Pretreatment Streamlining Rule

1
Pretreatment Streamlining Rule

• Overview of Changes to the Federal Pretreatment
  Regulations
  

2
Objectives of Briefing

• Provide history and background of the Rule
• Review all changes adopted in the final rule

3
History of Streamlining Rule

• 1995 Office of Wastewater Management (OWM)
  initiates evaluation streamlining opportunities
  in Part 403 regulations
  
• May 1996 OWM circulates issue papers to
  stakeholders for feedback
  
• September 1996 Association of Metropolitan
  Sewerage Agencies (AMSA)/Water Environment
  Federation (WEF) present report summarizing
  multi-stakeholder experts workshops
• July 1999 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
  proposes Streamlining Rule
  
• August 2003 Streamlining Workgroup
  reconstituted
  
• March 2005 Office of Management and Budgets
  (OMB) Thompson Report published
  
• June 2005 EPA formally submits final rule to
  OMB
  
• September 26, 2005 Administrator Johnson signs
  final rule
  
• October 14, 2005 Final Streamlining Rule
  Published in the Federal Register

4
Key Stakeholders

• National Association of Clean Water Agencies,
  Water Environment Federation and Other POTWs
  
• Industrial Users
• Metal Finishers
• Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Assoc.
  (SOCMA)
  
• Food Industry
• Auto/Shipbuilding/Leather Tanning
• Small Business Administration
• Approval Authorities (Regions/States)
• Natural Resources Defense Council

5
Glossary of PT Terms

• Pretreatment-the reduction of the amount of
  pollutants, the elimination of pollutants, or the
  alteration of the nature of pollutant properties
  in wastewater prior to or in lieu of discharging
  into a POTW.
• POTW-Publicly Owned Treatment Works, includes any
  devices and systems used in the storage,
  treatment, recycling, and reclamation of
  municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid
  nature.
• Approval Authority the Director in an NPDES
  State with an Approved Program and the
  appropriate Regional Administrator in a non-NPDES
  State or NPDES State without an approved State
  pretreatment program.
• Control Authority- The POTW, if there is an
  approved pretreatment program or the Approval
  Authority if there is not an approved
  pretreatment program. Also referred to as a CA.
• BMP-Best Management Practices
• SIU- All industrial users subject to Categorical
  Pretreatment Standards, and any other industrial
  user that discharges an average of 25,000 gallons
  per day or more of process wastewater to the POTW
  (excluding sanitary, non-contact cooling, and
  boiler blow-down wastewater) contributes a
  process wastestream which makes up to 5 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 the industrial user has the reasonable
  potential for adversely affecting the POTWs
  operation or for violating any pretreatment
  standard.
• CIU- Categorical Industrial User- All industrial
  users subject to Categorical Pretreatment
  Standards
  
• Pass-Through- a discharge that exits the POTW
  into the waters of the United States in
  quantities or concentrations which, alone or
  inconjunction with a discharge or discharges from
  other sources, is a cause of a violation of any
  requirement of the POTWs NPDES permit.
• Interference- a discharge which, alone or in
  conjunction with a discharge or discharges from
  other sources, both inhibits or disrupts the
  POTW, its treatment processes or operations, or
  its sludge processes, use or disposal.

6
Glossary of PT Terms (contd)

• SNC Significant Non-Compliance-An Industrial
  User is in SNC, if one or more of the following
  occur
  
• a.) Chronic violations of wastewater discharge
  limits, defined here as those in which 66 or
  more of the measurements taken within a six month
  period exceed (by any magnitude) the daily
  maximum limit or the average limit for the same
  pollutant
• b.) Technical Review Criteria (TRC) violations,
  defined here as those in which 33 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
  (TRC1.4 for BOD, TSS, OG, and 1.2 for all
  other pollutants except pH.)
• c.) Any other violation of a pretreatment
  effluent limit (daily maximum or longer-term
  average) that the Control Authority determines
  has caused, alone or in combination with other
  discharges, interference or pass-through.
• d.) Any discharge of a pollutant that has caused
  imminent endangerment to human health, welfare,
  or to the environment.
  
• e.) Failure to meet within 90 days of after the
  schedule date, a compliance schedule milestone
  contained in a local control mechanism or
  enforcement order for starting construction,
  completing construction, or attaining final
  compliance.
• f.) Failure to provide, with in 45 days after
  the due date, required reports such as baseline
  monitoring reports, 90 day compliance reports,
  and reports on compliance with compliance
  schedules.
• g.) Failure to accurately report noncompliance
  
  
• h.) Any other violation or group of violations
  which the Control Authority determines will
  adversely affect the operation or implementation
  of the local pretreatment program.
• Control Mechanism-permit issued to SIU/CIU by CA
  if approved pretreatment program or by AA if not.

7
Summary of Final Rule Changes
8
Summary of Final Rule Changes (contd)
9
Summary of Final Rule Changes (contd)
10
Pollutants Not Present

• Current Rules
• CIUs must sample for all pollutants covered by
  the categorical standard, regardless of whether
  pollutant is present (unless the categorical
  standard allows for surrogate pollutant sampling
  or alternative certifications)
• Proposed Rule
• If CIU can demonstrate a pollutant is not present
  in its process waste stream or is present only in
  background levels in intake water, the CA may
  authorize a sampling waiver for that pollutant
• Must still comply with categorical standards
• OCPSF (Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic
  Fibers) facilities not eligible
  

11
Pollutants Not Present

• Final Rule
• Adopted proposed rule, with the following
  modifications
  
• OCPSF facilities are eligible for waiver
• At least one representative process wastewater
  sample must be taken prior to treatment
  
• CIU must notify CA if pollutant found, and must
  immediately resume monitoring
  
• CA must
• include waiver and notification requirement in
  control mechanism,
  
• document reasons for granting waiver and maintain
  information for 3 years after control mechanism
  expires
  
• Waiver valid for one term of control mechanism
  (like NPDES provision)
  
• Waiver does not replace any certification
  requirements established in specific categorical
  standards
  

12
Pollutants Not Present

• Where to find rule changes?
• 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v)
• 40 CFR 403.12(e)(2)

13
General Control Mechanisms

• Current Rules
• SIUs must be controlled through permits or
  equivalent mechanisms
  
• EPA has emphasized the importance of evaluating
  each SIU individually
  
• Proposed Rule
• Allow POTWs to control SIUs through general
  permits where the necessary legal authority
  exists and the SIUs meet the criteria for being
  substantially similar
• SIU must file a Notice of Intent or similar
  application device
  
• Coverage by general control mechanism doesnt
  relieve SIU of reporting requirements
  
• Coverage not allowed for SIUs subject to mass
  limits
  
• CA may choose to make coverage optional or
  required

14
General Control Mechanisms

• Final Rule
• Adopted proposed rule, with the following
  modifications
  
• Coverage available for CIUs granted a monitoring
  waiver for pollutants not present
  
• POTW must maintain the following for 3 years
  after expiration of general control mechanism
  
• Copy of the general control mechanism
• Documentation to support POTWs determination
  that the group of SIUs meets the criteria for
  coverage
  
• Copies of all written requests for coverage
• Still exempts SIUs subject to mass limits, but
  allows coverage for facilities subject to the
  same mass-based local limits

15
General Control Mechanisms

• Where to find rule changes?
• 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)

16
BMPs as Local Limits

• Current Rules
• Pretreatment rules are silent on whether POTWs
  can use BMPs (rather than numeric limits) to
  satisfy their requirement to develop local
  limits
• Pretreatment rules do not explicitly require
  reporting compliance data for Industrial Users
  subject to BMPs as local limits or categorical
  standards
• Proposed Rule
• Clarify that
• BMPs developed by POTWs may serve as local
  limits, and
  
• Full CIU reporting required where BMPs required
  for categorical standards

17
BMPs as Local Limits

• Final Rule
• Adopted proposed rule, with the following
  modifications
  
• Specify the necessity for POTWs to document the
  supporting rationale for specific BMPs
  
• Include definition of BMPs
• Clarify in the preamble what EPA considers to be
  minimum elements that make BMPs enforceable
  
• Specific notice to IUs of requirements
• Equipment specifications
• OM requirements
• Timeframes for key activities
• Compliance certification, reporting and
  recordkeeping
  
• Re-opener for revoking or modifying

18
BMPs as Local Limits

• Where to find rule changes?
• 40 CFR 403.5
• 40 CFR 403.8(f)
• 40 CFR 403.12(b), (e), (h)

19
Slug Control Plans

• Current Rules
• Slug discharges are prohibited
• POTWs must evaluate, at least once every two
  years, whether each SIU needs a plan to control
  slug discharges
  
• EPA has historically emphasized that a plan is
  not required
  
• Proposed Rule
• Provide POTWs the flexibility to review the need
  for a slug control plan or other action as
  necessary
  
• Clarifies that plan is not required outcome of
  evaluation
  
• Requirements must be included in control mechanism

20
Slug Control Plans

• Final Rule
• Adopted proposed rule, with the following
  modifications
  
• POTWs must evaluate need for a plan at least one
  time for each SIU, by the following deadline
  
• Within 1 year of the effective date of the rule
  if the IU was identified as significant prior
  to rules effective date
  
• Within 1 year of being designated as
  significant, if the IU is designated as
  significant after the rules effective date
  
• SIUs must immediately notify POTW of any changes
  at their facilities, not already addressed in
  their slug control plan or other slug
  requirements, affecting slug discharge potential
• Clarify annual slug-related inspections should
  continue as per existing guidance

21
Slug Control Plans

• Where to find rule changes?
• 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(6)
• 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vi)

22
Equivalent Concentration Limits

• Current Rules
• No allowance for equivalent concentration limits
  where categorical standard requires a mass limit
  to be calculated based on the facilitys flow
  
• Proposed Rule
• For CIUs subject to OCPSF, Petroleum Refining (Cr
  an Zn), and Pesticide Chemicals allow POTW to use
  concentration limit in categorical standard where
  flow from facility is so variable that use of
  mass limits is impractical

23
Equivalent Concentration Limits

• Final Rule
• Adopted proposed rule, with the following
  modifications
  
• Eliminate condition requiring variable flows
• Require CA to document that dilution is not being
  substituted for treatment as prohibited by 40 CFR
  403.6(d)
  
• Where to find rule changes?
• 40 CFR 403.6(c)(6)

24
Use of Grab/Composite Samples

• Current Rules
• Pretreatment regulations specify
• Type of sampling method for baseline monitoring
  reports and 90-day compliance reports, but not
  for periodic compliance reports
  
• Minimum of 4 grab samples for pH, cyanide, total
  phenols, oil grease, sulfides, and volatile
  organic compounds
  
• Composite samples must be flow-proportional
  unless the Industrial User demonstrates that this
  is infeasible
  

25
Use of Grab/Composite Samples

• Proposed Rule
• Clarify when different types of sampling methods
  may be used
  
• Extend sampling requirements to periodic reports
• Give POTWs flexibility to determine appropriate
  number of grab samples to measure pH, CN, total
  phenols, oil and grease, sulfides and Volatile
  Organic Compounds (VOCs)
• Clarify composite samples for CN and VOCs may be
  done prior to analysis
  
• Remove requirement that flow-composite sampling
  must be infeasible in order to allow
  time-composite sampling (sampling must be
  representative)

26
Use of Grab/Composite Samples

• Proposed Rule (contd)
• Clarify when different types of sampling methods
  may be used
  
• Clarify that although 24-hour composite sample
  must be taken within a 24-hour period, this
  period only covers period during which IU is
  discharging
• Final Rule
• Adopted proposed rule, with minor editorial
  changes
  
• Where to find rule changes?
• 40 CFR 403.12(b), (d), (e), (g), (h)

27
SNC - Publication

• Current Rule
• Pretreatment regulations require SNC violations
  to be published in largest daily newspaper
  
• Proposed Rule
• Allow publication in any paper of general
  circulation within the jurisdiction that provides
  meaningful public notice
  
• Final Rule
• Adopted proposed rule
• Where to find rule changes?
• 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)

28
SNC Application to SIUs Only

• Current Rules
• SNC can apply to any IU
• Proposed Rule
• Apply SNC to Significant Industrial Users only
• Final Rule
• Adopted proposed rule, with the following
  modifications
  
• Apply SNC to other IUs if they cause pass
  through, interference, imminent endangerment, or
  adversely affect pretreatment program
  
• Where to find rule changes?
• 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)

29
SNC Daily Maximum or Avg. Limits

• Current Rule
• SNC determinations for chronic violations,
  technical review criteria violations, and pass
  through or interference violations limited to
  daily maximum or average limits
• Proposed Rule
• Include broader array of numeric or narrative
  violations
  
• Final Rule
• Adopted proposed rule
• Where to find rule changes?
• 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)(A), (B), (C)

30
SNC Late Reports

• Current Rule
• SNC applies if a required report is submitted
  more than 30 days late
  
• Proposed Rule
• No changes were proposed due to the wide variety
  of suggestions
  
• EPA solicited comments on recommended approaches
  
  
• Final Rule
• Extended 30-day deadline to 45 days
• Where to find rule changes?
• 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)(F)

31
SNC Technical Review Criteria

• Current Rules
• TRC are numeric thresholds used to define a
  subcategory of SNC based on the magnitude of an
  effluent violation
  
• TRC violation occurs when 33 percent or more of
  all measurements taken for the same pollutant
  during a 6-month period equal or exceed the
  product of the applicable limit multiplied by the
  TRC
• Proposed Rule
• No changes proposed, but solicited comment on
  workable alternatives to current TRC
  
• Final Rule
• Retained current TRC, with slight wording changes

32
pH

• Current Rules
• IUs prohibited from discharging at pH exception
  
• Proposed Rule
• Allow temporary excursions for discharges with pH
  technical evaluation to support lower pH
  
• Final Rule
• EPA did not take action due to insufficient data
  on relationship between pH and corrosion
  
• Clarified current enforcement flexibility

33
Removal Credits - Overflows

• Current Rule
• POTWs may grant removal credit to a CIU which
  equals or is less than the consistent removal of
  the pollutant provided by the treatment plant
  
• Where annual overflows occur, the amount of
  consistent removal claimed by the POTW is reduced
  by a mathematic formula that takes into account
  the number of hours of overflows in a year
• As a condition of using this overflow formula,
  the POTW must be in compliance with certain
  guidance documents related to combined sewer
  overflows, which are now obsolete
• Proposed Rule
• Delete the current overflow formula
• CIUs that are upstream from overflows are
  ineligible for removal credits unless they can
  establish that their discharges are consistently
  treated

34
Removal Credits - Overflows

• Final Rule
• Retains current overflow formula
• Updates references to obsolete guidance, and
  replaced with requirement for POTWs to be in
  compliance with all NPDES permit requirements and
  other requirements in any orders or decrees
  issued pursuant to the CSO Control Policy
• Makes one technical correction to a footnote in
  Appendix G, Table 1
  
• THC or carbon monoxide concentrations can be used
  to represent organic compounds in exit gas from
  incinerators
  
• Where to find rule changes?
• 40 CFR 403.7(h)

35
Removal Credits Sewage Sludge

• Current Rule
• Removal credits can be granted to a CIU where
• The POTW demonstrates its ability to
  consistently remove the pollutant at issue,
  
• The Pollutant is among those listed in Appendix
  G, Table I or Table II,
  
• If the pollutant isnt listed in Table I or Table
  II, it isnt eligible for removal credits
  
• Potential additions to Appendix G
• EPA has identified 15 pollutants for refined risk
  assessments will be conducted, which could result
  in part 503 amendments
  
• EPA has concluded that an additional 20
  pollutants did not fail the Agencys exposure and
  hazard screening process, and could be considered
  for inclusion in the Appendix G, Table II list if
  upper concentrations are developed

36
Removal Credits Sewage Sludge

• Proposed Rule
• No specific revisions to the Appendix G list or
  the consistent removal provisions proposed
  
• Public comments on the overflow provision
  indicated support changes to the removal credit
  provisions to make them available for a broader
  range of pollutants
• Several public comments highlighted in the Office
  of Management Budgets 2004 Report to Congress
  on costs and benefits of Federal regulations
  supported revisions to the consistent removal
  provisions to more accurately reflect total
  removal by POTWs

37
Removal Credits Sewage Sludge

• Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
• EPA requests comment on options to amend the
  consistent removal provisions to simplify the
  process for obtaining removal credits
  
• EPA requests comment on whether the addition of
  the 20 pollutants to Appendix G, Table II would
  be helpful to POTWs and IUs
  

38
Miscellaneous Provisions

• Signatory Requirements for IU and POTW Reports
  (40 CFR 403.12(l) and (m))
  
• Changes numeric criteria for designating an
  appropriate responsible corporate officer
  signer to more flexible narrative criteria (same
  as adopted by NPDES rules)
• Specifies general POTW or pretreatment personnel
  who can sign as a duly authorized employee
  
• Net / Gross Calculations (40 CFR 403.15)
• Corrects unintended error in net/gross procedures
  which appeared to make the test for using such
  procedures more difficult to meet (mirrors the
  NPDES provision)

39
Miscellaneous Provisions

• Requirement to Report All Monitoring Data (40 CFR
  403.12(g)(6))
  
• Corrects omission from earlier addition of
  reporting requirements (1990) for non-categorical
  SIUs to require such Users to report all
  monitoring data this is a required change to
  approved pretreatment program
• Notification by IUs of Changed Discharge (40 CFR
  403.12(j))
  
• Clarifies that when IU provides notification,
  notice must be given to the CA or to the AA where
  the POTW does not have an approved pretreatment
  program

40
Equivalent Mass Limits

• Current Rules
• 40 CFR 403.6(d) allows CA to impose equivalent
  mass limits in addition to concentration-based
  standards where the IU is using dilution to meet
  standards or where the imposition of mass limits
  is appropriate
• Current rules do not allow the equivalent mass
  limit to replace the concentration-based
  standard
  
• Some POTWs and CIUs argue that use of
  concentration-based standards discourages the
  adoption of water conservation measures
  

41
Equivalent Mass Limits

• Proposed Rule
• Allow POTW to set equivalent mass limits as an
  alternative to concentration limits where CIU
  has
  
• Installed treatment equivalent to model
  technology,
  
• Is employing water conservation
• POTW would need to determine an appropriate flow
  from a CIU to set the alternative mass limit
  
• Flow based upon a reasonable estimate of the flow
  required to achieve the facilitys production
  goals using BAT and in the absence of water
  conservation technology

42
Equivalent Mass Limits

• Final Rule - Adopt proposed rule, with following
  modifications
  
• Emphasized that CIU may request equiv. mass
  limits, and CA has discretion to authorize
  
• To be eligible for use of equiv. mass limits, CIU
  must
  
• Implement water conservation measures that
  substantially reduce water use,
  
• Use control and treatment technologies adequate
  to achieve compliance with categorical standards,
  and demonstrate that dilution not used,
  
• Provide monitoring data to establish its actual
  average daily flow rate through the use of a
  continuous effluent flow monitoring device and
  its baseline long-term average production rate,
• Demonstrate that it doesnt have daily flow
  rates, production rates, or pollutant levels that
  fluctuate so significantly that establishing
  equiv. mass limits would not be appropriate, and
• Have consistently complied with applicable
  categorical standards
  

43
Equivalent Mass Limits

• Final Rule (contd)
• If CA approves eligible CIUs request, CA then
  calculates the equiv. mass limits
  
• Concentration-based categorical standard CIUs
  actual average daily flow rate unit conversion
  factor
  
• Once equiv. mass limit is effective in the CIUs
  control mechanism, CIU must do the following to
  retain coverage
  
• Maintain and effectively operate control and
  treatment technologies adequate to achieve
  compliance with the equiv. mass limits,
  
• Record the facilitys flow rates through use of a
  continuous effluent flow monitoring device,
  
• Continue to record facilitys production rates
  and notify CA if rates vary by more than 20
  percent from production rates used as basis for
  equiv. mass limits
• Employ same or comparable water conservation
  measures used in setting the equiv. mass limits

44
Equivalent Mass Limits

• Final Rule (contd)
• After calculating equiv. mass limit, CA must
  reassess the limit and recalculate as necessary
  to reflect changed conditions, where the CIU
  notifies it of a revised production rate
• CA may retain the initial equiv. mass limits in
  subsequent control mechanism terms if
  
• CIUs actual average daily flow rate reduced
  solely as a result of water conservation methods
  and technologies,
  
• Actual average daily flows used for calculating
  limit werent based on use of dilution as
  substitute for treatment, and
  
• CIU doesnt bypass treatment control and
  treatment technologies
  
• Equiv. mass limits are not authorized for
  pollutants such as pH, temperature, radiation, or
  other pollutants which cannot be appropriately
  expressed as mass

45
Equivalent Mass Limits

• Where to find rule changes?
• 40 CFR 403.6(c)(5)

46
Non-Significant CIU

• Current Rules
• SIUs include all IUs subject to categorical
  pretreatment standards
  
• POTW may exclude a non-categorical IU if
  demonstrates that it has no reasonable potential
  to adversely affect the plant or violate a
  standard
• No flexibility currently to exclude categorical
  IUs from SIU status
  
• Proposed Rule
• Define non-significant CIU (NSCIU) using 100 gpd
  flow cutoff
  
• Prohibited untreated, concentrated wastewater
• Requested comments on whether to allow averaging
  over 5-day period
  
• An NSCIU would be exempt from certain inspection
  and sampling requirements, and POTW can set
  appropriate frequencies

47
Non-Significant CIU

• Final Rule - Adopted proposed rule, with
  modifications
  
• Clarified that 100 gpd cutoff is measured
  accurately to the amount of total categorical
  wastewater as opposed to total process
  wastewater
• Where categorical and non-categorical wastewaters
  are commingled, measure categorical wastewaters
  to the extent they can be reliably distinguished
  from non-categorical wastewater)
• If categorical and non-categorical wastewaters
  cant be reliably distinguished, measure the
  combined flow
  
• 100 gpd is a daily maximum threshold, which
  cannot be met through averaging
  

48
Non-Significant CIU

• To be eligible, the CIU must
• Have consistently complied w/ all applicable
  standards and requirements
  
• Annually submit certification statement
  indicating that it continues to meet the NSCIU
  definitional criteria and that it complied w/
  applicable standards and requirements
• Requires annual certification statement to be
  signed in accordance w/ 403.12 requirements
  
• CA required to annually list out which CIUs are
  considered NSCIUs
  
• CA required to annually evaluate whether each
  NSCIU has submitted its certification statement
  and continues to meet the definitional criteria
  

49
Non-Significant CIU

• Where to find rule changes?
• 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2)
• 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v), (6)
• 40 CFR 403.12(e)(1), (g), (i), (q)

50
Middle Tier CIU

• Proposed Rule
• In section discussing NSCIUs, EPA requested
  comment on alternative criteria for determining
  non-significant status such as the percentage
  of POTWs total flow discharged by a particular
  CIU.
• 18 POTW commenters suggested adoption of 3-tier
  system for CIUs
  
• 1st tier categorical SIUs
• 2nd tier non-significant CIUs discharge less
  than a percentage of POTWs design dry weather
  treatment capacity, design dry weather organic
  treatment capacity, and MAHL for any pollutant
  detected at headworks for which CIU is regulated
• 3rd tier de minimis CIUs discharge less than
  100 gpd
  
• EPA approved Metropolitan Water Reclamation
  District of Greater Chicagos pilot project for
  the 3-tier system (no longer active)

51
Middle Tier CIU

• Final Rule
• Adopts concept similar to 3-tier system
• 1st tier categorical CIUs
• 2nd tier Middle Tier CIUs
• 3rd tier NSCIUs
• If designated Middle Tier
• CIU can reduce reporting to one time per year
• POTW can reduce inspections/samplings to one time
  every other year
  
• Middle Tier CIUs discharge no greater than
• 0.01 of POTWs design dry weather hydraulic
  capacity, or 5,000 gpd, whichever is smaller
  (measured by continuous effluent flow monitor
  unless CIU is batch discharger)
• 0.01 of POTWs design dry weather treatment
  capacity
  
• 0.01 of MAHL for any pollutant for which CIU
  regulated

52
Middle Tier CIU

• Final Rule
• Additional eligibility criteria
• CIU has not been in SNC for any time in past 2
  years
  
• CIU does not have daily flow rates, production
  levels, or pollutant levels that vary
  significantly that reduced reporting would be
  non-representative of operating conditions
• Middle Tier CIU must notify CA immediately of any
  changes that cause it to no longer meet
  eligibility conditions
  
• If CIU no longer meets Middle Tier criteria, it
  must immediately being complying w/ minimum
  reporting requirements for categorical SIUs
  
• CA must retain documentation to support CAs
  determination that specific CIU qualifies as a
  Middle Tier CIU for 3 years after expiration of
  control mechanism

53
Middle Tier CIU

• Where to find rule changes?
• 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v)(C)
• 40 CFR 403.12(e)(3), (i)

54
NSCIU v. Middle Tier CIU
55
EPA Webpage to read Final Rule

• http//cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home

56
Questions ??? Call Dan or me at 502-564-3410