Pretreatment Streamlining Rule - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – Pretreatment Streamlining Rule PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 808-NjNhN


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Pretreatment Streamlining Rule


... of the nature of pollutant properties in wastewater prior to or in lieu of ... and reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:79
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 57
Provided by: AlexCri


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Pretreatment Streamlining Rule

Pretreatment Streamlining Rule
  • Overview of Changes to the Federal Pretreatment

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

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
  • March 2005 Office of Management and Budgets
    (OMB) Thompson Report published
  • June 2005 EPA formally submits final rule to
  • September 26, 2005 Administrator Johnson signs
    final rule
  • October 14, 2005 Final Streamlining Rule
    Published in the Federal Register

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

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
  • 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
  • CIU- Categorical Industrial User- All industrial
    users subject to Categorical Pretreatment
  • 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.

Glossary of PT Terms (contd)
  • SNC Significant Non-Compliance-An Industrial
    User is in SNC, if one or more of the following
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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.

Summary of Final Rule Changes
Summary of Final Rule Changes (contd)
Summary of Final Rule Changes (contd)
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

Pollutants Not Present
  • Final Rule
  • Adopted proposed rule, with the following
  • 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
  • Waiver valid for one term of control mechanism
    (like NPDES provision)
  • Waiver does not replace any certification
    requirements established in specific categorical

Pollutants Not Present
  • Where to find rule changes?
  • 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v)
  • 40 CFR 403.12(e)(2)

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
  • CA may choose to make coverage optional or

General Control Mechanisms
  • Final Rule
  • Adopted proposed rule, with the following
  • 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
  • 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

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

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
  • Pretreatment rules do not explicitly require
    reporting compliance data for Industrial Users
    subject to BMPs as local limits or categorical
  • Proposed Rule
  • Clarify that
  • BMPs developed by POTWs may serve as local
    limits, and
  • Full CIU reporting required where BMPs required
    for categorical standards

BMPs as Local Limits
  • Final Rule
  • Adopted proposed rule, with the following
  • 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
  • Re-opener for revoking or modifying

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)

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
  • Clarifies that plan is not required outcome of
  • Requirements must be included in control mechanism

Slug Control Plans
  • Final Rule
  • Adopted proposed rule, with the following
  • 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

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

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

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

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

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

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
  • Final Rule
  • Adopted proposed rule, with minor editorial
  • Where to find rule changes?
  • 40 CFR 403.12(b), (d), (e), (g), (h)

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)

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
  • 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)

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
  • Final Rule
  • Adopted proposed rule
  • Where to find rule changes?
  • 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)(A), (B), (C)

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)

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
  • Proposed Rule
  • No changes proposed, but solicited comment on
    workable alternatives to current TRC
  • Final Rule
  • Retained current TRC, with slight wording changes

  • 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

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

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
  • Where to find rule changes?
  • 40 CFR 403.7(h)

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

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

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

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)

Miscellaneous Provisions
  • Requirement to Report All Monitoring Data (40 CFR
  • 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
  • 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

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
  • Some POTWs and CIUs argue that use of
    concentration-based standards discourages the
    adoption of water conservation measures

Equivalent Mass Limits
  • Proposed Rule
  • Allow POTW to set equivalent mass limits as an
    alternative to concentration limits where CIU
  • Installed treatment equivalent to model
  • 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

Equivalent Mass Limits
  • Final Rule - Adopt proposed rule, with following
  • Emphasized that CIU may request equiv. mass
    limits, and CA has discretion to authorize
  • To be eligible for use of equiv. mass limits, CIU
  • 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

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
  • 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

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

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

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
  • 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

Non-Significant CIU
  • Final Rule - Adopted proposed rule, with
  • Clarified that 100 gpd cutoff is measured
    accurately to the amount of total categorical
    wastewater as opposed to total process
  • 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

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

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)

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
  • 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)

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
  • 0.01 of MAHL for any pollutant for which CIU

Middle Tier CIU
  • Final Rule
  • Additional eligibility criteria
  • CIU has not been in SNC for any time in past 2
  • 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

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

NSCIU v. Middle Tier CIU
EPA Webpage to read Final Rule
  • http//

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