1. 403 Streamlining Specifics What’s Up with the Extra Industrial Classifications, General Permits & BMPs?

2. Tammy Y. West Pretreatment Compliance Specialist, Senior City of Austin Austin Water Utility

3. Government If you think the problems we create are bad, just wait until you see our solutions.

4. 1. Equivalent Mass Limits for Concentration limits 2. Equivalent Concentration-Based Limits for Flow-Based Standards 3. Non-Significant Categorical Industrial Users 4. Mid-Tier Categorical Industrial Users 5. Monitoring Waivers 6. General Control Mechanisms

5. Equivalent Mass Limits for Concentration limits Categorical Industrial users regulated by concentration-based limits may now have those limits converted to equivalent mass-based limits

6.  Conditional use of equivalent mass limits in lieu of concentration-based limits to facilitate adoption of water-saving technologies.  IUs whose wastewater discharges are controlled by equivalent mass limits have more flexibility to implement water conservation. ◦ May elect to control discharges through more efficient wastewater control technologies and pollution prevention techniques, or more efficient water conservation practices.

7. Applies to:  Industrial categories that have pretreatment standards expressed as concentration limits alone. ◦ 14 Industrial categories Inorganic Chemicals (415) Fertilizer Manufacturing (418) Petroleum Refining (419) Steam Electric Power Generating(423) Leather Tanning (425) Glass Manufacturing (426) Rubber Manufacturing (428) Metal Finishing (433) Pharmaceutical Manufacturing (439) Transportation Equipment Cleaning (442) Paving and Roofing Materials (443) Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors Subcategory –Waste Combustors Point Source Category (444) Carbon Black Manufacturing (458) Electrical and Electronic Components (469)

8. To Qualify a CIU Must:  Implement or demonstrate that the CIU will implement water conservation measures that “substantially reduce” water use.  Use control and treatment technologies adequate to achieve compliance.  Not use dilution as a substitute for treatment.  Provide monitoring data to establish its actual average daily flow rate and its baseline long term average production rate.  Demonstrate that it does not have daily flow rates, production rates, or pollutant levels that fluctuate “significantly.”  “Consistent compliance” with applicable categorical pretreatment standards.

9. Streamlining Rules When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles.

10. Qualification Issues  No precondition that IUs have already employed water conservation measures.  Streamlining rule does not specify the amount of water conservation that should be achieved.  Nor does it define what a substantial reduction in water use is.  EPA suggests several programs define thresholds: ◦ Final rule for Pretreatment Community XL Site-Specific Rulemaking for Steele County, MN. (10% H 2 0 Reduction) ◦ National Metal Finishing Strategic Goals Program (50% H 2 0 Reduction) ◦ Use of Production Based Pretreatment Standards and the Combined Wastestream Formula (20% change in flow rate)

11. Qualification Issues  CA is to evaluate use of dilution as a substitute for treatment by several ways: ◦ Compare CIUs product to flow ratio relative to that of other facilities within the industry ◦ Review historical monitoring reports ◦ Comparing current flows to the flows that are assumed as part of the model technology for the standard in the Technical Development Document for the Effluent Guideline for that Industry.

12. Reference Document Search “It’s possible with all the stuff pouring out of Washington DC these days—most of which you may logically conclude represent punishment for your sins in a past lifetime-- you could have missed the release of EPA’s long-awaited Effluent Guidelines for Discharges from the Construction and Development Industry on November 23, 2009.” John Trotti The EPA' Effluent Limitations Guidelines: NTUs for You to Use

13. Qualification Issues  EPA does not define “significantly” ◦ COA uses the 20% change in flow  Regulations do not define a set period of consistent compliance. ◦ Not in SNC in last two years  EPA expects the CA to evaluate a period of time that is long enough to ensure that seasonal violations do not occur.

14. Is there more than one season in Texas? Summer is the only real season- May, June, July, August, and September are “hell on earth.”

15. Establishing Mass Limits  Work with Approval Authority to review, and revise, as necessary, its Ordinance, program procedures, enforcement response plan and local limits.  Determine CIU’s actual average daily flow rate from the regulated processes: ◦ Equivalent mass limits must be based on CIU’s actual average daily flow rate, ◦ Use combined wastestream formula if necessary, ◦ Flow rate must be representative of current operating conditions, and ◦ Flows must be measured using a continuous effluent flow monitor.

16. Establishing Mass Limits  Calculate the equivalent mass limit by multiplying the Pretreatment Standard in the regulations by IU’s actual average daily flow rate for the regulated processes and the appropriate unit conversion factor. ◦ Use the same flow numbers in the calculations for both the daily maximum and monthly average equivalent mass limits.  CA must document calculations and make them available publicly.  Incorporate the mass limits into the CIU’s permit.

17. Continuing applicability 1. Maintain and effectively operate control and treatment technologies adequate to achieve compliance. 2. Record the facility’s flow rates using a flow meter. 3. Continue to record the facility’s production rates and notify the CA of rates that vary by more than 20%. 4. Continue to employ the same or comparable water conservation measures.

18.  If CIU does not meet the requirements, the permit would have to be revised to require compliance with the pre-existing concentration-based pretreatment standard. “Your going back to concentration limits until you can stop those nasty fluctuating flows.”

19. Mass Limits as Local Limits  A POTW can allocate and apply its Maximum Allowable Industrial Loading (MAIL) to its controllable sources as mass-based limits.  If a POTW allocates its MAILS on a case-by-case basis, it may be easier to apply mass-based limits to IUs that have the capability to accurately measure their flows at designated sample points.  If approved local limits are currently expressed as concentrations-based limits, the POTW cannot convert the local limits to mass limits without modifying the approved program, which could be substantial, check 403.18(b)(2).

20.  However, instead of referencing 403.6(c)(5) we put the regulation per verbatim into our Wastewater Ordinance as §15- 10-42 Exceptions to Categorical Pretreatment Standards. √ yes

21.  AWU wanted the ability to establish mass based limits for our customers to encourage water conservation.  COA is aggressively pursuing water conservation.  All four of our semiconductors have initiated major water conservation efforts in the past and plan to implement more major water saving efforts. Alleviate concerns of meeting TBLL’s for copper and fluoride.

22.  The POTW will need to modify its Ordinance or Regulations to include the appropriate references to 40 CFR 403.6(c)(5) for equivalent mass based limits.  Considered a substantial program modification.

23. Equivalent Concentration-Based Limits for Flow-Based Standards Control Authorities have the discretion to control pollutant discharges through equivalent concentration-based limits in lieu of flow-based mass limits for certain industrial categories.

24. EPA established this flexibility because flow-based mass limits can be difficult to develop and enforce in situations where the facility has highly variable production with flows that often vary week-to-week or day-to-day.

25. Applies to:  The following categories may now have those limits converted to equivalent concentration- based limits. ◦ Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (414) ◦ Petroleum Refining (419) ◦ Pesticide Chemicals (455)  Other concentration-based limits may now be converted to equivalent mass based limits.

26. To Qualify, a CIU’s:  Equivalent concentration-based limits are not currently being or will not subsequently be met through the use of dilution or by- pass as a substitute for treatment. ◦ Comparing product to flow ratio relative to that of other facilities within its industry ◦ Requesting an explanation of why it uses the level of process water that it uses.

27. To Qualify, a CIU Must:  Adjust the pollutant concentrations at the sampling point using the combined wastestream formula where the CIU mixes their process effluent with dilution sources.

28. Establishing the Limits  The CA will also verify and document that the CIU meets the above eligibility requirements before incorporating the equivalent concentration based limits into the CIU’s permit.  CA will document how the equivalent concentration-base limits were derived and make the documents publicly available.

29. Equivalent Concentration-Based Limits Example of Documentation required for concentration based limits using combined wastestream COA puts all calculations in Appendices of the IU’s permit.

30. Continuing applicability  CA may determine that an IU should be subject to both the flow-based mass limit as well as the concentration-based limit.  CA should specify appropriate flow monitoring requirements.  CA should evaluate flow data reported in the self monitoring reports.

31. Continuing applicability  This evaluation will determine if there have been changes in flows that may indicate dilution. ◦ Increases in process ◦ Non-process or overall flows ◦ Those flows not accompanied by production increases

32.  If CIU subsequently fails to comply with these requirements, the CA must revise the CIU’s permit to require the CIU to comply with flow-based mass limits derived from the Categorical Pretreatment Standards. “My little friend will visit you”

33.  The POTW will need to modify its Ordinance or Regulations to include the appropriate references to 40 CFR 403.6(c)(5) for equivalent mass based limits.  Considered a substantial program modification.

34.  However, instead of referencing 403.6(c)(6) we copied verbatim the sections into our Wastewater Ordinance as §15- 10-42 Exceptions to Categorical Pretreatment Standards. √ yes

35.  AWU wanted the discretion to control pollutant discharges through concentration or mass based limits.  AWU also wanted the ability to create equivalent concentration-based limits in cases where it would be difficult to implement and enforce mass based limits.

36. Non-Significant Categorical Industrial Users A Categorical Industrial User may now be considered a Non- Significant Categorical Industrial User.

37. Applies to:  New classification that requires that the IU does not discharge more than one hundred gallons per day of total categorical wastewater.  No untreated concentrated wastewater, regulated by a categorical pretreatment standard, may be discharged at any time by the IU.  Is meeting all pretreatment standards and requirements.  Annually submit a certification statement 40 CFR 403.12(q).

38.  If IU is located upstream of a combined or sanitary sewer overflow, the following additional requirements must be met for the application of this classification: ◦ The IU cannot discharge wastewater that is regulated by categorical pretreatment standards, or ◦ Must not have been in SNC at any time in the past two years. ◦ Procedure for categorization of an IU as a Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User and the issues related to combined and sanitary sewer overflows must be addresses through either:  The long term control plan, http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0272.pdf http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0272.pdf  Approved combined sewer system operation plan implementing the nine minimum controls, or  The program modification request.

39.  Not required to control IU through a permit.  CA may reduce sampling and reporting requirements for an NSCIU.  CA must annually report and certify that it still meets the NSCIU definition.  CA must evaluate at least once per year whether IU still meets NSCIU.  IU still required to comply with categorical pretreatment standards.

40.  Appropriate language would need to be included in the Ordinance or Regulations defining this new classification and the necessary conditions that must be met for it to be applied to an IU.  Submitted modification must provide the procedures it will use for evaluating whether an IU meets the criteria of NSCIU and the procedures for the annual evaluation.  Considered a substantial program modification.

41.  Instead of referencing 403.3(v)(2) we stated verbatim the regulation into our Wastewater Ordinance as §15- 10-111(D) Significant Industrial Users. √ yes

42.  Having no de minimis clause for categorical processes has resulted in the COA permitting companies as categorical that would not adversely affect the POTW.  Economic hardship on the industries.  Often times the companies that have low volume discharges from categorical processes take more time and effort than the larger industries with environmental staff.

43.  Ordinance requires that the IU annually submits the certification statement required in Section 15-10-167(Annual Certification by Non- Significant Categorical Industrial Users). ◦ Actual implementation may be semi-annual requirement.  COA decided that to best implement the requirement of this certification statement is by a control mechanism.  Annual inspection to verify accuracy of certification statement and satisfies the annual evaluation requirement.  Annual sampling to be conducted by POTW.

44. Mid-Tier Categorical Industrial Users A Categorical Industrial User may now be considered a Mid-Tier Categorical Industrial User.

45.  A Mid-Tier CIU does not discharge total regulated wastewater that exceeds: ◦ Zero point zero one (0.01) percent of the design dry weather hydraulic capacity of the POTW; ◦ Five thousand (5,000) gallons per day of total categorical wastewater; ◦ Zero point zero one (0.01) percent of the design dry weather organic treatment capacity of the POTW; and ◦ Zero point zero one (0.01) percent of the maximum allowable headworks loading for any pollutant regulated by the applicable categorical pretreatment standards for which a local limit has been developed.

46.  Flow must be measured by a continuous effluent flow monitoring device, unless a batch discharger.  Must not have been in SNC for any time in the past two years.  The daily flow rates, production levels, or pollutant levels of the IU cannot vary so significantly that decreasing the reporting requirement would result in data that is not representative of conditions occurring during the reporting period.  Same conditions as NSCIU for IUs located upstream of a combined or sanitary sewer overflow.

47.  Appropriate language would need to be included in the Ordinance or Regulations defining this new classification and the necessary conditions that must be met in order for the CA to apply to an IU.  Submitted modification must provide the procedures that the CA will use for evaluating whether an IU meets the criteria of a Mid-Tier Categorical Industrial user and the procedures for the annual evaluation.  Considered a substantial program modification.

48.  CA may reduce submission frequency of periodic reporting to once per year.  SMRs should include data that is representative of conditions for entire reporting period.  Inspect and monitor by the POTW at least once every two years.  If IU no longer meets criteria for being classified as a mid-tier categorical industrial user, the POTW must immediately begin inspecting the IU and monitoring the effluent at the frequency set by the POTW’s pretreatment program.

49.  The COA has a minimum reporting/self monitoring requirement of semi-annual.  COA prefers to maintain the annual inspection requirement.  COA prefers to maintain at least annual monitoring requirement. ◦ The COA aims for twice per year. X NO

50. Monitoring Waivers A POTW’s legal authority as an approved program now allows the POTW to authorize, at is discretion, an industrial user subject to a categorical pretreatment standard to forego sampling of a pollutant regulated by a categorical pretreatment standard.

51. The Control Authority (CA) has the discretion to waive sampling of a pollutant if the CIU demonstrates to the CA’s satisfaction that the pollutant is neither present nor expected to be present in the discharge.

52. Who it applies to: ◦ Control Authorities that choose to implement this provision  CIUs subject to semiannual reporting requirements  Must comply with the requirements to demonstrate that a pollutant is neither present nor expected to be present in its discharge.

53. “Neither Present nor Expected to be Present”  Pollutant is not present.  Not expected to be in discharge.  Can still be “not present” if it is present solely because of inputs from the intake water.  Still can be “not present” if it is added solely to sanitary wastewater from domestic-type activities and is present only at levels that are typical of domestic wastewater in the Control Authority’s service area.

54. Monitoring waivers do not apply to: ◦ Certification process requirements established by the control authority or by categorical pretreatment standards (e.g., TOMP) unless allowed for by the applicable categorical pretreatment standard; ◦ Monitoring required for the baseline monitoring report; ◦ Monitoring required for the 90 day compliance reports; and ◦ Requirements that are specific to the categorical pretreatment standard (e.g., monitoring requirements for the pharmaceutical industry can be reduced only by the waiver procedures to a frequency of once per year and cannot be waived entirely(40 CFR 439.2(a)).

55.  The EPA fact sheet specifically references 439.2(a) as pretreatment standard monitoring requirements for the pharmaceutical industry that can only be reduced not waived. HOWEVER,  439.2(a) states “Permit limits and compliance monitoring are not required for regulated pollutants that are neither used nor generated at the facility”

56. Running in Circles?

57. Waiver Request Process CA establishes its own process for CIUs At a minimum, CIU is required to submit: 1. Sampling data and other technical factors demonstrating that the pollutant is not present in the discharge; 2. Data from at least one sampling of the facility’s process wastewater prior to any treatment; and 3. The signed certification statement in 40 CFR 403.6(a)(2)(ii).

58. Sampling Data  IU must provide data from one or more representative sampling event(s) of the facility’s process wastewater prior to any treatment present at the facility that is representative of the wastewater discharged from all processes. To verify that the pollutant is not present based solely on wastewater treatment, THE DATA MUST SHOW: 1.There are no detectable levels of the pollutant; or 2.The pollutant is present only at background levels from intake water and without any increase in the pollutant due to activities of the industrial user.

59. Sampling Data  EPA does not define the amount of data sufficient in order to grant a waiver request  The amount of data needed is site specific.  Historical effluent data can be used as additional proof that pollutant is not present. ◦ However, effluent data is viewed as secondary to samples taken prior to treatment.  Data from water supplier may be used in place of data supplied by CIU ◦ Must be representative

60. Sampling Data  Non-detectable sample results may only be used as a demonstration that a pollutant is not present if the USEPA approved analytical method from 40 CFR 136 with the lowest method detection limit for the pollutant was used.

61. If an IU is required to conduct monitoring to further demonstrate eligibility for the waiverand the CA can still require the CIU to conduct some continued monitoring. If an IU is required to conduct monitoring to further demonstrate eligibility for the waiver and the CA can still require the CIU to conduct some continued monitoring. What is the point of the monitoring waiver??? Is it really a waiver??

62. Futility The single moment when you realize your strategy should have had options

63. Technical Evaluation  Facility wide accounting of: ◦ Raw materials ◦ Products ◦ By-products ◦ Other chemicals  CIU should either: ◦ Conduct its own analysis of facility-wide accounting of materials; or ◦ Obtain a certificate of analysis from the manufacturer of the material demonstrating the absence of the pollutant.

64. Technical Evaluation  Evaluation should include: ◦ Materials not necessarily used in the manufacturing operations ◦ Chemicals used in equipment cleaning ◦ Cooling tower biocides ◦ Boiler chemical treatment ◦ Wastewater treatment  Could be significant levels of contaminents  Additional Information: ◦ Intermediate products ◦ Final products ◦ By-products generated

65. Technical Evaluation  CIU submits MSDS ◦ MSDS do not identify all pollutants present  Do not have to report chemicals if classified as a trade secret  Any chemical that makes up less than 1% of compound ◦ Cannot be relied on exclusively to determine whether a pollutant is present or not  Potential to enter the process wastestream

66. Conditions for Denying Waiver  Due to any addition or increase of the pollutant from CIU’s activities.  Pollutants are added in negligible amounts.  Pollutants added but not expected to violate the applicable pretreatment standard.  Sampling data prior to treatment shows pollutant present at levels above concentrations in intake water.  CA is NOT required to grant the sampling waiver ◦ If the CA does not have a high degree of certainty that the pollutant will not show up in the discharge to the POTW; or ◦ The CIU has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the CA that the pollutant is not present.

67. Granting the Waiver  Control authority should base its decision on: ◦ Documents submitted by CIU ◦ CA’s historical data ◦ CIU’s participation in the pretreatment program ◦ Review permit applications ◦ Baseline Monitoring Reports ◦ Compliance Monitoring Reports ◦ Self Monitoring reports ◦ Data obtained through inspections and monitoring  Review request to ensure that the CIU has satisfactorily demonstrated the pollutant is not present.

68. Implementing the Waiver  Monitoring Requirements can be waived for any individual pollutant that the CIU has demonstrated is not present.  CIU is required to continue monitoring at least twice per year until the Control Authority grants the waiver and updates the permit.  Waiver is effective only after it has been incorporated into the CIU’s control mechanism.  The control authority shall include in the control mechanism: ◦ Specific sampling requirements being waived; ◦ Applicable categorical pretreatment standard(s), even those waived; ◦ Pollutants for which the monitoring waiver has been granted; ◦ Requirement for the CIU to submit in the SMR a certification statement documenting that there has been no increase in the pollutant(s) in the wastestream due to the activities of the user.

69. Implementing the Waiver  IU is required to conduct monitoring to further demonstrate eligibility for the waiver.  If the waived pollutant is found to be present or is expected to be present, the IU will be required to immediately notify the control authority in writing and start monitoring that pollutant at the frequency specified in the POTW’s pretreatment program.  Waivers only valid for duration of effective period of the permit, but in no case longer than five years.

70. Implementing the Waiver  The documentation used to request the monitoring waiver and the general justification for the waiver must be maintained in IU’s file by the control authority for three (3) years after the expiration of the waiver.  A new request must be submitted before the waiver can be granted for each subsequent control mechanism.  Waiver only applies to IU self-monitoring and does not remove the POTW’s obligations for IU monitoring for that parameter.

71. Implementing the Waiver  The IU shall certify on each self-monitoring report with the statement in 40 CFR 403.6(a)(2)(ii).  CA required to conduct at least one monitoring event during term of CIU’s permit  Even if waiver is granted the CA can still require the CIU to conduct some continued monitoring.  CA can determine frequency of monitoring.  If CIU monitors for the waived pollutant, those results must be submitted.

72. Implementing the Waiver  CA’s discretion to make the waiver available to new CIUs.  New CIUs must monitor for all required pollutants for the BMR and 90-Day CMR.  CA should be cautious in approving waivers for a new IU, must allow enough time to collect data to appropriately assess discharge.

73.  Submit a program modification to Approval Authority before the CA can implement the sampling waiver provisions.  Submitted modification must provide the procedures the CA will use for granting the monitoring waiver in the Ordinance or Regulation and IU control mechanisms.  Considered a substantial program modification.

74.  Requirements still mandate IU to self monitor.  Hours spent to grant the waiver would not be equivalent to the savings. X NO

75. General Control Mechanisms General control mechanisms can now be issued for groups of users, including both significant and non-significant industrial users (with conditions).

76.  Who it applies to: ◦ Available for SIUs that are covered by concentration-based standards and best management practices (BMPs). ◦ POTW has imposed the same mass-based local limit on a number of SIUs. ◦ Any categorical standard expressed as concentration limits or BMPs.

77.  Facilities regulated by categorical standards expressed as mass limits cannot receive coverage under a general control mechanism.  SIUs whose limits are based on: ◦ Combined wastestream formula ◦ Net/gross calculations ◦ Other calculated categorical pretreatment standard equivalents

78. Requirements: ◦ Involve the same or substantially similar types of operations; ◦ Discharge the same types of wastes; ◦ Have the same effluent limitations; ◦ Have the same or similar monitoring requirements; and ◦ In the opinion of the CA, be more appropriately controlled under a general control mechanism than under an individual control mechanism.

79. Requests  SIU must submit a written request  Request must include: ◦ Contact information; ◦ Production processes, types of wastes generated; ◦ Location for monitoring all wastes that will be covered by general control mechanism; and ◦ The same information required for the monitoring waiver request (40 CFR 403.12(e)(2)).

80.  CA will need to modify its Ordinance or Regulations to provide for general control mechanisms.  CA must submit a modification request to AA along with the affected program elements (permit, enforcement response plan/enforcement response guide) that correctly implement the changes.  Not a substantial program modification.

81. Implementation  Retain the following for 3 years after the expiration of the general control mechanism: ◦ Copy of the general control mechanism; ◦ Documentation to support POTW’s determination that a specific SIU meets the criteria listed in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(A)(1-5); and ◦ Copy of the SIU’s written request for coverage under a general control mechanism.

82.  Difficult to enforce  Austin contains many unique facilities X NO

83. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/pretreatment/streamlining.cfm Fact Sheet 1.0:Summary of Changes Made under the Streamlining Rule Fact Sheet 2.0: Required Changes Fact Sheet 3.0:Equivalent Mass Limits for Concentration Limits Fact sheet 4.0: Equivalent Concentration-Based Limits for Flow-Based Standards Fact Sheet 5.0:New Classifications for Categorical Industrial Users Fact Sheet 6.0:Optional Sampling Waiver for Pollutants Not Present Fact Sheet 7.0:Best Management Practices Fact Sheet 8.0:Slug Control Plans Fact Sheet 10:General Control Mechanisms Option Those fact sheets in red are the optional streamlining rules.

84. Tammy Y West Pretreatment Compliance Specialist, Sr. Special Services Division Austin Water Utility City of Austin