7.1 CRITERIA
AND STANDARDS FOR TECHNOLOGY-BASED TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
(1) Purpose and scope. This section
establishes criteria and standards for the imposition of technology-based
treatment requirements and represents the minimum level of control that must be
imposed in a UPDES permit. Permits will contain the following technology-based
treatment requirements in accordance with the deadlines indicated herein:
(a) For POTW's effluent limitations based
upon:
1. Utah secondary treatment from date
of permit issuance; and
2. The best
practicable waste treatment technology from date of permit issuance.
(b) For dischargers other than
POTWs, except as otherwise provided, effluent limitations requiring:
1. The best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT) --
a. For effluent
limitations promulgated after January 1, 1982 and requiring a level of control
substantially greater or based on fundamentally different control technology
than under permits for an industrial category issued before such date,
compliance as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than three
years after the date such limitations are promulgated and in no case later than
March 31, 1989;
b. For effluent
limitations established on a case-by-case basis based on Best Professional
Judgment (BPJ) in a permit issued after February 4, 1987, compliance as
expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than three years after the
date such limitations are established and in no case later than May 31,
1989;
c. For all other BPT effluent
limitations compliance is required from the date of permit issuance.
2. For conventional pollutants the
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) --
a. For effluent limitations promulgated under
section 304(b) of the CWA, as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later
than three years after the date such limitations are promulgated, and in no
case later than March 31, 1989;
b.
For effluent limitations established on a case-by-case (BPJ) basis in a permit
issued after February 4, 1987 compliance as expeditiously as practicable but in
no case later than three years after the date such limitations are established
and in no case later than March 31, 1989;
c. For all other BCT effluent limitations
compliance is required from the date of permit issuance.
3. For all toxic pollutants referred to in
Committee Print No. 95-30, House Committee on Public Works and Transportation,
the best available technology economically achievable (BAT) --
a. For effluent limitations established under
section 304(b) of the CWA, as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later
than three years after the date such limitations are promulgated and in no case
later than March 31, 1989;
b. For
permits issued on a case-by-case (BPJ) basis after February 4, 1987
establishing BAT effluent limitations, compliance is required as expeditiously
as practicable but in no case later than three years after the date such
limitations are promulgated under Section 304(b)of the CWA and in no case later
than March 31, 1989.
c. For all
other BAT effluent limitations, compliance is required from the date of permit
issuance.
4. For all
toxic pollutants other than those listed on Committee Print No. 95-30, effluent
limitations based on BAT --
a. For effluent
limitations promulgated under Section 304(b) of the CWA, compliance is required
as expeditiously as practicable, but in no case later than three years after
the date such limitations are promulgated, and in no case later than March 31,
1989.
b. For permits issued on a
case-by-case (BPJ) basis under section 402(a)(1)(B) of the CWA after February
4, 1987 establishing BAT effluent limitations, compliance is required as
expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than 3 years after the date
such limitations are established and in no case later than March 31,
1989.
c. For all other BAT effluent
limitations, compliance is required from the date of permit issuance.
5. For all pollutants which are
neither toxic nor conventional pollutants, effluent limitations based on BAT --
a. For effluent limitations promulgated under
section 304(b), compliance is required as expeditiously as practicable but in
no case later than 3 years after the date such limitations are established and
in no case later than March 31, 1989.
b. For permits issued on a case-by-case (BPJ)
basis under section 402(a)(1)(B) of the CWA after February 4, 1987 establishing
BAT effluent limitations compliance is required as expeditiously as practicable
but in no case later than March 31, 1989.
c. For all other BAT effluent limitations,
compliance is required from the date of permit issuance.
(2) Variances and
Extensions.
(a) The following variance from
technology-based treatment requirements may be applied for under
R317-8-2
for dischargers other than POTWs:
1. Economic
variance from BAT, as indicated in R317-8-2.3(2);
2. Section 301(g) water quality related
variance from BAT;
3. Thermal
variance from BPT, BCT and BAT, under R317-8-7.4. may be authorized.
(b) An extension of the BPT
deadline may be applied for under R317-8-2.3(3) for dischargers other than
POTW's, for use of innovative technology. Compliance extensions may not extend
beyond July 1, 1987.
(3)
Methods of imposing technology-based treatment requirements in permits.
Technology-based treatment requirements may be imposed through one of the
following three methods:
(a) Application of
EPA-promulgated effluent limitations to dischargers by category or subcategory.
These effluent limitations are not applicable to the extent that they have been
withdrawn by EPA or remanded. In the case of a court remand, determinations
underlying effluent limitations shall be binding in permit issuance proceedings
where those determinations are not required to be reexamined by a court
remanding the regulations. In addition, dischargers may seek fundamentally
different factors variance from these effluent limitations under R317-8-2.3(1)
and R317-8-7.3;
(b) On a
case-by-case basis to the extent that EPA-promulgated effluent limitations are
inapplicable. The permit writer shall apply the appropriate factors and shall
consider:
1. The appropriate technology for
the category or class of point sources of which the applicant is a member,
based upon all available information.
2. Any unique factors relating to the
applicant.
(c) Through a
combination of the methods in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. Where EPA
promulgated effluent limitations guidelines only apply to certain aspects of
the discharger's operation, or to certain pollutant, other aspects or
activities are subject to regulation on case-by-case basis in order to carry
out the provisions of the CWA;
(d)
Limitations developed under paragraph (c)2 of this section may be expressed,
where appropriate, in terms of toxicity provided it is shown that the limits
reflect the appropriate requirements of the act;
(e) In setting case-by-case limitations
pursuant to R317-8-7.1(3), the permit writer must consider the following
factors:
1. For BPT requirements:
a. The total cost of application of
technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from
such application;
b. The age of
equipment and facilities involved;
c. The process employed;
d. The engineering aspects of the application
of various types of control techniques;
e. Process changes; and
f. Non-water quality environmental impact
(including energy requirements).
2. For BCT requirements:
a. The reasonableness of the relationship
between the costs of attaining a reduction in effluent and the effluent
reduction benefits derived;
b. The
comparison of the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from the
discharge from publicly owned treatment works to the cost and level of
reduction of such pollutants from a class or category of industrial
sources;
c. The age of equipment
and facilities involved;
d. The
process employed;
e. The
engineering aspects of the application of various types of control
techniques;
f. Process changes;
and
g. Non-water quality
environmental impact (including energy requirements).
3. For BAT requirement:
a. The age of equipment and facilities
involved;
b. The process
employed;
c. The engineering
aspects of the application of various types of control techniques;
d. The cost of achieving such effluent
reduction; and
e. Non-water quality
environmental impact (including energy requirements).
(f) Technology-based treatment
requirements are applied prior to or at the point of discharge.
(4) Technology-based treatment
requirements cannot be satisfied through the use of "non-treatment" techniques
such as flow augmentation and in-stream mechanical aerators. However, these
techniques may be considered as a method of achieving water quality standards
on a case-by-case basis when:
(a) The
technology based treatment requirements applicable to the discharge are not
sufficient to achieve the standards;
(b) The discharger agrees to waive any
opportunity to request a variance under R317-8-2.3;
(c) The discharger demonstrates that such a
technique is the preferred environmental and economic method to achieve the
standards after consideration of alternatives such as advanced waste treatment,
recycle and reuse, land disposal, changes in operating methods, and other
available methods.
(5)
Technology-based effluent limitations will be established for solids, sludges,
filter backwash, and other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or
control of wastewaters in the same manner as for other pollutants.
(6)
(a) The
Director may set a permit limit for a conventional pollutant at a level more
stringent than the best conventional pollution control technology (BCT), or
limit for a nonconventional pollutant which shall not be subject to
modification where:
1. Effluent limitations
guidelines specify the pollutant as an indicator for a toxic pollutant;
or
2.
a. The limitation reflects BAT-level control
of discharges of one or more toxic pollutants which are present in the waste
stream, and a specific BAT limitation upon the toxic pollutant(s) is not
feasible for economic or technical reasons;
b. The permit identifies which toxic
pollutants are intended to be controlled by use of the limitation;
and
c. The fact sheet required by
R317-8-6.4 sets forth the basis for the limitation, including a finding that
compliance with the limitations will result in BAT-level control of the toxic
pollutant discharges identified in (6)(l)(b)(ii) of this section, and a finding
that it would be economically or technically infeasible to directly limit the
toxic pollutant(s).
(b) The Director may set a permit limit for a
conventional pollutant at a level more stringent than BCT when:
1. Effluent limitations guidelines specify
the pollutant as an indicator for a hazardous substances; or
2.
a. The
limitation reflects BAT-level, co-control of discharges, or an appropriate
level of one or more hazardous substance(s) which are present in the waste
stream, and a specific BAT or other appropriate limitation upon the hazardous
substance which are present in the waste stream, and a specific BAT, or other
appropriate limitation upon the hazardous substance is not feasible for
economic or technical reasons;
b.
The permit identifies which hazardous substances are intended to be controlled
by use of the limitation; and
c.
The fact sheet required by R317-8-6.4 sets forth the basis for the limitation,
including a finding that compliance with the limitations will result in
BAT-level, or other appropriate level, control of the hazardous substances
discharges identified in (6)(l)(b)(ii) of this section, and a finding that it
would be economically or technically infeasible to directly limit the hazardous
substance(s).
d. Hazardous
substances which are also toxic pollutants are subject to R317-8-7.1(6).
3. The Director may not
set more stringent limits under the preceding paragraphs if the method of
treatment required to comply with the limit differs from that which would be
required if the toxic pollutant(s) or hazardous substances) controlled by the
limit were limited directly.
(d) Toxic pollutants identified under
R317-8-7.1(6) remain subject to R317-8-4.1(15) which requires notification of
increased discharges of toxic pollutants above levels reported in the
application form.
7.4 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING ALTERNATIVE
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
(1) Purpose and scope.
The factors, criteria and standards for the establishment of alternative
thermal effluent limitations will be used in UPDES permits and will be referred
to as R317-8-2.3(4) variances.
(2)
Definitions. For the purpose of this section:
(a) "Alternative effluent limitations" means
all effluent limitations or standards of performance for the control of the
thermal component of any discharge which are established under
R317-8-2.3(4).
(b) "Representative
important species" means species which are representative of a balanced,
indigenous community of shellfish and wildlife in the body of water into which
a discharge of heat is made.
(c)
The term "balanced, indigenous community" means a biotic community typically
characterized by diversity, the capacity to sustain itself through cyclic
seasonal changes, presence of necessary food chain species and by a lack of
domination by pollution tolerant species. Such a community may include
historically non-native species introduced in connection with a program of
wildlife management and species whose presence or abundance results from
substantial, irreversible environmental modification. Normally, however, such a
community will not include species whose presence or abundance is attributable
to the introduction of pollutants that will be eliminated by compliance by all
sources with R317-8-4.1(l)(6) and may not include species whose presence of
abundance is attributable to alternative effluent limitations imposed pursuant
to R317-8-2.3(4).
(3)
Early screening of applications for R317-8-2.3(4) variance.
(a) Any initial application for the variance
shall include the following early screening information:
1. A description of the alternative effluent
limitation requested;
2. A general
description of the method by which the discharger proposes to demonstrate that
the otherwise applicable thermal discharge effluent limitations are more
stringent than necessary;
3. A
general description of the type of data, studies, experiments and other
information which the discharger intends to submit for the demonstration;
and
4. Such data and information as
may be available to assist the Director in selecting the appropriate
representative important species.
(b) After submitting the early screening
information under paragraph (a) of this subsection, the discharger shall
consult with the Director at the earliest practicable time, but not later than
thirty (30) days after the application is filed, to discuss the discharger's
early screening information. Within sixty (60) days after the application is
filed, the discharger shall submit for the Director's approval a detailed plan
of study which the discharger will undertake to support its R317-8-2.3(4)
demonstration. The discharger shall specify the nature and extent of the
following type of information to be included in the plan of study: biological,
hydrographical and meteorological data; physical monitoring data; engineering
or diffusion models; laboratory studies: representative important species; and
other relevant information. In selecting representative important species,
special consideration shall be given to species mentioned in applicable water
quality standards. After the discharger submits its detailed plan of study, the
Director will either approve the plan or specify any necessary revisions to the
plan. The discharger shall provide any additional information or studies which
the Director subsequently determines necessary to support the demonstration,
including such studies or inspections as may be necessary to select
representative important species. The discharger may provide any additional
information or studies which the discharger feels are appropriate to support
the administration.
(c) Any
application for the renewal of R317-8-2.3(4) variance shall include only such
information described in R317-8-7.4(3)(a) and (b) and
R317-8-6 as the
Director requests within sixty (60) days after receipt of the permit
application.
(d) The Director shall
promptly notify the Secretaries of the U.S. Departments of Commerce and
Interior and any affected state of the filing of the request and shall consider
any timely recommendations they submit.
(e) In making the demonstration the
discharger shall consider any information or guidance published by EPA to
assist in making such demonstrations.
(f) If an applicant desires a ruling on a
R317-8-2.7(4) application before the ruling on any other necessary permit terms
and conditions, it shall so request upon filing its application under paragraph
(a) of this subsection. This request will be granted or denied at the
discretion of the Director.
(4) Criteria and standards for the
determination of alternative effluent limitations.
(a) Thermal discharge effluent limitations or
standards established in permits may be less stringent than those required by
applicable standards and limitations if the discharger demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Director that such effluent limitations are more stringent
than necessary to assure the protection and propagation of a balanced,
indigenous community of shellfish, fish and wildlife in and on the body of
water into which the discharge is made. This demonstration shall show that the
alternative effluent desired by the discharger, considering the cumulative
impact of its thermal discharge together with all other significant impacts on
the species affected, will assure the protection and propagation of a balanced
indigenous community of shellfish, fish and wildlife in and on the body of
water into which the discharge is to be made.
(b) In determining whether or not the
protection and propagation of the affected species will be assured, the
Director may consider any information contained or referenced in any applicable
thermal water quality criteria and information published by the Administrator
under CWA section 304(a) (
33 U.S.C. Section
1314(a) ) or any other
information which may be relevant.
(c) Existing dischargers may base their
demonstration upon the absence of prior appreciable harm in lieu of predictive
studies. Any such demonstrations shall show:
1. That no appreciable harm has resulted from
the normal component of the discharge, taking into account the interaction of
such thermal component with other pollutants and the additive effect of other
thermal sources to a balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, fish and
wildlife in and on the body of water into which the discharge has been made;
or
2. That despite the occurrence
of such previous harm, the desired alternative effluent limitations, or
appropriate modifications thereof, shall nevertheless assure the protection and
propagation of a balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, fish and wildlife
in and on the body of water into which the discharge is made.
(5) In determining
whether or not appreciable harm has occurred, the Director will consider the
length of time in which the applicant has been discharging and the nature of
the discharge.
7.5
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
(1) Purpose and Scope.
Best management practices (BMPs) for ancillary industrial
activities shall be reflected in permits, including best management practices
promulgated in effluent limitations and established on a case-by-case basis in
permits.
(2) Definition.
"Manufacture" means to produce as an intermediate or final
product, or by-product.
(3)
Applicability of best management practices.
Dischargers who use, manufacture, store, handle or discharge
any pollutant listed as toxic or any pollutant listed as hazardous are subject
to the requirements of R317-8-7.5 for all activities which may result in
significant amounts of those pollutants reaching waters of the State. These
activities are ancillary manufacturing operations including: Materials storage
areas; in-plant transfer, process and material handling areas; loading and
unloading operations; plant site runoff; and sludge and waste disposal
areas.
(4) Permit terms and
conditions.
(a) Best management practices
shall be expressly incorporated into a permit where required by an applicable
promulgated effluent limitations guideline;
(b) Best management practices may be
expressly incorporated into a permit on a case-by-case basis where determined
necessary. In issuing a permit containing BMP requirements, the Director shall
consider the following factors:
1. Toxicity
of the pollutant(s);
2. Quantity of
the pollutants(s) used, produced, or discharged;
3. History of UPDES permit
violations;
4. History of
significant leaks or spills of toxic or hazardous pollutants;
5. Potential for adverse impact on public
health (e.g., proximity to a public water supply) or the environment (e.g.,
proximity to a sport or commercial fishery); and
6. Any other factors determined to be
relevant to the control of toxic or hazardous pollutants.
(c) Best management practices may be
established in permits under R317-8-7.5(4)(b) alone or in combination with
those required under R317-8-7.5(4)(a).
(d) In addition to the requirements of
R317-8-7.5(4)(a) and (b), dischargers covered under R317-8-7.5(4) shall develop
and implement a best management practices program in accordance with
R317-8-7.5(5) which prevents, or minimizes the potential for, the release of
toxic or hazardous pollutants from ancillary activities to waters of the
State.
(5) Best
management practices programs.
(a) BMP
programs shall be developed in accordance with good engineering practices and
with the provisions of this subpart.
(b) The BMP program shall:
1. Be documented in narrative form, and shall
include any necessary plot plans, drawings or maps;
2. Establish specific objectives for the
control of toxic and hazardous pollutants.
a.
Each facility component or system shall be examined for its potential for
causing a release of significant amounts of toxic or hazardous pollutants to
waters of the State due to equipment failure, improper operation, natural
phenomena such as rain or snowfall.
b. Where experience indicates a reasonable
potential for equipment failure (e.g., a tank overflow or leakage), natural
condition (e.g., precipitation), or other circumstances to result in
significant amounts of toxic or hazardous pollutants reaching surface waters,
the program should include a prediction of the direction, rate of flow and
total quantity of toxic or hazardous pollutants which could be discharged from
the facility as a result of each condition or circumstance;
3. Establish specific best
management practices to meet the objectives identified under R317-8-7.5(5)(b)
2, addressing each component or system capable of causing a release of
significant amounts of toxic or hazardous pollutants to the waters of the
State;
4. The BMP program:
a. May reflect requirements for Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans under section 311 of the CWA
and 40 CFR Part
151, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPP),and may
incorporate any part of such plans into the BMP program by reference;
b. Shall assure the proper
management of solid and hazardous waste in accordance with rules promulgated
under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). Management practices required under RCRA
regulations shall be expressly incorporated into the BMP program; and
c. Shall address the following points for the
ancillary activities in R317-8-7.4 A(3):
i.
Statement of policy;
ii. Spill
Control Committee;
iii. Material
inventory;
iv. Material
compatibility;
v. Employee
training;
vi. Reporting and
notification procedures;
vii.
Visual inspections;
viii.
Preventative maintenance;
ix.
Housekeeping; and
x.
Security.
5.
The BMP program must be clearly described and submitted as part of the permit
application. An application which does not contain a BMP program shall be
considered incomplete. Upon receipt of the application, the Director shall
approve or modify the program in accordance with the requirements of this
subpart. The BMP program as approved or modified shall be included in the draft
permit. The BMP program shall be subject to the applicable permit issuance
requirements of R317-8, resulting in the incorporation of the program
(including any modifications of the program resulting from the permit issuance
procedures) into the final permit.
6. Proposed modifications to the BMP program
which affect the discharger's permit obligations shall be submitted to the
Director for approval. If the Director approves the proposed BMP program
modification, the permit shall be modified in accordance with R317-8-5.6,
provided that the Director may waive the requirements for public notice and
opportunity for public hearing on such modification if he or she determines
that the modification is not significant. The BMP program, or modification
thereof, shall be fully implemented as soon as possible but not later than one
year after permit issuance, modification, or revocation and reissuance unless
the Director specifies a later date in the permit.
(c) The discharger shall maintain a
description of the BMP program at the facility and shall make the description
available to the Director upon request.
(d) The owner or operator of a facility
subject to this subpart shall amend the BMP program in accordance with the
provisions of this subpart whenever there is a change in facility design,
construction, operation, or maintenance which materially affects the facility's
potential for discharge of significant amounts of hazardous or toxic pollutants
into the waters of the State.
(e)
If the BMP program proves to be ineffective in achieving the general objective
of preventing the release of significant amounts of toxic or hazardous
pollutants to those waters and the specific objectives and requirements under
R317-8-7.5(5)(b), the permit and/or the BMP program shall be subject to
modification to incorporate revised BMP requirements.
7.6 TOXIC POLLUTANTS. References
throughout the UPDES rules establish specific requirements for discharges of
toxic pollutants. Toxic pollutants are listed below:
(1) Acenaphthene
(2) Acrolein
(3) Acrylonitrile
(4) Aldrin/Dieldrin
(5) Antimony and compounds
(6) Arsenic and compounds
(7) Asbestos
(8) Benzene
(9) Benzidine
(10) Beryllium and compounds
(11) Cadmium and compounds
(12) Carbon tetrachloride
(13) Chlordane (technical mixture and
metabolites)
(14) Chlorinated
benzenes (other than dichlorobenzenes)
(15) Chlorinated ethanes (including
1,2-dichloroethan, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and hexachloroethane)
(16) Chloroalkyl ethers (chloromethyl,
chloroethyl, and moxed ethers)
(17)
Chlorinated naphthalene
(18)
Chlorinated phenols (other than those listed elsewhere; includes
trichlorophenols and chlorinated cresols)
(19) Chloroform
(20) 2-chlorophenol
(21) Chromium and compounds
(22) Copper and compounds
(23) Cyanides
(24) DDT and metabolites
(25) Dichlorobenzenes (1,2-, 1,3-, and
1,4-dichlorobenzenes)
(26)
Dichlorobenzidine
(27)
Dichloroethylenes (1,1- and 1,2-dichloroethylene)
(28) 2,4-dimethylphenol
(29) Dichloropropane and
dichloropropene
(30)
2,4-dimethylphenol
(31)
Dinitrotoluene
(32)
Diphenylhydrazine
(33) Endosulfan
and metabolities
(34)
Ethylbenzene
(35)
Enthylbenzene
(36)
Fluoranthene
(37) Haloethers (other
than those listed elsewhere; includes chlorophenylphenyl ethers,
bromophenylphenyl ether, bis(dichloroisopropyl) ether, bis-(chloroethoxy)
methane and polychlorinated diphenyl ethers)
(38) Halomethanes (other than those listed
elsewhere; includes methylene chloride, methylchloride, methylbromide,
bromoform, dichlorobromomethane
(39) Heptachlor and metabolites
(40) Hexachlorobutadiene
(41) Hexachlorocyclohexane
(42) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
(43) Isophorone
(44) Lead and compounds
(45) Mercury and compounds
(46) Naphthalene
(47) Nickel and compounds
(48) Nitrobenze
(49) Nitrophenols (including
2,4-dinitrophenol, dinitrocresol)
(50) Nitrosamines
(51) Pentachlorophenol
(52) Phenol
(53) Phthalate esters
(54) Polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs)
(55) Polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (including benzanthracenes, benzopyrenes, benzofluranthene,
chrysenes, dibenzanthracenes, and indenopyrenes)
(56) Selenium and compounds
(57) Silver and compounds
(58) 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro/dibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD)
(59)
Tetrachloroethylene
(60) Thallium
and compounds
(61)
Toluene
(62) Toxaphene
(63) Trichloroethylene
(64) Vinyl chloride
(65) Zinc and compounds
7.7 CRITERIA FOR EXTENDING COMPLIANCE DATES
FOR FACILITIES INSTALLING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
(1) Purpose and Scope. This Section
establishes the criteria and procedures to be used in determining whether an
industrial discharger will be granted a compliance extension for the
installation of an innovative technology.
(2) Authority. The Director, in consultation
with the Administrator, may grant a compliance extension for BAT limitations to
a discharger which installs an innovative technology. The innovative technology
must produce either a significantly greater effluent reduction than that
achieved by the best available technology economically achievable (BAT) or the
same level of treatment as BAT at a significantly lower cost. The Director is
authorized to grant compliance extensions to a date no later than 2 years after
the date for compliance with the effluent limitations which would otherwise be
applicable.
(3) Definitions.
(a) The term "innovative technology" means a
production process, a pollution control technique, or a combination of the two
which satisfies one of the criteria in R317-8-7.8(4) and which has not been
commercially demonstrated in the industry of which the requesting discharger is
a part.
(b) The term "potential for
industry-wide application" means that an innovative technology can be applied
in two or more facilities which are in one or more industrial
categories.
(c) The term
"significantly greater effluent reduction than BAT" means that the effluent
reduction over BAT produced by an innovative technology is significant when
compared to the effluent reduction over best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT) produced by BAT.
(d) The term "significantly lower cost" means
that an innovative technology must produce a significant cost advantage when
compared to the technology used to achieve BAT limitations in terms of annual
capital costs and annual operation and maintenance expenses over the useful
life of the technology.
(4) Request for Compliance Extension. The
Director shall grant a compliance extension to a date no later than 2 years
after the date for compliance with the effluent limitations which would
otherwise be applicable to a discharger that demonstrates:
(a) That the installation and operation of
its proposed innovative technology at its facility will result in a
significantly greater effluent reduction than BAT and has the potential for
industry-wide application; or
(b)
That the installation and operation of its proposed innovative technology at
its facility will result in the same effluent reduction as BAT at a
significantly lower cost and has the potential for industry-wide
application.
(5) Permit
conditions. The Director may include any of the following conditions in the
permit of a discharger to which a compliance extension beyond the otherwise
applicable date is granted:
(a) A requirement
that the discharger report annually on the installation, operation and
maintenance costs of the innovative technology;
(b) Alternative BAT limitations that the
discharger must meet as soon as possible and not later than 2 years after the
date for compliance with the effluent limitation which would otherwise be
applicable if the innovative technology limitations that are more stringent
than BAT are not achievable.
(6) Signatories to Request for Compliance
Extension.
(a) All requests must be signed in
accordance with the provisions of R317-8-3.4.
(b) Any person signing a request under
paragraph (a) of this section shall make the following certification:
"I certify under penalty of law that I have personally
examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and
all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately
responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the information is
true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties
for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment."
(c) A
professional engineer shall certify that the estimates by the applicant of the
costs for the BAT control equipment and for the innovative technology are made
in accordance with good engineering practice and represent, in his judgment,
the best information available. The Director may waive the requirements for
certification under this subsection if, in his opinion, the cost of such
certification is unreasonable when compared to the annual sales of the
applicant.
(7)
Supplementary Information and Record keeping.
(a) In addition to the information submitted
in support of the request, the applicant shall provide the Executive Director,
at his or her request, such other information as the Executive Director may
reasonably require to assess the performance and cost of the innovative
technology.
(b) Applicants shall
keep records of all data used to complete the request for a compliance
extension for the life of the permit containing the compliance
extension.
(8)
Procedures.
(a) The procedure for requesting
a section 301(k) compliance extension is contained in R317-8-2.8. In addition,
notwithstanding R317-8-2.3(3), the Director may accept applications for such
extensions after the close of the public comment period on the permit if the
applicant can show that information necessary to the development of the
innovation was not available at the time the permit was written and that the
innovative technology can be installed and operated in time to comply no later
than 2 years after the date for compliance with the effluent limitation which
would otherwise be applicable.