State Update including Streamlining Jeff Poupart PERCS Supervisor February 7, 2006

Outline  Overview of Federal Rules  PERCS Streamlining plan  Preliminary thoughts on each rule  Design Headworks issues  Miscellaneous Items

Federal Streamlining  Background Highlights  1995 – OWM initiates evaluation streamlining opportunities in Part 403 regulations  July 1999 – EPA proposes Streamlining Rule  August 2003 – Streamlining Workgroup reconstituted  October 14, 2005 – Final Streamlining Rule published in FR  November 14, 2005 – Final Streamlining Rule is effective

Federal Streamlining 11 Major Topics within the Regulation Revised  Sampling for Pollutants Not Present  General Control Mechanisms  Best Management Practices as Local Limits  Slug Control Plans  Equivalent Concentration Limits for Flow- Based Standards  Use of Grab and Composite Sampling

Federal Streamlining 11 Major Topics within the Regulation Revised continued:  Significant Noncompliance Criteria  Removal Credits  Equivalent Mass Limits for Contraction Limits  Oversight of Categorical Industrial Users  Miscellaneous Changes

Pollutants Not Present Previous Rule  CIUs must sample for all pollutants covered by the categorical standard (unless the categorical standard allows for surrogate pollutant sampling or alternative certifications)

Pollutants Not Present Final Streamlining 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  CIUs are still CIUs and must still comply with categorical standards  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

Pollutants Not Present  With proper documentation, can reduce monitoring of pollutants. IUP must indicate that Pretreatment Standards for pollutants are Standards not Limits as 0900s rules require POTW Semiannual sampling- More Information to Follow in the coming months

General Control Mechanisms Previous Rule  SIUs must be controlled through permits or equivalent mechanisms  EPA has emphasized the importance of evaluating each SIU individually

General Control Mechanisms Final Streamlining Rule  POTWs may control SIUs through general permits where the necessary legal authority exists and the SIUs meet the criteria for being substantially similar:  Involve the same or substantially similar types of operations  Discharge the same types of wastes  Require the same effluent limitations  Require the same or similar monitoring  Is more appropriately controlled under a general control mechanism than individual control mechanism  Coverage available for:  CIUs granted a monitoring waiver for pollutants not present  facilities subject to the same mass-based local limits

General Control Mechanisms  State does not see wide application of this rule as most of the required elements of IUP are still necessary in general permit  No current conflict with state rules seen yet

BMPs as Local Limits Previous Rule  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

BMPs as Local Limits Final Rule  Definition of BMP included in the rule  BMPs developed by POTWs may serve as local limits  POTWs must document the supporting rationale for specific BMPs

BMPs as Local Limits -Do not currently see any conflict with State 0900’s would still be SIU and POTW must be protected-Stay Tuned

Slug Control Plans Previous Rule  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

Slug Control Plans Final Streamlining Rule  Slug discharges are still prohibited  POTWs must review the need for a slug control plan or other action as necessary  Clarifies that plan is not required outcome of evaluation: Can require specific actions instead of plan e.g. Berms, drain plugs etc.

Slug Control Plans -Do not currently see any conflict with State 0900 POTW must be protected -Will require SUO Change

Equivalent Concentration Limits Affected CIUs  OCPSF - 40 CFR 414  Petroleum Refining (Cr and Zn) – 40 CFR 419  Pesticide Chemicals – 40 CFR 455 Previous Rule  No allowance for equivalent concentration limits where categorical standard requires a mass limit to be calculated based on the facility’s flow

Equivalent Concentration Limits Final Streamlining Rule  Allows POTWs to use concentration value that is published in the categorical standard  Requires Control Authority to document that dilution is not being substituted for treatment as prohibited by 40 CFR 403.6(d)

Equivalent Concentration Limits -Do not currently see any conflict with State 0900’s would still be SIU and POTW must be protected

Use of Grab/Composite Samples Previous Rule  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”

Use of Grab/Composite Samples Final Streamlining Rule  Clarified when different types of sampling methods may be used (“24-hour composite sample” must be taken w/i 24-hour period; this period only covers period during which IU is discharging)  Extended sampling requirements to periodic reports  Gave POTWs flexibility to determine appropriate number of grab samples to measure pH, Cn, total phenols, oil and grease, sulfides and VOCs  Clarified that composite samples for Cn and VOCs may be done prior to analysis  Removed requirement that flow-composite sampling must be “infeasible” in order to allow time-composite sampling (retained provisions that sampling must be “representative”)

Use of Grab/Composite Samples Must this rule change be adopted by the CA?  Yes – changes relating to the extension of sampling requirements to periodic compliance reports must be incorporated -Do not currently see any conflict with State 0900’s May require SUO Changes POTW must be protected

SNC - Publication Previous Rule  IUs in SNC must be published in largest daily newspaper Final Streamlining Rule  Publication allowed in any paper of general circulation within the jurisdiction that provides meaningful public notice Must this rule change be adopted by the CA?  No – this provision is optional -Will require SUO Changes -No apparent conflict with 0900s currently seen

SNC – Application to SIUs Only Previous Rules  SNC can apply to any IU Final Streamlining Rule Apply SNC to:  Significant Industrial Users  Other IUs if they cause pass through, interference, imminent endangerment, or adversely affect pretreatment program Must this rule change be adopted by the CA?  No – this provision is optional This federal rule appears to be in conflict with State rules and Cannot be implemented without 0900 rule changes

SNC – Daily Maximum or Avg. Limits Previous Rule  SNC determinations for chronic violations, technical review criteria violations, and pass through or interference violations are limited to daily maximum or average limits Final Streamlining Rule  Includes broader array of numeric and narrative violations (“instantaneous” and “Pretreatment Standard or Requirement” instead of “daily maximum limit...”) Must this rule change be adopted by the CA?  Yes – incorporation required because the definition of SNC is expanded This federal rule appears to be in conflict with State rules and Cannot be fully implemented without 0900 rule changes

SNC – Late Reports Previous Rule  IUs submitting required reports more than 30 days late are in SNC Final Streamlining Rule  30-day deadline extended to 45 days Must this rule change be adopted by the CA?  No – this provision is optional This federal rule appears to be in conflict with State rules and Cannot be implemented without 0900 rule changes

Removal Credits - Overflows Previous 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 (CSO’s)  CSOs not found in NC Very Limited Applicability

Equivalent Mass Limits Previous Rules  CAs can 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  Equivalent mass limit is not allowed to replace (be used instead of) the concentration-based standard  Some POTWs and CIUs argue that use of concentration-based standards discourages the adoption of water conservation measures

Equivalent Mass Limits Final Streamlining Rule  POTW can set equivalent mass limits as an alternative to concentration limits where CIU has:  Installed treatment equivalent to model technology,  Is employing water conservation  POTW needs 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 facility’s production goals using BAT and in the absence of water conservation technology  Emphasized that CIU must request equiv. mass limits, and CA has discretion to authorize

Equivalent Mass Limits Must this rule change be adopted by the CA?  No – this provision is optional - Do not currently see any conflict with State 0900’s would still be SIU and POTW must be protected

Oversight of Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs) Previous Federal Rule  POTW may de-list a non-categorical IU from SIU designation (SIU based on flow alone) if demonstrates that it has no reasonable potential to adversely affect the plant or violate a standard  All CIUs are considered SIUs  No flexibility to exclude CIUs from SIU status Final Streamlining Rule 3 Oversight Scenarios for CIUs:  CIUs that are considered SIUs  Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU)  Middle Tier CIU

Comparison of CIU Oversight Requirements Control Mechanism Required? Minimum CIU Reporting Requirements Minimum POTW Inspection / Sampling Requirements Categorical SIUs Yes 2 times per year (at a minimum) 1 time per year NSCIUsNo Certification only (no reporting), one time per year Not required Middle Tier CIUs Yes 1 time per year (if representative of operating conditions) 1 time every other year

Non-Significant CIU Final Streamlining Rule “Non-Significant CIU” (NSCIU) Specifically Defined  To be eligible as a NSCIU, the CIU must:  100 gpd or less daily max. categorical wastewater discharge (cannot be averaged flow)  CIU must have consistently complied with all applicable categorical Pretreatment Standards and Requirements  CIU prohibited from discharging untreated, concentrated wastewater

Non-Significant CIU Must this rule change be adopted by the CA?  No – this provision is optional This federal rule appears to be in conflict with State rules and Cannot be fully implemented without 0900 rule changes

Middle Tier CIU Final Streamlining Rule  “Middle Tier” CIU Designation:  CIU can reduce reporting to one time per year (instead of minimum twice per year as SIU)  POTW can reduce its inspections/samplings to one time every other year (instead of minimum one time per year as SIU)

Middle Tier CIU Final Streamlining Rule  To be eligible as a “Middle Tier” CIU, the CIU discharges can be no greater than:  0.01% of POTW’s design dry weather hydraulic capacity, or 5,000 gpd, whichever is smaller  0.01% of MAHL for any pollutant for which CIU regulated  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

Middle Tier CIU Must this rule change be adopted by the CA?  No – this provision is optional This federal rule appears to be in conflict with State rules and Cannot be fully implemented without 0900 rule changes

Miscellaneous Provisions – Fed Final Rule PERCS has not analyzed the following miscellaneous rules for conflict  Requirement to Report All Monitoring Data (40 CFR (g)(6))  Notification by IUs of Changed Discharge (40 CFR (j))  Signatory Requirements for IU and POTW Reports (40 CFR (l) and (m))  Net / Gross Calculations (40 CFR )

PERCS Streamlining Plan  Divide Federal Rule Changes into three tiers  Tier 1 High Applicability  Pollutants not Present  Slug Control Plans  Equivalent Concentration Limits  Equivalent Mass Limits

PERCS Streamlining Plan Tier 2 Medium Applicability  General Control Mechanisms  BMPs as Local Limits  Grab and Composite Sampling  SNC Publication  SNC Applicability  Miscellaneous Changes

PERCS Streamlining Plan Tier 3 Limited Applicability or Requires Rule Change  Removal Credits Overflows  Removal Credits Sludge  SNC-Daily Max or Average  SNC- Late Reports  CIU Oversight-NSCIU  CIU Oversight-Middle Tier

PERCS Streamlining Plan  Priority is to find out where rule changes may conflict with model SUO/ IUP  By 30 June 06 have new SUO/IUP Model  Allow for 6 month extension to June 07 of December 06 revised SUO requirement

PERCS Streamlining Plan  Determine where rule changes will be necessary to implement Streamlining  Start Arduous Rule making process ~2 yr  POTW may begin implementation of streamlining rules where no conflict with current State rules exists, with proper documentation submitted

Design Headworks Exceedances  Conventional Parameters BOD, TSS, NH3  High removal rates e.g. 99% lead to high calculated pass through allowable loadings when converted back to influent concentrations can be unrealistic e.g 1600 mg/l BOD  Most POTW designed for 175 – 350 mg/l BOD  Up to 26 WWTP have had HWA affected by Design  One of Primary goals of Pretreatment Program is to prevent pass-through to waters of the state. Accepting wastewater in excess of capacity is a violation of NC General Statute (a)

HWA for Conventionals BOD, TSS, NH3  Continued  Where Towns were felt their design was too low, PERCS solution was to have engineer send in signed/sealed calculations indicating what the current maximum design loading actually is  Some Consortium representatives have balked at the cost of hiring an engineer for assessment  PERCS is considering working with a committee of interested parties to determine if a more broadly applied policy can be reached  We will continue to work with Towns that have issues

HWA for Conventionals BOD, TSS, NH3  Continued  Towns with current HWA based on pass-thru are strongly cautioned not to allocate out loadings significantly in excess of WWTP design  Considering including language for a mailing to affected programs  Communication with Dept of Commerce

Miscellanous  Spring Meeting of DWQ Regional Pretreatment Contacts Promote Training / Consistency  Still shooting for IUP writing workshop & Chapter 6 Rewrite before Fall Consortium Meeting