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

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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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

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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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.

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

18. 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

19. 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)

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

21. 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”

22. 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”)

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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)

37. 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

38. 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

39. Miscellaneous Provisions – Fed Final Rule PERCS has not analyzed the following miscellaneous rules for conflict  Requirement to Report All Monitoring Data (40 CFR 403.12(g)(6))  Notification by IUs of Changed Discharge (40 CFR 403.12(j))  Signatory Requirements for IU and POTW Reports (40 CFR 403.12(l) and (m))  Net / Gross Calculations (40 CFR 403.15)

40. 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

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

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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 143-215.67(a)

46. 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

47. 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

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