now 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)(A),
(B) and (C)) to address not only
violations of daily maximum or longerterm average limits, but also a broader
range of violations such as other
numeric limits, instantaneous limits,
narrative limits, or operational
Standards. EPA has modified the
proposal in the following ways:
Chronic violations (40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(viii)(A): EPA has clarified the
revised language to more accurately
describe the target violations. The term
‘‘numeric’’ was added to clarify that
only Standards or Requirements that
can be numerically quantified can be
examined for possible chronic
violations. Also, EPA specifies that
chronic violations include violations of
both ‘‘Standards and Requirements’; the
term ‘‘Requirements’’ was not included
in the proposal. The inclusion of this
term provides the intended broader
scope that EPA sought in the proposal.
EPA also clarifies that violations of
instantaneous limits are also to be
considered for chronic violations.
During the process of revising the
chronic and TRC violations provision,
EPA found the difference between the
use of the phrase ‘‘for the same
pollutant parameter’’ for chronic
violations, and the phrase ‘‘for each

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60161

pollutant parameter’’ for TRC violations,
may have led to some unintended
misinterpretation. It is EPA’s intention
that the chronic and TRC criteria be
applied to the ‘‘same pollutant
parameter.’’ To avoid potential
confusion, EPA modified both the
chronic and TRC provisions to use the
same phrase (i.e., for the same pollutant
parameter), and to place the phrase in
the most appropriate place in the
provision to improve its clarity.
TRC (40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)(B): EPA
adopted the same changes for TRC
violations that were made for chronic
violations.
Any other violations: EPA has
modified the proposed rule by including
clarifying language on what is meant by
a ‘‘Pretreatment Standard or
Requirement.’’ EPA provides
parenthetical examples, including daily
maximum, long-term average,
instantaneous, or narrative Standards.
c. Late Reports
EPA did not propose any changes to
the then current 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(vii)(F) (now 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(viii)(F)), which contains the
SNC criterion for late reports. Instead,
EPA sought comments on several
options for the late report criterion. The
options included tying SNC to a pattern
of late reporting; applying the SNC
criterion to a late report only if the
report indicated that a violation of
monitoring requirements or numeric
limitations had occurred; allowing
POTWs to extend ‘‘waivers’’ in some
circumstances to Industrial Users that
offered a satisfactory reason why reports
were late; limiting the types of reports
to which the SNC criterion applies;
retaining the 30-day late report
criterion, but changing the publication
requirement as it pertains to late reports;
extending the time after which a late
report puts an Industrial User in SNC
(e.g., to 45 days or 60 days); or
providing the POTW with complete
authority for determining when late
reports trigger SNC. EPA is amending
the criterion so that Industrial Users are
in SNC if reports are not provided
within 45 days after their due date.
5. Summary of Major Comments and
EPA Response
a. Publication
Most commenters were in favor of
making the change that EPA is adopting
in today’s rule. EPA is amending the
regulation to allow publication of the
SNC list in any paper of general
circulation that provides meaningful
public notice within the jurisdiction
served by the POTW. One reason given

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60162

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

for supporting this change included
possible lower costs to the municipality.
Other commenters pointed out that the
previous use of the largest daily
newspaper requirement did not make
sense in certain situations. Such
examples included that the largest daily
newspaper may not always have
provided the most effective notice, and
the fact that some municipalities may
only have a weekly publication and no
daily publication.
EPA also sought comment on an
appropriate definition for ‘‘meaningful
public notice’’ to ensure some level of
consistency across the Pretreatment
programs. Some commenters provided
suggestions for defining ‘‘meaningful
public notice’’ such as linking it to the
service area population, the circulation
rate of the newspaper, or the official
daily newspaper as determined by the
Control Authority. Other commenters
stated that the definition of ‘‘meaningful
public notice’’ should be determined by
the Control Authority because defining
it by service population or circulation
rate could be overly burdensome and
not necessarily meet the intent of the
Standard. EPA agrees with the
commenters who suggested that
defining ‘‘meaningful public notice’’
could be overly burdensome. Therefore,
at this time, EPA has decided not to
define ‘‘meaningful public notice.’’
b. Applicability
The majority of commenters
supported either modifying the
application of SNC to SIUs only, or to
SIUs and those Industrial Users which
caused Pass Through or Interference,
had a Discharge that resulted in the
POTW’s exercise of its emergency
authority to halt or prevent such a
Discharge, caused imminent
endangerment to human health, welfare,
or the environment, or otherwise
adversely affected the POTW’s ability to
operate its Pretreatment program. Some
commenters did not want to limit SNC
to apply only to SIUs because not all
Industrial Users which should be are
properly identified as SIUs. The
commenters also noted that all
Industrial Users are required to comply
with Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements, regardless of whether
they are designated as SIUs. (Several
commenters also indicated that
changing the SNC definition to apply
only to SIUs would be unfair, because,
with such a change, this definition
would no longer apply to other
Industrial Users that could cause the
same types of impacts as SIUs.) EPA
agrees that certain non-Significant
Industrial Users should continue to be
covered under the SNC provisions. By

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

including the application of SNC to
SIUs and those Industrial Users which
cause the specific problems referenced
above, the rule should address the
commenters’ concerns.
The distinction EPA is making today
is not focused on the size of the facility;
rather, EPA focuses on those dischargers
with the largest potential to impact the
system. EPA continues to strongly
encourage POTWs to use their existing
authority under what will now be
codified as 40 CFR 403.3(v) to designate
any Industrial Users as significant if
they have the reasonable potential to
adversely affect the POTW’s operation
or to violate any Pretreatment Standard
or Requirement. This includes
considering smaller facilities that have
the potential (either individually or
collectively) to impact the system.
Furthermore, all Industrial Users are
required to comply with Pretreatment
Standards and Requirements, regardless
of whether they are designated as SIUs,
and EPA expects appropriate
enforcement to be taken for each
violation by any Industrial User.
c. Daily Maximum or Average Limit
Violations
Commenters were divided on this
proposed rule language. One commenter
mentioned that the revision would be
much more consistent nationally if it
were to apply only to numeric
categorical Pretreatment Standards.
Another commenter indicated that the
Control Authorities often are required to
make ‘‘subjective judgments regarding
compliance with narrative Standards,
instantaneous limits and some general
prohibitions,’’ and that such a subjective
judgment would be an inappropriate
basis for an SNC determination. Another
commenter indicated that all applicable
Pretreatment Standards are enforced
now, and that there would be no
discernible benefit to expanding the
types of violations that could trigger a
SNC determination. Some commenters
cited the possible increased burden on
the Control Authorities if such
additional Standards were used to make
SNC determinations.
On the other hand, several
commenters were supportive of the
proposed rule change. Some
commenters indicated that the revision
would better reflect the fact that
Industrial Users must be in compliance
with all applicable Pretreatment
Standards and requirements in order to
meet the goals of the national
Pretreatment program. Other
commenters focused on the fact that
Interference or pass-through could be
caused by violations of Standards other
than categorical Pretreatment Standards,

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

and therefore they saw a need to expand
the SNC criteria.
EPA agrees with those commenters
who supported an expansion of the
range of SNC criteria consistent with the
proposed rule, and has added other
numeric limits, instantaneous limits,
narrative Standards, or operational
Standards as part of the SNC criteria.
This approach will give more equal
weight to categorical Standards, local
limits, and other Standards as
applicable Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements. This expansion of SNC
criteria would also potentially enhance
the Control Authority’s ability to
address such violations (i.e., other
numeric limits, instantaneous limits,
narrative Standards, or operational
Standards) by placing a higher priority
on these violations. EPA has concluded
that such a change would still provide
national consistency and be more
protective by better ensuring
compliance with all applicable
Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements. Control Authorities are
currently expected to address violations
of all applicable Pretreatment Standards
and Requirements, so that this proposal
should not necessarily impose any
increased enforcement responsibilities
on the Control Authorities. In addition,
as the preamble to the proposed rule
states (64 FR 39593), this approach
would be consistent with ‘‘EPA’s recent
revision to its NPDES SNC policy where
EPA broadened the criteria to address
non-monthly average limit violations.’’
See ‘‘Revision of NPDES Significant
Noncompliance (SNC) Criteria to
Address Violations of Non-Monthly
Average Limits,’’ memorandum from
Steven A. Herman, Assistant
Administrator for the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, September 21, 1995.
Under the NPDES SNC policy, when
a parameter has both a monthly average
and a non-monthly average limit, a
facility is only considered in SNC for
the non-monthly average if the monthly
average is also violated to some degree
(but less than SNC). EPA sought
comment on whether such a caveat is
also appropriate for the Pretreatment
Regulations. Very few commenters
focused on this particular topic. A few
commenters indicated that a
determination that a particular violation
or set of violations constituted SNC
should only occur if there was a
meaningful violation of the POTW’s
NPDES Permit limit for that particular
parameter. In the absence of significant
comment and in recognition that
effluent violations other than monthly
average violations could have
significant impacts on the POTWs, EPA

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
has decided not to modify the
regulations to restrict SNC for violations
of non-monthly averages.
d. Technical Review Criteria (TRC)
In the existing regulations, the
Technical Review Criteria (TRC) may be
found at 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii)(B) (now
found at 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)(B)). As
described in the preamble to the
proposed rule (64 FR 39593), these TRC
‘‘* * * are numeric thresholds used to
define a subcategory of SNC * * *
based on the magnitude of an effluent
violation. A TRC violation occurs where
33 percent or more of all of the
measurements for each pollutant
parameter taken during a six-month
period equal or exceed the product of
the daily maximum limit or the average
limit multiplied by the applicable TRC.’’
TRC is equal to 1.4 times the applicable
Standard for BOD, TSS, fats, oils and
grease; TRC is also equal to 1.2 times the
applicable Standard for all other
pollutants except pH.
As further stated in the preamble to
the proposed rule (64 FR 39593), EPA
was not proposing to amend the TRC.
However, EPA did seek comment on
this topic, particularly regarding local
limits. EPA stated that it was ‘‘* * *
interested in suggestions for workable
alternatives * * * that would ensure
that the magnitude of a violation * * *’’
continues to be part of the definition of
SNC, with the condition that such
alternatives ‘‘* * * would not unduly
increase the workload on either the
Control Authority or the Approval
Authority.’’ Based on its review of the
comments, EPA is not considering any
further changes to TRC.
Several commenters expressed a clear
preference that TRC not be modified.
Several commenters also provided
alternative numeric thresholds for TRC.
However, there was no consensus
among the comments for an alternate
threshold and a sufficient justification
for the use of such alternative
thresholds was not provided. As
explained in the preamble to the
proposed rule (64 FR 39593), the
existing regulations are ‘‘consistent with
the NPDES approach which has
generally been accepted over the years
as an indicator of a ‘significant’ level of
exceedance which should be reviewed
for enforcement purposes.’’
Furthermore, as that same preamble
stated, ‘‘(T)he same considerations
apply to the TRC as it is applied to
categorical Standards in the
Pretreatment program and may be
relevant for local limits.’’ In a sense, by
keeping the TRC the same for both
direct dischargers to surface waters and
indirect dischargers to POTWs, the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

criteria help maintain a ‘‘level playing
field’’ by ensuring that this subcategory
of SNC is linked to some nationallyconsistent designated magnitude above
the applicable Standard, whether that
Standard is an NPDES Permit effluent
limit, a categorical Pretreatment
Standard, or a local limit.
Several commenters, using similar
language, stated that ‘‘it is incumbent on
EPA to develop TRC that are germane to
the objectives of the Pretreatment
program, developed in a manner that
lends credence to application of effluent
guidelines and local limits, and are
technically sound and defensible.’’ Just
as best achievable technology Standards
(BAT) and stream use are factors
considered in the development of
effluent limits, BAT and protection of
the POTW’s operations are factors
considered in the establishment of
categorical Pretreatment Standards and
local limits respectively. Therefore, if
these Pretreatment limits are properly
derived for their intended purpose, the
TRC are simply intended to represent
numeric thresholds at magnitudes above
these applicable Standards such that,
above this level, such significant noncompliance should make the authority
sufficiently concerned and warrant
appropriate action. As such, EPA
concludes that there is not sufficient
reason to try to account only for
instances of potential Pass Through or
Interference, or to make allowances for
the range of treatment plant
performance, or to have different TRC
for individual pollutant parameters for
different POTWs. Such revisions would
be contrary to EPA’s intent to keep the
regulations simple to understand and
implement, and to not unduly increase
the workload on the Control Authority
or Approval Authority.
Some of the commenters advocated
the elimination of the TRC entirely. EPA
disagrees with these commenters. As
indicated above, EPA asserts that a
measure of the magnitude of the
violation is an appropriate
consideration in determining SNC. The
preamble to the proposed rule (64 FR
39593) stated that EPA was not
proposing to amend the TRC, and EPA
believes that radical revisions to the
TRC are not warranted.
One commenter indicated that TRC
should only apply if the levels are at
least five times the applicable Standard.
EPA concludes that this level is far too
high a threshold to serve as a proper
deterrent to dischargers and as an
adequate indicator of potential
compliance problems. EPA emphasizes
that POTWs should be concerned about
reported results, the adequacy of
industrial treatment, and potential

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60163

impacts on the plant operations or
receiving waters at levels which are
much less than five times the applicable
Standard.
Some commenters sought to adjust
the TRC by having them only apply to
daily maximum limitations. Other
commenters suggested that for the
violations to rise to the level of SNC
EPA modify the percentages for TRC
and chronic criteria from 33 to 34% and
from 66 to 67% of all measurements
taken, respectively. EPA disagrees with
these commenters, because it is not
clear how these changes will improve
the application of TRC or provide equal
if not added environmental protection
when compared to the existing TRC
criteria.
As stated above and in the preamble
to the proposed rule (64 FR 39593), EPA
did seek comment on the TRC,
particularly regarding local limits. No
commenters focused on whether TRC
may be inappropriate for local limits,
based upon a distinction in the
derivation, site-specific variability and
intent of local limits as compared to
categorical Pretreatment Standards.
Therefore, EPA did not adopt changes to
reflect the use of TRC for local limits.
e. Late Reports
The existing regulations require that
Industrial Users that submitted reports
more than 30 days late be considered in
SNC. This is consistent with the NPDES
SNC approach for late reports. EPA did
not propose any specific changes to this
part of the SNC definition, but did
solicit comment on possible options or
combinations of options to modify this
portion of the definition. The options
included tying SNC to a pattern of late
reporting; applying the SNC criterion to
a late report only if the report indicated
that a violation of monitoring
requirements or numeric limitations had
occurred; allowing POTWs to extend
‘‘waivers’’ in some circumstances to
Industrial Users that offered a
satisfactory reason why reports were
late; limiting the types of reports to
which the SNC criterion applies;
retaining the 30-day late report
criterion, but changing the publication
requirement as it pertains to late reports;
extending the time after which a late
report puts an Industrial User in SNC
(e.g., to 45 days or 60 days); or
providing POTWs with complete
flexibility for determining when late
reports trigger SNC.
Comments on this issue were mixed.
Many commenters noted that reporting
is important in and of itself and it serves
a vital role in ensuring adequate
implementation and oversight of the
Pretreatment program. Commenters

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60164

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

noted that failure to submit or late
submittal of reports impede POTWs
from meeting goals of their approved
programs. Because of the importance of
reporting, a few commenters (POTWs)
argued that EPA should retain the
existing SNC criterion for late reports.
However, a majority of commenters
asked EPA to modify the SNC criterion
for late reports in some way. They noted
that reports are sometimes late because
of circumstances that are beyond the
control of the Industrial Users.
Commenters also stated that publication
should be reserved to Industrial Users
that violate numeric Pretreatment
Standards or fail to monitor, rather than
for violations that some commenters
characterized as ‘‘administrative’’
violations. One commenter also noted
that a 30-day criterion may be
appropriate for NPDES permittees, but
not for the Pretreatment Program
because NPDES permittees generally
submit reports more frequently than
Industrial Users regulated by the
Pretreatment Program and because the
Pretreatment Program also relies on
surveillance by the POTWs. Based on
these comments, EPA agrees that
modifications to the SNC criterion for
late reports are appropriate.
Although most commenters favored
modifications to the SNC criterion for
late reports, commenters disagreed on
how the provision should be modified.
Some commenters stated that POTWs
should be given complete flexibility in
determining whether late reports
constitute SNC. Others argued that
POTWs should be provided some
amount of flexibility, but not total
flexibility. It is EPA’s position that the
definition of SNC should be consistent
throughout the Pretreatment Program.
Therefore, the Agency has chosen to
establish a consistent SNC criterion for
late reports that would avoid the use of
different SNC criterion by various
POTWs for the same type of reporting
violations.
Some commenters suggested that the
SNC criterion for late reports should
recognize a pattern of late reporting, or
should consider the Industrial User’s
compliance history. For example, some
commenters suggested that a late
reporter be considered in SNC if 33
percent or more of required reports in a
specified reporting period are provided
more than 30 days late. Another
commenter suggested that three
monitoring reports submitted more than
thirty days late could constitute a
history of chronic late reports, and
another commenter suggested that
failure to submit a completed discharge
monitoring report in any two months of
any consecutive six month period

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

should trigger SNC. EPA agrees that
POTWs should take steps to address
Industrial Users that demonstrate a
pattern of late reporting. In addition,
EPA strongly asserts that the SNC
criterion for late reports must address
reports that are submitted extremely late
or that are never submitted, even if the
extremely late submittal or failure to
submit is a one-time occurrence.
Some commenters argued that SNC
for late reports should apply only if the
report, once submitted, indicates that
the Industrial User has violated a
numeric Pretreatment Standard or failed
to monitor. Others supported a
provision in which reports provided
more than 30 days late, but less than 45
days, should trigger SNC only if they
indicated another violation. EPA views
this suggested change as potentially
minimizing the importance of reporting
as a tool for POTWs to implement local
Pretreatment Programs. Also, EPA
asserts that the SNC criterion for late
reports must address reports that are
submitted extremely late or that are
never submitted, even if the extremely
late submittal or failure to submit is a
one-time occurrence and even if the
report does not indicate monitoring or
effluent violations.
A number of commenters supported
extending the number of days until
which late reports trigger SNC from 30
days to 45 days. EPA agrees that this
change is appropriate and easy to
implement. A few commenters
suggested the option of extending the
period from 30 days to 60 days. EPA has
concluded that this change is not
appropriate because most cases of late
laboratory reports or other
miscommunications can be addressed
quickly. EPA also concludes that
receiving data 60 days late would be
more likely to jeopardize POTWs’
management of their Pretreatment
Programs and have the potential to
adversely impact the POTW and its
receiving water.
A few commenters suggested that the
SNC criterion for late reports should
only apply to periodic self-monitoring
reports and 90-day self compliance
reports. EPA asserts that, in order to
avoid confusion and ease tracking of
late reports, the same criterion should
be applied to all reports. One
commenter asked that EPA amend the
regulations so that SNC for late reports
applies to ‘‘baseline monitoring reports,
90-day compliance reports, periodic
self-monitoring reports, or reports on
compliance with compliance
schedules’’ (rather than ‘‘baseline
monitoring reports, 90-day compliance
reports, periodic self-monitoring
reports, and reports on compliance with

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

compliance schedules’’). The
commenter was concerned that the
provision could be interpreted to imply
that Industrial Users must submit both
the 90-day compliance reports and the
periodic self-monitoring reports to avoid
being in SNC. The list of reports
comprises a list of examples of
‘‘compliance reports.’’ EPA does not
agree that changes are needed to this
language, nor does the Agency find the
commenter’s arguments to be valid.
In considering revisions to the late
reporting criterion for SNC, EPA notes
that implementation of the Pretreatment
Program relies heavily on a self-policing
and self-reporting system. This selfreporting is important to enforcement. If
a failure to report becomes routine, the
entire program can be weakened. EPA
expects POTWs to take some level of
enforcement action against any
Industrial User that provides late
reports. EPA would also like to
emphasize that there is current
flexibility in the existing rule to address
some of the concerns related to one late
report putting an Industrial User in
SNC. For example, the Control
Authority has some flexibility in setting
the due date and can set it to coincide
with some other established reporting or
billing cycle. Also, in the enforcement
response policy the POTW can have an
escalation policy, whereby, for example,
the Industrial User would receive a
warning letter that the report is 5–10
days late past the due date and/or fines
associated with the report before it rises
to the level of being in SNC.
f. Rolling Quarters
EPA memoranda circa 1991 and 1992
form the basis of EPA’s policy that SNC
for IUs should be calculated on a rolling
quarter basis. (September 9, 1991
memorandum from Michael B. Cook,
Director of EPA’s Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance to Water
Management Division Directors, Regions
I–X and approved Pretreatment State
coordinators, ‘‘Application and Use of
the Regulatory Definition of Significant
Noncompliance for Industrial Users,’’
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/
application_use_regulatory.pdf, and
January 17, 1992 memorandum from
Mark B. Charles, Chief of RCRA and
Pretreatment Enforcement Section, to
the Regional Pretreatment Coordinators,
Regions I–X, ‘‘Determining Industrial
User Significant Noncompliance—One
Page Summary,’’ http://www.epa.gov/
npdes/pubs/industrial_user.pdf). The
term ‘‘rolling quarters,’’ under EPA’s
national policy, refers to an approach
which requires the Control Authority to
evaluate an Industrial User’s
compliance status at the end of each

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
quarter by using data from the previous
six-month period. In the regulations,
determinations of significant
noncompliance are based upon sixmonth periods (40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(viii)(A) and (B)).
Many commenters expressed concern
regarding the concept of rolling quarters
and instead endorsed the adoption of
static six-month periods that do not
overlap. Many commenters were
concerned that the use of rolling
quarters could result in the need to
publish the name of the Industrial User
in two separate years for SNC for the
same violation.
Many commenters who supported the
static six-month approach voiced
concerns that the use of rolling quarters
unnecessarily complicated the
calculations of SNC and the annual
publication of those IUs in SNC,
without apparent benefits over the use
of static six-month periods. They
indicated that the concept was complex,
difficult to implement and would only
result in confusion for the Industrial
Users and increased burden for the
control authorities.
Some commenters preferred to begin
to ‘‘roll’’ time periods after a violation
occurs, thus giving, as one commenter
stated, the possibility to ‘‘* * * allow
Industrial Users to achieve compliance
and obtain additional samples’’ to verify
compliance, all within the given time
period. The commenters explained that
this could give Industrial Users an
opportunity to demonstrate compliance
rather than being listed as being in SNC
for violations that were corrected
months ago. EPA noted in the preamble
to the proposed rule (64 FR 39594, July
22, 1999) that while the Agency
provided some discussion of the various
opinions regarding the use of rolling
quarters, EPA did not ultimately
propose a specific change regarding
rolling quarters national policy, did not
seek comment on whether to
discontinue EPA’s national policy
regarding the use of rolling quarters, and
did not propose an alternative approach.
It remains EPA’s intention to continue
the existing national policy that SNC for
Industrial Users be evaluated on a
rolling quarter basis. This approach,
which is the same as the one used in the
NPDES program for the determination of
SNC by direct dischargers, will remain
the same.
EPA did seek comment on whether
the concept of rolling quarters should be
codified in the Pretreatment
Regulations. Some commenters
expressed their opposition to such
codification, based largely upon their
preference to use an alternative to
rolling quarters. A few commenters

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

supported codification, indicating that
by making the use of the rolling quarters
approach mandatory, EPA would help
ensure national consistency in its use by
Control Authorities. One commenter
recommended codification of the due
date for the annual publication of
Industrial Users in SNC. After
considerable internal discussion and
careful deliberation, EPA has decided
not to codify rolling quarters in the
Pretreatment Regulations.
In the preamble to the proposed rule
(64 FR 39594, July 22, 1999), EPA
specifically sought comment on whether
the regulations should be revised to
allow Control Authorities to waive the
second publication (as described above)
‘‘where that second publication is based
solely on the violations occurring in the
last quarter of the previous Pretreatment
year.’’ Many commenters sought the
elimination of this double publication
issue through a specific rule change to
the publication requirements,
particularly if the final rule implements
the concept of rolling quarters. Those
commenters indicated that such
duplicate publications in the newspaper
would be unfair to the Industrial User
which had corrected its compliance
problems and would mislead the public
regarding the status of such an
Industrial User.
EPA’s 1991 memorandum, cited
previously, addressed the issue of
possible publication in two different
years of an Industrial User that is in
SNC for the same violation. EPA was
clear on the point that double
publication is not intended by the use
of rolling quarters. It stated that ‘‘(I)f a
facility has been determined to be in
SNC based solely on violations which
occurred in the first quarter of the 15month evaluation period (i.e., the last
quarter of the previous Pretreatment
year) and the facility has demonstrated
consistent compliance in the subsequent
four quarters, then the POTW is not
required to republish the Industrial User
(IU) in the newspaper if the IU was
published in the previous year for the
same violations.’’ It is EPA’s position
that no revisions are needed on this
point. However, EPA wishes to clarify
that a facility does not need to have full
compliance to avoid double publication.
Rather, if a facility was already
determined to be in SNC during the
previous pretreatment year, and the
facility would not be in SNC in the
current year but for violations occurring
during the last three months of the
previous year, then the facility is not
considered in SNC for the current year.

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60165

H. Removal Credits—Compensation for
Overflows (40 CFR 403.7(h))
1. General Background
Section 307(b) of the CWA which
requires EPA to establish pretreatment
standards also authorizes a
discretionary program for POTWs to
grant ‘‘removal credits’’ to their
industrial users. The credit in the form
of a less stringent categorical
Pretreatment Standard would allow an
Industrial User to discharge a greater
quantity of a pollutant than would
otherwise be authorized because the
POTW’s treatment processes sufficiently
reduce the concentrations of the
pollutant.
Section 307(b)(1) establishes a threepart test that a POTW must meet in
order to obtain removal credit authority
for a given pollutant. Removal credits
may be authorized only if (1) the POTW
‘‘removes all or any part of such toxic
pollutant,’’ (2) the POTW’s ultimate
discharge would ‘‘not violate that
effluent limitation or standard which
would be applicable to that toxic
pollutant if it were discharged’’ directly
rather than through a POTW, and (3) the
POTW’s discharge would ‘‘not prevent
sludge use and disposal by such
[POTW] in accordance with section
[405] * * *’’ (Sec. 307(b)). EPA
promulgated removal credit regulations
that are codified at 40 CFR 403.7 (See
43 FR 27736, 46 FR 9404, 49 FR 31212,
and 52 FR 42434).
In this rulemaking, EPA proposed
only one limited change to the removal
credits provision of the General
Pretreatment Regulations. A number of
commenters, however, asked EPA to
consider changes to the regulations to
allow greater availability of removal
credits for a broader range of pollutants.
The Agency’s current plans with respect
to sewage sludge regulations and
removal credits are discussed in detail
in a Notice published today with this
rule.
2. What are the existing rules governing
how removal credit authority is affected
by the occurrence of overflows in the
POTW sewer system?
Section 403.7 of the General
Pretreatment Regulations describes the
conditions under which removal credits
may be available to an Industrial User.
Among other things, the regulation
provides that, given certain conditions
are met, a POTW may grant a removal
credit to an Industrial User equal to or
less than its consistent removal rate for
that pollutant. The regulation defines
‘‘consistent removal rate.’’ In
circumstances where a POTW ‘‘annually
Overflows’’ untreated wastewater to

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60166

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

receiving water, the POTW may claim
consistent removal of the pollutant only
under the conditions specified either in
40 CFR 403.7(h)(1) or (2). ‘‘Overflow’’
means the intentional or unintentional
diversion of flow from the POTW before
the POTW treatment plant.
Under subsection (h)(1), a POTW may
claim consistent removal only if, for
example, the POTW has established
plans for notifying Industrial Users in
the event of a potential overflow and the
Industrial User has, among other things,
taken certain actions to provide
containment of, or ceases or reduces, its
discharges of the pollutant for which the
removal credit is sought. Alternatively,
in subsection (h)(2), the current rule
provides that consistent removal may be
claimed under a mathematical formula
that reduces consistent removal to take
account of the Overflows so long as the
POTW has taken steps required by an
EPA guidance document on combined
sewer overflows (CSOs) published on
December 16, 1975 (i.e., PRM 75–34).
This latter requirement was intended to
ensure that POTWs granting removal
credits were taking appropriate steps to
address CSOs as outlined in EPA’s thencurrent guidance. Since then, EPA has
adopted the CSO Control Policy with
updated requirements for addressing
CSOs. Section 402(q) of the CWA
provides that all NPDES permits must
be consistent with the CSO Control
Policy.
3. What changes did EPA propose?
EPA proposed to make Industrial
Users that are upstream of Overflows
ineligible for removal credits unless
they could establish that their
discharges would be consistently
treated. Consistent with that approach,
the proposal would have deleted the
existing provision in 40 CFR 403.7(h)(2)
which allows removal credits for
discharges that are subject to Overflows,
but reduces the credit by a percentage
equal to the percentage of time in a year
that the POTW is subject to Overflows.
In addition, references in the regulation
to the now obsolete guidance on
construction grants review procedures
for developing CSO control were to be
removed by deleting Appendix A as
well as discussion of that guidance in 40
CFR 403.7(h)(2).
4. What changes is EPA finalizing in
today’s rule?
Today, EPA is limiting its action to
updating the references to obsolete
guidance published in 1975, for the
construction grants program. Existing 40
CFR 403.7(h)(2)(ii) and (iii) and
Appendix A are deleted and replaced
with a requirement for the POTW to be

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

in compliance with all NPDES permit
requirements and other requirements in
any orders or decrees issued pursuant to
the 1994 CSO Control Policy. As noted
above, CWA 40 CFR402(q) requires all
NPDES permits to conform to this
policy. The existing formula in 40 CFR
403.7(h)(2)(i) for adjusting removal
credits based on the number of hours of
Overflow discharges occurring in a year
is retained.
EPA decided not to adopt the
proposed revision which would have
required that removal credits be limited
to the percentage of the pollutant that
was removed during the Overflow
event. EPA does not have sufficient
information to determine the impacts of
such a change on existing programs
using removal credits and is concerned
that the adoption of this change may
have disrupted these programs with
little environmental benefit.
Today’s rule also makes one technical
correction in response to comments
received. EPA corrects footnote 1 in
Appendix G, Table I (Regulated
Pollutants in Part 503 Eligible for a
Removal Credit) by including a
reference to the use of carbon monoxide.
The Part 503 regulations now allow the
use of either total hydrocarbon (THC) or
carbon monoxide concentrations to
represent organic compounds in exit gas
from incinerators. EPA amended Part
503 subpart E (59 FR 9095, February 25,
1994) to authorize the demonstration of
compliance with the 100 ppm THC
operational standard by meeting a 100
ppm CO limit. Therefore, EPA is
modifying footnote 1 to reflect the fact
that either total hydrocarbon or carbon
monoxide, as a surrogate monitoring
parameter, may be used.
I. Miscellaneous Changes (40 CFR
403.12(g), (j), (l), and (m))
Signatory Requirements for Industrial
User Reports and POTW Reports (40
CFR 403.12(l) and (m))
Today’s rule revises the signatory
requirements for Industrial Users at 40
CFR 403.12(l)(1)(ii) to adopt more
flexible standards for determining who
must sign reports on behalf of a
corporation. EPA’s NPDES regulations
include similar requirements for NPDES
Permits. See 40 CFR 122.22(a)(1)(ii).
Today’s amendments make similar
changes to the signatory requirements
for ‘‘duly authorized employees’’ of
POTWs. See 40 CFR 403.12(m) and
122.22(a).
1. What were the rules in place prior to
today’s rulemaking?
Sections 403.12(l)(1)(ii) previously
limited the circumstances in which a

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

plant manager could sign a Pretreatment
report as a responsible corporate officer.
Prior to today’s rule, in order to sign a
report on behalf of a company, the
manager was required to manage a
facility with more than 250 employees
or $25 million in sales or expenditures.
Section 403.12(i) addresses annual
reporting requirements for POTWs.
Prior to today’s rule, 40 CFR 403.12(m)
required these reports to be signed by ‘‘a
principal executive officer, ranking
elected official or other duly authorized
employee if such employee is
responsible for overall operation of the
POTW.’ ’’
2. What changes did EPA propose?
EPA proposed to revise the signatory
requirements for Industrial Users at 40
CFR 403.12(l)(1)(ii) to adopt the same
language that EPA proposed in 1996 (61
FR 65268) and now uses for direct
dischargers at 40 CFR 122.22(a)(1)(ii).
On May 15, 2000, EPA finalized
revisions to 40 CFR 122.22(a)(1)(ii) to
replace the numeric criteria for
designating an appropriate signer with
more flexible narrative criteria (64 FR
39595). Rather than conditioning
signature authority on resource
management size, the revised criteria
describe the necessary signer in terms of
general management authority and
responsibilities. The revised criteria
require the manager to have the
authority to make capital investment
decisions and assure long term
environmental compliance.
In addition, EPA also proposed to
revise the signatory requirements for
POTW reports at 40 CFR 403.12(m) so
the requirement would be more
consistent with signatory requirements
in the current 40 CFR 122.22(a). EPA
proposed to allow signature by a duly
authorized employee having
responsibility for the overall operation
of the facility or activity such as the
position of POTW Director, Plant
Manager, or Pretreatment Program
Manager. This authorization could be
made in writing by the principal
executive officer or ranking elected
official, and submitted to the Approval
Authority prior to the report being
submitted.
3. What changes is EPA finalizing in
today’s rule?
In today’s final rule, EPA adopts the
proposed rule’s changes. The following
modifications to the proposed rule were
made:
Duly Authorized Employee: The
proposed rule provided examples of
which POTW personnel could sign as a
‘‘duly authorized employee.’’ EPA was
concerned that the specific examples

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
given (e.g., POTW Director, Plant
Manager, or Pretreatment Program
Manager) might have unintentionally
limited the designation of ‘‘duly
authorized employee’’ at a POTW in the
case of an employee that did not have
the same exact position title as any of
the ones listed in the proposal. To avoid
any confusion and provide intended
flexibility, today’s rule adopts the
proposal’s requirement that the duly
authorized employee be ‘‘an individual
or position having responsibility for the
overall operation of the facility’’, yet
simplifies the language by deleting the
examples of specific POTW positions
from the proposal.
Authorization for Duly Authorized
Employee: EPA clarifies in today’s rule
that the POTW’s authorization of a duly
authorized employee to sign POTW
reports can be submitted to the
Approval Authority ‘‘together with’’ the
next annual report. The proposal only
provided the option of submitting such
authorization ‘‘prior to’’ the annual
POTW report.
4. Summary of Major Comments and
EPA Response
The following is a summary of major
comments received and EPA’s response:
Do individuals previously authorized
to sign POTW reports need to comply
with the new ‘‘duly authorized
representative’’ requirements? Several
commenters observed that individuals
currently signing POTW reports for their
program, who may have been signing
such reports for numerous years, would
now need to receive Approval Authority
approval prior to signing the next report
after today’s rule becomes effective. The
commenter suggested that EPA add a
grandfather provision which enables
such individuals to continue signing
POTW reports without having to
comply with the ‘‘duly authorized
representative’’ requirements at 40 CFR
403.12(m).
EPA has not adopted the commenter’s
suggestion. In EPA’s view, the new
language provides greater flexibility to
POTWs than is currently provided by
the Pretreatment Regulations and
clarifies any uncertainty about which
employees may be ‘‘duly authorized’’ to
sign and submit Pretreatment reports. If
the commenter chooses to continue its
practice of delegating a duly authorized
representative to sign relevant reports,
this authorization, consistent with 40
CFR 403.12(m) ‘‘must be made in
writing and submitted to the Approval
Authority prior to or together with the
report being submitted.’’
EPA notes that the proposed rule
made it seem as if the Approval
Authority’s approval of duly authorized

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

representatives needed to occur prior to
the submission of the next report.
Because this is inefficient for the POTW,
EPA modified the proposed language in
40 CFR 403.12(m), to indicate that the
POTW can request such approval either
‘‘prior to or together with’’ the POTW
report being submitted. It is EPA’s
opinion that this change addresses the
commenters’ concerns about the
inefficiency of waiting for approval from
the Approval Authority before
submitting a report. EPA sees no reason
why the POTW’s request to use a duly
authorized employee signatory not be
considered by the Approval Authority at
the same time that it receives the
POTW’s report.
For Industrial User reports, why is
EPA no longer requiring the signatory to
be a high level person of authority
ultimately responsible for the overall
management of the business? One
commenter disagreed with the change to
40 CFR 403.12(l) observing that the
signatory should continue to be a high
level person of authority who is
ultimately responsible for the overall
management of the business. EPA
clarifies that today’s rule merely
provides greater flexibility in the type of
‘‘responsible corporate officer’’ who
may sign reports on behalf of an
Industrial User. The revised
requirements do not significantly alter
the type of official designated as
signatory. The Industrial User is still
given the same level of flexibility as
existed prior to today’s rule to choose
between a responsible corporate officer,
a general partner or proprietor, or a duly
authorized representative.
Net/Gross Calculations (40 CFR 403.15)
Today’s rule corrects an unintended
error in the net/gross procedures for
adjusting categorical Pretreatment
Standards to reflect the presence of
pollutants in the Industrial User’s intake
water. The error appeared to make the
test for using these procedures
unintentionally difficult to meet.
1. What were the rules in place prior to
today’s rulemaking?
Net/gross calculations allow
pollutants in intake water to be
considered when developing
technology-based limitations. EPA
modified 40 CFR 403.15, the section of
the Pretreatment Regulations addressing
net/gross calculations, in 1988 so that
this provision would be consistent with
the NPDES provision for net/gross
which had been revised earlier. See
discussion at 53 FR 40602–40605,
October 17, 1988. The NPDES provision
(40 CFR 122.45(g)) is an ‘‘or’’ test which
allows net/gross adjustments either

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60167

where effluent Standards are specified
on a net basis or where control systems
meet Standards in the absence of
pollutants in the intake water. That is,
meeting either condition allows
consideration of adjustment. However,
the actual language EPA used to modify
40 CFR 403.15 in 1988 erroneously used
the term ‘‘and’’ instead of ‘‘or’’, thus
inadvertently establishing a test in
which both conditions would have to be
met. As there are no categorical
Standards which specify application on
a net basis, this resulted in an
unintended prohibition on the use of
the net/gross provision in the
Pretreatment Program.
2. What changes did EPA propose?
EPA proposed to revise the language
in section 40 CFR 403.15 to be
consistent with the NPDES regulations
and with the intent of the 1988
modification. According to the proposal,
categorical Pretreatment Standards
could be adjusted on a ‘‘net’’ basis if
either the applicable Pretreatment
Standards allow for this calculation or
the Industrial User demonstrates its
control system meets those Pretreatment
Standards.
3. What changes is EPA finalizing in
today’s rule?
EPA has adopted the proposed rule
change. No modifications were made to
the proposal in the final rule.
4. Summary of Major Comments and
EPA Response
There were no significant comments
on this proposed change.
Requirement To Report All Monitoring
Data (40 CFR 403.12(g))
Today’s rule updates a requirement
for Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs) to
report all monitoring data to reflect the
fact that this provision should similarly
apply to non-categorical SIUs, since
both types of Users are required to
submit monitoring reports to the Control
Authority.
1. What were the rules in place prior to
today’s rule?
EPA changed 40 CFR 403.12(g) in
1988 (see 53 FR 40614, October 17,
1988) to require all monitoring by
Industrial Users to be reported. This was
done to avoid the situation in which an
Industrial User that performs extra
sampling might select the most
favorable monitoring result to report to
the Control Authority. At the time of
this change, only CIUs were required by
the regulations to report on a regular
basis, and therefore, this requirement
was limited to CIUs. In 1990, 40 CFR

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60168

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

403.12(h) was added to the regulations
(see 55 FR 30131, July 24, 1990),
requiring all non-categorical Significant
Industrial Users to also sample and
report. However, at the time this change
was made, the regulations at 40 CFR
403.12(g) were not updated to require
all SIUs, categorical and noncategorical, to report all monitoring
results to the Control Authority.
2. What changes did EPA propose?
EPA proposed to change the
Pretreatment Regulations to require all
SIUs, both categorical and noncategorical SIUs, to report all
monitoring results for regulated
parameters at the point of compliance,
obtained using procedures specified in
Part 136, to the Control Authority.
3. What changes is EPA finalizing in
today’s rule?
EPA adopted the proposed rule
change to 40 CFR 403.12(g)(6). No
modifications were made to the
proposal in the final rule.
4. Summary of Major Comments and
EPA Response
Should non-SIUs be required to report
all monitoring results? Two commenters
suggested that EPA revise the scope of
its provision to include all Industrial
Users. While there are likely important
reasons to apply this provision to nonSIUs on a case-by-case basis, EPA
declines to do so in a requirement
affecting all Pretreatment programs.
First, EPA did not consider such a
revision in the proposal, and it would
be inappropriate to do so in this action.
Second, while it may make sense to
require reporting of all monitoring
results for SIUs since they are already
required to monitor and report to the
POTW, non-SIUs are not currently
required by the Pretreatment
Regulations to monitor or report. Of
course, POTWs may require non-SIUs to
report all monitoring data to POTWs on
a case-by-case basis if local laws allow.
Such a decision is a matter of local
discretion.
Notification by Industrial Users of
Changed Discharge (40 CFR 403.12(j))
Today’s rule clarifies that when the
Industrial User provides notification of
a changed Discharge it should go to the
‘‘Control Authority’’, or the Control
Authority and the POTW, where the
POTW does not have an approved
Pretreatment program.
1. What were the rules in place prior to
today’s rule?
In 1988, the regulations were changed
to add 40 CFR 403.12(j) (53 FR 40614,

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

October 17, 1988) requiring all
Industrial Users to promptly notify the
POTW of any substantial change in
volume or character of pollutants in the
User’s Discharge to the POTW. This
notification requirement did not include
the Control Authority, which, in some
cases, is not the POTW.
2. What changes did EPA propose?
EPA proposed to expand the
notification requirement in 40 CFR
403.12(j) so that the Industrial User
must notify the ‘‘Control Authority’’, as
opposed to the ‘‘POTW’’, and in cases
where the Control Authority and the
POTW are different organizations, the
Industrial User would notify both the
Control Authority and the POTW of any
substantial change in volume or
character of pollutants in the User’s
Discharge to the POTW.
3. What changes is EPA finalizing in
today’s rule?
EPA has adopted the proposed rule’s
revision of 40 CFR 403.12(j). No
modifications were made to the
proposal in the final rule.
4. Summary of Major Comments and
EPA Response
There were no significant comments
on this proposed change.
J. Equivalent Mass Limits for
Concentration Limits (40 CFR
403.6(c)(5))
This section of today’s final rule
addresses the establishment of
equivalent mass limits for
concentration-based categorical
Standards. EPA is finalizing provisions
that allow Industrial Users to request
(and, at their discretion, Control
Authorities to approve) the conversion
of concentration-based categorical limits
to equivalent mass-based limits. The
current rule requires that the Control
Authority must control contributions to
a POTW by all Significant Industrial
Users (which include Categorical
Industrial Users) through a Permit or
equivalent individual control
mechanism. See 40 CFR 403.3(t) (now
found at 40 CFR 403.3(v)) and 40 CFR
403.8(f)(1)(iii). Today’s change
authorizes the Control Authority to
calculate an equivalent mass limit for
the Industrial User’s Permit (or control
mechanism) for those categorical
Pretreatment Standards that are
expressed in terms of concentration.
Once inserted into the Industrial User’s
control mechanism, the equivalent limit
replaces the promulgated concentrationbased Pretreatment Standard. See 40
CFR 403.6(c)(7). The final rule includes
requirements that an Industrial User

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

must satisfy in order to qualify for this
conversion. These include a
requirement for the Industrial User to
use water conservation methods and
technologies during the term of the
Industrial User’s control mechanism.
The rule also specifies the procedures
which the Control Authority must
follow in calculating the equivalent
mass limit. After the equivalent mass
limits are in effect, the rule conditions
the continued use of the limits on the
Industrial User’s compliance with
several requirements, including, at a
minimum, the maintenance and
effective operation of treatment
technologies adequate to achieve
compliance with the equivalent mass
limits, the continuous recording of flow
rates, the notification of the Control
Authority where production is expected
to be substantially changed, and the
retention of water conservation
measures.
1. What were the rules in place prior to
today’s rulemaking?
National categorical Pretreatment
Standards establish different types of
pollutant limitations for different
categories. EPA has established
categorical Pretreatment Standards that
include the following types: (1)
Concentration-based Standards that are
implemented directly as concentration
limits; (2) mass limits based on
production rates; (3) both concentrationbased and production-based limits; and
(4) mass limits based on a concentration
Standard multiplied by a facility’s
process wastewater flow. Currently, 40
CFR 403.6(c)(2) authorizes the Control
Authority to convert production-based
mass limits to equivalent daily mass
limits or concentration limits. In
addition, 40 CFR 403.6(d) allows the
Control Authority to impose equivalent
mass limits in addition to
concentration-based Standards where
the Industrial User is using dilution to
meet applicable Pretreatment Standards
or where the imposition of mass limits
is appropriate. Under 40 CFR 403.6(d),
both the mass limit and concentration
limit are then enforceable, so the mass
limit would not be an equivalent, ‘‘inlieu-of’’ limit. The regulations do not
currently, however, authorize
establishment of alternative mass
limitations in the case of concentrationbased Standards except in the limited
circumstances described in 40 CFR
403.6.
2. What changes did EPA propose?
EPA proposed to revise the
Pretreatment Regulations to authorize
the Control Authority to establish
equivalent mass limits in lieu of

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
promulgated concentration-based limits
for Industrial Users. The equivalent
mass limit would only be available to
Industrial Users that had installed
control measures at least as effective as
the model treatment technologies that
serve as the basis for a particular
categorical Pretreatment Standard and
that are employing water conservation
methods and technologies that
substantially reduce water use. The
Control Authority would be required to
document how the equivalent mass
limits were derived and make this
information publicly available.
3. What changes is EPA finalizing in
today’s rule?
EPA is finalizing changes to enable
Control Authorities in limited
circumstances to express a
concentration-based categorical
Standard as an equivalent mass limit in
a control mechanism issued to an
Industrial User. The equivalent mass
limit replaces the promulgated
categorical Pretreatment Standard once
it is incorporated into the Industrial
User’s control mechanism. To qualify
for an equivalent mass limit, the CIU
must meet certain eligibility conditions.
These conditions require the CIU to: (1)
Implement water conservation measures
that substantially reduce water use; (2)
use control and treatment technologies
adequate to achieve compliance with
categorical Pretreatment Standards, and
demonstrate that it has not used
dilution as a substitute for treatment; (3)
provide monitoring data to establish its
actual average daily flow rate and its
baseline long-term average production
rate; (4) demonstrate that it does not
have daily flow rates, production rates,
or pollutant levels that fluctuate so
significantly that establishing equivalent
mass limits would not be appropriate;
and (5) have consistently complied with
the applicable categorical Pretreatment
Standards.
Under the final rule, while a CIU may
request an equivalent limit, the Control
Authority has the discretion to decide
whether an equivalent mass limit is
appropriate. If the Control Authority
approves the request, it then calculates
the equivalent mass limit by
multiplying the promulgated
Pretreatment Standard (expressed as
concentration) by the Industrial User’s
actual average daily flow rate and the
appropriate unit conversion factor. For
example, the unit conversion factor is
8.34 when multiplying a concentration
limit (expressed as milligrams/liter) by
flow (expressed as millions of gallons
per day). The CIU is subject to the
equivalent mass limit when its control
mechanism containing the mass limit is

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

effective. During the term of the control
mechanism, or in a subsequent control
mechanism term, the Control Authority
may determine that it is necessary to
revise the mass limit to reflect a
significant change in the rate of
production. The Control Authority is
not required to recalculate the
equivalent mass limits in subsequent
control mechanism terms if the actual
average daily flow rates were reduced
solely as a result of implementing water
conservation methods and technologies,
and the flow rates used in the original
calculation of the equivalent mass limits
were not based on the use of dilution as
a substitute for treatment pursuant to 40
CFR 403.6(d), and the Industrial User is
not bypassing its treatment technologies
pursuant to 40 CFR 403.17.
After the Control Authority develops
an equivalent mass limit and issues a
control mechanism with the mass
limits, the continued applicability of the
equivalent mass limit depends on the
Industrial User’s continued compliance
with certain requirements. To comply
with these requirements, the Industrial
User must: (1) Maintain and effectively
operate control and treatment
technologies adequate to achieve
compliance with the equivalent mass
limits; (2) record the facility’s flow rates
through the use of a continuous effluent
flow monitoring device; (3) continue to
record the facility’s production rates
and notify the Control Authority if the
rates vary by more than 20 percent from
the production rates used as the basis
for the equivalent mass limits; and (4)
continue to employ the same or
comparable water conservation
measures which made the facility
eligible for receiving the equivalent
mass limits. The Control Authority
should consider including the four
conditions listed above in the CIU’s
control mechanism to make it clear to
all such Industrial Users that continued
use of the equivalent mass limits is
subject to ongoing compliance with
these minimum requirements. Failure to
comply with these conditions will
disqualify the CIU from coverage by the
equivalent mass limit. The pre-existing
concentration-based Pretreatment
Standards will be automatically
enforceable at the time of
disqualification.
Section 403.8(f)(1) requires that
POTW Pretreatment Programs must
have the legal authority to control the
contribution to POTWs from each
Industrial User to ensure compliance
with Pretreatment Standards and other
requirements. In the case of Significant
Industrial Users, this control must be
achieved through a Permit or other
equivalent control mechanism. The

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60169

Permit or control mechanism must
contain, among other things
‘‘* * * [e]ffluent limits based on
applicable general Pretreatment
Standards in part 403 of this chapter,
categorical Pretreatment Standards,
local limits, and State and applicable
local law.’’ 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(C).
When a Control Authority develops
equivalent mass limits under today’s
provision, these limits will meet the
requirement that the Permit or control
mechanism include ‘‘effluent limits
based on categorical Pretreatment
Standards.’’ As is the case with any
equivalent Standard established under
40 CFR 403.6(c), in order for the
Approval Authority and the public to be
able to verify compliance by the CIUs
with these equivalent Standards, the
Control Authority will need to
document how the mass limit
calculations were derived and make the
documents publicly available (i.e., to
the Approval Authority, EPA, the
general public or any third party
requesting this information).
Establishing mass limits that are
equivalent to promulgated
concentration-based categorical
Pretreatment Standards does not
improperly transfer Standard-setting
authority to the Control Authority. As
noted above, EPA’s current regulations
already require the inclusion in
Industrial User Permits (or other control
mechanisms) of effluent limits based on
the categorical Standard. Moreover,
current 40 CFR 403.6(c)(6) provides that
equivalent limits calculated in
accordance with the regulation are
deemed Pretreatment Standards for
purposes of section 307(d) of the CWA.
If a Control Authority develops an
equivalent mass limit, in lieu of the
concentration-based categorical
Standard, the equivalent limit is a
Pretreatment Standard. Where it is
determined that the equivalent mass
limit is not properly calculated, the
Control Authority must modify the
Industrial User’s control mechanism to
require immediate compliance with the
correctly calculated limits.
Which categorical industries are
potentially affected by this provision?
Section 403.6(c)(5) applies to qualifying
indirect dischargers that are currently
subject to Pretreatment Standards
expressed as concentration limits.
Currently, there are 14 categorical
Pretreatment Standards that are
expressed as concentration limits alone
and are therefore eligible for equivalent
mass limits under new 40 CFR
403.6(c)(5). The following categories are
included in this list:
• Inorganic Chemicals (40 CFR part
415)

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60170

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

• Fertilizer Manufacturing (40 CFR
part 418)
• Petroleum Refining (40 CFR part
419)
• Steam Electric Power Generating
(40 CFR part 423)
• Leather Tanning (40 CFR part 425)
• Glass Manufacturing (40 CFR part
426)
• Rubber Manufacturing (40 CFR part
428)
• Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433)
• Pharmaceutical Manufacturing (40
CFR part 439)
• Transportation Equipment Cleaning
(40 CFR part 442)
• Paving and Roofing Materials (40
CFR part 443)
• Commercial Hazardous Waste
Combustors Subcategory of the Waste
Combustors Point Source Category (40
CFR part 444)
• Carbon Black Manufacturing (40
CFR part 458)
• Electrical and Electronic
Components (40 CFR part 469)
In finalizing the rule, EPA is making
the following changes to the proposed
rule:
Discretionary Use of Equivalent Mass
Limits: The final rule emphasizes that
the decision on whether to convert the
CIU’s concentration-based categorical
Pretreatment Standard to an equivalent
mass limit rests with the Control
Authority. Though EPA intended that
the Control Authority’s decision would
be discretionary, there was considerable
uncertainty and concern among the
commenters that the proposed language
was not clear on this issue (e.g., ‘‘* * *
the Control Authority may convert the
limits * * * ’’). Several Industrial Users
expressed concern that they might be
compelled to accept equivalent mass
limits. EPA has clarified the language of
the final rule. The rule now states that
Industrial Users initiate the process by
requesting that their concentrationbased limits be converted to equivalent
mass limits. The final rule states it this
way: ‘‘* * * the Industrial User may
request that the Control Authority
convert the limits to equivalent mass
limits. The determination to convert
concentration limits to equivalent mass
limits is within the discretion of the
Control Authority.’’
Industrial User Eligibility Conditions:
EPA has included requirements that the
Industrial User must first meet before
the Control Authority may establish an
equivalent mass limit. Several of these
eligibility requirements are also
conditions that must be met in order to
continue use of equivalent mass limits
after becoming effective. The final rule
includes the following requirements:
(1) Implementation of Water
Conservation: EPA has revised the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

proposed language requiring the
Industrial User to be ‘‘employing water
conservation methods and technologies
that substantially reduce water use’’ to
make it clear that current as well as
future water conservation efforts can
both qualify for the use of equivalent
mass limits. The final rule also requires
water conservation during the initial
term of the Industrial User’s control
mechanism which includes equivalent
mass limits. The revised rule language
is as follows: ‘‘the Industrial User must
employ, or demonstrate that it will
employ, water conservation methods
and technologies that substantially
reduce water use during the term of its
control mechanism.’’ See 40 CFR
403.6(c)(5)(i)(A). The final rule also
requires that the Industrial User
‘‘continue to employ the same or
comparable water conservation methods
and technologies as those implemented
pursuant to paragraph (5)(i)(A) so long
as it discharges under an equivalent
mass limit.’’ See 40 CFR
403.6(c)(5)(ii)(D).
(2) Use of Effective Control and
Treatment Technologies: The proposed
rule required ‘‘control measures at least
as effective as the model treatment
technologies that serve as the basis for
that particular Standard.’’ The final rule
revises this language, while retaining
the principle of requiring the
installation and use of effective control
measures to meet the applicable
Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources (PSES) or Pretreatment
Standards for New Sources (PSNS). The
revised language is as follows: ‘‘The
Industrial User must * * * currently
use control and treatment technologies
adequate to achieve compliance with
the applicable categorical Pretreatment
Standard, and not have used dilution as
a substitute for treatment.’’
The proposal discussed the fact that
the Pretreatment Regulations in 40 CFR
403.6(d) contain a strict prohibition
against the use of dilution as a
substitute for treatment, and that
requirement remains. This provision
states that no Industrial User
introducing wastewater pollutants into a
POTW may increase the use of process
wastewater or otherwise dilute the
wastewater as a partial or total
substitute for adequate treatment to
achieve compliance with a Pretreatment
Standard. EPA has concluded that it is
appropriate to require CIUs seeking to
use an equivalent mass limit to
demonstrate their past compliance with
the dilution prohibition in 40 CFR
403.6(d). See 40 CFR 403.6(c)(5)(i)(B).
For example, the Industrial User can
compare its current flows to the flows
that are assumed as part of the model

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

technology for the categorical
Pretreatment Standard. Consistent with
the dilution requirement, this
requirement is intended to provide the
Control Authority with a means of
identifying facilities that may have used
dilution in the past. Such CIUs would
be precluded from obtaining less
stringent equivalent mass limits by
taking advantage of historically high
flows based on dilution. The Control
Authority may review historical
monitoring and inspection reports, and
process descriptions from the
appropriate categorical Standard
Technical Development Document
published with each categorical
Standard, when evaluating the
Industrial User’s demonstration of no
dilution. See 40 CFR 403.6(c)(5)(i)(B).
The final rule also requires, as a
condition of using equivalent mass
limits, that Industrial Users ‘‘maintain
and effectively operate control and
treatment technologies adequate to
comply with the equivalent mass
limits.’’ See 40 CFR 403.6(c)(5)(iii)(A).
EPA revised the proposed rule language
because of a concern that Industrial
Users not be locked into a particular
control technology or be required to
make a complex technical showing that
one treatment system is ‘‘no less
effective’’ than another. By requiring
that existing treatment be ‘‘adequate to
achieve compliance with applicable
categorical Pretreatment Standards’’ and
that Industrial Users ‘‘maintain and
effectively operate control and treatment
technologies adequate to comply with
the equivalent mass limits’’, EPA has
concluded that the final rule language
ensures that CIUs with equivalent mass
limits continue to provide appropriate
treatment. See 40 CFR 403.6(c)(5)(ii)(A).
(3) Establishment of Actual Average
Daily Flow Rate and Baseline LongTerm Average Production Rate: The
proposal had indicated that it would be
sufficient to provide a ‘‘reasonable
estimate of the flow required to achieve
the facility’s production goals using
BAT and in the absence of the water
saving technology.’’ See 64 FR 39570,
July 22, 1999. The final rule changes
this approach to require, consistent with
current regulations and guidance, that
equivalent mass limits be based on the
CIU’s actual average daily flow rate and
that flows be measured, as opposed to
estimated, using a continuous effluent
flow monitor. The final rule requires
that the flow rate used be representative
of current operating conditions; the
actual period of flow used to develop
the equivalent limits should reflect
actual current production and water
usage. See 40 CFR 403.6(c)(5)(i)(C). EPA

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
also conditions the use of equivalent
mass limits on the continued use of an
effluent flow monitoring device to
record the facility’s flow rates. See 40
CFR 403.6(c)(5)(iii)(B).
In addition, the preamble of the
proposed rule suggested that the flow
component of the equivalent mass limit
be based on estimated flows ‘‘required
to achieve the facility’s production
goals.’’ See 64 FR 39570, July 22, 1999.
EPA did not discuss in the preamble
how the mass limit may need to change
if the Industrial User changed its
production goals, resulting in
potentially substantial changes in
process wastewater flow. In adopting a
later amendment to its regulations that
authorized the establishment in limited
circumstances of equivalent mass limits
for certain Industrial Users in the City
of Owatonna, Minnesota, however, EPA
did require Industrial Users subject to
equivalent mass limits to notify the
Control Authority where ‘‘production
rates are expected to vary by more than
20 percent from a baseline production
rate’’ determined when the mass limit
was first established. See 65 FR 59741
(October 6, 2000); see 40 CFR 403.19(b).
Accordingly, EPA has modified the final
rule to include a similar requirement for
the Industrial User to provide the
Control Authority with sufficient
information to establish an average daily
production rate. See 40 CFR
403.6(c)(5)(i)(C). The Industrial User
must also notify the Control Authority
of substantial changes in the rate so that
the Control Authority is given an
opportunity to alter the equivalent mass
limit in the event of such changes (e.g.,
greater than 20 percent from the
baseline rate). See 40 CFR
403.6(c)(5)(ii)(C) and (iii)(B).
(4) Use of Equivalent Mass Limits for
Relatively Uniform Operating
Conditions: The final rule includes an
additional requirement that the
Industrial User demonstrate that it must
‘‘not have daily flow rates, production
levels, or pollutant levels that vary so
significantly that an equivalent mass
limit is not appropriate to control the
Discharge.’’ See 40 CFR 403.6(c)(5)(i)(D).
(5) Consistent Compliance with
Standards: The availability of
equivalent mass limits is also
conditioned on consistent compliance
with applicable categorical Pretreatment
Standards. The final rule does not
specify the period during which the CIU
must have demonstrated full
compliance, but allows the Control
Authority to assess the available
compliance records to the extent that
they are representative of current
operating conditions and reflect the
Industrial User’s understanding of the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

regulatory obligations that must be
achieved for compliance with these and
related regulations. See 40 CFR
403.6(c)(5)(i)(E).
(6) Calculation of Equivalent Mass
Limit: The final rule specifies how
Control Authorities are to calculate the
equivalent mass limit. The following
language is used to describe the
calculation: In the first term of the
control mechanism, ‘‘A Control
Authority which chooses to establish
equivalent mass limits must * * *
calculate the equivalent mass limit by
multiplying the actual average daily
flow rate of the regulated process(es) of
the Industrial User by the concentrationbased daily maximum and monthly
average Standard for the applicable
categorical Pretreatment Standard and
the appropriate unit conversion factor.’’
See 40 CFR 403.6(c)(5)(iii)(A). The rule
further provides that the Control
Authority ‘‘may retain the same
equivalent mass limit in subsequent
control mechanism terms if the
Industrial User’s actual average daily
flow rate was reduced solely as a result
of the implementation of water
conservation methods and technologies,
and the actual average daily flow rates
used in the original calculation of the
equivalent mass limit were not based on
the use of dilution as a substitute for
treatment pursuant to 40 CFR 403.6(d).
The Industrial User must also be in
compliance with 40 CFR 403.17
(regarding the prohibition of bypass).’’
See 40 CFR 403.6(c)(5)(iii)(C).
(7) Pollutants Excluded from
Equivalent Mass Limits: EPA has
adopted specific language from 40 CFR
122.45(f)(1)(i) which identifies the
following pollutants as being
inappropriate for the use of equivalent
mass limits: pH, temperature, and
radiation. See 40 CFR 403.6(c)(5)(iv).
4. Summary of Major Comments and
EPA Response
Discretionary Use of Equivalent Mass
Limits: Several commenters raised
concerns regarding who would initiate
the use of equivalent limits and how
much discretion the Control Authority
has in imposing these limits. A
consistent theme raised among
commenters representing Industrial
Users was the concern that the proposed
rule would enable the Control Authority
to impose equivalent mass limits over
the objection of the Industrial User.
Where POTW and state commenters
provided comments on this issue, they
expressed concern that equivalent mass
limits would create additional burden
and generally emphasized that the
decision to use equivalent mass limits to
regulate a particular indirect discharger

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60171

should be left to the POTW’s discretion.
EPA notes that these positions appear
consistent with one another. The final
rule allows for an Industrial User to
request equivalent mass limits and
emphasizes that the decision to convert
concentration-based limits to equivalent
mass limits lies within the Control
Authority’s discretion. EPA does not
anticipate that an Industrial User would
request the implementation of
equivalent mass limits if it would create
an unacceptable amount of additional
burden for the facility, nor would the
Control Authority accept an undue
burden upon itself if a benefit would not
be foreseen.
What level of treatment must be in
place prior to being eligible for
equivalent mass limits? A few
commenters objected to the proposal’s
requirement that in order to be eligible
to use equivalent mass limits the
Industrial User be utilizing control
measures at least as effective as the
model treatment technologies that serve
as the basis for the particular categorical
Standard. These commenters instead
supported the availability of equivalent
mass limits where the Industrial User
could demonstrate that the
concentration limits can be met without
treatment. One POTW and an
environmental organization took the
opposite position, indicating that
treatment must be in place prior to the
use of equivalent mass limits. Today’s
final rule requires that the Industrial
User be using control and treatment
technologies adequate to achieve
compliance with the applicable
categorical Pretreatment Standard. The
final rule also requires that the
Industrial User maintain and effectively
operate control and treatment
technologies adequate to achieve
compliance with the equivalent mass
limits.
EPA is imposing this requirement for
a number of reasons. First, the use of
technologies adequate to achieve
compliance with applicable Standards
provides the Control Authority with a
level of assurance that qualifying
Industrial Users have not been meeting
their concentration-based Standards
through dilution, which is prohibited in
40 CFR 403.6(d). Second, although
water conservation typically increases
the concentrations of pollutants in the
process wastewater prior to treatment,
facilities with on-site treatment
typically show a reduction of pollutant
loadings in the final effluent prior to its
discharge to the POTW sewer system
even where the facility has instituted
water conservation. This reduction can
be attributed to the fact that many
wastewater treatment technologies are

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60172

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

limited more by physical/chemical
properties of the pollutants in the
wastewater, than by influent
concentrations. Therefore, reducing the
wastewater Discharge flow will
generally reduce the overall pollutant
load from the facility. This is based on
the assumption that the reduced
wastewater flow to the treatment system
will allow the system to more
successfully treat the increased
pollutant concentrations in the
wastewater treatment influent stream.
This is a key reason EPA has concluded
it is appropriate to provide this
incentive for water conservation. More
information on water conservation
techniques and methods can be found in
the rule docket (see OW–2002–0007–
0091).
In assessing whether the Industrial
User has installed adequate control and
treatment technologies, the Control
Authority may review the
corresponding categorical Standard
Development Document for potential
control options. For instance, the
Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Metal Finishing Point Source
Category (EPA 440/1–83/091, June 1983)
identifies that PSES for the waste
streams containing complexed metals is
based on the segregation of the
complexed metals waste stream with
separate treatment for the precipitation
of metals and the removal of suspended
solids. A figure depicting the different
model treatment technologies for the
complexed metals and other
wastestreams can be found in Figure
10–1 (page X–2) of the Development
Document. (pages X–1–4, and XII–1)
The Control Authority might also
review current trade association
literature for other control options that
have become available since the
Development Document was produced,
as well as sources available through
EPA’s ‘‘Sector Strategies’’ programs and
EPA’s Office of Compliance Assistance:
http://www.epa.gov/sectors/
program.html, http://www.epa.gov/
compliance/resources/publications/
assistance/sectors/notebooks/
index.html.
Prohibition Against Dilution: A few
commenters indicated their concern that
implementation of equivalent mass
limits might allow Industrial Users to
secure lenient standards through the
calculation of equivalent mass limits
based on flows that reflect diluted
wastestreams. The proposal discussed
the fact that the Pretreatment
Regulations have a strict prohibition
against the use of dilution as a
substitute for treatment (see 40 CFR
403.6(d)). This provision indicates that

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

no User introducing wastewater
pollutants into a POTW may increase
the use of process wastewater or
otherwise dilute the wastewater as a
partial or total substitute for adequate
treatment to achieve compliance with a
Pretreatment Standard. EPA has
concluded that it should require CIUs
seeking to obtain an equivalent mass
limit to demonstrate their past
compliance with the dilution
prohibition in 40 CFR 403.6(d). This
requirement is intended to provide the
Control Authority with a means of
screening out those facilities that may
have used dilution in the past in order
to prevent their benefiting from higher
than necessary flow rates when
calculating a mass limit. (There are a
number of ways the Control Authority
may evaluate whether the CIU was
diluting its flows. This evaluation can
be made by comparing the CIU’s
product to flow ratio relative to that of
other facilities within its industry or
requesting an explanation of why it uses
the level of process water that it uses.)
How should compliance status affect
an Industrial User’s eligibility for
equivalent mass limits? Several POTWs
and one environmental organization
recommended that the proposed rule be
revised to require the Industrial User to
demonstrate that it is able to maintain
compliance with applicable
Pretreatment Standards prior to water
conservation and to restrict eligibility
based on such compliance. EPA agrees
with the commenters’ suggestions. The
final rule adopts the requirement that
interested Industrial Users must have
consistently complied with all
applicable categorical Standards prior to
the request to be subject to mass-based
limits. Compliance with the underlying
categorical Standards is an appropriate
benchmark for the Control Authority to
use in determining the eligibility of an
individual discharger. Where the
Industrial User has demonstrated
consistent compliance, the Control
Authority will be given some level of
confidence that the User will be able to
adjust to the use of a limit that is
considered equivalent to the
concentration-based Standard. It is
EPA’s view that the reverse is also true
in that the lack of compliance may
indicate a User’s inability to comply
with an equivalent limit. EPA is not
specifying a minimum time period over
which an Industrial User must be in
consistent compliance. EPA notes that
regulations in 40 CFR 403.12(o) require
that Industrial Users maintain records of
all information from any monitoring
activities for a minimum of three years.
These records should be reviewed and

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

considered to the extent that they reflect
compliance with current conditions. At
a minimum, EPA expects that no
Industrial User found to have been in
significant noncompliance (SNC) at any
time during the previous two years
would be considered to have achieved
consistent historical compliance.
Incompatibility of equivalent mass
limits with particular industries: One
trade association commented that the
use of mass limits is incompatible with
their industry due in large part to the
fluctuating conditions in their
operations. It is EPA’s view that certain
facilities do not have operations that are
compatible with the use of equivalent
mass limits. For example, a high degree
of variability in a CIU’s flows,
production, or pollutant Discharge
levels will likely make it an
inappropriate candidate to use mass
limits to control its Discharge. For this
reason, the final rule now requires
Industrial Users to ‘‘not have daily flow
rates, production levels, or pollutant
levels that vary so significantly that an
equivalent mass limit is not appropriate
to control the Discharge.’’ See 40 CFR
403.6(c)(5)(i)(D).
Water Conservation as a Qualifier for
Eligibility: Several commenters stated
that the implementation of equivalent
mass limits should not be restricted to
Industrial Users that have already
implemented water conservation
measures. EPA agrees that this
provision’s intent is to encourage
innovative water conservation methods
and should not include the precondition that Industrial Users have
already employed water conservation
measures. This will allow ongoing as
well as future water conservation efforts
by enabling both to use equivalent mass
limits. Regardless of whether a facility’s
water conservation methods are ongoing
or have yet to be implemented, this final
rule does require that the Industrial
User demonstrate that it will employ
water conservation methods and
technologies that will substantially
reduce water use during the term of its
control mechanism. The Industrial User
is also required to employ water
conservation to remain eligible for
equivalent mass limits.
This final rule does not specify the
amount of water conservation that
should be achieved or that constitutes a
substantial reduction in water use. EPA
notes that several existing programs
define thresholds that the Control
Authority may consider for use in this
context. For example:
• The final rule for the Pretreatment
Community XL (XLC) Site-Specific
Rulemaking for Steele County, MN (65
FR 59743) of 40 CFR 403.19(b),

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
indicates that the participating
Industrial Users committed as a group to
reduce water usage by 10% over the
initial 5 year project period.
• National Metal Finishing Strategic
Goals Program promotes a 50% water
reduction from each particular
participating industry’s baseline 1992
water usage. http://
www.strategicgoals.org/coregoals.cfm.
• EPA considers a ± 20% change in
flow rate to be a significant change in a
flow rate. See page 2–14 of the EPA
Guidance Manual for the Use of
Production Based Pretreatment
Standards and the Combined
Wastestream Formula (Sept. 1985).
How do facilities employ water
conservation? Currently there are many
water reduction technologies in use in
manufacturing facilities across the
United States. Many of the technologies
that EPA evaluated when establishing
the categorical Standards included
water conservation techniques and
technologies. The Technical
Development Document for a particular
categorical Standard is a valuable tool
for information on these technologies.
Technologies that reduce wastewater
Discharge rates usually increase the
concentrations of pollutants in the
wastewater leaving the industrial
operation. However, for facilities with
wastewater treatment systems on site,
these technologies may still reduce the
final effluent pollutant loading, because
many of the wastewater treatment
technologies are limited more by
physical/chemical properties of the
pollutants in the wastewater, than by
influent concentrations. Therefore,
reducing the wastewater Discharge flow
will generally reduce the overall
pollutant load from the facility.
In the Metal Finishing (MF) industry,
facilities apply flow reduction practices
to process baths or rinses to reduce the
volume of wastewater discharged. One
method that conserves water is cascade
rinsing: when water is reused from one
rinsing operation to another, less critical
rinsing operation, before being
discharged to treatment. Facilities can
also reduce water use by coordinating
and closely monitoring rinse water
requirements. Matching water use to
rinse water requirements optimizes the
quantity of rinse water used for a given
work load and tank arrangement. More
information on water conservation
techniques and methods can be found in
rule record (see OW–2002–0007–0091).
Assessing how reduced Discharges
will affect POTWs: One commenter
asserted that EPA would be violating
Section 307 if the Agency finalizes the
proposal by failing to address the issue
of whether the more highly

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

concentrated wastestreams that would
result from reduced water consumption
‘‘would cause environmental harm at
either the POTW or in the receiving
stream or result in long-term sediment
contamination.’’ EPA disagrees that the
wastestreams resulting from water
conservation present a potential
problem for the environment or POTWs
for a number of reasons. First, in order
to qualify for an equivalent mass limit,
the Industrial User must have been in
consistent compliance with its
categorical Pretreatment Standards prior
to the Industrial User’s request to be
subject to equivalent mass limits.
Second, the Control Authority must
properly convert the concentrationbased Pretreatment Standard to an
equivalent mass limit using the CIU’s
actual long-term average daily flow rate.
This will ensure that there will be no
adverse impacts to human health or the
environment as the pollutant
concentrations discharged under the
equivalent mass limits will be no greater
than the concentration-based
Pretreatment Standard. Third, EPA’s
existing regulations ensure continued
protection of receiving waters and
POTW operations.
EPA emphasizes that the use of
equivalent limits to regulate individual
Industrial Users does not relieve the
Control Authority of the need to
establish and enforce local limits in
accordance with 40 CFR 403.5(d) and
require compliance with the General
and Specific Prohibitions of 40 CFR
403.5(a) and (b) which are protective of
the POTW operations, and prevent Pass
Through and Interference.
Consequently, the use of equivalent
mass limits would not be authorized if
it resulted in a violation of any of the
General and Specific Prohibitions or
local limits established under 40 CFR
403.5(d). Furthermore, this provision
may be implemented only following
determination of its feasibility by
Control Authorities, and not unilaterally
by Industrial Users. Control Authorities’
local limits will continue to ensure
protection of the individual POTW
operations and its receiving
environment. Finally, the requirements
of today’s rule ensure that there will be
no increase in the quantity of pollutants
reaching the POTW as a result of
adopting equivalent mass limits.
How should the equivalent mass limit
be calculated? One POTW commenter
suggested that EPA clarify how to
calculate the Industrial User’s
equivalent mass limit in order to specify
which flow to use. EPA agrees that it is
important to provide specific
instructions on how the equivalent limit
is to be calculated, especially with

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60173

regard to which flow rate is the correct
one to use. Today’s final rule at 40 CFR
403.6(c)(5)(iii)(A) includes the following
formula to be used to calculate the
equivalent mass limits:
• For converting daily maximum
concentration Standards to equivalent
daily maximum mass limits: The
product of the facility’s actual average
daily flow rate and the applicable
concentration-based categorical daily
maximum Standard, and the
appropriate unit conversion factor. The
unit conversion factor is 8.34 when
multiplying a concentration limit
(expressed as milligrams/liter) by flow
(expressed as millions of gallons per
day).
• For converting monthly average
concentration Standards to equivalent
monthly average mass limits: The
product of the facility’s actual average
daily flow rate and the applicable
concentration-based categorical monthly
average Standard, and the appropriate
unit conversion factor. The unit
conversion factor is 8.34 when
multiplying a concentration limit
(expressed as milligrams/liter) by flow
(expressed as millions of gallons per
day).
It is important to note that the same
flow value, the CIU’s actual long-term
average daily flow rate, is used in the
calculation of both the daily maximum
and monthly average equivalent mass
limits.
Why are equivalent mass limits
calculated using the actual average
daily flow rate? EPA specifies in 40 CFR
403.6(c)(5)(iii)(A) that the equivalent
mass limits are calculated by
multiplying the actual average daily
flow rate by the applicable
concentration-based categorical
Pretreatment Standard and the
appropriate conversion factor. The use
of the actual average daily flow rate as
the flow basis for the limits is consistent
with existing EPA regulations and
guidance. The current Pretreatment
Regulations already require the Control
Authority to calculate ‘‘equivalent
concentration limits’’ by using the
‘‘average daily flow rate of the Industrial
User’s regulated process wastewater.’’
See 40 CFR 403.6(c)(4). The provision
further states that ‘‘this average daily
flow rate shall be based upon a
reasonable measure of the Industrial
User’s actual long-term average flow
rate, such as the average daily flow rate
during a representative year.’’ CIUs are
elsewhere required to report in the
baseline monitoring report (BMR) flow
measurements showing the ‘‘measured
average daily and maximum daily flow,
in gallons per day, to the POTW’’ (see
40 CFR 403.12(b)(4)) and to include in

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60174

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

the periodic report ‘‘a record of
measured or estimated average and
maximum daily flows’’ (see 40 CFR
403.12(e)(1)).
Perhaps most importantly, use of the
long-term average daily and monthly
flow is the only way to ensure that
mass-based limits are truly equivalent;
that is, that they do not result in any
increased discharge of pollutants to the
POTW or the environment. If a higher
than average flow rate were used, it
would be possible for the total
Discharge of pollutants to increase,
which would violate the fundamental
basis of this streamlining change.
EPA notes that its decision to use
long-term average daily flows has been
discussed in numerous categorical
Pretreatment Standard rulemakings,
including the final Pesticides
Manufacturing Standard. See 58 FR
50679 (September 28, 1993). In
addition, Chapter 2.8 of EPA’s Guidance
Manual for the Use of Production-Based
Pretreatment Standards and the
Combined Wastestream Formula
(September 1985) describes important
considerations when determining the
appropriate flow rate for use in
developing equivalent limits including
that the same average rate is to be used
to calculate both daily maximum and
maximum monthly average alternative
limits, to avoid the use of data for too
short a time period (particularly,
‘‘estimating the average rate based on
data for a few high days, weeks, or
months is not appropriate’’) (page 2–14).
Likewise, it is important here to use a
long-term average that reflects current
operating conditions (‘‘actual long-term
average flow’’). Use of flow data from a
period that does not represent current
production and water use would result
in mass limits that are not equivalent.
Thus, the period of time used to
compute the actual long-term average
must reflect recent production changes
as well as reductions in water use.
Why are continuous effluent flow
monitoring devices required? The final
rule requires that an Industrial User
subject to equivalent mass limits must
continuously monitor its flow.
(1) Flow monitoring is required to
ensure the equivalency to Federal
categorical Pretreatment Standards:
When calculating the equivalent limits
and determining compliance, the
Control Authority must accurately
characterize the existing conditions.
EPA is therefore requiring that the flow
value used in the translation of the
concentration limit to the equivalent
mass limit and the flows utilized during
compliance assessment be based upon a
measured value using a continuous flow
measuring device.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

Several industry commenters and one
trade association representing
municipalities indicated that they
would support the use of estimation
methods to derive facility flow rates for
establishing the mass limit and for
determining compliance. These
commenters emphasized that estimation
methods have been proven to be
accurate and cost-effective. Some
commenters supported the proposal’s
allowance for ‘‘a reasonable estimate of
the flow * * *’’, but did not indicate
whether they would support a
requirement to use only measured
flows. Several commenters, including
three states, two POTWs, and one
environmental interest group agreed
that the level of accuracy obtained from
flow measurements, in contrast to flow
estimation, is required in order to
ensure equivalency with the categorical
Standards in calculating the mass limits.
These commenters stressed that flow
measurement was also necessary in
order to adequately assess compliance
with the equivalent Standard. One state
went so far as to declare that the
proposal was flawed in that it had not
required flow measuring devices. These
factors as well support EPA’s decision
to require continuous effluent flow
monitors.
(2) The relative costs and benefits of
using flow monitoring devices should be
considered: In terms of the relative cost
of implementing flow monitoring
devices, the CIU and Control Authority
may wish to evaluate the expense of the
installation of the continuous flow
measuring device with the benefits that
may be achieved by institution of water
conservation methods and technologies.
Cost effective flow measurement devices
are estimated to cost $400–$1500. See
Utility Supply of America, 2004–05.
USA BlueBook: Everything for Water &
Wastewater Operations, Vol. 115. In
contrast, commercial/industrial
facilities using municipal water and
sewer systems incur an average $28,000
monthly charge for their water and
sewer use (survey of 194 U.S. cities,
conducted by Raftelis Financial
Consulting), consisting of over $12,000
per month for water charges and over
$16,000 per month for wastewater
charges (2000 Water and Wastewater
Rate Survey, Exhibit 2, page 19, and
Exhibit 5, page 44). Based on these
figures, it is EPA’s view that it is likely
that benefits of water conservation will
outweigh the cost of the meter in many
situations. However, if this is not the
case, the Industrial User does not have
to request equivalent mass limits.
Furthermore, measurement of water
usage may bring water conservation
benefits over and above those resulting

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

from other technology changes.
Accurate measurement of the water use
is beneficial to identifying the amounts
and usage of water so that behavioral
practices can be modified and tracked.
‘‘Monitoring the amount of water used
by an industrial/commercial facility can
provide information on quantities of
overall company water use, the seasonal
and hourly patterns of water use, and
the quantities and quality of water use
in individual processes. Baseline
information on water use can be used to
set company goals and to develop
specific water use efficiency measures.
Monitoring can make employees more
aware of water use rates and makes it
easier to measure the results of
conservation efforts. The use of meters
on individual pieces of water-using
equipment can provide direct
information on the efficiency of water
use’’ (Cleaner Water Through
Conservation, EPA 841–B–95–002, April
1995, page 7).
(3) Flow monitoring is required to
determine compliance with equivalent
mass limits: Accurate flow measurement
is required to determine compliance
with a mass limit based on a
concentration sample result received
from the laboratory. To such end,
‘‘Relying on water consumption records
when determining compliance with
mass-based limits is not an acceptable
practice’’ (Industrial User Inspection
and Sampling Manual for POTW’s (EPA
831–B–91–001, April 1994, page 88). A
permanent device that continuously
records the flow allows the POTW to
ensure compliance with mass-based
limits.
On the day(s) that the Control
Authority conducts its mandatory oneper-year monitoring of the Industrial
User, the relevant actual flow from the
facility is required to assess whether the
User is in compliance with its mass
limits. Requiring the use of an effluent
flow monitoring device, therefore, will
also facilitate the accurate assessment of
compliance.
For compliance assessment purposes,
EPA advises Control Authorities to use
the following approach:
• For a daily maximum equivalent
mass limit, EPA recommends
determining compliance by comparing
the limit with the total mass of the
pollutant discharged over the day,
calculated as the product of the actual
pollutant concentrations in the
Industrial User’s Discharge sampled
pursuant to 40 CFR 403.12(g) and the
actual flow from the Industrial User on
the day the sample is taken based on
measurements from the continuous
effluent flow monitoring device and an
appropriate conversion factor.

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
• For an average monthly equivalent
mass limit, EPA recommends
determining compliance by comparing
the limit with the sum of all daily mass
Discharges measured during a calendar
month divided by the number of days
measured during that month. The
monthly limit must still be met when
only one discharge day is sampled.
This approach mirrors the approach
of EPA’s NPDES regulations based on
the definition of ‘daily discharge’ in 40
CFR 122.2 defined as the ‘‘discharge of
a pollutant measured during a calendar
day or any 24-hour period that
reasonably represents the calendar day
for purposes of sampling. For pollutants
with limitations expressed in units of
mass, the ‘daily discharge’ is calculated
as the total mass of the pollutant
discharged over the day. For pollutants
with limitations expressed in other
units of measurement, the ‘daily
discharge’ is calculated as the average
measurement of the pollutant over the
day.’’
How are limits established for new
Industrial Users? Several POTW
commenters noted that the proposed
rule was silent regarding whether
equivalent mass limits would be
available to new Industrial Users. The
commenters observed that flow rate
information is available for many
existing Users, but a baseline of
information will not exist for new
dischargers. Today’s final rule is silent
regarding specific procedures to follow
in establishing limits for new
Discharges. The rule does not prohibit
Control Authorities from calculating
equivalent mass limits for such
Dischargers. However, EPA notes that in
general it will not be possible for new
dischargers to satisfy the requirements
in today’s rule unless some historical
information about them is available.
First, recognizing that 40 CFR
403.6(c)(5)(i)(E) requires the Industrial
User to ‘‘have consistently complied’’
with Pretreatment Standards’’, before
considering the use of equivalent mass
limits, the Control Authority will need
to allow for a sufficient period of time
to pass in order to properly assess the
User’s compliance record.
Second, the new discharger will need
some time to collect an adequate
amount of flow rate data from its
continuous effluent flow monitor to
establish its actual average daily flow
rate and, in turn, to provide the Control
Authority with sufficient information to
calculate the equivalent mass limit.
Although 40 CFR 403.6(c)(5)(i)(C) does
not specify a minimum amount of time
over which the long-term flow rate is
developed, the rule does specify that the
flow rate must be ‘‘representative of

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

current operating conditions.’’
Therefore, EPA recommends that the
Control Authority establish some
minimum period of time during which
it will require the new discharger to
have monitored its flow before
considering equivalent mass limits.
Third, new dischargers will be subject
to Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources (PSNS), and as such will be
expected to begin discharging in
conformance with Standards that
represent the most stringent controls
attainable through the application of the
best available demonstrated control
technology for pollutants that pass
through, interfere with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of
POTWs. 67 FR 64219 (October 17,
2002). EPA does not anticipate that new
dischargers will immediately need to
reduce water use. Presumably, these
dischargers will have had the
opportunity prior to commencing their
discharge to implement optimal water
consumption practices that meet their
own production demands and cost
efficiency standards. Over time, and
after considering such factors as the cost
of water and production needs, the
facility may become interested in
pursuing further water conservation
measures.
Recalculation of equivalent mass
limits to adjust for production changes
during the term of the control
mechanism: A few commenters were
concerned that once set, the equivalent
mass limits would be locked in place
permanently and Industrial Users would
be forced to comply with one mass limit
forever. They specified that this would
potentially restrict a facility from
increasing production. The final rule
requires that the Industrial User notify
the Control Authority whenever
production rates are expected to vary by
more than 20 percent from baseline
production rate. Upon notification of a
change in production rate, the Control
Authority would then reassess the
appropriateness of the equivalent mass
limit. The Control Authority may
determine that it is necessary to change
the equivalent mass limit to reflect flow
changes that may result from substantial
changes in production. As such
production-based flow changes may
occur, the approach EPA is adopting for
alternative mass limits is consistent
with regulations at 40 CFR 403.6(e) that
discuss alternative limits based on the
combined wastestream formula:
‘‘The Industrial User shall comply
with the alternative daily maximum
limit and monthly limits fixed by the
Control Authority until the Control
Authority modifies the limits or
approves an Industrial User

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60175

modification request. Modification is
authorized whenever there is a material
or significant change in the values used
in the calculation to fix alternative
limits for the regulated pollutant.’’
Recalculation of equivalent mass
limits in subsequent terms of the
Industrial User’s control mechanism: A
few commenters asked whether and to
what extent equivalent mass limits
would need to be recalculated to reflect
changed circumstances at the facility
prior to reissuance of the control
mechanism. When a Control Authority
reissues an Industrial User’s control
mechanism, the Control Authority may
determine that changed conditions
suggest the need to revisit the
equivalency of the mass limits to the
categorical Pretreatment Standards that
were included in the prior control
mechanism. For example, EPA
anticipates that the Control Authority
may choose not to recalculate
equivalent mass limits if effluent flow
was reduced as the result solely of the
implementation of water conservation
techniques and methods. See 40 CFR
403.6(c)(5)(iii)(C). However, the Control
Authority may determine that, in cases
where a reduction in discharged effluent
flow was accompanied by a decrease in
production, a reevaluation is warranted.
This reevaluation is consistent with
EPA’s long-standing approach under
existing section 403.6(c) with respect to
equivalent mass or concentration limits.
See 53 FR 40563–67 (October 17, 1988).
Today’s rule conditions an Industrial
User’s eligibility for the establishment of
equivalent mass limitations on the
requirement that the Industrial User is
providing adequate treatment to achieve
compliance with the Pretreatment
Standards and is not using dilution to
achieve compliance in lieu of treatment
(in accordance with 40 CFR 403.6(d)).
Industrial Users must continue to
operate and maintain their treatment
systems as a requirement to continue to
benefit from the flexibility granted by
equivalent mass limitations. This
approach, in addition, is consistent with
40 CFR 403.17, which prohibits the
intentional diversion of wastestreams,
including categorical process
wastewater, from any portion of an
Industrial User’s treatment facility
unless such is ‘‘unavoidable to prevent
loss of life, personal injury, or severe
property damage [and] there were no
feasible alternatives to the bypass, such
as the use of auxiliary treatment
facilities, retention of untreated wastes,
or maintenance during normal periods
of equipment downtime,’’ and proper
notice has been submitted to the Control
Authority. Where a bypassing of
treatment may still result in discharged

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60176

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

effluent that complies with the
applicable Pretreatment Standards or
Requirements, an Industrial User may
only allow the bypass of its treatment
facility if it ‘‘is for essential
maintenance to assure efficient
operation.’’ Therefore, Industrial Users,
in order to continue to qualify for
equivalent mass limit conversions from
categorical Pretreatment Standards,
must continue to effectively operate and
maintain their control and treatment
technologies.
Is this provision consistent with the
Clean Water Act? One commenter
objected to the proposed rule stating
that EPA lacks the authority to delegate
its standard-setting authority to Control
Authorities, an authority which
Congress gave to EPA alone under
Section 307 of the Clean Water Act. The
commenter reasoned that the provision
would require that local authorities
make ‘‘significantly more complicated
decisions than mere arithmetic’’, and
that the proposal would require them to
become ‘‘expert in both pollution
control and water conservation in each
regulated industry.’’
EPA is promulgating the changes to
its Pretreatment Regulations in part
under section 307(b) of the Clean Water
Act. Section 307(b) clearly authorizes
EPA from time to time to revise
Pretreatment Standards as ‘‘control
technology, processes, operating
methods or other alternatives change.’’
Therefore, today’s action is not in
violation of section 307(b) to the extent
this provision authorizes Control
Authorities to establish equivalent mass
limits for the Pretreatment Standards for
certain categories of industry subject to
concentration-based Standards. See list
of affected industries in Section III.J.3
above. As EPA has explained, the
amendments to the regulations will
facilitate both User’s compliance and
POTW oversight for industries engaging
in water conservation, a practice EPA
wants to encourage.
EPA’s decision to authorize the
establishment of equivalent mass limits
for Industrial Users in limited
circumstances is not inconsistent with
its decision in some circumstances to
adopt categorical Pretreatment
Standards for specific industry
categories whose Standards are
expressed in 40 CFR Subchapter N as
concentration limits. A number of
reasons support this conclusion. First,
EPA’s general preference in most cases
is to express wherever possible effluent
limitations and Pretreatment Standards
in terms of mass limitations. EPA’s
decision to establish concentrationbased Pretreatment Standards, however,
for certain industrial categories, is the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

result, in part, of the wide variation in
process water use within a particular
industrial category. These variations
prevented EPA from developing water
allowances associated with particular
achievable treatment technologies. Due
to the complexity and variation among
facilities covered by categorical
Standards, EPA did not have enough
data, could not adequately measure
production or could not find a
consistent production normalizing
relationship in order to establish mass
limits on a nationwide basis. The effect
of concentration limits also is, over
time, to reduce mass Discharges of
pollutants as water use is reduced in
some circumstances. But concentration
limits may in some circumstances serve
as a disincentive to water conservation.
Second, the establishment of an
equivalent mass limit would not result
in any increase in the mass of pollutants
discharged. Eligibility for an equivalent
limit is dependent on a number of
conditions including implementation of
water conservation measures and
demonstration of a history of
compliance with the concentrationbased Pretreatment Standard. As noted
above, the implementation of water
conservation efforts may have already
resulted in some reduction of total mass
Discharges. Further, because the mass
limit is based on water use during the
period of compliance with the
concentration limit, in no event, could
mass Discharges under the new
equivalent limit exceed these mass
Discharge levels. Another condition for
the establishment of mass limits is that
the facility report to the Permitting
Authority in the event of substantial
changes in production rates. This
provides the Permitting Authority with
an opportunity to monitor the
equivalent limits and determine
whether some modification to the limit
may be required.
There will be no adverse
consequences either to POTWs or to
receiving waters from the adoption of
the provision authorizing the expression
of concentration-based Pretreatment
Standards as mass limits. Industrial
Users must continue to comply with the
General and Specific Prohibition in 40
CFR 403.5(a) and (b). Thus, Discharges
under an equivalent limit may not result
in Discharges that result in Pass
Through or Interference, create hazards
to the POTW, or threaten the health and
safety of POTW workers. Section
403.5(c) would prohibit the
establishment of an equivalent mass
limit if the equivalent limit would result
in a violation of these General and
Specific Prohibitions.

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Finally, EPA disagrees that the final
rule would illegally transfer the
Agency’s Standard-setting authority to
Control Authorities. As noted
previously, a Control Authority is
already required to translate categorical
Pretreatment Standards into Permit (or
control mechanism) effluent limits. EPA
also disagrees with the commenter’s
observation that this provision would be
too complicated for Control Authorities
to use and oversee. EPA notes that the
use of this provision is solely at the
discretion of the Control Authority. If a
particular Control Authority is
concerned that it does not have the
expertise to develop and oversee
equivalent mass limits, today’s final rule
does not in any way allow the Industrial
User to demand that the Control
Authority convert existing
concentration-based Standards to
equivalent mass limits or require that
the Control Authority implement massbased limits if requested by the
Industrial User. As a matter of daily
implementation of approved
Pretreatment Programs, states and
POTW Control Authorities conduct
complex activities: Review Baseline
Monitoring Reports (40 CFR 403.12(b))
and other data to issue control
mechanisms to Industrial Users,
calculate production-based standards
and alternative limits using the
Combined wastestream formula when
necessary, and evaluate and assess the
POTW plant processes to determine
technically based local limits that are
protective of Pass Through and
Interference.
Public Review and prior Approval
Authority approval: Many commenters
(21) did not support requiring public
and/or Approval Authority review of an
Industrial User’s proposed mass limit
prior to Control Authority approval.
Most were concerned that such a
requirement would create additional
administrative burden. EPA notes that
this provision is intended to allow the
Permit limitation to be expressed in an
equivalent manner and is not
anticipated to require a change in a
Control Authority’s enabling legislation
to issue and enforce control
mechanisms. Changes affecting
individual Industrial Users are not
substantial modifications within the
principles of 40 CFR 403.18(b)(6).
‘‘ ‘Changes to the POTW’s control
mechanism’ refers to a change in the
type of mechanism used (e.g., permit
versus orders) and not to change[s] in
one facility’s permit or to changes in the
boilerplate or other details of the
permit.’’ (62 FR 38408) However, the
new equivalent limit is subject to review

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
as part of routine Approval Authority
oversight activities, such as a
Pretreatment Compliance Inspection or
a Control Authority Audit, as are other
control mechanisms that implement
categorical Standards, local limits, and
any other equivalent limits. Also, in
accordance with current regulations,
Industrial User Permit files and
information necessary for determining
Permit limitations and compliance,
must be publicly available. Therefore,
EPA has decided not to require
additional review or approval
mechanisms for implementation of
equivalent mass limits.
K. Oversight of Categorical Industrial
Users (40 CFR 403.3(v)(2), 403.8(f)(2)(v),
403.12(e), (g), (i), (q)
Today’s rule authorizes a Control
Authority to reduce certain of its
oversight responsibilities and sampling
and inspection requirements for a newly
established class of indirect discharger,
the ‘‘non-significant categorical
Industrial User’’ (NSCIU). A NSCIU is a
discharger that discharges no more than
100 gallons per day of total categorical
wastewater to the POTW. Today’s final
rule also allows Control Authorities to
reduce the reporting requirements for
certain Categorical Industrial Users with
a record of consistent compliance with
applicable Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements in the following
circumstances. Reduced reporting may
be approved when the Industrial User’s
categorical wastewater flow does not
exceed (1) the smaller of 5,000 gallons
per day or 0.01 percent of the POTW’s
design dry weather hydraulic capacity;
(2) 0.01 percent of the POTW’s design
organic treatment capacity; and (3) 0.01
percent of the maximum allowable
headworks loading (MAHL). The POTW
may also now be authorized to reduce
its own required annual inspections and
monitoring of those Categorical
Industrial Users eligible for reduced
reporting.
1. What are the existing rules?
The current regulations require
certain minimum oversight of SIUs by
POTWs with Approved Pretreatment
Programs (and States acting as
Pretreatment Control Authorities). The
required minimum oversight includes
inspection and sampling of each SIU
annually, reviewing the need for a slug
control plan, and issuing a Permit or
equivalent control mechanism with a
duration not to exceed five years (40
CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii) and (2)(v) and
403.10(f)(2)(i)). Industrial Users that are
not SIUs are not specifically subject to
this oversight.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

The definition of ‘‘Significant
Industrial User,’’ previously at 40 CFR
403.3(t) (now found at 40 CFR 403.3(v)),
includes two types of facilities. The first
includes all Industrial Users that are
subject to categorical Pretreatment
Standards under 40 CFR 403.6 and 40
CFR chapter I, subchapter N. The
facilities subject to these Standards are
now described as Categorical Industrial
Users (CIUs). There are no current
exceptions to the classification of all
CIUs as SIUs. The second category of
facilities included in the definition of
SIU are certain facilities that are not
CIUs, that Discharge 25,000 gallons per
day or more of process wastewater,
facilities that contribute a process
wastestream constituting 5 percent or
more of the POTW’s capacity, and any
Industrial User that the Control
Authority designates on the basis that it
has a reasonable potential for adversely
affecting the POTW’s operation or for
violating any Pretreatment Standard or
requirement. The Control Authority may
exclude facilities meeting any of the
second category’s criteria from the SIU
definition based upon a finding that it
does not have a reasonable potential to
adversely affect the operation of the
plant or violate any Pretreatment
Standard or requirement. However, a
Control Authority may not similarly
exclude CIUs from the classification as
an SIU.
The regulations require that all CIUs
submit to their Control Authority twice
per year, unless required more
frequently, a report indicating the flow,
nature, and concentration of pollutants
in their effluent which are limited by
the applicable categorical Pretreatment
Standards (40 CFR 403.12(e)(1)). The
report must be based on data obtained
through sampling and analysis of the
effluent which is representative of
conditions occurring during the
reporting period at a frequency
necessary to assess and assure
compliance with applicable Standards
(40 CFR 403.12(g)). The regulations
make clear that these are minimum
requirements and Control Authorities
have the flexibility to increase sampling
and reporting requirements.
2. What changes did EPA propose?
EPA proposed to allow Control
Authorities to exempt certain CIUs from
the definition of SIU. The proposal
would have defined NSCIUs 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)

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60177

Industrial Users subject only to
certification requirements after having
met baseline monitoring report
requirements (e.g., pesticide formulators
and packagers). In addition to proposing
to set the NSCIU definitional threshold
at 100 gpd, EPA also requested
comment on alternative criteria for
determining ‘‘non-significant’’ status,
such as a percentage of a POTW’s total
flow discharged by a particular
Categorical Industrial User (64 FR
39574, July 22, 1999).
In conjunction with the establishment
of a NSCIU category, EPA also proposed
that such Users not be subject to
minimum inspection and sampling
requirements. Instead, the new
requirements would have allowed the
Control Authority to establish the
appropriate level of inspection and
sampling for these facilities. In addition,
EPA would have established new
minimum reporting requirements for
NSCIUs. EPA proposed that at a
minimum, a non-significant facility
would be required to annually report
and certify its status as a non-significant
facility, and certify that it is in
compliance with the applicable
Pretreatment Standards. A Control
Authority could have required more
frequent sampling, inspections, or
reporting as it finds necessary to ensure
compliance with the categorical
Standards.
3. What changes is EPA finalizing in
today’s rule?
EPA is establishing an NSCIU
category based on the 100 gpd
threshold. If a POTW chooses to treat a
qualifying Categorical Industrial User as
an NSCIU, the oversight requirements
for the NSCIU (and POTW with respect
to the NSCIU) will be significantly
reduced. In response to support among
commenters for establishing alternative
criteria for oversight reduction, EPA is
also creating a ‘‘Middle Tier’’ category
of Categorical Industrial Users which
will still be considered SIUs, but will be
eligible for reductions in reporting and
Control Authority monitoring and
inspections. These changes will be
discussed in detail below.
In the period before the Agency
proposed regulatory changes to
streamline elements of its Pretreatment
Regulations, EPA engaged in an
extensive effort to solicit the views of
the interested public. In 1995, EPA’s
Office of Wastewater Management
initiated an evaluation of all of the
General Pretreatment Regulations in 40
CFR Part 403 in order to identify
streamlining opportunities. Based on
input from various stakeholders, EPA
developed issue papers that

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60178

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

summarized 11 areas in which the
Pretreatment Regulations might be
streamlined. In May 1996, the issue
papers were distributed to a broad base
of external stakeholders (States, cities,
trade associations, professional
organizations, and environmental
interest groups). As EPA explained in
the preamble to the proposal (64 FR
39573–74, July 22, 1999), in 1997, EPA
solicited comment on revising the
definition of Significant Industrial User
to reduce the reporting and permitting
requirements for certain non-significant
facilities that are subject to National
categorical Pretreatment Standards. An
earlier Water Environment Federation
(WEF)/Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies (AMSA)
Pretreatment Streamlining Workshop
had recommended excluding facilities
under 100 gpd from the definition of
Significant Industrial User, exempting
from the definition of SIU any CIU that
has no reasonable potential to adversely
affect the POTW’s operation and
allowing Control Authorities more
flexibility in the oversight of facilities
that would continue to be defined as
SIUs. EPA’s 1997 letter sought comment
on these recommendations and also on
whether to allow POTWs more
flexibility in sampling SIUs that had
been in consistent compliance.
Most commenters on the earlier
options supported allowing POTWs to
reduce oversight of non-significant
CIUs, recommending NSCIU be defined

as below thresholds of from 100 gpd to
4,000 gpd. Some commenters opposed
any definition based on flow and
preferred one based on total mass or
impact on the POTW. The record to the
proposed rule included all of the
material submitted by commenters as
well as the information developed by
the WEF/AMSA workshop.
While EPA based its 1999 proposed
streamlining revision of the definition of
SIU on a 100 gpd threshold, the Agency
did seek comments on a number of
alternative thresholds that reflected the
earlier suggestions from the public. As
EPA stated:
‘‘In today’s proposal EPA is again
requesting comment on alternative
criteria for determining non-significant
status. Such alternative criteria might
include a higher flow cutoff or a
numeric cutoff based on some
alternative criteria such as the estimated
mass of pollutant loadings or the
percentage of a POTW’s total flow
discharged by a particular CIU.
Alternatively, the criteria might be
narrative and include a qualitative
description of what constitutes a
Significant Industrial User. Commenters
are encouraged to provide data on the
likely effects of alternate criteria,
including the number of CIUs that
would be eligible for non-significant
status and any adverse impacts on
POTWs or the environment that might
result.’’ 64 FR 39574, July 22, 1999.

Today’s final rule provides reduced
oversight responsibilities for POTWs
and reporting requirements for CIUs that
represent an accommodation between
the alternatives considered by EPA in
the proposal (including the
recommendations earlier submitted to
the Agency and discussed in detail in
the proposal) and those suggested by
commenters in response to the
proposal’s solicitation of views. Thus,
the final rule combines EPA’s proposed
approach to non-significant CIUs and
reduced POTW oversight requirements,
with the suggestions of many
commenters provided both in comments
before and after proposal that EPA
consider thresholds based on POTW
treatment capacity. Consequently, the
final rule adopts a fixed threshold
requirement for NSCIUs, while
establishing threshold expressed in
terms of percentage of POTW flows for
the ‘‘Middle Tier’’ CIUs. EPA views this
approach as balancing the need for
required minimum oversight of larger
dischargers with the appropriate
flexibility to POTWs to target oversight
resources where they will provide the
greatest benefit in terms of reducing the
risk to the POTW and the environment.
For the reader’s assistance, the
following chart distinguishes between
NSCIUs, ‘‘Middle Tier’’ Significant
Categorical Industrial Users, and all
other Significant Categorical Industrial
Users:

Control mechanism required?

Minimum CIU reporting requirements

Minimum POTW inspection/sampling requirements

NSCIUs ............................................................................

No* .....................................

Not required.

‘‘Middle Tier’’ Significant CIU ..........................................

Yes ....................................

All Other Significant CIUs ................................................

Yes ....................................

Certification only (no reporting), one time per
year.
One time per year (if representative of Discharge
conditions during reporting period).
Two times per year (at a
minimum).

One time every other year.

One time per year.

* If the Control Authority determines that an existing NSCIU no longer meets a required criterion for being categorized as non-significant, such
as the requirement to be in consistent compliance with Pretreatment Standards and Requirements, the User becomes an SIU and must be
issued a control mechanism.

EPA emphasizes that a Control
Authority’s decision to categorize
certain CIU facilities as ‘‘nonsignificant’’ or ‘‘Middle Tier’’ does not
in any way relieve the affected CIUs of
the duty to comply with the applicable
categorical Pretreatment Standards. The
provisions in this final rule merely
affect the reporting and inspection
frequency imposed on these Users.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

a. Non-Significant CIU—Definition and
Oversight Requirements
Today’s final rule adopts the
proposed definition of ‘‘non-significant
categorical Industrial User’’ (NSCIU)
with minor modifications and the
proposal’s approach of, if the Control
Authority chooses to do so, reducing
required oversight for such Users. A few
modifications, which will be detailed
further below, were made to the
proposed provisions in response to
concerns raised by commenters. The
final rule retains the 100 gpd threshold

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

for defining a NSCIU, as well as the
condition that the User never discharges
‘‘untreated concentrated wastes’’.
However as pointed out by one
commenter, the proposed rule would
have applied the 100 gpd threshold to
‘‘other process wastewater’’ rather than
‘‘categorically regulated process
wastewater,’’ which the commenter
thought was a more appropriate basis
for the threshold. Because facilities are
deemed to be CIUs by virtue of their
discharges of categorical process
wastewater, rather than process

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
wastewater generally, EPA agrees that it
is appropriate to base the threshold for
non-significant CIUs on their discharge
of categorically-regulated process
wastewater and has revised the
definition of NSCIU accordingly in the
final rule. As was the case with the
proposed rule, in order to be considered
an NSCIU, the User must fulfill its
annual certification requirement. The
final rule also retains the Control
Authority’s discretion to reduce the
NSCIU’s sampling and reporting
requirements as long as the User
annually reports and certifies that it still
meets the definition of a NSCIU. In
addition, because the User is no longer
an SIU, there is no requirement to
control the User through a permit or
other control mechanism. POTWs will
be required to provide a list of the
facilities that are being regulated as nonsignificant CIUs in the POTWs annual
Pretreatment report. After an initial list
is provided, deletions and additions
should be keyed to the previously
submitted list.
Regardless of whether an Industrial
User is determined to be a NSCIU, it is
still a categorical discharger and, as
such, is still required to comply with
applicable categorical Pretreatment
Standards and related reporting and
notice requirements in 40 CFR
403.12(b), (c), (d), (f), (j), and (p).
Control Authorities will still be required
to perform the same minimum oversight
of a NSCIU that is required for other
facilities that are not SIUs, including
notifying the CIU of its status and
requirements (403.8(f)(2)(iii)); receiving
and reviewing required reports
(403.8(f)(2)(iv) and 403.12(b), (d), & (e));
random sampling and inspection
(403.8(f)(2)(v)); and investigating
noncompliance as necessary
(403.8(f)(2)(vi)).
Why did EPA choose the 100 gpd
threshold for NSCIUs? EPA recognizes
that any numeric flow cutoff will have
both advantages and disadvantages. The
100 gpd criterion was supported by
commenters, although many suggested
alternative, higher volume cutoffs. The
100 gpd flow cutoff is a conservative
number. EPA estimates 15 percent of
current CIUs might be eligible for
NSCIU status, based on an extrapolation
of data from a range of POTWs across
the country.
Does EPA expect the annual NSCIU
certification to be supported by
sampling data? Today’s final rule does
not require that each certification
statement be supported by sampling
data. NSCIU facilities, however, must
have a reasonable basis for their
compliance certifications. When
sampling is not performed, the non-

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

significant CIU must describe the basis
for its compliance certification, such as,
for example, the absence of changes in
processes that generate categorical
wastewaters or in raw materials used
since the last sampling data was
analyzed.
Does EPA expect the Industrial User
or Control Authority to perform annual
monitoring for NSCIUs? Today’s final
rule does not establish any minimum
sampling requirements for the Industrial
User or Control Authority. However,
EPA recommends that sampling by the
Industrial User or Control Authority be
performed from time to time to confirm
compliance with the categorical
Standards.
Significant Changes to the Proposed
Rule
EPA made the following significant
changes to the provisions affecting
NSCIUs:
Discharge Volume Cutoff: The
definition of NSCIU now specifies that
the 100 gpd cutoff is to be measured as
the ‘‘total categorical wastewater
(excluding sanitary, non-contact cooling
and boiler blowdown wastewater,
unless specifically included in the
Pretreatment Standard)’’ discharged.
The term ‘‘total’’ clarifies that the
volume discharged is a maximum limit.
Averaging the Discharge volume for
purposes of meeting the 100 gpd cutoff
is not authorized (e.g., enabling a
discharger to exceed the limit on some
days as long as the average is 100 gpd
or less). EPA had requested comments
in the proposal on whether to allow the
non-significant definition to include
facilities that discharge up to 500
gallons of process wastewater once-perweek. EPA has concluded that requiring
a definitive, total daily cutoff is the
easiest and most efficient way to oversee
and implement the NSCIU provisions.
EPA also notes that the definition of
NSCIU specifically enables Users to
exclude non-categorical wastewater
Discharges such as sanitary, non-contact
cooling and boiler blowdown
wastewater in the determination of the
Discharge volume, unless specifically
included in the Pretreatment Standard.
See 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2).
Additional Definitional Conditions:
The final rule includes a few
modifications to the conditions that a
User must meet to be considered ‘‘nonsignificant’’. These modifications
include:
(1) Consistent Compliance with
Pretreatment Standards: In order to be
considered an NSCIU, the User, prior to
the Control Authority’s findings, must
have consistently complied with all
applicable categorical Pretreatment

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60179

Standards and Requirements. See 40
CFR 403.3(v)(2)(i) and discussion above
regarding the consistent compliance
criteria for equivalent mass limits.
(2) Documentation and Certification
of Compliance: The final rule also
requires that the NSCIU certify that its
Discharge is in compliance with all
applicable categorical Pretreatment
Standards and requirements and
annually submit the certification using
the statement in 40 CFR 403.12(q). See
40 CFR 403.3(v)(2)(ii).
Signatory Requirements: Today’s final
rule clarifies that the annual
certification statement must be signed in
accordance with requirements in 40
CFR 403.12(l). See 40 CFR 403.12(q).
Annual List of NSCIUs: The final rule
makes explicit what was discussed in
the preamble to the proposed rule that
a Control Authority is required to
include a list of Users considered to be
NSCIUs in its annual report to the
Approval Authority. See 40 CFR
403.12(i).
Annual Evaluation of NSCIU Status:
The proposed rule is modified to require
that a Control Authority evaluate, at
least once per year, whether an
Industrial User previously determined
to be an NSCIU still meets the ‘‘nonsignificant’’ criteria in 40 CFR
403.3(v)(2). See 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v).
EPA anticipates that this evaluation will
primarily involve the Control
Authority’s verification that certification
forms have been submitted by the
NSCIUs documenting continued
eligibility for NSCIU status and
compliance with applicable
Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements.
b. Middle Tier Categorical Industrial
Users—Definition and Oversight
Requirements
EPA is today establishing a new
category of Categorical Industrial Users
(CIUs), the ‘‘Middle Tier’’ CIUs. The
term ‘‘Middle Tier’’ is used because the
applicable requirements for these CIUs
are more stringent than for NSCIUs, but
authorize less reporting than for other
(larger) Significant CIUs. Note that both
‘‘middle tier’’ and other CIUs (except
NSCIUs) are still considered SIUs. Refer
to above table comparing applicable
requirements of all types of CIUs in
Section III.K.3. An Industrial User may
be considered a Middle Tier CIU if its
Discharge of categorical wastewater
does not exceed any of the following:
• 0.01 percent of the design dry
weather hydraulic capacity of the
POTW, or 5,000 gpd, whichever is
smaller, as measured by a continuous
effluent flow monitoring device unless

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60180

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

the Industrial User discharges in
batches;
• 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.
The Control Authority must also
demonstrate that the CIU has not been
in significant noncompliance for any
time in the past two years, and that the
CIU does not have daily flow rates,
production levels, or pollutant levels
that vary so significantly that decreasing
the reporting requirement for this
Industrial User would result in data that
are not representative of conditions
occurring during the reporting period.
See 40 CFR 403.12(e)(3)(i–iii).
What are the reporting and
monitoring requirements for Middle Tier
CIUs? Once eligible for Middle Tier CIU
status, the Control Authority may
reduce the required periodic monitoring
report for such Users from a minimum
of twice per year to a minimum of once
per year. EPA notes that any reduction
in reporting must satisfy the
requirements of 40 CFR 403.12(g)(3)
which states that reports such as
Industrial User periodic monitoring
reports must be based upon ‘‘data
obtained through appropriate sampling
and analysis performed during the
period covered by the report, which
data are representative of conditions
occurring during the reporting period.’’
(emphasis added) Therefore, it is
important that facilities authorized to
use the new minimum sampling
frequency conduct their sampling on
representative wastewater flows. For
example, while certain batch
dischargers will have sufficiently
uniform processes, such that reduced
sampling will be representative and able
to meet the Middle Tier criterion
concerning variable flow rates,
production levels, or pollutant levels
(40 CFR 403.12(e)(3)(iii)), other batch
dischargers may vary their processes
seasonally or unpredictably, hence
making it difficult for the Control
Authority to demonstrate both that a
minimum of one sample per year will be
representative, and that the discharger
complies with 40 CFR 403.12(e)(3)(iii).
In addition, POTWs may also reduce
their own obligations to inspect and
sample these Middle Tier CIUs from
once per year to once every two years.
See 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v)(C).
Why is EPA proposing the Middle Tier
CIU category? In the preamble to the
proposed rule, EPA solicited comment
on ‘‘alternative criteria for determining
non-significant status * * * [such as]

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

the percentage of a POTW’s total flow
discharged by a particular CIU.’’ See 64
FR 39574 (July 22, 1999). Eighteen (18)
POTW commenters responded by
suggesting that EPA adopt the following
three tier system. The first tier would
encompass CIUs discharging less than
100 gpd. Referred to as ‘‘de minimis’’
CIUs, this tier is similar to today’s
promulgation of the NSCIU category.
The second tier (referred to by the
commenters as ‘‘non-significant CIUs’’)
would have included CIUs that meet all
of the following conditions:
• The CIU’s discharge of categorical
wastewater does not exceed 0.01
percent of the design dry weather
hydraulic capacity of the receiving
POTW, nor does it exceed 10,000 gpd;
• The CIU’s discharge of categorical
wastewater does not exceed 0.01
percent of the design dry weather
organic treatment capacity of the
receiving POTW;
• The CIU’s discharge of categorical
wastewater does not exceed 0.01
percent of the maximum allowable
headworks loading (MAHL) for the
receiving POTW of any pollutant
detected at the POTW headworks for
which the CIU is subject to a categorical
Pretreatment Standard; and
• The CIU has not been in significant
noncompliance (SNC) for the most
recent four consecutive six-month
periods.
Where a CIU met the criteria of the
second tier, the Control Authority
would have the option of reducing the
Industrial User’s monitoring to once per
year (as compared to the current
minimum of twice per year) and the
Control Authority’s inspection and
monitoring requirements to once every
two years (as compared to the current
minimum requirement of once every
year). It is important to note that the
commenters’ second tier would not have
enabled the Control Authority to reduce
oversight requirements to the degree
that the first tier would. The third tier
of the commenters’ system would have
included all other CIUs subject to the
full array of oversight requirements.
In August 2000, EPA approved a
project under the Agency’s Project XL
program for the Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
(MWRDGC) to pilot the use of the ‘‘nonsignificant CIU’’ criteria supported by
the POTW commenters on the proposed
rule. In exchange for agreeing to a
variety of measures to improve the level
of environmental performance by the
POTW, MWRDGC was given authority
to apply the ‘‘non-significant CIU’’
criteria (similar to the criteria referred to
in this final rule as the ‘‘Middle Tier’’
CIU criteria) to its CIUs. For more

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

information, refer to EPA’s website for
the pilot project http://www.epa.gov/
projectxl/mwrd/page1.htm. EPA notes
that this project is no longer active due
to intergovernmental issues.
EPA has concluded that the basic
approach suggested by the commenters
in their second tier (referred to now as
‘‘Middle Tier’’ CIUs), and approved for
use by the Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Greater
Chicago’s Project XL initiative, has
merit in its focus on reducing reporting,
inspection, and monitoring
requirements for CIUs contributing a
very small fraction of the POTW’s
design flow and pollutant loading.
However, while adopting the basic
criteria for the second tier (now referred
to as the ‘‘Middle Tier’’), EPA has
decided to adopt a ceiling of 5,000 gpd
as compared to the recommended
10,000 gpd. EPA has concluded that the
5,000 gpd ceiling will provide
significant streamlining while providing
additional assurance that larger
dischargers which may have significant
potential to cause Pass Through or
Interference will continue to receive full
SIU oversight.
In addition, EPA has added additional
safeguards designed to ensure the
selection of appropriate CIUs and the
proper documentation of data
supporting the inclusion of individual
CIUs in the Middle Tier. For instance,
new 40 CFR 403.12(e)(3)(iii) binds the
Control Authority’s discretion by
requiring eligible CIUs to ‘‘not have
daily flow rates, production levels, or
pollutant levels that vary so
significantly that decreasing the
reporting requirement for this Industrial
User would result in data that are not
representative of conditions occurring
during the reporting period pursuant to
paragraph (g)(3) of this section.’’ In
addition, EPA specifies that any
documentation supporting the Control
Authority’s finding that a specific CIU
fits the Middle Tier criteria must be
retained for a period of three years after
the expiration of the term of the affected
CIU’s control mechanism. See 40 CFR
403.12(e)(3)(v).
How should the Control Authority
develop its site-specific Middle Tier
criteria? The criteria in 40 CFR
403.12(e)(3)(i) must first be translated
into thresholds that are meaningful for
the specific POTW. Each site-specific
threshold will then be used to
determine whether individual CIUs
qualify for Middle Tier status. To
complete the necessary calculations, the
Control Authority will need to have the
following information:
• The POTW’s design dry weather
hydraulic treatment capacity: These

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
values, typically expressed in units of
millions of gallons per day, are
generally found in the POTW’s design
and specifications documents, and in
many cases are identified in its NPDES
Permit or Fact Sheet.
• The POTW’s design dry weather
organic treatment capacity: These
values, typically expressed as pounds
per day, are also generally found in the
POTW’s design and specifications
documents, and Operations and
Maintenance manuals. Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (BOD) measurements
are used as a measure of the organic
strength of wastes in wastewater. The
Control Authority must use the design
organic treatment capacity value that
has been documented in their records
for use in translating to useable
thresholds for the Middle Tier CIUs.
• The MAHL (Maximum Allowable
Headworks Loading) for any pollutant
for which approved local limits were
developed by the POTW: The MAHL for
each pollutant will be found in the
POTW’s approved technically based
local limits supporting document and
may also be identified in the POTW’s
local sewer use ordinance. EPA notes
that a MAHL for a pollutant is not the
same thing as the local limit for that
pollutant. An MAHL is an estimate of
the upper limit of pollutant loading to
a POTW, intended to prevent Pass
Through or Interference. MAHLs are the
building blocks for local limits, as
distinct from a local limit which is an
allocation of the industrial portion of
the headworks loading (MAHL) specific
to one or more Industrial Users.
Therefore, the Middle Tier criterion
relating to MAHL is calculated as a
percentage of the MAHL, not a
percentage of a local limit. For
additional information regarding the
development of MAHLs and local
limits, refer to Local Limits
Development Guidance (EPA 833–R–
04–002A, July 2004).
Once the Control Authority has
located this information, it will then
need to multiply each value by 0.01%
to translate those numbers into the
criteria to be used to determine whether
individual CIUs are eligible for Middle
Tier status. Where the design hydraulic
treatment capacity is concerned, if the
product of 0.01 percent and the
hydraulic capacity exceeds 5,000 gpd,
then the regulations require the Control
Authority to use the smaller number, or
in this case 5,000 gpd.
In addition, EPA recommends that the
Control Authority list out the applicable
Middle Tier eligibility criteria in the
Industrial User’s control mechanism.
This will ensure that the CIU is
specifically aware that its Middle Tier

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

status only applies as long as it meets
the eligibility criteria.
How will Control Authorities
determine if a specific Industrial User is
eligible for Middle Tier status? EPA
recommends that the initial
determination of whether or not an
Industrial User is eligible be made by
comparing the User’s actual Discharge
(in units of flow or mass loading
depending on the specific criterion) for
the previous two years to each of the
criterion to verify that the industry
meets all of the criteria on a consistent
basis. EPA notes that CIUs are required
to establish eligibility by measuring
their flow through the use of a
continuous effluent flow monitor. See
40 CFR 403.12(e)(3)(i)(A). However,
recognizing that continuous flow
monitors are not appropriate for use in
batch Discharges, the final rule provides
an exception for those CIUs that
discharge by batch. In such
circumstances, EPA recommends that
the batch discharger provide some other
similarly accurate measure of flow, such
as by providing a reasonable estimate of
actual volume discharged from process
wastewater containers.
What documentation is required to
designate Middle Tier CIUs? The
Control Authority is required to
document the specific criteria used in
determining whether specific Industrial
Users are considered Middle Tier CIUs.
This documentation should show: (1)
The translation of the 40 CFR
403.12(e)(3)(i)(A)–(C) criteria into values
that are specific to each Control
Authority, and (2) the basis for
including specific CIUs in the Middle
Tier category. This information must be
retained for a period of three years after
the expiration of the term of the control
mechanism. See 40 CFR 403.12(e)(3)(iv).
Industrial Users will also need to
retain sufficient information to verify
that they continue to be eligible for
Middle Tier CIU status, such as records
showing their daily flows of categorical
wastewater. The Control Authority (and
Approval Authority in some instances)
will use this information to validate the
inclusion of Industrial Users in the
Middle Tier CIU category. Industrial
Users will find it necessary to have
records of daily flows to be able to
provide notification to the Control
Authority if they exceed the flow
criteria in 40 CFR 403.12(e)(3)(i)(A).
How often would an individual
POTW’s Middle Tier criteria be expected
to change? It is not anticipated that the
values upon which an individual POTW
assigns Middle Tier status would
change during the term of the POTW’s
NPDES control mechanism. Some
scenarios which may necessitate a

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60181

change to the POTW’s Middle Tier
criteria are:
• Operations and maintenance work
to correct excessive inflow and
infiltration in the collection system:
Where such changes affect actual
wastewater flow, the POTW’s local
limits may need to be adjusted to
account for this capacity change,
thereby affecting the calculation of the
plant’s maximum allowable headworks
loading (MAHL). Such adjustments to
the MAHL may necessitate a
recalculation of the POTW’s Middle
Tier criteria, which in turn may affect
which CIUs are eligible for inclusion.
• Collection System Expansions or
Extensions/Treatment Plant Upgrades:
Such modifications typically are
conducted over a period of time and the
effect on the treatment capability or
efficiency of the POTW may not be
instantaneously realized. When such
improvements are completed, the
Middle Tier criteria may need to be
modified accordingly to reflect the new
hydraulic and organic treatment
capacities, as well as the MAHL. EPA
notes that these situations are each
identified in the Agency’s local limits
guidance as reasons to re-evaluate a
POTW’s local limits. See Chapter 7 of
Local Limits Development Guidance
(EPA 833–R–04–002A, July 2004). EPA’s
guidance (page 7–5) indicates ‘‘usually,
a POTW will undertake a detailed
reevaluation of its local limits in
response to one of more significant
changes at the treatment works or in the
Discharges it receives. Recalculating
existing MAHLs or determining MAHLs
for new [pollutants of concern] is
generally an appropriate response to
changes in: Removal efficiencies; Total
POTW or [Industrial User] loading;
Limiting criteria (NPDES Permits, water
quality standards, sludge criteria);
Sludge characteristics or method of
disposal (e.g., percent solids, disposal
site life); Background concentrations of
pollutants in receiving water.’’ In
addition, treatment efficiencies are
verified annually, when the POTW
submits its annual report, to the
Approval Authority, which summarizes
the changes within the Control
Authority’s Pretreatment program over
the past year.
• Local Limits Reevaluations: Formal
reevaluations of a POTW’s technically
based local limits must be conducted
with each renewal of the POTW’s
NPDES Permit. See 40 CFR
122.21(j)(2)(ii) EPA recommends,
therefore, that recalculation of the
Middles Tier criteria be performed and
coordinated for submittal to the
Approval Authority at the same time as
the periodic local limits reevaluation,

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60182

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

easing the burden of separate reviews
for both the Approval and Control
Authorities.
EPA notes that in situations where the
Middle Tier criteria are modified, the
Control Authority must submit the
revised criteria to the Approval
Authority as a modification to the
POTW Pretreatment Program.
Depending on the specific situation,
Approval Authorities will determine
whether a modification is a substantial
or non-substantial modification of the
approved Pretreatment Program. In
either case, at a minimum, such
modifications must be submitted to the
Approval Authority by the Control
Authority at least 45 days prior to
implementation pursuant to 40 CFR
403.18.
What criteria should a Control
Authority apply if the Approved POTW
Pretreatment Program involves more
than one treatment plant? Similar to
guidance provided in page 9–2 of the
Local Limits Development Guidance
(EPA 833–R–04–002A, July 2004), the
Control Authority has options for how
it applies or allocates its MAHLs. The
Control Authority could decide to
provide local limits to the Industrial
Users based on the evaluation for the
individual treatment works which serve
those Users. Alternatively, the Control
Authority could select the lowest (most
stringent) local limit for each pollutant
across all of the treatment plants. When
establishing the Middle Tier criteria, the
Control Authority can either apply the
MAHL on a per POTW Treatment plant
basis to only those IUs serviced by the
individual treatment works, or it could
identify and use the most stringent
MAHL across all of its treatment plants.
What happens if the CIU, after
becoming eligible for Middle Tier status,
exceeds the Middle Tier criteria? As
stated previously, the CIU’s eligibility
for Middle Tier status depends on its
ability to meet all of the criteria in 40
CFR 403.12(e)(3). If for any reason, a
Middle Tier CIU finds that it no longer
meets the conditions in 40 CFR
403.12(e)(3)(i), (ii), or (iii), the CIU must
notify the Control Authority and must
immediately begin complying with the
full SIU reporting requirements in 40
CFR 403.12(e)(1). For example, if a CIU
exceeds its eligibility criterion for flow
on any day as determined by its
continuous effluent flow monitor, that
User no longer meets the conditions for
Middle Tier status, and must
immediately notify the Control
Authority and begin complying with the
non-reduced frequency of SIU reporting
requirements. Although not specified in
the Middle Tier provisions, EPA
recommends that Control Authorities

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

consider whether they should preclude
those CIUs which lose their Middle Tier
status from regaining that status for at
least the remainder of the term of the
control mechanism. Where the
Industrial User can demonstrate its
ability to once again meet the eligibility
conditions after sufficient passage of
time (e.g., the remainder of the term of
the control mechanism), the Control
Authority may then consider renewing
the User’s status as a Middle Tier CIU.
What type of oversight will EPA
provide over the implementation of the
Middle Tier CIU provisions? As with
any new regulatory provision, given the
number of conditions involved in the
Middle Tier CIU category, EPA expects
that the Agency will need to ensure that
these provisions are implemented as
intended. EPA will pay close attention
to the Control Authority’s adherence to
these eligibility conditions and the
overall implementation of these
provisions. POTW Pretreatment
Program audits and Pretreatment
Compliance Inspections (PCIs) will
provide EPA, as well as state Approval
Authorities, with important
opportunities to assess how the Control
Authorities’ are implementing this
measure. Like any implementation issue
in the Pretreatment Program, if a Control
Authority has incorrectly applied the
eligibility conditions such that one or
several Industrial Users are erroneously
considered Middle Tier CIUs, EPA will
recommend in its audit or PCI findings
that the Middle Tier status be revoked
for those Users.
4. Summary of Major Comments and
EPA Response
Should EPA establish an NSCIU
category? The overwhelming majority of
commenters supported the proposed
establishment of the NSCIU category,
although many differed on what flow
threshold would be the most
appropriate for identifying such
Industrial Users. One commenter
expressed strong opposition to the
creating the NSCIU category. This
commenter indicated that EPA had not
shown a basis in the record for this
regulatory change, any evidence that the
facilities and Control Authorities to be
given streamlined oversight actually
comply with applicable requirements,
any evidence that Control Authorities
will be able to detect noncompliance in
a timely fashion without these oversight
requirements, and any evidence that the
change adequately protects POTWs and
the environment. As outlined above,
EPA is today finalizing provisions
which enable Control Authorities to
designate certain Categorical Industrial
Users as NSCIUs, at their discretion, if

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the facilities meet all of the eligibility
conditions, including discharging fewer
than 100 gpd of total categorical
wastewater.
EPA disagrees with the commenter’s
rationale for opposing the establishment
of the NSCIU category and the
opportunity to reduce oversight for such
Users. First, there is a basis in the record
for this regulatory change. In the
preamble to the proposed rule, EPA
discussed the concerns of Control
Authorities which supported the need
for the proposal. Such concerns
included the widely held perception
that SIU oversight requirements are
rigid, ‘‘especially with respect to smaller
facilities that are subject to categorical
Pretreatment Standards and facilities
that they believe have no potential to
cause Pass Through or Interference.’’
See 64 FR 39572 (July 22, 1999). EPA
sought comment on the concept of
allowing the Control Authority to
identify Users as NSCIUs where they
discharged fewer than 100 gpd, and to
reduce the oversight required for such
non-significant facilities. EPA provided
an estimate of the percentage of CIUs
that might be affected (1–2 percent), and
has since projected that this number
may be as high as 15 percent. Because
these facilities will need to be good
actors to be eligible (e.g., the regulations
require a record of consistent
compliance and annual certification of
compliance with applicable Standards
and Requirements), and because they
individually contribute an insignificant
amount of flow to the POTW, the
Agency has concluded that it has an
adequate basis for allowing Control
Authorities to reduce oversight
requirements for such facilities.
Second, although EPA agrees that an
Industrial User’s compliance is a critical
factor in whether the Control Authority
may treat the User as an NSCIU, the
Agency has concluded that it is
unnecessary to evaluate overall
compliance among these small CIUs
prior to finalizing these provisions.
What EPA is establishing in the final
rule is the discretionary ability for
Control Authorities to reduce oversight
for select small Users. EPA is not
requiring that this optional authority be
used for any specific Industrial Users or
that it be used in all cases. In fact, EPA
would expect that the Control Authority
will be reluctant to designate any
particular CIU as an NSCIU if it has any
concerns about the potential for any
particular CIU to affect adversely the
POTW or receiving water. Thus, the
final rule requires, as a condition of
eligibility for designation, that an
Industrial User has a record of
consistent compliance with applicable

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements prior to being defined as
an NSCIU. See 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2)(i).
After becoming an NSCIU, the User is
then required to annually certify that it
meets the definition of ‘‘non-Significant
Categorical Industrial User’’ and that it
has complied with all applicable
Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements. See 40 CFR 403.12(q).
With these safeguards in place, EPA
concludes that the final rule addresses
the commenter’s concern about the lack
of evidence on overall compliance.
Third, EPA does not agree with the
commenter’s argument that Control
Authorities will not have sufficient
information to detect noncompliance in
a timely fashion. It should be noted that
the NSCIU provisions do not compel the
Control Authority to reduce or eliminate
applicable reporting, monitoring, and
inspection requirements for every CIU
with non-significant status. In fact, EPA
expects that the Control Authority
should assess each NSCIU to determine
the extent to which oversight should be
reduced. In addition, the combination of
the NSCIU provisions and other existing
regulatory requirements provide
mechanisms for timely detection of
noncompliance. Each Industrial User
qualifying for NSCIU status must first
demonstrate that it has consistently
complied with applicable Pretreatment
Standards and Requirements. After
becoming an NSCIU, the User must
annually certify that it still meets the
requirements for non-significant status,
and that it has complied with applicable
Standards and Requirements. Lastly, as
with all Industrial Users, the NSCIU is
affected by the notification requirement
in 40 CFR 403.12(j), which requires
facilities to ‘‘promptly notify the Control
Authority (and the POTW if the POTW
is not the Control Authority) in advance
of any substantial change in the volume
or character of pollutants in their
Discharge * * *.’’ And, each NSCIU
must also comply with 40 CFR
403.12(f), which provides that ‘‘all
categorical * * * Industrial Users shall
notify the POTW immediately of all
Discharges that could cause problems to
the POTW * * *.’’
Fourth, EPA has concluded that the
NSCIU provisions will not affect
protection of the POTW and the
environment, contrary to the
commenter’s position. While the
discretionary decision to treat an
Industrial User as an NSCIU does
relieve the Control Authority of certain
oversight requirements with respect to
the affected Industrial User, the
facility’s requirement to meet all
applicable categorical Pretreatment
Standards and its status as a CIU are not

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

changed. Just because the CIU has been
categorized as an NSCIU does not
relieve it of its obligation to comply
with categorical Pretreatment Standards
and other applicable Pretreatment
requirements, such as the notification
provisions of 40 CFR 403.12(f) and (j).
Also, the NSCIU is required to annually
certify that it has met applicable
Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements. Therefore, with these
safeguards in place, EPA finds that the
NSCIU provisions are fully protective of
the POTW and the environment.
How should the 100 gpd and Middle
Tier criteria be applied to CIUs that
commingle categorical and noncategorical wastestreams? Several
commenters asserted that EPA should
change the terms of the NSCIU language
to indicate that only categorical
wastestreams should be included when
assessing whether an individual CIU
meets the threshold for being designated
as non-significant. EPA agrees, and has
changed the definition of NSCIU to
indicate that the CIU never discharges
more than 100 gpd of ‘‘total categorical
wastewater.’’ EPA finds it important to
note that in many instances, all or most
process wastewater discharged by
NSCIUs will be categorical wastewater.
And where facilities co-mingle different
types of categorical wastewater, the
threshold for determining whether or
not a facility may be considered a nonsignificant CIU would be based on the
total amount of categorical wastewater
discharged. That is, the breakdown of
categorical wastewater flows by
industrial category would not affect the
threshold determination. However, EPA
recognizes that there may be cases
where facilities discharge both
categorical wastewater and noncategorical process wastewater. This
would occur where some of a facility’s
process wastewater Discharges were
regulated under a National categorical
Standard, while others were not, either
because they were generated by
operations from a different (nonregulated) industrial category, or
because they were specifically excluded
from coverage at the time the categorical
Standards were promulgated. In cases
where categorical and non-categorical
process wastewater flow volumes
cannot be reliably distinguished, the
threshold determination should be
based on total process wastewater flow
volume.
Middle Tier CIUs (discussed further
below) also apply flow thresholds that
are measured against an Industrial
User’s ‘‘total categorical wastewater’’
flow. EPA notes that the same approach
for co-mingled wastewater that applies

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60183

to NSCIUs also applies to the Middle
Tier CIUs.
Do POTW’s need to conduct annual
inspections or sampling of NSCIUs?
Several commenters recommended that
EPA specifically reduce oversight of
NSCIUs by limiting Control Authority
inspections and/or sampling. The
recommended frequencies ranged
between every other year to as often as
once-per-year. Other commenters
supported completely eliminating
inspection and sampling requirements.
With the adoption of today’s rule, EPA
is not establishing any minimum
inspection and sampling requirements
for NSCIUs. Today’s rule instead
requires the Control Authority to
perform an evaluation, at least once per
year, on whether the NSCIU meets the
criteria of 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2). As part of
the annual evaluation, EPA
recommends that the Control Authority
conduct an on-site inspection of the
facility in order to maintain awareness
of the facility’s process and to determine
to the extent possible whether the
discharger is complying with its
Pretreatment Program requirements. As
part of the evaluation, the Control
Authority should verify the NSCIU’s
certification under 40 CFR 403.12(q)
and review any other documentation
provided by the facility. The level of
effort devoted to an evaluation can be
tailored to the facility. EPA again notes
that it anticipates that this evaluation
will primarily involve the Control
Authority’s verification that certification
forms have been submitted by all
NSCIUs documenting eligibility for
NSCIU status and compliance with
applicable Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements. The Control Authority is
not required to control the NSCIU
through a Permit or other control
mechanism. However, the Control
Authority could, on a case by case basis,
determine whether individual control
mechanisms are necessary for NSCIUs
and develop adequate sampling and
inspection frequencies.
One commenter suggested that some
type of annual correspondence, at
minimum, be incorporated into the
Pretreatment Regulations to remind the
NSCIU and Control Authority of their
responsibilities and obligations under
the Pretreatment Program. EPA agrees
with the comment and has modified the
rule language to include requirements
that NSCIUs annually certify they are in
compliance with all applicable
Pretreatment Standards using the
certification statement at 40 CFR
403.12(q). Further, the Control
Authority must perform an NSCIU
evaluation, at least once per year, and
provide an updated list of NSCIUs to the

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60184

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

Approval Authority as part of its annual
POTW Pretreatment report.
Can EPA provide some clarification of
the NSCIU definition? Commenters
expressed the need for clarification in
the proposed definition of NSCIU.
Several commenters were concerned
that the language, as proposed, would
allow Control Authorities to exempt a
greater number of Industrial Users from
Pretreatment Program requirements than
what was intended under the proposal.
These commenters interpreted the
proposed definition to potentially allow
an unlimited amount of treated
concentrated wastewater (the proposal
prohibited ‘‘untreated concentrated
wastes’’) to be discharged to the POTW
while still falling under the NSCIU
threshold since it only required that
Discharges of ‘‘other process
wastewater’’ not be more than 100 gpd.
Many commenters stated that a CIU
could be deemed ‘‘non-significant’’,
under the proposed definition, if it
could merely demonstrate that it did not
discharge ‘‘untreated concentrated
wastes’’ subject to the categorical
Pretreatment Standards and not more
than 100 gpd of other process
wastewater. Upon further consideration,
EPA agrees that the proposed criteria for
becoming a NSCIU was open to more
than one interpretation and has revised
the language in the final rule to further
clarify the definition. Therefore, with
the adoption of today’s rule, EPA is
clarifying the NSCIU definition to
include ‘‘100 gpd of total categorical
wastewater’’ in order to emphasize the
fact that it is the ‘‘total’’ Discharge of
100 gpd or less of categorical process
wastewater which qualifies a User for
NSCIU status (as long as the other
required conditions of 40 CFR
403.3(v)(2) are met), not some smaller
subset of treated concentrated
wastewaters.
Why didn’t EPA promulgate a higher
flow threshold? Many commenters
supported the concept of creating a flow
cut-off threshold, but suggested that the
100 gpd ceiling was too low to provide
any significant relief in burden.
Commenters suggested alternative flow
thresholds ranging from 300 gpd to
25,000 gpd, and also suggested that
facilities that have little or no potential
to impact the operation of the receiving
POTW be included in this classification.
Other POTW commenters supported the
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies (AMSA, now renamed as the
National Association of Clean Water
Agencies) proposal of an alternative
cutoff which would be specific to the
POTW.
EPA’s intent in establishing the
NSCIU category was to reduce the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

burden on Control Authorities of
regulating Industrial Users which could
truly be considered to present minimal
impact to the treatment plant and the
Pretreatment Program in general. It was
not EPA’s intention to remove a large
segment of contributing CIUs from
Pretreatment Program oversight, and the
Agency has a limited amount of flow or
other Discharge data from which to
establish with any certainty the impact
on the Pretreatment Program of allowing
the NSCIU category to include a greater
number of Users. EPA generally views
the 100 gpd threshold as corresponding
to the de minimis dischargers.
In the proposal, EPA estimated that
about 2 percent of the current CIUs
might be eligible for non-significant
status. A recent evaluation of 75 POTW
Pretreatment Programs indicated that an
average of 15 percent of all CIUs in
these municipalities would meet the
100 gpd threshold for NSCIU. EPA
anticipates that the 100 gpd threshold
will result in NSCIU eligibility for
higher numbers of CIUs in select cities
or regions.
One commenter was opposed to any
higher flow or narrative threshold for
batch dischargers based on the fact that
the proposal would have eliminated
minimal, but critical, requirements for
annual inspection and sampling,
biennial slug control plan reviews, and
permit reviews once every 5 years,
while ignoring the compliance history
and the discharger’s potential to harm
the POTW. EPA wishes to clarify that a
Control Authority will have discretion
to designate certain CIUs as NSCIUs if
they meet specific criteria, and to
exercise that discretion in the case of
any individual CIUs, but will not be
obligated to exercise this discretion in
any particular case. Although certain
facilities may be considered NSCIUs,
EPA does not specify what types of
reporting requirements are necessary.
Although the Control Authority may
choose a lesser amount of currently
required sampling and reporting, the
final rule does not mandate this
decision. [As stated above, EPA does
require that the Control Authority
conduct at a minimum an annual
evaluation.] EPA expects that this
evaluation will primarily involve the
Control Authority’s verification that
certification forms have been submitted
by all NSCIUs documenting eligibility
and compliance with Pretreatment
Standards and Requirements. EPA has
also created conditions that address the
commenter’s concern about facility
compliance. For example, to be eligible
for NSCIU status, a facility must have
consistently complied with all
applicable categorical Pretreatment

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Standards and Requirements prior to the
Control Authority’s findings. Further,
the NSCIU must certify on an annual
basis (per the certification requirement
in 40 CFR 403.12(q)) that its Discharge
is in compliance with all applicable
categorical Standards and
Requirements.
May averaging be allowed in the
NSCIU determination? EPA solicited
comment on whether averaging should
be allowed in determining whether a
CIU fell under the 100 gpd threshold.
Several commenters indicated that they
concurred with the 100 gpd flow
threshold, but suggested that the Agency
include facilities that discharge up to
500 gallons per week. Today’s final rule
does not authorize the use of averaging
to meet the 100 gpd threshold. EPA is
concerned that allowing such an
approach could be difficult to oversee
from the Control Authority’s
perspective, and could be burdensome
to implement from the CIU’s
perspective. A greater degree of
precision and a higher frequency of
reporting would be needed to support a
threshold that allows for an averaging of
flow values. For instance, the CIU
would need to record precise flow
measurements every day to be able to
determine whether its average discharge
volume falls below the threshold,
requiring the Industrial User to establish
a more sophisticated approach for
tracking the facility’s Discharge. Also,
the use of an averaging approach will
make it harder for the Control Authority
to be able to determine compliance on
the days it conducts its inspections.
Because the 100 gpd approach is
applied as a threshold which cannot be
exceeded, it can be implemented in a
more straightforward manner which is
expected to minimize the opportunity
for misinterpretation. If a facility is a
batch discharger and currently
discharges more than 100 gpd, EPA
recommends that the Industrial User
install some form of flow restrictor that
will ensure that its discharge of
categorical process wastewater will
never exceed 100 gallons on any single
day.
Does a facility have to treat its
wastewater to be considered nonsignificant? Several commenters
expressed concern that it appeared from
the proposal that a facility would need
to install and provide treatment for all
its wastewater prior to discharge. EPA
clarifies that a facility does not need to
have treatment in place in order to be
considered non-significant, consistent
with the fact that the categorical
Standards do not dictate what types of
treatment technologies the CIU must use
so long as the facility’s Discharge, with

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
or without treatment, remains in
compliance with the categorical
Standard. The Standards only provide
the limits with which any Industrial
User’s Discharge must comply. On the
other hand, the final NSCIU criteria
require that the facility not discharge
any ‘‘untreated concentrated
wastewater’’ since it may be assumed
that untreated concentrated wastewater
(i.e., plating baths and rinses, solvents,
sludges, etc.) would not be in
compliance with the categorical
Standard. Regardless of whether
treatment exists at the CIU, the final rule
requires that the facility must have
consistently complied with all
applicable categorical Pretreatment
Standards and Requirements in order to
be considered an NSCIU. Furthermore,
the facility must, at minimum, annually
certify that its Discharge is in
compliance with all applicable
categorical Pretreatment Standards and
requirements.
EPA should adopt a third tier of CIUs
which provide further oversight
flexibility based on the impact of the
Industrial User on the specific POTW:
As stated previously, eighteen (18)
POTW commenters recommended that
EPA adopt the following category of CIU
in addition to the NSCIU and SIU
categories:
• The CIU’s categorical wastewater
Discharge does not exceed 0.01 percent
of the design dry weather hydraulic
capacity of the receiving POTW, nor
does it exceed 10,000 gpd;
• The CIU’s categorical wastewater
Discharge does not exceed 0.01 percent
of the design dry weather organic
treatment capacity of the receiving
POTW;
• The CIU’s categorical wastewater
Discharge does not exceed 0.01 percent
of the maximum allowable headworks
loading (MAHL) for the receiving POTW
of any pollutant detected at the POTW
headworks for which the CIU is subject
to a categorical Pretreatment Standard;
and
• The CIU has not been in significant
noncompliance (SNC) for the most
recent four consecutive six-month
periods.
As explained in Section III.K.3.b, EPA
has included this basic approach in the
final rule, with the exception of
changing the volume ceiling from
10,000 gpd to 5,000 gpd.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

IV. Description of Areas Where EPA Is
Not Taking Action on the Proposed
Rule
A. Specific Prohibition Regarding pH
(40 CFR 403.5(b)(2))
This section discusses EPA’s proposal
to amend 40 CFR 403.5(b)(2) to
authorize the introduction of Discharges
with pH less than 5.0 in certain
circumstances. EPA has decided not to
adopt the proposed changes to 40 CFR
403.5(b). EPA concluded that
inadequate scientific information was
available to determine the effects of
short-term, low pH Discharges on the
integrity of the POTW collection
systems to support a change to the
current prohibition on the introduction
of Discharges with a pH lower than 5.0
into POTWs.
1. What is the existing rule?
Acidic wastes can corrode sewer
pipes with a resulting release of
pollutants into the environment. To
address this concern, the current
regulations include a limit on the
acidity of wastes, a minimum pH limit,
in the specific prohibitions at 40 CFR
403.5(b). This prohibition applies to all
nondomestic dischargers to POTWs.
Section 403.5(b)(2) prohibits the
discharge of ‘‘pollutants which will
cause corrosive structural damage to the
POTW, but in no case discharges with
pH lower than 5.0, unless the works is
specifically designed to accommodate
such Discharges.’’
2. What changes did EPA propose?
EPA proposed to allow POTWs with
Approved Pretreatment Programs to
authorize temporary excursions below
pH 5.0 provided that the POTW
maintain a written technical evaluation
supporting the finding that the
alternative pH requirements did not
have the potential to cause corrosive
structural damage to the POTW or
otherwise violate 40 CFR 403.5(a) and
(b). This change would have allowed
POTWs to accept Discharges below pH
5.0 from Industrial Users that
continuously monitored the pH of their
Discharges, or to accept such temporary
excursions by a limited group of
Industrial Users. EPA proposed that any
alternative pH requirement developed
by a POTW would be enforceable as a
Pretreatment Standard under the Clean
Water Act. (The general narrative
prohibition against pollutants that cause
corrosive structural damage at 40 CFR
403.5(b)(2) would still have applied.)
3. What action is EPA taking today?
EPA has decided not to adopt any
changes to 40 CFR 403.5(b)(2). The

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60185

existing specific prohibition against
Discharges with pH lower than 5.0 will
remain in effect.
In arriving at this decision, EPA has
found that most of the current literature
on the relationship between low pH and
corrosion of sewer pipes is general and
qualitative. References rarely address
short-term Discharges of low pH and
tend to only discuss effects of
continuous exposure. Furthermore,
predicting the effects of corrosion on
POTW sewer pipes is complicated by a
variety of factors, including wastewater
characteristics such as pH, temperature,
volume, velocity, turbulence, alkalinity,
dissolved oxygen, as well as sewer pipe
characteristics such as size, age,
material of construction, pipe
configuration, and time since last
cleaning. EPA has concluded that
insufficient research is available that
investigates the synergistic effects of
these factors as well as data on the
effects of short-term Discharges of low
pH and therefore modifications to the
current regulations are not appropriate
at this time.
What significant changes were made to
the proposed rule?
EPA has decided not to change the
current rule regarding Discharges less
than pH 5.0. EPA lacks sufficient
information on the effects of short-term
or long-term Discharges with pH lower
than 5.0 on the structural integrity of
POTWs. The current regulations at 40
CFR 403.5(b) remain in effect.
4. Summary of Major Comments and
EPA Response
Many commenters gave qualified
support for the proposed modifications
with suggestions for implementation.
EPA also received comments on the
proposed rule stating that the proposal
did not adequately protect POTWs. One
commenter cautioned that systems
constructed of acid-resistant materials
often include manhole inverts
constructed of concrete and similar
materials that are susceptible to
corrosion, and are thus rarely entirely
resistant to such effects. Some requested
that EPA make the current pH limit
more stringent (i.e., above pH 5.0)
because there are systems that are
currently experiencing corrosion
damage. A few commenters questioned
whether the proposed modifications
would actually provide a significant
burden relief for POTWs, on the basis
that adequate evidence does not exist
that shows POTWs devote a substantial
amount of resources to dealing with
short-term violations. Several
commenters requested guidance on
various implementation topics,

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60186

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

including how POTWs should assess
and maintain the integrity of their
systems with respect to corrosion. These
outstanding issues influenced EPA’s
decision not to finalize the proposed
modifications at this time.
Even though EPA has decided not to
finalize this proposed provision, all
comments that were submitted on the
proposal will be carefully considered as
EPA further explores the issue of shortterm pH Discharges. Please see the
Response to Public Comment Document
for responses to specific comments.
Application of 40 CFR 401.17 Criteria:
Some commenters suggested that the pH
provisions at 40 CFR 401.17 could serve
as a basis for alternative pH
requirements. The effluent guideline
regulations list certain conditions under
which excursions from pH limits are
allowed for direct dischargers. EPA
developed 40 CFR 401.17 based on the
Agency’s determination that direct
dischargers could continuously meet a
pH limit between 6.0 and 9.0. In
comparison, Pretreatment requirements
are based on preventing corrosion in
POTWs and are much less restrictive. It
is EPA’s view that it would be
inappropriate to attempt to use 40 CFR
401.17 as a basis for alternative pH
requirements because the reason behind
establishing the pH requirement is
different. However, POTWs may
implement and enforce local pH limits
in a manner that is more stringent than
the federal regulations. EPA refers
commenters to EPA’s May 13, 1993
letter to Mary Jo M. Aiello of the New
Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy, for a discussion
of an acceptable analogous application
to the Pretreatment program. See
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/
owm0113.pdf.
Use of Enforcement Response Plans to
Address pH Violations: Several POTW
commenters expressed concern over the
level of burden imposed on them by the
existing pH limit since they are
obligated to treat all exceedances as
violations. In EPA’s view, it is relevant
to clarify the inherent flexibility present
in a POTW’s Enforcement Response
Plan provisions to define varying levels
of response to temporary pH violations.
EPA advises POTWs to incorporate a
preferred method of dealing with
violations of local limits into their
Enforcement Response Plans and refers
commenters to the Guidance for
Developing Control Authority
Enforcement Response Plans (EPA,
1989). See http://www.epa.gov/npdes/
pubs/owm0015.pdf. EPA notes that
POTWs make their own decisions
regarding the utilization of resources in
response to low pH Discharges when

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

developing an Enforcement Response
Plan. Excursions under pH 5.0 are
Pretreatment Standard violations (40
CFR 403.5(b)(2)), and, in determining
the appropriate response, EPA
recommends that the Control Authority
consider the following criteria:
frequency, duration, magnitude, effect,
and/or compliance. A record should be
made of the response, and the person
responsible for screening the data
should alert enforcement personnel to
the noncompliance. EPA recognizes that
the Control Authority’s appropriate
response (including no further action, a
phone call, or a notification letter) may
vary. This flexibility may help reduce
the burdens on the commenters’
programs.
V. Changes to Part 122
EPA is also making the following
changes to the part 122 regulations:
• 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(ii): Change
reference to definition of ‘‘Significant
Industrial User’’ to 40 CFR 403.3(v),
instead of 40 CFR 403.3(t). This
reference change is a direct result of
renumbering associated with today’s
rule.
• 40 CFR 122.44(j)(1): Correct
typographical error referring to
‘‘significant indirect dischargers’’
instead of the correct term, ‘‘Significant
Industrial Users discharging’’.
• 40 CFR122.62(a)(7): Correct
typographical error referencing an
incorrect provision relating to
modifications. The correct reference
should be 40 CFR 403.18(e).
VI. Considerations in Adopting Today’s
Rule Revisions
How does a POTW adopt today’s rule
provisions?
Section 40 CFR 403.18(a) generally
requires review and approval by the
Approval Authority of modifications to
the POTW Pretreatment Program when
there is a ‘‘significant change in the
operation of a POTW Pretreatment
Program that differs from the
information in the POTW’s [program]
submission * * * .’’ Consistent with
this rule, before many of today’s
streamlining provisions may be
implemented by local Pretreatment
authorities, POTWs will need to modify
their Pretreatment Program procedures
and authorities. Once the POTW has
determined what program revisions it
will make in response to today’s
streamlining provisions, the
modifications must then be submitted to
the Approval Authority (either the State,
if it has Pretreatment Program authority,
or the EPA Regional Administrator) for
approval. The regulations also require

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

that the program modification be
accompanied by a statement of basis for
the changes, a description of the
modifications and other information the
Approval Authority may request as
appropriate. See 40 CFR 403.18(c)(1).
Although not required as part of
today’s final rule, EPA encourages a
POTW to submit its Pretreatment
Program modifications to its Approval
Authority as a package, rather than
sending changes piecemeal. This will
help make the review process more
efficient and less burdensome.
Is the POTW required to make any of
today’s streamlining changes?
EPA notes that many of today’s
streamlining provisions are changes that
the POTW may adopt at its discretion.
Many of these changes (e.g., the
authority to use general control
mechanisms, monitoring waivers for
pollutants neither present nor expected
to be present, BMPs in lieu of numeric
local limits, application of equivalent
concentration limits in place of flowbased mass limits for OCPSF, petroleum
refining, or pesticide chemicals
facilities, creation of a category of nonsignificant CIUs, and application of
equivalent mass limits for concentration
based categorical Standards) involve
features that provide program flexibility
and are not required to be incorporated
into the POTW’s Pretreatment Program.
However, a few of today’s rule
provisions are changes that the POTW is
required to make because they clarify
certain minimum requirements, and to
the extent that the POTW’s approved
program is inconsistent with these
requirements, it would need to be
modified. These required changes
include:
(1) 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(6):
Clarification that slug control
requirements must be referenced in SIU
control mechanisms. The POTW is
required to adopt this change because it
specifies new minimum requirements
for all SIU control mechanisms.
(2) 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)(A)(B)(C):
Revisions to the significant
noncompliance (SNC) definition. These
revisions are required because they
expand the definition of SNC to include
additional types of Pretreatment
Standards and Requirements which
were not clearly covered in previous
definitions.
(3) 40 CFR 403.12(g): Modifications to
the sampling requirements and a
clarification to the requirement to report
all monitoring results. SIUs are now
required to follow sampling
requirements in 40 CFR 403.12 for
periodic compliance reports (40 CFR
403.12(e)), whereas they were

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
previously only explicitly applicable to
baseline monitoring reports and 90-day
compliance reports. Also, the final rule
now requires that non-categorical SIUs
report all monitoring results, whereas
the previous regulations only made this
requirement explicit for categorical
SIUs. The POTW is required to adopt
these revisions because they set new
minimum requirements for sampling
and notification.
What is the difference between a
‘‘substantial modification’’ and a ‘‘nonsubstantial’’ modification?
Different review procedures apply to
program modifications depending on
whether the modification is substantial
or non-substantial.
The Approval Authority’s review of a
substantial modification, unlike a nonsubstantial modification, must follow
the same procedures used for approving
the initial POTW Pretreatment Program,
including the issuance of a public notice
to inform the public of the POTW’s
modification Submission. By contrast,
where the Submission is reviewed as a
non-substantial modification, the
Approval Authority has 45 days to
either approve or disapprove the
modification. Where the Approval
Authority does not notify the POTW
within 45 days of its decision to
approve or disapprove the modification,
or to treat the modification as
substantial, the POTW may implement
the modification as if it were approved
by the Approval Authority.
How will the POTW’s adoption of
today’s streamlining provisions be
reviewed by the Approval Authority?
EPA has concluded that all of the
changes related to today’s rule may be
treated as non-substantial if the changes
to a POTW’s local ordinance to
incorporate the changes directly reflect
the federal requirements. The current
regulations provide that modifications
that relax a POTW’s legal authorities are
substantial modifications ‘‘except for
modifications that directly reflect a
revision to this Part 403 or to 40 CFR
Chapter I, subchapter N, and are
reported pursuant to paragraph (d) of
this section.’’ EPA has explained its
reasons for adopting this provision as
follows:
• ‘‘Today’s regulation excludes from
the definition of ‘substantial
modification’ those changes in POTW
legal authority that results in less
prescriptive programs, but which
directly reflect a revision to Federal
Pretreatment Regulations (for example,
if the federal regulations are
streamlined). 40 CFR 403.18(b)(1). Such
modifications would have already

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

undergone public notice and comment
when promulgated by EPA. As long as
the POTW’s local ordinance is revised
to directly reflect the new federal
requirements, further public notice
would be unnecessary * * *.’’ 62 FR
38406, 38409 (July 17, 1997).
The Approval Authority, however,
may treat such modifications as
substantial when appropriate. 40 CFR
403.18(b)(7) authorizes the Approval
Authority to designate modifications as
substantial if the Approval Authority
concludes that the modification could
have a significant effect on POTW
operation, could result in an increase in
POTW pollutant loadings or could
result in less stringent requirements
being imposed on Industrial Users. For
example, a POTW may wish to make
adjustments to the wording of some of
the streamlining provisions so that they
fit better with the way the specific
Pretreatment program is operated. Such
adjustments may or may not trigger the
need to review individual modifications
as substantial, which would not
otherwise need to be treated as
substantial if today’s provisions are
adopted directly.
Will the POTW’s NPDES Permit need
to be modified? In general, the
Pretreatment provisions of the POTW’s
NPDES Permit will need to be modified.
This regulatory action does not modify
individual state regulations or
authorities, POTW legal authorities, nor
modify NPDES Permits issued to
POTWs. Consequently, today’s rule does
not relieve a POTW from operating in
accordance with existing state laws,
regulations, Permits, and similar
actions. If a POTW’s Pretreatment
program ‘‘modification relates to an
enforceable element of the POTW’s
NPDES Permit’’, then the program
‘‘modification requires a permit
modification,’’ in accordance with 40
CFR 403.8(c). 62 FR 38408 (July 17,
1997). After a POTW’s Pretreatment
program modification has been
approved in accordance with the
procedures in 40 CFR 403.18, those
conditions may be incorporated into the
POTW’s NPDES Permit as a minor
NPDES modification under 40 CFR
122.63(g).
VII. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, [58
Federal Register 51,735 (October 4,
1993)] the Agency must determine
whether the regulatory action is
‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to
OMB review and the requirements of
the Executive Order. The Order defines

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60187

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one
that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Order 12866, it has been determined
that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory
action.’’ As such, this action was
submitted to OMB for review. Changes
made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented
in the public record.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements contained in
this rule under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB
control number 2040–0009.
The regulatory changes in today’s
rulemaking are designed to reduce the
overall burden from technical and
administrative requirements that affect
Industrial Users, local Control
Authorities and Approval Authorities.
The estimated savings in annual burden
hours and costs to the affected
respondents (i.e., Industrial Users,
POTWs, and States) is about 240,000
hours or $10.1 million.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60188

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

Although the regulatory changes in
today’s final rule provide greater
flexibility to regulated entities, it is
necessary to collect certain types of
information to assure that Pretreatment
Program requirements continue to be
met and that the final benefit meets
EPA’s stated goal of providing better
environmental results at less cost.
Today’s final rule includes regulatory
changes that cover a variety of technical

and administrative changes. Most of the
regulatory changes result in either
reduced annual cost and burdens on a
continuing basis or have no measurable
effect on cost or burden. There are a few
regulatory changes (equivalent
concentration limits for flow based
Standards, monitoring waivers for
pollutants not present, and general
control mechanisms) that will impose
additional short-term increases in

burden on those POTWs or Industrial
Users that elect to exercise this
flexibility. However, when considered
over a longer time period, these costs
are outweighed by the expected benefits
of the provisions.
The table below (Table 1) shows an
estimate of burden hours and cost
savings for each rule provision.

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED CHANGES IN BURDEN AND COST
Total respondents
Provision
States
Mass Limits .....................
Equivalent Concentration
Limits.
NSCIUs/Middle-Tier CIUs
Slug Control Plans ..........
Pollutants Not Present—
CIUs.
General Control Mech’s,
Savings for CAs.
General Control Mech’s,
Requests for Coverage.
General Control Mech’s,
CA Use of Data.
Total .........................

POTWs

IUs

Change in total
number of
responses

Hours per
response

Annual
responses per
respondent

Change in
burden

24
1,464

40

80 over 3 yrs ....
15 .....................

8 .......................
8.0 ....................

Varies ...............
0.01 ..................

512
122.67

34
34
34

1,464
1,464
1,464

2,374

NA .....................
¥13,394 ...........
NA .....................

See Note 1 .......
0.5 ....................
See Note 2 .......

Varies ...............
1 .......................
2 .......................

¥113,381
¥6,697
¥117,703

34

20

1,500 ................

¥20.0 ...............

0.2 ....................

¥6,000

1,500 over 3 yrs

0.5 ....................

One-Time ..........

250

1,500 over 3 yrs

0.5 ....................

One-Time ..........

250

......................

......................

......................

¥242,645

12,362

1,500
34

20

34

1,464

12,362

Note 1: For 34 states, the annual number of responses for permit issuance (20 hrs) drops by 0.6 per state. For 34 states, the number of inspections per year (8 hours) drops by 4.6 per state. For 34 states, the number of CIUs sampled per year (15.2 hours) drops by 4.6 per state. For
34 states, the number of NSCIU evaluations (2 hours) increases by 3.0 per state. For 34 states, total hours for review of CIU monitoring reports
drops by 424 hours per year. For 1,464 POTWs, the annual number of responses for permit issuance (20 hrs) drops by 0.15 per POTW. For
1,464 POTWs, the number of inspections per year (8 hours) drops by 1.1 per POTW. For 1,464 POTWs, the number of CIUs sampled per year
(16.2 hours) drops by 1.1 per POTW. For 1,464 POTWs, the number of NSCIU evaluations (2 hours) rises from 0 to 0.73 per POTW. POTW
burden for review of CIU monitoring reports drops a total of 8,664 hours. In addition, 796 CIUs reduce sampling and analysis (15.6 hours) from
twice per year to never, 372 CIUs reduce sampling and analysis from twice per year to once every 5 years, and 1,206 CIUs reduce monitoring
from twice to once per year. Also, 2,374 CIUs reduce reporting (1 hour) from twice to once per year. IU recordkeeping is eliminated for 1,168
IUs, saving 2337 hours (2 hrs per IU) per year; state recordkeeping decreases by 513 hours per year. POTW recordkeeping is assumed to be
unchanged.
Note 2: Hours per response drops from 18.8 to 15.2 for states, 10.0 to 8.1 for POTWs, and 14.3 to 11.6 for CIUs.

An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. In
addition, EPA is amending the table in
40 CFR part 9 of currently approved
OMB control numbers for various
regulations to list the regulatory
citations for the information
requirements contained in this final
rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:32 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today’s rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
according to RFA default definitions for
small business (based on SBA size
standard; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
In determining whether a rule has a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the
impact of concern is any significant

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

adverse economic impact on small
entities, since the primary purpose of
the regulatory flexibility analyses is to
identify and address regulatory
alternatives ‘‘which minimize any
significant economic impact of the rule
on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities if the rule relieves regulatory
burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on all of the small
entities subject to the rule.
As previously explained, the
modifications to the Pretreatment
requirements in this final rule will
reduce the regulatory costs to POTWs
and Industrial Users of complying with
Pretreatment requirements. The
regulatory changes will provide certain
POTWs and Industrial Users with less
costly alternatives to the current
requirements. For example, this rule
includes a modification that would
allow a POTW, in specified

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
circumstances, to control contributions
from Industrial Users through general
permits or control mechanisms rather
than more costly individual permits or
control mechanisms. This rule also
authorizes a POTW to relieve an
Industrial User of its sampling and
analyzing requirements if the User
demonstrates and certifies that the
pollutant is neither present nor
expected to be present in its process
waste stream or is present only in
background levels in the intake water.
The final rule includes provisions that
provide flexibility for POTWs and
Industrial Users. For instance, POTWs
will be allowed to use Best Management
Practices (BMPs) as local limits in lieu
of numeric effluent limits. This option
will give POTWs a feasible alternative
when numeric local limits are not the
appropriate or practical method to
prevent pollutant Pass Through or
Interference. EPA does not expect that
any POTW or Industrial User will
choose the voluntary regulatory
requirements over current requirements
if the cost of the alternative were greater
than the cost of complying with current
regulations. We have therefore
concluded that today’s final rule will
either relieve regulatory burden or have
no significant impact for all small
entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 104–
4, establishes requirements for Federal
agencies to assess the effects of their
regulatory actions on State, local, and
tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments,
including tribal governments, it must
have developed under section 203 of the
UMRA a small government agency plan.
The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments,
enabling officials of affected small
governments to have meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA
regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates,
and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector in any one year.
Today’s final rule is ‘‘deregulatory’’ in
nature and reduces burden on the
affected State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector.
Thus, today’s rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule
contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Additional
flexibility is granted to all POTWs,
which will provide opportunities for
reducing the burden of administering
their Pretreatment programs.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
This final rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. Today’s rule is
basically deregulatory in nature and is
expected to reduce administrative and
resource burdens on affected State,
local, and tribal governments and the

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60189

private sector. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule.
Although section 6 of Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA
did consult with representatives of State
and local officials in developing this
rule. Annual EPA/State National
Pretreatment Workshops have provided
the opportunity for EPA and States to
discuss current technical and policy
issues as well as the future direction of
the National Pretreatment Program.
Representatives of EPA, States, and
local Pretreatment programs have also
convened annually at the Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies’
(AMSA’s) Pretreatment Workshop. In
the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote
communication between EPA and State
and local governments, EPA solicited
comment on the proposed rule from all
stakeholders. A summary of EPA’s
response to concerns raised is provided
in Sections III and IV of the preamble
(see specifically subsections entitled
‘‘Summary of Major Comments and EPA
Response’’ for each separate
streamlining issue) and in the response
to comment document in the record.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal
implications’’ is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations
that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes.’’
This final rule does not have tribal
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments, on
the relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
There are no Pretreatment programs
administered by Indian tribal
governments. This final rule will neither
‘‘significantly nor uniquely’’ affect the
communities of Indian tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule.

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60190

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

Moreover, in the spirit of Executive
Order 13175, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications
between EPA and tribal governments,
EPA specifically solicited comment on
the proposed rule from all stakeholders.
EPA did not receive any comments from
tribal governments.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
This final rule is not subject to the
Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe
the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This
final rule does not impose any new or
amended Standards for discharged
wastewater or the sludge resulting from
treatment of a POTW. (EPA notes that
the final rule does enable POTWs to use
alternative, equivalent concentration
limits for an industry’s current flowbased mass Standards and equivalent
mass limits where conditions warrant.
However, EPA considers these new
limits to be equivalent to the Standards
previously used, and therefore does not
involve the establishment of new or
amended Standards.) Treatment and
disposal of wastewater occurs in a
restricted system (e.g., buried sewer
lines and fenced wastewater treatment
facilities) that children are unlikely to
come in contact with on a routine basis.
This rule has no identifiable direct
impact upon the health and/or safety
risks to children and the regulatory
changes will not disproportionately
affect children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ as defined in Executive Order

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)) because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The final rule does not contain any
compliance requirements that will:
1. Reduce crude oil supply in excess
of 10,000 barrels per day;
2. Reduce fuel production in excess of
4,000 barrels per day;
3. Reduce coal production in excess of
5 million tons per year;
4. Reduce electricity production in
excess of 1 billion kilowatt-hours per
year or in excess of 500 megawatts of
installed capacity;
5. Increase energy prices in excess of
10 percent;
6. Increase the cost of energy
distribution in excess of 10 percent;
7. Significantly increase dependence
on foreign supplies of energy; or
8. Other similar adverse outcomes,
particularly unintended ones.
Thus, EPA has concluded that this
rule is not likely to have any adverse
energy effects.

copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A Major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule
will be effective on November 14, 2005.

I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act

Environmental protection,
Confidential business information,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution control.

As noted in the proposed rule,
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No.
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
This rule does not involve technical
standards, except to the extent that
various sampling procedures in the
Pretreatment Regulations are being
updated to reflect current EPA methods.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use
of any voluntary consensus standards.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Environmental protection, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 122
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information,
Hazardous substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water
pollution control.
40 CFR Part 403

Dated: September 27, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

■

PART 9—OMB APPROVALS UNDER
THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136–136y;
15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671,
21 U.S.C 331j, 356a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318,
1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and
(e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971–1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241,
242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2,
300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1,
300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq.,
6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657,
11023, 11048.

2. In § 9.1 the table is amended by
adding an entry in numerical order
under the indicated heading to read as
follows:
§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paper
Work Reduction Act.

*

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

*

*

14OCR2

*

*

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

60191
OMB control
No.

40 CFR citation
General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution
*
*;
*
*
*
*
*
403.12(q) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................
*

PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM
3. The authority citation for Part 122
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.

4. Section 122.21 is amended by
revising paragraph (j)(6)(ii) introductory
text to read as follows:

■

§ 122.21 Application for a permit
(applicable to State programs, see § 123.25).

*

*
*
*
*
(j) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) POTWs with one or more SIUs
shall provide the following information
for each SIU, as defined at 40 CFR
403.3(v), that discharges to the POTW:
*
*
*
*
*
5. Section 122.44 is amended by
revising the first sentence of paragraph
(j)(1) to read as follows:

■

§ 122.44 Establishing limitations,
standards, and other permit conditions
(applicable to State NPDES programs, see
§ 123.25).

*

*
*
*
*
(j) * * *
(1) Identify, in terms of character and
volume of pollutants, any Significant
Industrial Users discharging into the
POTW subject to Pretreatment
Standards under section 307(b) of CWA
and 40 CFR part 403.
*
*
*
*
*
6. Section 122.62 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(7) to read as
follows:

■

§ 122.62 Modification or revocation and
reissuance of permits (applicable to State
programs, see § 123.25).

*

*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(7) Reopener. When required by the
‘‘reopener’’ conditions in a permit,
which are established in the permit
under § 122.44(b) (for CWA toxic
effluent limitations and Standards for
sewage sludge use or disposal, see also

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

*

*

*

*

§ 122.44(c)) or 40 CFR 403.18(e)
(Pretreatment program).
*
*
*
*
*
PART 403—GENERAL
PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOR
EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES OF
POLLUTION
7. The authority for Part 403
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

8. Section 403.3 is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (e) through (u)
as paragraphs (g) through (w); by
revising newly designated paragraphs
(m)(2) and (v); and by adding new
paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:

■

§ 403.3.

Definitions.

*

*
*
*
*
(e) The term Best Management
Practices or BMPs means schedules of
activities, prohibitions of practices,
maintenance procedures, and other
management practices to implement the
prohibitions listed in § 403.5(a)(1) and
(b). 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.
(f) The term Control Authority refers
to:
(1) The POTW if the POTW’s
Pretreatment Program Submission has
been approved in accordance with the
requirements of § 403.11; or
(2) The Approval Authority if the
Submission has not been approved.
*
*
*
*
*
(m) * * *
(2) Construction on a site at which an
existing source is located results in a
modification rather than a New Source
if the construction does not create a new
building, structure, facility or
installation meeting the criteria of
paragraphs (m)(1)(ii) or (m)(1)(iii) of this
section, but otherwise alters, replaces,
or adds to existing process or
production equipment.
*
*
*
*
*
(v) Significant Industrial User. (1)
Except as provided in paragraphs (v)(2)

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

2040–0009

*

and (v)(3) of this section, the term
Significant Industrial User means:
(i) All Industrial Users subject to
Categorical Pretreatment Standards
under 40 CFR 403.6 and 40 CFR chapter
I, subchapter N; and
(ii) Any other Industrial User that:
discharges an average of 25,000 gallons
per day or more of process wastewater
to the POTW (excluding sanitary,
noncontact cooling and boiler
blowdown wastewater); contributes a
process wastestream which makes up 5
percent or more of the average dry
weather hydraulic or organic capacity of
the POTW Treatment plant; or is
designated as such by the Control
Authority on the basis that the
Industrial User has a reasonable
potential for adversely affecting the
POTW’s operation or for violating any
Pretreatment Standard or requirement
(in accordance with 40 CFR 403.8(f)(6)).
(2) The Control Authority may
determine that an Industrial User
subject to categorical Pretreatment
Standards under § 403.6 and 40 CFR
chapter I, subchapter N is a NonSignificant Categorical Industrial User
rather than a Significant Industrial User
on a finding that the Industrial User
never discharges more than 100 gallons
per day (gpd) of total categorical
wastewater (excluding sanitary, noncontact cooling and boiler blowdown
wastewater, unless specifically included
in the Pretreatment Standard) and the
following conditions are met:
(i) The Industrial User, prior to the
Control Authority’s finding, has
consistently complied with all
applicable categorical Pretreatment
Standards and Requirements;
(ii) The Industrial User annually
submits the certification statement
required in § 403.12(q) together with
any additional information necessary to
support the certification statement; and
(iii) The Industrial User never
discharges any untreated concentrated
wastewater.
(3) Upon a finding that an Industrial
User meeting the criteria in paragraph
(v)(1)(ii) of this section has no
reasonable potential for adversely
affecting the POTW’s operation or for
violating any Pretreatment Standards or

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60192

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

requirement, the Control Authority may
at any time, on its own initiative or in
response to a petition received from an
Industrial User or POTW, and in
accordance with 40 CFR 403.8(f)(6),
determine that such Industrial User is
not a Significant Industrial User.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. Section 403.5 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(1) and adding a
new paragraph (c)(4) to read as follows:
§ 403.5 National pretreatment standards:
Prohibited discharges.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Pollutants which create a fire or
explosion hazard in the POTW,
including, but not limited to,
wastestreams with a closed cup
flashpoint of less than 140 degrees
Fahrenheit or 60 degrees Centigrade
using the test methods specified in 40
CFR 261.21;
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(4) POTWs may develop Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to
implement paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2)
of this section. Such BMPs shall be
considered local limits and Pretreatment
Standards for the purposes of this part
and section 307(d) of the Act.
*
*
*
*
*
10. Section 403.6 is amended as
follows:
■ a. By revising paragraph (b).
■ b. By revising paragraph (c)(2).
■ c. By redesignating paragraphs (c)(5)
through (c)(7) as paragraphs (c)(7)
through (c)(9).
■ d. By adding new paragraphs (c)(5)
and (c)(6).
■ e. By revising newly designated
paragraphs (c)(7) and (c)(8).
■ f. By revising paragraph (d), and the
first sentence of paragraph (e)
introductory text.
■

§ 403.6 National pretreatment standards:
Categorical standards.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) Deadline for compliance with
categorical standards. Compliance by
existing sources with categorical
Pretreatment Standards shall be within
3 years of the date the Standard is
effective unless a shorter compliance
time is specified in the appropriate
subpart of 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter
N. Direct dischargers with NPDES
Permits modified or reissued to provide
a variance pursuant to section 301(i)(2)
of the Act shall be required to meet
compliance dates set in any applicable
categorical Pretreatment Standard.
Existing sources which become
Industrial Users subsequent to

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

promulgation of an applicable
categorical Pretreatment Standard shall
be considered existing Industrial Users
except where such sources meet the
definition of a New Source as defined in
§ 403.3(m). New Sources shall install
and have in operating condition, and
shall ‘‘start-up’’ all pollution control
equipment required to meet applicable
Pretreatment Standards before
beginning to Discharge. Within the
shortest feasible time (not to exceed 90
days), New Sources must meet all
applicable Pretreatment Standards.
(c) * * *
(2) When the limits in a categorical
Pretreatment Standard are expressed
only in terms of mass of pollutant per
unit of production, the Control
Authority may convert the limits to
equivalent limitations expressed either
as mass of pollutant discharged per day
or effluent concentration for purposes of
calculating effluent limitations
applicable to individual Industrial
Users.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) When the limits in a categorical
Pretreatment Standard are expressed
only in terms of pollutant
concentrations, an Industrial User may
request that the Control Authority
convert the limits to equivalent mass
limits. The determination to convert
concentration limits to mass limits is
within the discretion of the Control
Authority. The Control Authority may
establish equivalent mass limits only if
the Industrial User meets all the
following conditions in paragraph
(c)(5)(i)(A) through (c)(5)(i)(E) of this
section.
(i) To be eligible for equivalent mass
limits, the Industrial User must:
(A) Employ, or demonstrate that it
will employ, water conservation
methods and technologies that
substantially reduce water use during
the term of its control mechanism;
(B) Currently use control and
treatment technologies adequate to
achieve compliance with the applicable
categorical Pretreatment Standard, and
not have used dilution as a substitute
for treatment;
(C) Provide sufficient information to
establish the facility’s actual average
daily flow rate for all wastestreams,
based on data from a continuous
effluent flow monitoring device, as well
as the facility’s long-term average
production rate. Both the actual average
daily flow rate and long-term average
production rate must be representative
of current operating conditions;
(D) Not have daily flow rates,
production levels, or pollutant levels
that vary so significantly that equivalent

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

mass limits are not appropriate to
control the Discharge; and
(E) Have consistently complied with
all applicable categorical Pretreatment
Standards during the period prior to the
Industrial User’s request for equivalent
mass limits.
(ii) An Industrial User subject to
equivalent mass limits must:
(A) Maintain and effectively operate
control and treatment technologies
adequate to achieve compliance with
the equivalent mass limits;
(B) Continue to record the facility’s
flow rates through the use of a
continuous effluent flow monitoring
device;
(C) Continue to record the facility’s
production rates and notify the Control
Authority whenever production rates
are expected to vary by more than 20
percent from its baseline production
rates determined in paragraph
(c)(5)(i)(C) of this section. Upon
notification of a revised production rate,
the Control Authority must reassess the
equivalent mass limit and revise the
limit as necessary to reflect changed
conditions at the facility; and
(D) Continue to employ the same or
comparable water conservation methods
and technologies as those implemented
pursuant to paragraph (c)(5)(i)(A) of this
section so long as it discharges under an
equivalent mass limit.
(iii) A Control Authority which
chooses to establish equivalent mass
limits:
(A) Must calculate the equivalent
mass limit by multiplying the actual
average daily flow rate of the regulated
process(es) of the Industrial User by the
concentration-based daily maximum
and monthly average Standard for the
applicable categorical Pretreatment
Standard and the appropriate unit
conversion factor;
(B) Upon notification of a revised
production rate, must reassess the
equivalent mass limit and recalculate
the limit as necessary to reflect changed
conditions at the facility; and
(C) May retain the same equivalent
mass limit in subsequent control
mechanism terms if the Industrial User’s
actual average daily flow rate was
reduced solely as a result of the
implementation of water conservation
methods and technologies, and the
actual average daily flow rates used in
the original calculation of the equivalent
mass limit were not based on the use of
dilution as a substitute for treatment
pursuant to paragraph (d) of this
section. The Industrial User must also
be in compliance with § 403.17
(regarding the prohibition of bypass).
(iv) The Control Authority may not
express limits in terms of mass for

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

limits may be derived by the Control
Authority or by the Industrial User with
the written concurrence of the Control
Authority. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
■ 11. Section 403.7 is amended by
revising paragraphs (h) introductory text
and (h)(2) to read as follows:
§ 403.7

Removal credits.

*

*
*
*
*
(h) Compensation for Overflow.
‘‘Overflow’’ means the intentional or
unintentional diversion of flow from the
POTW before the POTW Treatment
Plant. POTWs which at least once
annually Overflow untreated
wastewater to receiving waters may
claim Consistent Removal of a pollutant
only by complying with either
paragraphs (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this
section. However, paragraph (h) of this
section shall not apply where Industrial
User(s) can demonstrate that Overflow
does not occur between the Industrial
User(s) and the POTW Treatment Plant;
*
*
*
*
*
(2)(i) The Consistent Removal claimed
is reduced pursuant to the following
equation:

rc = rm

8760 − Z
8760

Where:
rm = POTW’s Consistent Removal rate
for that pollutant as established
under paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(2) of
this section
rc = removal corrected by the Overflow
factor
Z = hours per year that Overflows
occurred between the Industrial
User(s) and the POTW Treatment
Plant, the hours either to be shown
in the POTW’s current NPDES
permit application or the hours, as
demonstrated by verifiable
techniques, that a particular
Industrial User’s Discharge
Overflows between the Industrial
User and the POTW Treatment
Plant; and
(ii) The POTW is complying with all
NPDES permit requirements and any
additional requirements in any order or
decree, issued pursuant to the Clean
Water Act affecting combined sewer
overflows. These requirements include,
but are not limited to, any combined
sewer overflow requirements that
conform to the Combined Sewer
Overflow Control Policy.
■ 12. Section 403.8 is amended as
follows:
■ a. By revising paragraphs (f)(1)(iii),
(f)(1)(v), and the first sentence of
paragraph (f)(1)(vi)(B).

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

b. By revising paragraph (f)(2)(v).
c. By redesignating paragraphs
(f)(2)(vi) and (f)(2)(vii) as paragraphs
(f)(2)(vii) and (f)(2)(viii);
■ d. By adding a new paragraph
(f)(2)(vi).
■ e. By revising newly designated
paragraphs (f)(2)(viii) introductory text,
(f)(2)(viii)(A), (f)(2)(viii)(B),
(f)(2)(viii)(C), (f)(2)(viii)(F), and
(f)(2)(viii)(H).
■ f. Revising paragraph (f)(6).
■
■

§ 403.8 Pretreatment Program
Requirements: Development and
implementation by POTW.

*

*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Control through Permit, order, or
similar means, the contribution to the
POTW by each Industrial User to ensure
compliance with applicable
Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements. In the case of Industrial
Users identified as significant under
§ 403.3(v), this control shall be achieved
through individual permits or
equivalent individual control
mechanisms issued to each such User
except as follows.
(A)(1) At the discretion of the POTW,
this control may include use of general
control mechanisms if the following
conditions are met. All of the facilities
to be covered must:
(i) Involve the same or substantially
similar types of operations;
(ii) Discharge the same types of
wastes;
(iii) Require the same effluent
limitations;
(iv) Require the same or similar
monitoring; and
(v) In the opinion of the POTW, are
more appropriately controlled under a
general control mechanism than under
individual control mechanisms.
(2) To be covered by the general
control mechanism, the Significant
Industrial User must file a written
request for coverage that identifies its
contact information, production
processes, the types of wastes generated,
the location for monitoring all wastes
covered by the general control
mechanism, any requests in accordance
with § 403.12(e)(2) for a monitoring
waiver for a pollutant neither present
nor expected to be present in the
Discharge, and any other information
the POTW deems appropriate. A
monitoring waiver for a pollutant
neither present nor expected to be
present in the Discharge is not effective
in the general control mechanism until
after the POTW has provided written
notice to the Significant Industrial User
that such a waiver request has been

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

ER14OC05.000

pollutants such as pH, temperature,
radiation, or other pollutants which
cannot appropriately be expressed as
mass.
(6) The Control Authority may
convert the mass limits of the
categorical Pretreatment Standards at 40
CFR parts 414, 419, and 455 to
concentration limits for purposes of
calculating limitations applicable to
individual Industrial Users under the
following conditions. When converting
such limits to concentration limits, the
Control Authority must use the
concentrations listed in the applicable
subparts of 40 CFR parts 414, 419, and
455 and document that dilution is not
being substituted for treatment as
prohibited by paragraph (d) of this
section.
(7) Equivalent limitations calculated
in accordance with paragraphs (c)(3),
(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) of this section are
deemed Pretreatment Standards for the
purposes of section 307(d) of the Act
and this part. The Control Authority
must document how the equivalent
limits were derived and make this
information publicly available. Once
incorporated into its control
mechanism, the Industrial User must
comply with the equivalent limitations
in lieu of the promulgated categorical
standards from which the equivalent
limitations were derived.
(8) Many categorical Pretreatment
Standards specify one limit for
calculating maximum daily discharge
limitations and a second limit for
calculating maximum monthly average,
or 4-day average, limitations. Where
such Standards are being applied, the
same production or flow figure shall be
used in calculating both the average and
the maximum equivalent limitation.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Dilution prohibited as substitute
for treatment. Except where expressly
authorized to do so by an applicable
Pretreatment Standard or Requirement,
no Industrial User shall ever increase
the use of process water, or in any other
way attempt to dilute a Discharge as a
partial or complete substitute for
adequate treatment to achieve
compliance with a Pretreatment
Standard or Requirement. The Control
Authority may impose mass limitations
on Industrial Users which are using
dilution to meet applicable Pretreatment
Standards or Requirements, or in other
cases where the imposition of mass
limitations is appropriate.
(e) Combined wastestream formula.
Where process effluent is mixed prior to
treatment with wastewaters other than
those generated by the regulated
process, fixed alternative discharge

60193

60194

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

granted in accordance with
§ 403.12(e)(2). The POTW must retain a
copy of the general control mechanism,
documentation to support the POTW’s
determination that a specific Significant
Industrial User meets the criteria in
paragraphs (f)(1)(iii)(A)(1) through (5) of
this section, and a copy of the User’s
written request for coverage for 3 years
after the expiration of the general
control mechanism. A POTW may not
control a Significant Industrial User
through a general control mechanism
where the facility is subject to
production-based categorical
Pretreatment Standards or categorical
Pretreatment Standards expressed as
mass of pollutant discharged per day or
for Industrial Users whose limits are
based on the Combined Wastestream
Formula or Net/Gross calculations
(§§ 403.6(e) and 403.15).
(B) Both individual and general
control mechanisms must be
enforceable and contain, at a minimum,
the following conditions:
(1) Statement of duration (in no case
more than five years);
(2) Statement of non-transferability
without, at a minimum, prior
notification to the POTW and provision
of a copy of the existing control
mechanism to the new owner or
operator;
(3) Effluent limits, including Best
Management Practices, based on
applicable general Pretreatment
Standards in part 403 of this chapter,
categorical Pretreatment Standards,
local limits, and State and local law;
(4) Self-monitoring, sampling,
reporting, notification and
recordkeeping requirements, including
an identification of the pollutants to be
monitored (including the process for
seeking a waiver for a pollutant neither
present nor expected to be present in
the Discharge in accordance with
§ 403.12(e)(2), or a specific waived
pollutant in the case of an individual
control mechanism), sampling location,
sampling frequency, and sample type,
based on the applicable general
Pretreatment Standards in part 403 of
this chapter, categorical Pretreatment
Standards, local limits, and State and
local law;
(5) Statement of applicable civil and
criminal penalties for violation of
Pretreatment Standards and
requirements, and any applicable
compliance schedule. Such schedules
may not extend the compliance date
beyond applicable federal deadlines;
(6) Requirements to control Slug
Discharges, if determined by the POTW
to be necessary.
*
*
*
*
*

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

(v) Carry out all inspection,
surveillance and monitoring procedures
necessary to determine, independent of
information supplied by Industrial
Users, compliance or noncompliance
with applicable Pretreatment Standards
and Requirements by Industrial Users.
Representatives of the POTW shall be
authorized to enter any premises of any
Industrial User in which a Discharge
source or treatment system is located or
in which records are required to be kept
under § 403.12(o) to assure compliance
with Pretreatment Standards. Such
authority shall be at least as extensive
as the authority provided under section
308 of the Act;
(vi) * * *
(B) Pretreatment requirements which
will be enforced through the remedies
set forth in paragraph (f)(1)(vi)(A) of this
section, will include but not be limited
to, the duty to allow or carry out
inspections, entry, or monitoring
activities; any rules, regulations, or
orders issued by the POTW; any
requirements set forth in control
mechanisms issued by the POTW; or
any reporting requirements imposed by
the POTW or these regulations in this
part. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(v) 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
Pretreatment Standards. Inspect and
sample the effluent from each
Significant Industrial User at least once
a year, except as otherwise specified
below:
(A) Where the POTW has authorized
the Industrial User subject to a
categorical Pretreatment Standard to
forego sampling of a pollutant regulated
by a categorical Pretreatment Standard
in accordance with § 403.12(e)(3), the
POTW must sample for the waived
pollutant(s) at least once during the
term of the Categorical Industrial User’s
control mechanism. In the event that the
POTW subsequently determines that a
waived pollutant is present or is
expected to be present in the Industrial
User’s wastewater based on changes that
occur in the User’s operations, the
POTW must immediately begin at least
annual effluent monitoring of the User’s
Discharge and inspection.
(B) Where the POTW has determined
that an Industrial User meets the criteria
for classification as a Non-Significant
Categorical Industrial User, the POTW
must evaluate, at least once per year,
whether an Industrial User continues to
meet the criteria in § 403.3(v)(2).

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(C) In the case of Industrial Users
subject to reduced reporting
requirements under § 403.12(e)(3), the
POTW must randomly sample and
analyze the effluent from Industrial
Users and conduct inspections at least
once every two years. If the Industrial
User no longer meets the conditions for
reduced reporting in § 403.12(e)(3), the
POTW must immediately begin
sampling and inspecting the Industrial
User at least once a year.
(vi) Evaluate whether each such
Significant Industrial User needs a plan
or other action to control Slug
Discharges. For Industrial Users
identified as significant prior to
November 14, 2005, this evaluation
must have been conducted at least once
by October 14, 2006; additional
Significant Industrial Users must be
evaluated within 1 year of being
designated a Significant Industrial User.
For purposes of this subsection, a Slug
Discharge is any Discharge of a nonroutine, episodic nature, including but
not limited to an accidental spill or a
non-customary batch Discharge, which
has a reasonable potential to cause
Interference or Pass Through, or in any
other way violate the POTW’s
regulations, local limits or Permit
conditions. The results of such activities
shall be available to the Approval
Authority upon request. Significant
Industrial Users are required to notify
the POTW immediately of any changes
at its facility affecting potential for a
Slug Discharge. If the POTW decides
that a slug control plan is needed, the
plan shall contain, at a minimum, the
following elements:
(A) Description of discharge practices,
including non-routine batch Discharges;
(B) Description of stored chemicals;
(C) Procedures for immediately
notifying the POTW of Slug Discharges,
including any Discharge that would
violate a prohibition under § 403.5(b)
with procedures for follow-up written
notification within five days;
(D) If necessary, procedures to prevent
adverse impact from accidental spills,
including inspection and maintenance
of storage areas, handling and transfer of
materials, loading and unloading
operations, control of plant site run-off,
worker training, building of
containment structures or equipment,
measures for containing toxic organic
pollutants (including solvents), and/or
measures and equipment for emergency
response;
*
*
*
*
*
(viii) Comply with the public
participation requirements of 40 CFR
part 25 in the enforcement of National
Pretreatment Standards. These

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
procedures shall include provision for
at least annual public notification in a
newspaper(s) of general circulation that
provides meaningful public notice
within the jurisdiction(s) served by the
POTW of Industrial Users which, at any
time during the previous 12 months,
were in significant noncompliance with
applicable Pretreatment requirements.
For the purposes of this provision, a
Significant Industrial User (or any
Industrial User which violates
paragraphs (f)(2)(viii)(C), (D), or (H) of
this section) is in significant
noncompliance if its violation meets
one or more of the following criteria:
(A) Chronic violations of wastewater
Discharge limits, defined here as those
in which 66 percent or more of all of the
measurements taken for the same
pollutant parameter during a 6-month
period exceed (by any magnitude) a
numeric Pretreatment Standard or
Requirement, including instantaneous
limits, as defined by 40 CFR 403.3(l);
(B) Technical Review Criteria (TRC)
violations, defined here as those in
which 33 percent or more of all of the
measurements taken for the same
pollutant parameter during a 6-month
period equal or exceed the product of
the numeric Pretreatment Standard or
Requirement including instantaneous
limits, as defined by 40 CFR 403.3(l)
multiplied by the applicable TRC
(TRC=1.4 for BOD, TSS, fats, oil, and
grease, and 1.2 for all other pollutants
except pH);
(C) Any other violation of a
Pretreatment Standard or Requirement
as defined by 40 CFR 403.3(l) (daily
maximum, long-term average,
instantaneous limit, or narrative
Standard) that the POTW determines
has caused, alone or in combination
with other Discharges, Interference or
Pass Through (including endangering
the health of POTW personnel or the
general public);
*
*
*
*
*
(F) Failure to provide, within 45 days
after the due date, required reports such
as baseline monitoring reports, 90-day
compliance reports, periodic selfmonitoring reports, and reports on
compliance with compliance schedules;
*
*
*
*
*
(H) Any other violation or group of
violations, which may include a
violation of Best Management Practices,
which the POTW determines will
adversely affect the operation or
implementation of the local
Pretreatment program.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) The POTW shall prepare and
maintain a list of its Industrial Users
meeting the criteria in § 403.3(v)(1). The

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

list shall identify the criteria in
§ 403.3(v)(1) applicable to each
Industrial User and, where applicable,
shall also indicate whether the POTW
has made a determination pursuant to
§ 403.3(v)(2) that such Industrial User
should not be considered a Significant
Industrial User. The initial list shall be
submitted to the Approval Authority
pursuant to § 403.9 or as a nonsubstantial modification pursuant to
§ 403.18(d). Modifications to the list
shall be submitted to the Approval
Authority pursuant to § 403.12(i)(1).
■ 13. Section 403.12 is amended as
follows:
■ a. By removing and reserving
paragraph (a).
■ b. By revising paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) and
(b)(5)(ii).
■ c. By removing paragraph (b)(5)(iii).
■ d. By redesignating paragraphs
(b)(5)(iv) through (b)(5)(viii) as
paragraphs (b)(5)(iii) through (b)(5)(vii).
■ e. By revising paragraph (b)(6).
■ f. By revising paragraph (e)(1).
■ g. By redesignating paragraphs (e)(2)
and (e)(3) as paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4).
■ h. By adding a new paragraph (e)(2).
■ i. Revising newly designated
paragraph (e)(3).
■ j. Revising paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2) and
(g)(3).
■ k. By redesignating paragraphs (g)(4)
and (g)(5) as paragraphs (g)(5) and (g)(6).
■ l. By revising newly designated
paragraph (g)(6).
■ m. By adding paragraph (g)(4).
■ n. By revising paragraph (h).
■ o. By revising paragraph (i)(1).
■ p. By revising paragraph (j).
■ q. By revising paragraph (k)(2).
■ r. By revising paragraphs (l)
introductory text, (1)(1) introductory
text, (l)(1)(ii), (l)(2), (m), (o)(1)
introductory text, and the first sentence
of paragraph (o)(2).
■ s. By adding paragraph (q).
§ 403.12 Reporting requirements for
POTWs and Industrial Users.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) Other streams as necessary to
allow use of the combined wastestream
formula of § 403.6(e). (See paragraph
(b)(5)(iv) of this section.)
*
*
*
*
*
(5) * * *
(ii) In addition, the User shall submit
the results of sampling and analysis
identifying the nature and concentration
(or mass, where required by the
Standard or Control Authority) of
regulated pollutants in the Discharge
from each regulated process. Both daily
maximum and average concentration (or
mass, where required) shall be reported.

PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60195

The sample shall be representative of
daily operations. In cases where the
Standard requires compliance with a
Best Management Practice or pollution
prevention alternative, the User shall
submit documentation as required by
the Control Authority or the applicable
Standards to determine compliance
with the Standard;
*
*
*
*
*
(6) Certification. A statement,
reviewed by an authorized
representative of the Industrial User (as
defined in paragraph (l) of this section)
and certified to by a qualified
professional, indicating whether
Pretreatment Standards are being met on
a consistent basis, and, if not, whether
additional operation and maintenance
(O and M) and/or additional
Pretreatment is required for the
Industrial User to meet the Pretreatment
Standards and Requirements; and
(e) * * *
(1) Any Industrial User subject to a
categorical Pretreatment Standard
(except a Non-Significant Categorical
User as defined in § 403.3(v)(2)), after
the compliance date of such
Pretreatment Standard, or, in the case of
a New Source, after commencement of
the discharge into the POTW, shall
submit to the Control Authority during
the months of June and December,
unless required more frequently in the
Pretreatment Standard or by the Control
Authority or the Approval Authority, a
report indicating the nature and
concentration of pollutants in the
effluent which are limited by such
categorical Pretreatment Standards. In
addition, this report shall include a
record of measured or estimated average
and maximum daily flows for the
reporting period for the Discharge
reported in paragraph (b)(4) of this
section except that the Control
Authority may require more detailed
reporting of flows. In cases where the
Pretreatment Standard requires
compliance with a Best Management
Practice (or pollution prevention
alternative), the User shall submit
documentation required by the Control
Authority or the Pretreatment Standard
necessary to determine the compliance
status of the User. At the discretion of
the Control Authority and in
consideration of such factors as local
high or low flow rates, holidays, budget
cycles, etc., the Control Authority may
modify the months during which the
above reports are to be submitted.
(2) The Control Authority may
authorize the Industrial User subject to
a categorical Pretreatment Standard to
forego sampling of a pollutant regulated
by a categorical Pretreatment Standard if

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60196

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

the Industrial User has demonstrated
through sampling and other technical
factors that the pollutant is neither
present nor expected to be present in
the Discharge, or is present only at
background levels from intake water
and without any increase in the
pollutant due to activities of the
Industrial User. This authorization is
subject to the following conditions:
(i) The Control Authority may
authorize a waiver where a pollutant is
determined to be present solely due to
sanitary wastewater discharged from the
facility provided that the sanitary
wastewater is not regulated by an
applicable categorical Standard and
otherwise includes no process
wastewater.
(ii) The monitoring waiver is valid
only for the duration of the effective
period of the Permit or other equivalent
individual control mechanism, but in no
case longer than 5 years. The User must
submit a new request for the waiver
before the waiver can be granted for
each subsequent control mechanism.
(iii) In making a demonstration that a
pollutant is not present, the Industrial
User must provide data from at least one
sampling of the facility’s process
wastewater prior to any treatment
present at the facility that is
representative of all wastewater from all
processes.
The request for a monitoring waiver
must be signed in accordance with
paragraph (l) of this section and include
the certification statement in
§ 403.6(a)(2)(ii). Non-detectable sample
results may only be used as a
demonstration that a pollutant is not
present if the EPA approved method
from 40 CFR part 136 with the lowest
minimum detection level for that
pollutant was used in the analysis.
(iv) Any grant of the monitoring
waiver by the Control Authority must be
included as a condition in the User’s
control mechanism. The reasons
supporting the waiver and any
information submitted by the User in its
request for the waiver must be
maintained by the Control Authority for
3 years after expiration of the waiver.
(v) Upon approval of the monitoring
waiver and revision of the User’s control
mechanism by the Control Authority,
the Industrial User must certify on each
report with the statement below, that
there has been no increase in the
pollutant in its wastestream due to
activities of the Industrial User:
Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons directly responsible for managing
compliance with the Pretreatment Standard
for 40 CFR _______ [specify applicable
National Pretreatment Standard part(s)], I
certify that, to the best of my knowledge and

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

belief, there has been no increase in the level
of ______ [list pollutant(s)] in the wastewaters
due to the activities at the facility since filing
of the last periodic report under 40 CFR
403.12(e)(1).

(vi) In the event that a waived
pollutant is found to be present or is
expected to be present based on changes
that occur in the User’s operations, the
User must immediately: Comply with
the monitoring requirements of
paragraph (e)(1) of this section or other
more frequent monitoring requirements
imposed by the Control Authority; and
notify the Control Authority.
(vii) This provision does not
supersede certification processes and
requirements established in categorical
Pretreatment Standards, except as
otherwise specified in the categorical
Pretreatment Standard.
(3) The Control Authority may reduce
the requirement in paragraph (e)(1) of
this section to a requirement to report
no less frequently than once a year,
unless required more frequently in the
Pretreatment Standard or by the
Approval Authority, where the
Industrial User meets all of the
following conditions:
(i) The Industrial User’s total
categorical wastewater flow does not
exceed any of the following:
(A) 0.01 percent of the design dry
weather hydraulic capacity of the
POTW, or 5,000 gallons per day,
whichever is smaller, as measured by a
continuous effluent flow monitoring
device unless the Industrial User
discharges in batches;
(B) 0.01 percent of the design dry
weather organic treatment capacity of
the POTW; and
(C) 0.01 percent of the maximum
allowable headworks loading for any
pollutant regulated by the applicable
categorical Pretreatment Standard for
which approved local limits were
developed by a POTW in accordance
with § 403.5(c) and paragraph (d) of this
section;
(ii) The Industrial User has not been
in significant noncompliance, as
defined in § 403.8(f)(2)(viii), for any
time in the past two years;
(iii) The Industrial User does not have
daily flow rates, production levels, or
pollutant levels that vary so
significantly that decreasing the
reporting requirement for this Industrial
User would result in data that are not
representative of conditions occurring
during the reporting period pursuant to
paragraph (g)(3) of this section;
(iv) The Industrial User must notify
the Control Authority immediately of
any changes at its facility causing it to
no longer meet conditions of paragraphs
(e)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section. Upon

PO 00000

Frm 00064

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

notification, the Industrial User must
immediately begin complying with the
minimum reporting in paragraph (e)(1)
of this section; and
(v) The Control Authority must retain
documentation to support the Control
Authority’s determination that a specific
Industrial User qualifies for reduced
reporting requirements under paragraph
(e)(3) of this section for a period of 3
years after the expiration of the term of
the control mechanism.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(1) Except in the case of NonSignificant Categorical Users, the
reports required in paragraphs (b), (d),
(e), and (h) of this section shall contain
the results of sampling and analysis of
the Discharge, including the flow and
the nature and concentration, or
production and mass where requested
by the Control Authority, of pollutants
contained therein which are limited by
the applicable Pretreatment Standards.
This sampling and analysis may be
performed by the Control Authority in
lieu of the Industrial User. Where the
POTW performs the required sampling
and analysis in lieu of the Industrial
User, the User will not be required to
submit the compliance certification
required under paragraphs (b)(6) and (d)
of this section. In addition, where the
POTW itself collects all the information
required for the report, including flow
data, the Industrial User will not be
required to submit the report.
(2) If sampling performed by an
Industrial User indicates a violation, the
User shall notify the Control Authority
within 24 hours of becoming aware of
the violation. The User shall also repeat
the sampling and analysis and submit
the results of the repeat analysis to the
Control Authority within 30 days after
becoming aware of the violation. Where
the Control Authority has performed the
sampling and analysis in lieu of the
Industrial User, the Control Authority
must perform the repeat sampling and
analysis unless it notifies the User of the
violation and requires the User to
perform the repeat analysis. Resampling
is not required if:
(i) The Control Authority performs
sampling at the Industrial User at a
frequency of at least once per month; or
(ii) The Control Authority performs
sampling at the User between the time
when the initial sampling was
conducted and the time when the User
or the Control Authority receives the
results of this sampling.
(3) The reports required in paragraphs
(b), (d), (e) and (h) of this section must
be based upon data obtained through
appropriate sampling and analysis

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
performed during the period covered by
the report, which data are representative
of conditions occurring during the
reporting period. The Control Authority
shall require that frequency of
monitoring necessary to assess and
assure compliance by Industrial Users
with applicable Pretreatment Standards
and Requirements. Grab samples must
be used for pH, cyanide, total phenols,
oil and grease, sulfide, and volatile
organic compounds. For all other
pollutants, 24-hour composite samples
must be obtained through flowproportional composite sampling
techniques, unless time-proportional
composite sampling or grab sampling is
authorized by the Control Authority.
Where time-proportional composite
sampling or grab sampling is authorized
by the Control Authority, the samples
must be representative of the Discharge
and the decision to allow the alternative
sampling must be documented in the
Industrial User file for that facility or
facilities. Using protocols (including
appropriate preservation) specified in
40 CFR part 136 and appropriate EPA
guidance, multiple grab samples
collected during a 24-hour period may
be composited prior to the analysis as
follows: For cyanide, total phenols, and
sulfides the samples may be composited
in the laboratory or in the field; for
volatile organics and oil & grease the
samples may be composited in the
laboratory. Composite samples for other
parameters unaffected by the
compositing procedures as documented
in approved EPA methodologies may be
authorized by the Control Authority, as
appropriate.
(4) For sampling required in support
of baseline monitoring and 90-day
compliance reports required in
paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section, a
minimum of four (4) grab samples must
be used for pH, cyanide, total phenols,
oil and grease, sulfide and volatile
organic compounds for facilities for
which historical sampling data do not
exist; for facilities for which historical
sampling data are available, the Control
Authority may authorize a lower
minimum. For the reports required by
paragraphs (e) and (h) of this section,
the Control Authority shall require the
number of grab samples necessary to
assess and assure compliance by
Industrial Users with Applicable
Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) If an Industrial User subject to the
reporting requirement in paragraph (e)
or (h) of this section monitors any
regulated pollutant at the appropriate
sampling location more frequently than

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

required by the Control Authority, using
the procedures prescribed in paragraph
(g)(5) of this section, the results of this
monitoring shall be included in the
report.
(h) Reporting requirements for
Industrial Users not subject to
categorical Pretreatment Standards. The
Control Authority must require
appropriate reporting from those
Industrial Users with Discharges that are
not subject to categorical Pretreatment
Standards. Significant Non-categorical
Industrial Users must submit to the
Control Authority at least once every six
months (on dates specified by the
Control Authority) a description of the
nature, concentration, and flow of the
pollutants required to be reported by the
Control Authority. In cases where a
local limit requires compliance with a
Best Management Practice or pollution
prevention alternative, the User must
submit documentation required by the
Control Authority to determine the
compliance status of the User. These
reports must be based on sampling and
analysis performed in the period
covered by the report, and in
accordance with the techniques
described in part 136 and amendments
thereto. This sampling and analysis may
be performed by the Control Authority
in lieu of the significant non-categorical
Industrial User.
(i) * * *
(1) An updated list of the POTW’s
Industrial Users, including their names
and addresses, or a list of deletions and
additions keyed to a previously
submitted list. The POTW shall provide
a brief explanation of each deletion.
This list shall identify which Industrial
Users are subject to categorical
Pretreatment Standards and specify
which Standards are applicable to each
Industrial User. The list shall indicate
which Industrial Users are subject to
local standards that are more stringent
than the categorical Pretreatment
Standards. The POTW shall also list the
Industrial Users that are subject only to
local Requirements. The list must also
identify Industrial Users subject to
categorical Pretreatment Standards that
are subject to reduced reporting
requirements under paragraph (e)(3),
and identify which Industrial Users are
Non-Significant Categorical Industrial
Users.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) Notification of changed Discharge.
All Industrial Users shall promptly
notify the Control Authority (and the
POTW if the POTW is not the Control
Authority) in advance of any substantial
change in the volume or character of
pollutants in their Discharge, including

PO 00000

Frm 00065

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

60197

the listed or characteristic hazardous
wastes for which the Industrial User has
submitted initial notification under
paragraph (p) of this section.
(k) * * *
(2) No increment referred to in
paragraph (k)(1) of this section shall
exceed nine months;
*
*
*
*
*
(l) Signatory requirements for
Industrial User reports. The reports
required by paragraphs (b), (d), and (e)
of this section shall include the
certification statement as set forth in
§ 403.6(a)(2)(ii), and shall be signed as
follows:
(1) By a responsible corporate officer,
if the Industrial User submitting the
reports required by paragraphs (b), (d),
and (e) of this section is a corporation.
For the purpose of this paragraph, a
responsible corporate officer means:
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) The manager of one or more
manufacturing, production, or operating
facilities, provided, the manager is
authorized to make management
decisions which govern the operation of
the regulated facility including having
the explicit or implicit duty of making
major capital investment
recommendations, and initiate and
direct other comprehensive measures to
assure long-term environmental
compliance with environmental laws
and regulations; can ensure that the
necessary systems are established or
actions taken to gather complete and
accurate information for control
mechanism requirements; and where
authority to sign documents has been
assigned or delegated to the manager in
accordance with corporate procedures.
(2) By a general partner or proprietor
if the Industrial User submitting the
reports required by paragraphs (b), (d),
and (e) of this section is a partnership,
or sole proprietorship respectively.
*
*
*
*
*
(m) Signatory requirements for POTW
reports. Reports submitted to the
Approval Authority by the POTW in
accordance with paragraph (i) of this
section must be signed by a principal
executive officer, ranking elected
official or other duly authorized
employee. The duly authorized
employee must be an individual or
position having responsibility for the
overall operation of the facility or the
Pretreatment Program. This
authorization must be made in writing
by the principal executive officer or
ranking elected official, and submitted
to the Approval Authority prior to or
together with the report being
submitted.
*
*
*
*
*

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2

60198

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

(o) * * *
(1) Any Industrial User and POTW
subject to the reporting requirements
established in this section shall
maintain records of all information
resulting from any monitoring activities
required by this section, including
documentation associated with Best
Management Practices. Such records
shall include for all samples:
*
*
*
*
*
(2) Any Industrial User or POTW
subject to the reporting requirements
established in this section (including
documentation associated with Best
Management Practices) shall be required
to retain for a minimum of 3 years any
records of monitoring activities and
results (whether or not such monitoring
activities are required by this section)
and shall make such records available
for inspection and copying by the
Director and the Regional Administrator
(and POTW in the case of an Industrial
User). * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(q) Annual certification by NonSignificant Categorical Industrial Users.
A facility determined to be a NonSignificant Categorical Industrial User
pursuant to § 403.3(v)(2) must annually
submit the following certification
statement, signed in accordance with
the signatory requirements in paragraph
(l) of this section. This certification
must accompany any alternative report
required by the Control Authority:

§ 403.13 Variances from categorical
pretreatment standards for fundamentally
different factors.

*

*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(3) Where the User has requested a
categorical determination pursuant to
§ 403.6(a), the User may elect to await
the results of the category determination
before submitting a variance request
under this section. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
■ 15. Section 403.15 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 403.15

Net/gross calculation.

(a) Application. Categorical
Pretreatment Standards may be adjusted
to reflect the presence of pollutants in
the Industrial User’s intake water in
accordance with this section. Any
Industrial User wishing to obtain credit
for intake pollutants must make
application to the Control Authority.
Upon request of the Industrial User, the
applicable Standard will be calculated
on a ‘‘net’’ basis (i.e., adjusted to reflect
credit for pollutants in the intake water)
if the requirements of paragraph (b) of
this section are met.
(b) Criteria. (1) Either:
(i) The applicable categorical
Pretreatment Standards contained in 40
CFR subchapter N specifically provide
that they shall be applied on a net basis;
or
(ii) The Industrial User demonstrates
that the control system it proposes or
uses to meet applicable categorical
Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons directly responsible for managing
Pretreatment Standards would, if
compliance with the categorical Pretreatment properly installed and operated, meet
Standards under 40 CFR llll, I certify
the Standards in the absence of
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief
pollutants in the intake waters.
that during the period from llllllll
(2) Credit for generic pollutants such
llll, to llllllll, llll
as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
[month, days, year]:
total suspended solids (TSS), and oil
(a) The facility described as
and grease should not be granted unless
llllllll [facility name] met the
the Industrial User demonstrates that
definition of a non-significant categorical
Industrial User as described in § 403.3(v)(2);
the constituents of the generic measure
(b) the facility complied with all applicable
in the User’s effluent are substantially
Pretreatment Standards and requirements
similar to the constituents of the generic
during this reporting period; and (c) the
measure in the intake water or unless
facility never discharged more than 100
gallons of total categorical wastewater on any appropriate additional limits are placed
on process water pollutants either at the
given day during this reporting period. This
outfall or elsewhere.
compliance certification is based upon the
(3) Credit shall be granted only to the
following information:
lllllllllllllllllllll extent necessary to meet the applicable
lllllllllllllllllllll categorical Pretreatment Standard(s), up
to a maximum value equal to the
■ 14. Section 403.13 is amended by
influent value. Additional monitoring
revising the first sentence of paragraph
may be necessary to determine
(g)(3) to read as follows:

VerDate Aug<31>2005

11:22 Oct 13, 2005

Jkt 208001

PO 00000

Frm 00066

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

eligibility for credits and compliance
with Standard(s) adjusted under this
section.
(4) Credit shall be granted only if the
User demonstrates that the intake water
is drawn from the same body of water
as that into which the POTW
discharges. The Control Authority may
waive this requirement if it finds that no
environmental degradation will result.
Appendix A to Part 403 [Removed and
Reserved]
16. Appendix A to part 403 is
removed and reserved.
■ 17. Appendix G to part 403 is
amended as by revising Footnote 1 to
Table I to read as follows:
■

Appendix G to Part 403—Pollutants
Eligible for a Removal Credit
I. Regulated Pollutants in Part 503 Eligible for
a Removal Credit

*

*

*

*

*

1 The following organic pollutants are
eligible for a removal credit if the
requirements for total hydrocarbons (or
carbon monoxide) in subpart E in 40 CFR
Part 503 are met when sewage sludge is fired
in a sewage sludge incinerator: Acrylonitrile,
ldrin/Dieldrin(total), Benzene, Benzidine,
Benzo(a)pyrene, Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether,
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
Bromodichloromethane, Bromoethane,
Bromoform, Carbon tetrachloride, Chlordane,
Chloroform, Chloromethane, DDD, DDE,
DDT, Dibromochloromethane, Dibutyl
phthalate, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1dichloroethylene, 2,4-dichlorophenol, 1,3dichloropropene, Diethyl phthalate, 2,4dinitrophenol, 1,2-diphenylhydrazine, Dinbutyl phthalate, Endosulfan, Endrin,
Ethylbenzene, Heptachlor, Heptachlor
epoxide, Hexachlorobutadiene,
Alphahexachlorocyclohexane, Betahexachlorocyclohexane,
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene,
Hexachloroethane, Hydrogen cyanide,
Isophorone, Lindane, Methylene chloride,
Nitrobenzene, N-Nitrosodimethylamine, NNitrosodi-n-propylamine,
Pentachlorophenol, Phenol, Polychlorinated
biphenyls, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxin, 1,1,2,2,-tetrachloroethane,
Tetrachloroethylene, Toluene, Toxaphene,
Trichloroethylene, 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene,
1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-Trichloroethane,
and 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol.

*

*

*

*

*

[FR Doc. 05–20001 Filed 10–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

E:\FR\FM\14OCR2.SGM

14OCR2