supplementary information: dates · 2016-03-18 · products, which were proposed on june 14,1979...

Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 98 / Monday, May 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124, and 125[FRL-i453-41

Consolidated Permit ApplicationForms for EPA ProgramsAGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Publication of consolidatedpermit application forms.

SUMMARY: Elsewhere in today's FederalRegister, EPA has published finalconsolidated regulations for severalpermit programs adminstered by theAgency. As part of its consolidation ofpermit programs, EPA is also developinEa set of consolidated application formsfor several of its permit programs. •

The complete set of consolidatedapplication forms will consist of a briefgeneral form requesting informationcommon to all the consolidated permitprograms. (including an identification ofthe facility and a general description ofthe various pathways by which thefacility releases pollutants to theenvironment) and several supplementalprogram-specific forms. Several of theseforms, drafts of which were publishedfor public comment on June 14, 1979 (44FR 34346), are now available for use andare published in this notice. These are:

Form 1-the general form for allapplicants.

Form 2b-a supplemental form forconcentrated animal feeding operationsand aquatic animal production facilitiesapplying for National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES)permits under the Clean Water Act.

Form 2c-a supplemental form forexisting industrial dischargers applyingfor NPDES permits.

Form 3-a supplemental form forhazardous waste management facilitiesapplying for hazardous waste treatment,storage, or disposal permits under theResource Conservation and RecoveryAct.

Additional forms will be developed inthe future, as explained in theSupplementary Information sectionbelow.

The consolidated application formshave been designed for use byapplicants for EPA permits. States withEPA-a~proved permit programs mayadopt the EPA format in developingtheir own forms, or they may developforms which differ from EPA's, providedthat their forms require submission ofthe information required by 40 CFR Part122 of the consolidated permitregulations. EPA encourages States toconsolidate their application forms in a

manner which will, like EPA'sconsolidated form, provide completesummaries of facilities' total releases ofpollutants to the environment.

The Supplementary Informationbelow discusses extensively the NPDESpermitting strategy and relatedreguiations, as well as the applicationfbrns. Drafts of the forms and proposedregulations and discussion of thepermitting strategy were publishedtogether in Part IIl of the June 14, 179Federal Register (44 FR 34346). Today,the final regulations are published as

* part of the consolidated regulations.However, the regulations relating to theapplication requirements and permittingstrategy are discussed here rather thanin the preamble to the consolidatedregulations to again allow a unified,detailed discussion of the futuredirection of the NPDES program.DATES: Forms 1, 2b, 2c, and 3 must beused in accordance with the followingschedule:

1. New concentrated animal feedingoperations and aquatic animalproduction facilities applying to EPA forNPDES permits must submit Forms 1(EPA Form 3510-1, OMB No. 158-RO175)and 2b [EPA Form 3510-2b, OMB No,

* 158-RO174). EPA Form 7550-7 (OMB No.158-RO103) will be superseded. Anyexisting facility applying for a newpermit must submit Forms 1 and 2b,unless its permit expires on or beforeNovember 30,1980 and it has alreadysubmitted EPA Form 7550-7. See 40 CFR122.53(c) (published elsewhere intoday's Federal Register) for informationon deadlines for submission.

2.. Any existing industrial -(manufacturing, commercial, mining orsilvicultural) facility applying to EPA foran NPDES permit must submit Forms 1and 2c (EPA Form 3510-2c, OMB No.158-RO173], unless its permit expires on,or before November 30, 1980 and it hasalready submitted EPA Forms 7550-8,7550-9 or 7550-23. Forms 7550-8, -9, and-23 are superseded for all suchdischargers applying after May 19, 1980.However, they must still be used byNPDES new sources and newdischargers until Form 2d-is madeavailable. See 40 CFR 122.53(c) forinformation on deadlines forsubmission.

3. Hazardous waste managementfacilities must submit Forms 1 and 3(EPA Form 3510-3, OMB No. 158-S80004) to EPA no later than 180 days

* after promulgation of 40 CFR Part 261.(These facilities must also submit briefnotification forms to EPA no later than

. 90 days after promulgation of 40 CFRPart 261., See 45 FR 12746, February 26,1980.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:1. Forms 1, 2b, and 2c: Fanny Knox orDov Weitman, Permits Division (EN-336), Environmental Protection Agency,401 M Street SW, Washington, D.C.20460 (202) 426-,7010.

2. Form 3: Art Glazer or Allen Pearce,Office of Solid Waste (WH-563),Environmental Protection Agency, 401 MStreet SW, Washington, D. C. 20400(202) 755-9150.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Contents of this Preamble:I. Overview of Consolidated Application

FormsII. General Application Requirements for

All Permit Programs: § 122.4 and Form1

IMl. NPDES Forms 2b arid 2c and RelatedNPDES Regulations

A. Introduction1. Overview of this Preamble Discussion2. Use of a Single Form for all Existing

Industrial DischargersB. Strategy for Issuing Permits to Control

Discharges of Toxic Pollutants1. General Approach to Permit Writing2. New Regulations to Insure the Control

of Toxic Pollutantsa. Summary of Requirementsi. Requirement to Control all Significant

Discharges of Toxic Pollutantsthrough Permit Limits: § 122.62(e)

ii. Regulation of Toxic Pollutants notLimited in Permits

(A) Notification of Increased Dischargesof Toxic Pollutants: § 122.61(a)

[B) Modification of Permit to ControlIncreased Discharges of ToxicPollutants: § 122.15(a)(5)(viii)-(x)

b. Discussion of Changes from ProposedRequirements

3. Toxicity-based Limits: § 125.3(c)[4)4. Indicator Limits to Control Toxic

Pollutants or Hazardous Substances:§125.3[g)

C. NPDES Application Requirements forConcentrated Animal FeedingOperations and Aquatic AnimalProduction Facilities: § 122.53(e) andForm 2b

D. NPDES Application Requirements forExisting Industrial Dischargers.§ 122.53(d) and Form 2c

1. General Discussion of Requirements:Public Availability of Information

2. Required Analyses and Estimates ofPollutant Discharges

a. Toxic Pollutants: § 122.53(d](7)(1i) and(v) and item V-C

b. Other Pollutantsi. Required Analyses: § 122.53(d](7)(i)

and itpam V-Aii. Required Reporting of Presence or

Absence and, if Present, RequiredAnalyses: § 122.53(d)(7)(iii) and itemV-B -

iii. Required Reporting of Presence orabsence of Asbestos and Hazardous

I I33516

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 33516 1980

This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.


Substances: § 122.53(d)(7)(iv) and itemV-D

c. General Concerns in Sampling,Analysis and Reporting of TestingResults

i. Sampling Requirementsii. Reporting of Analytical Testing

Results(A) Detection Limits(B) Miscellaneousd. Response to Comments Advocating

Biological Monitoring for NPDESPermit Applications

3. Other Application-Requirementsa. Outfall Location: § 122.53(d)(1) and

item Ib. Flows, Sources of Pollution and

Treatment Technologies:§ 122.53(d)(2)-(4) and item II

c. Maximum Production: § 122.53(d)(5)and item Il

d. Currently Required Construction,Upgrading or Operation of WasteTreatment Equipment: § 122.53(d)(6)and item IV

e. Potential Discharges of ToxicPollutants

i. Toxic Pollutants Used or Produced bythe Applicant. § 122.53(d)(9) and itemVI-A

ii. Predicted Potential Increases inDischarges of Pollutants:§ 122.53(d)(10) and item VI-B and C

f. Results of Previous Biomonitoring:§ 122.53(d)(11) and item VII

g. Laboratory Conducting Analyses:§ 122.53(d)(12) and item vm

h. Other Information Required by theDirector on a Case-by-Case Basis:§ 122.53(d)(13)

4. Proposed Application RequirementsDeleted from the Final Regulationsand Form

a. Optional Reporting of Discharges ofHazardous Substances

b. Submission of Data on AdditionalPollutants

c. Ancillary Activities which May Resultin Discharges of Toxic Pollutants orHazardous Substances-BestManagement Practices Programs

E. Monitoring Requirements1. Chemical Monitoring2. Biological MonitoringF. Economic and Resource Impacts1. Unit Costs of Sampling and Analysis2. Unit Reporting Costs3. Total Incremental Costs4. Economic Impact Upon Selected

Industries5. Impact Upon Independent Laboratory

Capacity6. Small Business Exemptiona. Generalb. Coal MinesIV. Part A of Hazardous Waste

Application Requirements: § 122.24and Form 3

I. OVERVIEW OF CONSOLIDATEDAPPLICATION FORMS

Today EPA is publishing in final formthe first major regulatory products of Itspermits consolidation efforts. Theseproducts, which were proposed on June14,1979 (44 FR 34244 and 44 FR 34346),are consolidated permit regulations anda consolidated set of permit applicationforms.

The consolidated permit regulationsare designed to promote consistency inseveral of EPA's established and newly-developed permit programs. Theregulations are promulgated as 40 CFRParts 122-124 elsewhere in today'sFederal Register. They apply to fivepermit programs:

(1) The Hazardous Waste permitprogram under section 3005 of theResource Conservation and RecoveryAct (RCRA);

(2] The Underground Injection Control(UIC) permit program under Part C ofthe Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA);

(3] The National Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES) permitprogram under section 402 of the CleanWater Act (CWA];

(4) The Dredged or Fill Materialpermit program under section 404 ofCWA; and

(5) The Prevention of SignificantDeterioration (PSD) permit programunder Part C of the Clean Air Act(CAA].

The EPA consolidated applicationforms will be used by applicants forEPA-issued permits under the abovepermit programs. However, since EPAdoes not issue any permits under thedredged or fill material program, it is notdeveloping a form for that program.(These permits are issued by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and by Statesapproved by EPA.)

The consolidated application formswill, when complete, consist of thefollowing:

Form 1-General Information (allpermits).

Form 2-Discharges to Surface Water(NPDES permits).

a. Publicly Owned Treatment Works.b. Concentrated Animal Feeding

Operations and Aquatic AnimalProduction Facilities.

c. Existing Manufacturing,Commercial, Mining and SilviculturalOperations.

d. New Manufacturing. Commercial,Mining and Silvicultural Operations.

Form 3-Hazardous WasteInformation Summary (RCRA permits).

Form 4-Underground Injection ofFluids (UIC permits).

Form 5-Air Emissions In or nearAttainment Areas (PSD permits).

The above organization differs slightlyfrom that set out in the June 14 notice. Inthat notice, EPA proposed to combineall application requirements forproposed facilities into a single form.Upon reconsideration, EPA hasdetermined that, apart from the commonelements consolidated in Form 1, theinformational needs of the variousprograms differ significantly forproposed sources as well as existingsources. Thus it makes sense to keepthem separate, as outlined above.

This notice contains Forms 1, 2b, 2c.and 3. which must be used as set forthabove under "Dates." As mentioned inthe June 14 preamble at page 34347. EPAhad hoped to publish drafts of Forms Za,2d (proposed Form 5], and 5 inDecember 1979. Forms 2a and 2d havebeen delayed somewhat due to the needto concentrate Agency resources onfinalizing Forms 1, 2b, 2c, and 3, and onpromulgating final consolidatedregulations. Development of Form 5 hasbeen delayed as a result of AlabamaPowerv. Costle (D.C. Cir., 1979], whichrequired EPA to substantially reviseseveral major aspects of the PSDprogram regulations. EPA currentlyanticipates that drafts of Forms 2a. 2d.and 4 will be published in June 1980. Thedate for publication of a draft of Form 5is currently uncertain. Applicants forPSD permits should contact their localEPA Regional offices for information onhow to apply for PSD permits pendingavailability of Form 5.

The set of consolidated applicationforms are required to be used only forapplications to EPA. Where approvedStates have permit-issuing authority,they may use their own forms. Theseforms must, however, require at leastthe information required by theapplication requirements contained in 40CFR Part 122. In addition, States mayrequire information beyond thatrequired by EPA. EPA encourages Statesto consolidate their programs and formsand hopes that the EPA consolidatedapplication forms will provide a usefulmodel to the States.

Or course, States may choose to useEPA's forms. EPA has in the pastprovided NPDES forms to States wishingto use EPA forms. This practice willcontinue in the future for all of theconsolidated permit application forms.

States may be able to consolidateState permit application forms forpermit programs other than thosecovered by EPA's consolidated forms.such as State dredged or fill materialapplication forms. Combination of formsfor PSD and nonattainment permitapplications under Parts C and D of theClean Air Act might prove particularlyuseful.

33517




One commenter suggested that EPArequire States to use the same form asEPA. This suggestion has not beenadopted, because-States are allowed by'the applicable laws to have morestringent application requirements thanEPA. In addition, EPA sees nocompelling need to require a unifdrmapplication form in all States-nclusionof uniform minimum applicationrequirements in 40 CFR Part 122,coupled with EPA approval of Stateprogram forms under 40 CFR 123.4[d),will provide sufficient uniformity tomeet program needs.

EPA was pleased to receive generallyfavorable comments from the public onthe concept of consolidating theapplication forms. As Citizens for aBetter Environment pointed out, thisconsolidation will not only reducepaperwork but will also provide a"concise and clear record of the ultimatefate of all of the pollutants generated bya facility, whether these pollutants aredischarged to air, water or land." Stateswere also supportive of EPA's effort.

Some industry commenters did,however, express two major concerns,although in general they did not objectto the concept of consolidatingapplication forms.

The first concern expressed byindustry was an extension of the generalconcerns raised about the consolidatedpermits regulations: that application andpermit requirements of one programshould not be applied to anotherprogram and that application proceduresunder one program should iot beallowed to delay procedures underanother program. EPA agrees thatconsolidation should not affectsubstantive requirements of applicablelaw and that consolidated proceduresshould be used to expedite rather thandelay permit issuance. The preamble toParts 122 and 124 of the consolidatedregulations discusses these issues indetail. The important point is thatdifferent program-specific application'forms (e.g., Forms 2c and 3) may besubmitted separately and, if necessaryto avoid delay, processed separately.

The second concern expressed bycommenters from several industries(particularly farming and coal mining,but also oil and gas producing, steamelectric generating, and rementlandconcrete industries) was that industry-specific forms should be developed for -each industry, resulting in simplificationfor applicants. EPA agrees thatdeVelopment of industry-specific formsmay be useful in certain situations,although administrative resourceconstraints enerally prelude suchdevelopmentfor each regulated .industry, EPA has been able to take

steps to develop specific requirementsfor the farming and coal miningindustries. EPA has separatedagricultural and aquatic operations fromall other dischargers of pollutants bydeveloping Form 2b. Similarly, EPA isworking with the Department of theInterior's Office ofSurface Mihing todevelop a consistent set of specificapplication requirements for the coalmining industry (see section III.F.6.b ofthis preamble; see also 44 FR 55322,September 25,1979).

II. GENERAL APPLICATIONREQUIREMENTS FOR ALL PERMITPROGRAMS: § 122.4 AND FORM I

Form I of the consolidated applicationforms requires identification of theapplicant and general informationshowing the various pathways by whichthe facility releases pollutants to theenvironment. This information is usedby the applicant to dietermine whatpermits are needed by the facility andwhich supplemental forms must besubmitted in addition to Form 1. Most ofthe requirements of Form 1 also appearin § 122.4 of the consolidatedregulations.

The June 14 draft of Form 1 has beenchanged in some minorrespects in thefinal version. In addition, theinstructions have been shortened andclarified by deleting reptitiousinformation and making appropriateeditorial changes. The instructions havealso been amended to reflect programchanges in the final consolidated fandother program) regulations and to reflectthe changes in the PSD program requiredby Alabama Power v. CostIe.

Divergent philosophical viewpointswere expressed in comments byindustry and environmental groups.Several industry commenters referring'to Items II (draft-item I) and XI (draftitem X] questioned EPA's -authority torequire information not directly relatedto the applied-for permits. Item IIrequires a facility applying for a permitunder one program to state whether ornot it engages in any activity regulatedunder any of the other consolidated EPApermit programs. Item XI requiressubmission of a map showing thevarious types of wastes which thefacility releases to the environment andthe various ways those wastes arereleased. For example, a facility needingan NPDES permit must also statewhether it treats, stores or disposes ofhazardous waste and, if so, must showon a map where it does so.

Environmentalists argued to thecontrary that Form 1 should requiremuch more detailed information

- showing-the movement of all wastestream components in an induistrial'

process, from the introduction of rawmaterials through processing to ultimatarelease.

EPA has concluded, after consideringboth the industrial and environmentalarguments, that the middle course whichit adopted in draft Form I should beretained as the most suitable one for the

.form's purposes. EPA believes thatresponsible environmental managementrequires a unified examination of afacility's total residual waste stream. Inrecent years, the interrelation of variousenvironmental programs has becomeincreasingly clear. See, for example,section 1006 of RCRA, requiring EPA tointegrate all provisions of RCRA, forpurposes of administration andenforcement, with the appropriateprovisions of the Clean Air Act, CleanWater Act, Safe Drinking Water Act,and certain other environmental lawsadministered by EPA.

EPA is responding to this needthrough its consolidated permitregulations and through its consolidatedapplication forms, particularly Form 1,Because the burden on a facility to listand to indicate on a map its releases ofpollutants to the environment Isminimal, the environmental benefit ofproviding this information is notcountervailed by a substantial burdenon industry.

However, because of the differinginformational needs of the variousconsolidated programs, the detailedinformation desired by theenvironmental commenters Is notrequired by Form 1. Rather, any detailed

.information required to make permitissuance decisions under a particularprogram should be requested in thatprogram's supplemental form. Form 1thus functions as a "road map," leadingthe'applicant to the detailedinformational requirements relevant toits operation.

Specific items on Form I which wereof interest to commenters are discussedbelow:

Item I [item II in the June 14 draft ofForm 1]: EPA has renamed the "FacilityID Number," it will now be referred toas "EPA ID Number." In response tocomments (particularly from farmersand oil and gas producers) that Dunnand Bradstreet (DUNS) numbers havenot been assigned to certain facilitiesand are difficult to obtain, EPA hasdecided to provide DUNS numbers tofacilities before they fill out theirapplications. In many instances, the IDnumber (which will be obtained by EPAfrom Dunn and Bradstreet where nonehas existed previously) will be on apreprinted label mailed to the applicantwhich-contains items I, Il (facilityname), V (facility mailing address], and

33518




VI (facility location). In other instances,EPA will indicate the ID number on theoutside of the envelope used to mail theapplication form to the applicant.

Item II (item I in the June 14 draft): Athird column has been added to thisitem, as requested by some commenters,for applicants to indicate whichsupplemental forms are being submittedin addition to Form 1. EPA has alsoadopted a comment requesting that theinstructions state that a facility whichanswers yes to a question but whichalready has a permit covering that

"activity need not file a new application,unless the applicant is filing for a permitrenewaL Some commenters correctlynoted that question E was overly broad.Questions E through H have beenredrafted to clarify that only informationrelated to the facility seeking a permit isrequested and not, for example,information concerning hazardous wastedisposed of by the same owner oroperator at a different facility in adistant location.

Item IV: Two environmentalcommenters requested that eachapplicant be required to list a telephonenumber at which a technicallycompetent person could be reached 24hours a day. EPA believes this isunnecessary. It is true that theHazardous Waste Permit Programappropriately requires each facility thattreats, stores or disposes of hazardouswaste to have an emergency coordinatorpresent or on call [40 CFR Part 264).However, different people are likely tofunction as emergency coordinators atdifferent times; thus the identification ofa single person or phone number in theapplication is likely to becothe obsoletesoon after the application is filed. In theevent of an emergeny needingimmediate attention by the permitteeduring non-business hours, high-levelofficials of the permitted facility maygenerally be contacted immediatelywithout difficulty. Moreover, theNational Responses Center may bereached 24 hours a day at 800-424-8802to respond to emergencies requiringimmiediate assistance or advice.

Item VII: Several commentersrequested clarification concerning SICcodes. The purposes of requesting SICcodes are: (1) to provide permit writerswith an additional means of checkingwhether wastes or pollutants listed on asupplemental form include all of thosewhich the applicant might be expectedto release; (2) to provide one means forNPDES and PSD permit writers todetermine whether a particular industryguideline or standard applies; and (3) toprovide a data base to assist EPA incorrelating industrial subcategories

(indicated in Item VII) to types ofwastes or pollutants being released tothe environment (indicated in Item 11).EPA recognizes that determining SICcodes is an imprecise exercise andrequires simply that each applicant useits best judgment to list at most four SICcodes, in order of priority, which mostaccurately define goods (final orintermediate) and services created orproduced by the applicant. Applicantsneeding assistance in answering thequestion are now directed by theinstructions, as suggested by ohecommenter, to contact their EPARegional offices.

Two commenters noted that off-sitehazardous waste management facilitieshave no specific SIC code; in such cases,SIC code 9999 ("nonclassifiableestablishments") would apply. Thenumber 9999, together with theapplicant's responses to item I, QuestionE and item XII will indicate that thefacility is an off-site HWM facility.

Item VIIL Commenters correctly notedthat facilities may be operated andapplications may be submitted bypersons who are not owners. Form 1now presumes that the applicant is theoperator of the facility. It should benoted that 40 CFR 122.6, which appliesto the NPDES, Hazardous Waste andUIC programs, provides: "Where afacility or activity is owned by oneperson but is operated by anotherperson, it is the operator's duty to obtaina permit." An additional question hasbeen added to determine whether theoperator/applicant is also the owner ofthe facility.

Item IX: A new item asks whether thefacility is located on Indian lands. Thesignificance of this question isjurisdictional; see 40 CFR 123.1(f) andthe accompanying preamble discussion.A reference in draft item VIII-C toIndian lands was deleted, since thatitem is designed to identify the status ofthe operator, not of the land itself.

Item X (draft item IX): One commenterquestioned the need for more than onepermit number per facility. EPA doesintend in the future to use a commonnumber for each permit issued to aparticular facility (except for a one-letterprefix indicating under which programthe permit has been issued). However,existing NPDES and PSD permits as wellas future permits under "other" permitprograms, necessitate provision in theform for insertion of permit numbers.

A few commenters objected to thisitem and suggested that only Federalpermits or only permits relevant to theone applied for be required. However,EPA believes that identification of thevarious environmental permits issued tothe facility will promote cooperation

among various agencies and offices inregulating the facility and will ultimatelybenefit the facility as well.

Item XI (draft item X): Severalcommenters objected to the requirementthat the map extend at least one milebeyond the facility boundaries.However, this requirement has beenretained, since the disposal or dischargeof wastes is likely to pollute theadjacent environment through suchmeans as surface or ground watermovement.

Several other commenters correctlynoted that U.S. Geological Servicetopographic maps at appropriate scaleare unavailable for certain regions of theUnited States. The instrudtion to thisitem have therefore been modified toallow the use of a plat map or otherappropriate map where an appropriatelysized topographic map is unavailable.

Several commenters suggested thatapplicants not be required to showcertain items on the map (e.g., riverswhich do not receive any discharge, andrivers, wells and springs uphill of afacility). EPA notes, however, that thesefeatures are often relevant to anunderstanding of the geological andhydrological consequences of adischarge or disposal at the site.Futhermore, most of this information isgenerally indicated on U.S.G.S. mapsand requires no work by applicants.

Several commenters (particularly oiland gas producers) correctly pointed outthat an instruction to this item wasoverly broad in requiring identificationon a map of all wells contained withinone mile of the facility's propertyboundaries. The requirement is nowlimited to drinking water wellsidentified in the public record orotherwise known to the applicant.

Some commenters suggested furtherthat the map should only show suchwells within mile of the facility. EPAhas accepted this suggestion. In light ofthe slow movement of groundwater, thisinformation should be sufficient toprevent well contamination in caseswhere the groundwater becomescontaminated through faulty wastedisposal or other practices.

Item XIII (draft item XII): See 40 CFR122.6 and the accompanying preamble.published elsewhere in today's FederalRegister, for a discussion of certificationand signatory requirements.

Several environmental commentersrequested that latitude and longitudeinformation be required on Form 1. EPAhas decided to require this informationon appropriate program-specific forms.Forms 2c and 3, published today, requirethis information. By using the program-specific forms to require latitude andlongitude, EPA obtains more precise

I II I I I

335-19




coordinates when wastewaterdischargers and hazardous wastedisposal facilities are several milesapart.

IlI. NPDES FORMS 2b AND 2c ANDRELATED NPDES REGULATIONSA. Introduction

1. Overview of This PreambleDiscussion

The NPDES regulations on applicationrequirements for existing industrialdischarger and the new EPA applicationform fop those dischargers (Form 2c)have been developed primarily to helpimplement the Agency's strategy for, thecontrol of discharges of toxic pollutantsdesignated under section 307(a) of theClean Water Act in the next round ofpermit reissuances. Because theapplication requirements and permittingstrategy are closely related, theapplication form and regulations werepublished together as Part III of the June14, 1979 Federal Register (44 FR 34393).The proposed regulations and draftForm 2c were prefaced by a lengthypreamble, which explained the contextin which the NPDES application andrelated requirements were developed.The discussion covered the fieed for acase-by-case determination of limits inthe absence of effluent limitationsguidelines, the use of limits on toxicityand indicator parameters, therequirement to analyze for the 129 toxicpollutants, the purpose of applicationAbased limits,-some suggested monitoringschemes to be required by permits, andthe economic and resource impacts ofthe reporting requirements.

The regulations which were proposedin Part III of the June 14, 1979 FederalRegister are published in final formelsewhere in today's Federal Register aspart of EPA's consolidated permitprogram regulations. This is being doneso that all program regulations may beread in one place. However, thispreamble, rather than the preamble tothose regulations, will discuss the topicsand regulations relating to the NPDESapplication requirements and permittingstrategy to explain the final regulationsin a unified manner and to respond tocomments received on the proposal.

The following regulations which arepromulgated as part of the consolidatedpermit regulations are discussed in thispreamble instead of in the preamble tothe consolidated permit regulations:

1. § 122.53(d): Applicationrequirements for existing industrialdischargers (paralleling Form 2c).

2. § 122.53(e): Applicationrequirements for concentrated animalfeeding operations and aquatic animal

production facilities (paralleling Form2b].

3. § 122.61(a): Application-basednotification requirements for toxicpollutants.

4. § 122.15(a)(5)(viii)-(x): Modificationof permits to address toxic pollutantdischarges not anticipated inapplications or permits.

5. § 122.62(e): Requirement to set case-by-case limits to control significantdischarges of toxic pollutants.

6. § 125.3(c)(4]: Toxicity-based limits.7. § 125.3(g): Indicator limits.

2. Use of a Single Form for all ExistingIndustrial Dischargers

Some commenters expressed concernthat existing Short Forms C and D for"simple discharges are not being replacedby new short forms; rather Form 2c mustbe used. The reason is that determining"simple" discharges is complex, giventhe new emphasis on toxic pollutants.Many factors wouldbe relevant indetermining "simplicity," such as size offlow, toxicity of discharge, and type ofoperations producing discharges.Factors relevant to the need to respondto one application requirement may notbe relevant to another. For example,although flow was used as a criterionfor determining who must fill out ShortForms C and D, the new form requires aprimary industry discharger with a smallflow to test for toxic pollutants, while asecondary industry discharger with alarge flow may not need to do so.

EPA has simplified Form 2c andclarified the instructions to assistapplicants in completing the formrapidly. Some of the more burdensomerequirements will immediately beunderstood not to apply to simple non-toxic discharges and therefore may bemarked Not Applicable. For example,any secondary industry dischargerwhich does not discharge any toxicpollutants or hazardous substances'neednot test for pollutants-in item V-C, listtoxic pollutants in item VI-A orhazardous substances in item V-D, orpredict future increases of toxicpollutant discharges in item VI-B and C.Similarly, many of the remainingquestions also apply only to certainapplicants. Item II-C applies only toapplicants'with intermittent or seasonaldischarges. Item III applies only toapplicants whose discharges arecovered by effluent guidelines. Item IVapplies only to applicants subject towaste treatment construction schedules.Item VII applies only to applicants whohave conducted biological monitoringtests.

A few commenters suggested thatForm 2c require only minimalinformation, with the permit writer able

to go back to the applicant to ask forany additional information. However,this would impose too great a burden onthe permit writer. It also would result Inthe imposition of unequal burdens onsimilar applicants.

B. Strategy and Regulations for IssuingPermits To Control Discharges of ToxicPollutants

1. General Approach to Permit WritingThe 1977 Amendments to the Clean

Water Act placed a new emphasis onthe control of toxic pollutants In theNPDES program. EPA is implementingthe Amendments by developing effluentlimitations guidelines, water qualitycriteria, and test methods for thesepollutants. EPA will soon begin applyingthe new statutory and regulatorystandards to specific dischargers,through the issuance of NPDES permitsrequiring dischargers to control toxicpollutants in accordance with limitsreflecting the best available technologyeconomically achievable (BAT), as soonas possible but no later than thestatutory deadline of July 1,1984.

The new permit writing strategy willbe an ektension of that used in Issuingfirst-round NPDES permits. As before,permits must contain limitationsreflecting the most stringent oftechnology-based, water quality-based,or other standards required by CWA(such as criteria for ocean dischargesunder section 403 and toxic standards orprohibitions under section 307(a)). Formost organic toxic pollutants, however,numerical State water quality standardsgenerally will not have been set by thetime that the next round of permits arereissued. (Permits are issued formaximum terms of five years asrequired by CWA, and permits may notbe reopened solely to incorporate newState water quality standards unlessrequested by the permittee.) Thustechnology-based limitations willgenerally be the chief standard forsetting permit limits on most toxicpollutants during the next round ofpermit reissuance.

The rules for setting technology-basedlimitations are set forth in 40 CFR 125.3Technology-based limitations aregenerally established on the basis ofeffluent limitations guidelines

.promulgated under section 304 of CWA.As in the past, permit writers must setlimits on a case-by-case basis undersection 402(a)(1) of CWA to controldischarges which are not covered byeffluent guidelines. This will occur in

.two types of situations: (1) when newBAT effluent guidelines addressing toxicpollutants in the applicant's industrialcategory have not been promulgated or

I I

33520




have been withdrawn or remanded; or(2) when the applicant has certaindischarges which are not covered by anotherwise applicable guideline.

The Agency has been developing neweffluent limitations guidelines for toxicpollutants in accordance with the NRDCSettlement Agreement (NaturalResources Defense Council, 8 E.R.C.2120 (D.D.C. 1976). modified 12 E.R.C.1833 (D.D.C. 1979)) and with the 1977Amendments to the Clean Water AcLTo focus EPA's resources on the morewidespread and significant toxicsproblems, Paragraph 8 of the NRDCSettlement Agreement allows theAgency to exclude certain categories ofindustries and certain types ofpollutants from coverage under nationaleffluent guideline regulations. Forexample, pollutants which have beenfound at only one or two plants in anindustrial category need not be includedin the guidelines for that category, andpollutants which are in general [thoughnot always) adequately controlled byguideline limitations on other pollutantsneed not be explicitly limited inguidelines.

As recognized in Paragraph 8 of theNRDC Settlement Agreement anddemonstrated in EPA and Stateexperience in issuing NPDES permits,even if a discharger's category iscovered by promulgated effluentlimitations guidelines, the dischargermay be discharging pollutants notadequately covered by those guidelines.A major feature of the Agency's NPDESpermittting strategy is the developmentof ways to identify and addresssituations in which significantdischarges of toxics are not covered byguidelines and thus must be controlledon a case-by-case basis.

Permit writers will use several sourcesof information to determine appropriateBAT limits in the absence of guidelines.These sources include developmentdocuments for effluent guidelines indraft or final versions, a treatabilitymanual prepared by EPA, and any otherinformation available to the permitwriter (including information providedby the permit applicant]. The treatabilitymanual is a five-volume compilation ofhistorical data on the levels ofreductions of toxic pollutants achievableby various types of treatment equipmentor methods, together with associatedcosts. The manual is being developedwith the participation of several EPAoffices, including the Effluent GuidelinesDivision. Thus, the information itcontains should be consistent with thatused to develop proposed effluentlimitations guidelines. The manual willbe continually updated to reflect any

new or newly discovered data ontechnologies and associated costs.

It would be inappropriate to ,promulgate the treatability manual as aregulation, as requested by severalcommenters, because the manualcontains no requirements. Rather, itcompiles and summarizes historicaldata; it does not state conclusions basedon the data. Futhermore, EPA expects tocontinually update the manual toincorporate new or newly-discovereddata. Any rulemaking proceeding wouldthus be endless.

EPA plans to publish a FederalRegister notice announcing availabilityof the treatability manual in June 1980.Comments are welcome and will. whereappropriate, be incorporated into futureeditions of the manual. More important,EPA emphasizes that the manual is nota binding document (unlike, forexample, a promulgated effluentlimitations guideline) but is merely onesource of relevant information. Thepermit writer's case-by-casedevelopment of permit limits, based oninformation contained in the manual orelsewhere, remains subject to challengeunder the appropriate procedures of 40CFR Part 124.

EPA agrees with several commenterswho advocated national uniformity ofpermit limitations for similar discharges.Promulgated effluent guidelines willguarantee uniformity for commonly-occurring discharges. Even when plant-specific discharges requireindividualized permit limits, the manualand other guidance developed by EPAshould further promote nationalconsistency. Of course, the veryexistence of plant-specific dischargesimplies a need to set permit limits forsuch plants which differ from those setfor other plants within the sameindustrial category.2. New Regulations To Insure theControl of Discharges of ToxicPollutants

a. Summary of Requirements. Today'sregulations provide that permit writersmust set permit limits to control allsignificant discharges of toxicpollutants. Such a requirement isalready implicit in section 301(b) of theClean Water Act. However, today'sregulations specify certain steps to seethat this is done. The approach is two-fold, as follows:

(i) Requirement To Control allSignificant Discharges of ToxicPollutants Through Permit Limits:§ 122.62(e). Significant discharges oftoxic pollutants must be limited in thepermit either directly or through the useof limits on other parameters whichassure control of the toxic pollutants.

"Significant" pollutants are defined toinclude:

@ Pollutants reported in the permitapplication at levels exceeding the levelwhich the permit writer determinescould be achieved by BAT; or

* Pollutants used or manufactured orexpected to be used or manufactured asintermediate or final products orbyproducts.

The fact sheet for each permit (see 40CFR 124.56) must explain how thepermit limits comply with thisrequirement.

(ii) Regulation of Toxic Pollutants NotLimited in Permits. All non-"significant"pollutants (i.e., those considered notlikely to be discharged above BATlevels based upon the levels reported inthe application or upon expected use ormanufacture at the facility] need not bespecifically controlled in the permit(although the permit writer retainsauthority to do so under § 125.3]. Thiswill allow permitting authorities to focustheir resources on significant dischargesof toxic pollutants. To prevent futuresignificant discharges of non-limitedpollutants, two regulatory requirementshave been established:

(A) Notification of Increased Dischargesof Toxic Pollutants: § 22.61(a)

A permittee must notify the permittingauthority as soon as it becomes awarethat:

* Some activity has occurred or willoccur to cause it to discharge a toxicpollutant at more than the greatest of100 jig/1 (or 500 pg/i for 24dinitrophenol and 2-methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol, 200 pgfl for acrolein andacrylonitrile, and 1 mg/1 for antimony)or 5 times the maximum concentrationreported for that pollutant in the permitapplication (or a different notificationlevel established by the Director); or

*It has been begun or will begin touse or manufacture a toxic pollutant asan intermediate or final product orbyproduct.

(B) Modification of Permit to ControlIncreased Discharges of ToxicPollutants: 6 122.15(a)(5)(viii)-(x).

The permit may be modified to controla toxic pollutant when:

* The permittee discharges or expectsto discharge the pollutant at a levelhigher than can be achieved by BAT; or

* The permittee begins or expects tobegin to use the pollutant or tomanufacture it as an intermediate orfinal product or byproduct.

In developing the concept ofsignificance for determining whenpermit limits should be set for toxicpollutants, when notification should berequired, and when permits may be

33521



Federal Register /Vol. 45, No. 98 / Monday, May 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

modified, EPA considered commenters'suggestion that toxicity be used as acriterion. EPA hasnot accepted thesuggestion; all pollutants listed as toxicunder section 307(a) of the Clean WaterAct must be controlled by BAT. Theconcept of significance is used only todetermine which pollutants are likely tobe discharged at levels greater thanachievable by BAT and thus must belimited in the permit. An assessment oftoxicity does not pertain to thisdetermination. ,'-b. Discussion of Changes fromProposedRequirements. This sectiondiscusses the proposed "application-based limits" reguliation (proposed§ 122.68(a)), its deletion from the finalregulation in response to comments, andthe Agency's rethinking which led to theregulations discussed, in section (a)above.

In the June 14 proposal, EPA did notprovide guidance on when toxicpollutants should be limited. While thepreamble noted that "significant" toxicsshould be limited in permits, theproposed regulations did not contain thespecific requirements promulgated todayin § 122.62(e). On the other hand, theregulations and preamble focused upon-,the control of all present and futuredischarges not specifically limitedthrough effluent guidelines or by settingcase-by-case limits. The Agencyproposed in § 122.68(a) a stringentapproach of application-based limits:the discharge of any pollutant wouldhave been limited to 5 times (or a highermultiplier if a certain showing could bemade by a permit applicant the levelreported in the application (or to 5 timesthe pollutant's detection limit, if a zerodischarge was reported, unless thepollutant was limited directly.

The proposed application-based limitwas intended to serve two purposes.First, it would have assured some -control over significant dischargesidentified in the permit applicationwhich were for any reason nototherwise controlled in the permit.Second, it would have assured control offuture significant discharges ofpollutants which were discharged atinsignificant levels at the time of thepermit application and thus v ere notspecifically limited in the permit.

Commenters almost unanimouslycriticized proposed § 122.68(a), althougha few industrial commenters stated thatthe proposed approach was reasonableand several environmental groupssupported it with reservations. Mostcommenters argued that the proposedregulation would not contribute anysubstantial environmentalbenefitsjustifying the significant burden on allpermittees and that it was insupportable

legally and technically. Somecommenters suggested that EPA couldbetter achieve its stated goals byfocusing more closely at the permit-writing stage on those pollutants which -are likely to be-discharged at significantlevels and by using notificationrequirements for other pollutants whichfirst become significant after the permitis issued.

These comments, some of which werequite detailed and lengthy, convincedEPA that the imposition of application-based limits could not be supported atpresent and assisted the Agency inrethinking-its approach to the problemof controlling discharges which are notcovered sufficiently by effluentguidelines. The major comments aresummarized below:

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ONPROPOSED § 22.68(a) (APPLICATION-BASED LIMITS)

(1) The values reported in the permitapplication may not be representative ofexisting or future discharges of pollutants,both because of normal random fluctuationsin concentration and because of futurechanges in processes or operations whichwere not anticipated in the permit applicationor which result in discharges not easilypredicted. Insufficient data exist to select amultiplier which is adequate to relate theresults of one sample to future discharges. Ifsuch data did exist, it would show that anappropriate multiplier would be much higherthan five. Further variability is introduced byerrors in sampling and analysis, variations ofpollutant levels in intake water, and the useof batch processes which result in continuallychanging levels of pollutants. To avoidliability based upon an unduly low multiplier,applicants would have to spend a great dealof money for alternate testing to be eligiblefor a higher multiplier under proposed§ 122.68(a)[3), and even then they could notbe completely assured of compliande withthat multiplier.

(2) Setting permit limits on all reportablepollutants is an inappropriate and undulycostly way to regulate permittees'discharges. Permittees could often besubjected to liability for minor violations(e.g., discharges at 50 jg/]). As a result,.permittees would either have to spend a greatdeal of money on compliance monitoring toassure that they were complying with allapplication-based limits, or they would haveto rely on assurances that, under EPA's •enforcement discretion, only large violationswould be prosecuted. It would be unfair toimpose near-certain liability on dischargerson the assurance that they will not beenforced against except for significantviolations. It would be particularly unfairwhen analysis of a pollutant had not beenrequired or when the pollutant had not beendetected in the sample(s) analyzed and thushad been reported as absent in theapplication.

(3) Application-based limits are illegal.The Clean Water Act requires permit limitsto be based on technology-based, water

quality-based, or certain other standards:application-based limits are not authorizedby any of these standards. In particular,application-based limits which are lowerthan the levels achievable by BAT (whichwould often occur where a pollutant wasreported as zero in the application) areimproper.

(4) Pollutants of concern should be limiteddirectly using technology-based limits, ratherthan indirectly using application-basedlimits, EPA should focus on limitingsignificant discharges. Monitoring andreporting requirements should be rolled uponto assure the discovery and subsequentcontrol of new significant dischargesoccurring after the permit Is issued.

(5) Existing NPDES regulations alreadyprovided sufficient controls over largepotential discharges of pollutants not limitedin thepermit, because (a) substantial changesin production were required to be reportedand were grounds for permit modification,and (b) large discharges of pollutants notlimited in the permit would have occurredonly-when permit limits on other pollutantswould have been violated.

(6) Application-based limits, if used at allin the final regulations, should be based on amultiple of the amount of dischargedpollutants rather than on concentrations ofthe pollutants, Otherwise, EPA woulddiscourage desirable flow reductionpractices.

(7) Application-based limits could result Indiffering limits for dischargers in the sameindustrial subcategory.

EPA does not agree with all of theabove comments. In particular, EPAcontinues to believe that an application-based limit is legal If the multiplieraccurately reflects waste streamvariability. Any limit currently beingachieved by a discharger is obviously nomore stringent than the best availabletechnology economically achievable,Thus if a variability-based multipliertimes a reported value Is the maximumlevel currently being discharged, itclearly may be adopted as BAT.

However, EPA is persuaded by thecomments, considered collectively, thatits proposed approach must be revised.In particular, EPA agrees with thecommenters that the insufficiency ofdata on waste stream variability and theproblem of continually changingfeedstocks and batch processes bothpresent severe technical difficulties forthe concept of across-the-boardapplication-based limits. Similarly, EPAacknowledges that the proposedapproach had the potential for imposingunduly severe monitoring costs uponapplicants wishing to demonstrate that amultiplier higher than 5 should be usedand upon permittees wishing to assurethat they Are complying withapplication-based limits. Finally, EPAagrees that a better-focused alternativeexists to address most of EPA'sconcerns.

33522




The revised approach, as outlinedabove, focuses the permit writer'sattention (in § 122.62(e)) more clearlythan before on the specific control of allsignificant discharges of toxic pollutantsby specifying various factors (reporteddischarge levels and the use ormanufacture of toxic pollutants)indicating significance. The possibilitythat currently insignificant discharges ofcertain pollutants may be transformedlater into significant discharges isaddressed through notificationrequirements (§ 122.61(a)) and throughan authorization to modify permits toaddress such problems(§ 122.15(a](5](viii]-{x)).

The multiplier used in § 122.61(a) asone means to trigger the notificationrequirement is still set at five, despitethe comments criticizing it. The Agencybelieves that the available data supportsa value of five to distinguish betweenrandom fluctuations and significantincreases, at least for the purposes of anotification requirement. If the Directorbecomes aware of sampling or analysiserrors, or fluctuations in pollutants inthe intake water, the Director maymodify the permit to establish a highernotification level to account for thesefluctuations, as provided in § 122.62(f).Increases from other causes are exactl,what this requirement was designed toregulate.

Two changes have been made,however, in the way the multiplier offive will operate in the notificationrequirement.

First, the lower threshold fornotification has been raised to 100 lig/l(and higher for several pollutants whichhave high detection limits). Multiples ofdetection limits are not used as a basisfor application-based notification.

Second, the multiplier applies to themaximum, rather than the average valuereported in the application, of either thetested or the predicted value. Thisapproach was suggested by somecommenters. Of course, when only onesample is tested for toxic pollutants(which is all that is required], maximumand average values are indentical.However, the maximum value has beendefined to include values predicted bythe applicant under § 122.53(d)10) anditem VI of Form 2c (discussed below insection II.D.3.e.ii). This changeresponds to several comments notingthe difficulties in applying the proposedregulation to batch discharges and othernonrandom changes. Applicants arediscouraged from reportingunrealistically high values in item VI by§ 122.62(e), which requires that theirpermits contain limits to control toxicpollutants reported at levels greater thanBAT under § 122.53(d)(10) and item VI.

Any variations in levels of pollutantswhich cannot be predicted at the time ofthe application will be subject to thenotification requirements in § 122.61(a).

The requirement to submit 10 samplesto get a higher multiplier has beendeleted. The Director may set a highernotification level based on a highermaximum value, not a higher multiplier.Thus several comments received on thealternate multiplier provision (proposed§ 122.68(a) (3)) no longer apply.

EPA recognizes that the revisedapproach falls short of the proposal Insome respects. There is still somepossibility (though less likely as theresult of § 122.62(e)) that a permitteemay discharge a large amount of apollutant not limited in its permit, andEPA will not be able to takeenforcement action against thepermittee as long as the permitteecomplies with the notificationrequirements of § 122.61(a). AlthoughEPA will now have authority under§ 122.15(a)(5](viii)-{x) to modify (orrevoke and reissue) the permit to requirecontrol of the pollutant, permitmodification can be a lengthy process.

EPA will continue to examine theproblem of pollutants which are notlimited in permits and to seek solutionsto what it still considers to be aregulatory gap, although the gap is madesmaller by the regulations publishedtoday. EPA welcomes suggestions onhow best to develop a technically andlegally supportable approach. Inaddition, the final regulations controldischarges only of the pollutants listedin the permit application, which consistprimarily of the listed toxic pollutantsand designated hazardous substances.(Proposed § 122.68(a) also was limited tothe pollutants listed in the applicationform.) This list is by no meansexhaustive of all chemicals which maybe discharged.

EPA intends to continue to study otherpollutants, to make appropriateadditions to the toxic pollutant andhazardous substance lists and toconsider appropriate technologicalcontrols in the development of futureeffluent guidelines. Some of this workhas already begun. However, some willnot begin until currently listed toxiesand hazardous pollutants are fullyaddressed.

Even at present, however, permitwriters may set limits on any pollutantbelieved to be of concern. In certaincases, bioassays and further toxicitytesting may result in the identificationand control of additional harmfulpollutants (see sections IHI.D.2.d and E.2of this preamble).

The new authorities provided to EPAunder the Toxic Substances Control Act

(TSCA] may help further to reducethreats of toxic discharges. UnderTSCA, EPA may regulate themanufacture, use and disposal of toxicsubstances. Regulation under TSCAmay indirectly (or, in certain instances,directly) result in the reduction orelimination of particular pollutants fromdischarges.

3. § 125.3(c)(4): Toxicity-Based Linits

§ 125.3[c](4) provides that permitlimits may be expressed in terms ofeffluent toxicity if they reflect theappropriate requirements of the CleanWater Act, such as technology-based orwater quality-based standards. Thisaspect of the regulations is essentiallyunchanged from the proposal.

Several minor editorial changes havebeen made, including the elimination ofthe reference to subparagraph (c](2),which implied that toxicity-based limitsmay be used only on a case-by-casebasis. The regulation now provides thattoxicity-based limits may also beapplied in effluent guidelines, providedthe requirements of subparagraph (c)(4)are otherwise met. At this time,however, EPA does not contemplateincluding toxicity-based limitations inforthcoming effluent guidelines.

Many comments were receivedconcerning the issue of establishingtoxicity-based permit limits. Manycommenters expressed unqualifiedsupport for biomonitoring and toxicity-based permit limits, arguing thatchemical limits alone are insufficient tocontrol the many unknown toxicchemicals and the results of theirinteractions. Indeed, this issue was ofgreat interest to many private citizens.Several other commenters agreed thattoxicity-based limits are appropriate incertain situations but, because of theexpense and delay involved indetermining and enforcing such limits,argued that they should be used only fordemonstrated toxic discharges whenother limits are inadequate orunavailable. EPA agrees and isrecommending that toxicity limits beused when (1) it is suspected that thedischarge is toxic based on ongoing orprevious toxicity testing or a history offish kills or related toxicity problems,and (2) effluent guidelines are eitherabsent, or it is believed that significanttoxicity will remain in an effluent afterthe appropriate guidelines controltechnology is installed. Thus, toxicity-based limits should be used when thechemical limits approach is inadequate.Examples of such situations includeprimary industry discharges when thelisted toxic pollutants are not found butserious toxicity problems exist, and

33523



Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 98 / Monday, May 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

secondary industi3y discharges whenchemical analyses are not required.

Several commenters expressedconcern over the determination oftoxicity limits by permit writers. Theyargued that toxicity-based'limits shouldreflect BAT as defined in the 'CleanWater Act. Other commenters opposedrigid protocols, advocating instead thatthe most appropriate type of toxicity-based limits should be worked outbetween the permittee and permit writerto correspond to the particular situation.EPA agrees that toxiity-based limitsmust reflect BAT or other requirementsof the Clean Water Act. EPA also agreesthat considerable flexibility should beallowed the permit writer to determinethe permit limits most appropriate for aparticular situation.

There are two approaches fordetermining toxicity-basedpermit limits.The first approach is based on Statewater quality standards. All'Statestandards-include a statement to theeffect that no toxic substances may bedischarged in toxic amounts.Additionally, many'States such asCalifornia and Arizona specify acute orchroniclevels whichare-not'tobeexceeded and define methods ofmeasurement ant'reporting. The secondapproach is technology-based; thepermit writer makes a 'case-by-case'determination of BAT r 'otherappropriate techmological standard,using his or her best professionaljudgment. Such determinations must be'based on an evaluation of the availabletechnology to achieve aparticulartoxicity reduction. For example, wheninformation on treatability'is lacking,studies canbe conducted to assess thereduction in toxicity resulting 'fromvarious treatment systems 'orprocessalternatives. Technology-based limitsusing toxicity units maythen'be 'setbased on thisdata. EPA recognizes thesignificant cost bf;his procedure andrecommends thatit be used only when itis not possible to adequately 'controltoxic chemicals using appropriatechemical limits.

Several commenters argued thatbecause too much discretionwas being-allowed permit writers in setting toxicitylimits, non-uniformity 'would Tesult. EPArecognizes that some 'on-uniformity isinherent in a case-by-case approach,.whether that approach uses chemically-

.based or toxicity-based permit limits. Asdiscussed in section lI.B. of thispreamble, case-by-case limits are anecessary approach when applicableguidelines are not available or do otresult in the installation -of BAT-for allpollutants. To assist the permittingauthorities and to promote uniformity,

EPA has distributed'the Mayl, 1978, .draft Biomonitoring Protocol Guidancefor the NPDES Permits Program, whichdiscusses the use of toxicity-basedpermit-limits. In addition, a guidancedocument entitled Use of BiologicalToxicity Testing in the Second Round ofNPDES Permit Issuance is beingdeveloped and'will be available in mid-1980.

EPA is continuing at present to relyprimarily on chemical limits to controltoxicity; therefore, toxicity-based limitswill bh-employed only when thesechemical limits are inadequate. The

-Agency believes, however, that toxicitytesting and-toxicity-based permit limitsmustplay an ever-increasing Tole inorder to address the problems of toxicpollutant control.

4. Indicator Limits To Control ToxicPollutants andilazardous Substances

.§ 125.3(g). Proposed § 125.3(g), whichestablished certain criteria for the use 'oflimits on indicator parameters to "controltoxic pollutants,'has been retained inthe final regulations. However, 'aprovision-has been added in paragraph(g)(3)-to preserve the discharger's abilityto determinethe most cost-effectivemethod for reducing its discharges -oftoxic pollutants. In addition, paragraph(g)(2) has'been added to-provide for theuse of indicator parameters to 'controlhazardous substances, as proposed onAugust 29, 1979 (44 FR 50780). The use ofindicators and final § 125.3[g) arediscussed below. While the discussionbelow focuses on the control of toxicpollutants, most'of the discussionpertains to hazardous substances aswell.

a. Outlfie of Strategy. EPA generallywill use the word "indicator" to refer toconventional and nonconventionalpollutants -used us authorized in§ 125.3(g). Several commenters pointedout the BAT limits on-toxic pollutants,BCT limits on conventi6nalpoflutantsand modified (e.g., to BPTtlevels) limitson nonconventional pollutants may, inappropriate circumstances, be used as"indicator"'pollutants. EPA'agrees.However, the 'use of -uch pollutants asindicators does not require any newregulations.

As described above in section H1B.1.1of this preamble, permit writers must settechnology-based limits to 'controlpollutants by applying guidelines or, inthe absence of applicable guidelines, bysetting case-by-case limits -under section402(a)(1) of CWA. In 'some cases, it isnot feasible 'to set limits on eachdischarged'pollutant.'This is particularlytrue in the case of organio pollutants,because they can be expensive tosample and analyze and because there

is relatively limited experience andhistorical data demonstratingachievable levels of-removals by varioustypes of technology.

EPA believes that the mostappropriate way to regulate toxicpollutants is to limit toxic pollutants. Asdiscussed in section llI.B.1 of thispreamble, EPA has prepared a five.volume treatability manual, compilingdata on treatability levels of specifictoxic pollutants which have beenachieved by particular technologies, tohelp permit writers to limit toxicpollutants directly when guidelines donot apply.

However, as noted above, directlimitation of all toxic pollutants In awaste stream is 'not always feasible, Insuch cases, limiting indicator pollutants(or selected toxic pollutants) Issometimes an appropriate alternative,When a certain treatment system Is themost cost-effective method for limitingtoxic pollutants, and where limits oncertain other pollutants (e.g., BOD, COD,chromium and total phenols) found Inthe discharge would require installationof the treatment system, then thoseother pollutants are referred to as"indicator" pollutants.

The term "indicator" Is not Intendedto denote a statistical relationshipbetween the limited pollutants and thenonlimited toxic pollutants. It meanssimply that the limits on the indicatorswill reflect (i.e., result in installation ofthe best available technologyeconomically achievable to reducedischarges of the toxic pollutants. Notethat the identification of BATtechnology for the toxicpollutants doesnot require precise knowledge of thenumerical levels of those pollutants tobe achieved by installation of thattechnology. Of course, to be defensibleas BAT, the general effectiveness of thetechnology as compared to alternativetechnologies must be known. Suchqualitative relationships are more easilydiscerned and agreed-upon, based onexisting treatability data, than the actualnumbers which may be achieved to adesired confidence interval by thecompared technologies.

An approach similar to the Indicatorapproach was used frequently indeveloping existing BPT guidelines,although the termn ' indicator ' was notused. Such guidelines include variousmining (coal, ore, mineral) and metalsindustries. A typical example is the useof limits on pH, TSS, and one or twometals lo assure the precipitation notonly of the limited metals, but-of othersas well.

If a pollutant is used as ail Indicatorfoi toxlcpollutants, Its limit must reflectBAT for those toxic pollutants. This is

33524




clearly required by section 301(b) ofCWA, which states that limits to controltoxic pollutants must reflect BAT.Therefore, § 125.3(g) provides that, forconventional pollutants listed undersection 304(a](4) of CWA which areused as indicators for toxic pollutants,the Director may set limits at levelswhich are more stringent than the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology (BCT). Similarly, fornonconventional pollutants (those notlisted as either conventional or toxicpollutants) which are used as indicatorsfor toxic pollutants, the Director may setlimits which are not subject tomodification under sections 301 (c) or (g)of CWA. (As one commenter pointedout, and as directly acknowledged in§ 125.3(g)(2), noncenventional pollutantsused as indicators for hazardoussubstances not listed as toxic undersection 307(a) of CWA are subject torequests for 301 (c) and (g)modifications.)

EPA stresses that the Director mayinvoke § 125.3(g) only after establishingthat direct limitation of the toxicpollutant is not feasible for economic ortechnical reasons and that limitation ofthe indicator will result in BAT-levelcontrol of the toxic pollutant discharges.The permit applicant may challenge theuse of an indicator and offer evidence tosupport direct limitations of toxicpollutants. EPA intends to apply theindicator strategy reasonably, with toxiclimits remaining the preferred approachwhenever feasible.

b. Response to Comments. EPAreceived many comments on proposed§ 125.3(g). The comments almostuniformly favored the use of indicatorsin appropriate circumstances whenagreed upon by both the permittingauthority and permit applicant. Severalindustries strongly encouraged the useof indicators. However, mostcommenters expressed reservationsconcerning the scope of proposed§ 125.3(g).

Several commenters were concernedthat proposed § 125.3(g) might authorizethe Director to impose indicator limitswhich would require the discharger tocontrol discharges of toxic pollutants Ina cost-ineffective manner by requiringtoo stringent control of the indicator. Forexample, segregation of toxic wastestreams, process changes and rawmaterials substitutions are possiblemeans of controlling particular toxicpollutant discharges without controllingany parameter intended to serve as anindicator.

EPA agrees that limits on indicatorsshould not be used to require greater ormore expensive effluent control thanwould be required if all pollutants were

regulated directly. § 125.3(8) hastherefore been amended by the additionof a requirement that the Director maynot impose a more stringent limit on apollutant intended to be used as anindicator when the limit wouldeffectively require the permittee to use amethod of treatment which differs fromthat which would be required if the toxicpollutants were limited directly. In theevent that the Director uses an indicatorlimit in the draft or final permit that thedischarger believes would preclude theuse of more cost-effective measures toregulate the indicated toxic pollutants,the discharger can make appropriateobjections challenging the limits underthe procedures in 40 CFR Part 124.

Several commenters requested thatthe concurrence of the permittee beobtained before an indicator limit is setin the permit. Another requested simplythat the permittee be given anopportunity to comment on the proposeduse of indicator limits. EPA believes thatit is administratively infeasible to obtainthe permittee's concurrence in eachsituation before setting indicator limits.However, the procedures in 40 CFR Part124, which include opportunities forpermittees to comment on the draftpermit, request an evidentiary hearingafter the permit is issued (unless anexpanded non-adversary hearing hasbeen held during the comment periodunder Part 124, Subpart F) and appeal tothe Administrator, will afford significantopportunity for permit writers andpermittees to resolve disagreements.The strict restrictions placed by§ 125.3(g) upon the use of indicators,together with the possibility ofadministrative and judicial review, willinsure that permit writers do not useindicators improperly.

Some commenters argued that thelimitation of conventional indicatorsbeyond BCT and the denial of varianceopportunities for nonconventionalindicators is contrary to therequirements of CWA. EPA disagrees.When limits on indicators are used as ameans to control toxic pollutants, theymust reflect the best availabletechnology economically achievable(BAT) to control the toxic pollutants. Aslong as the requirements of § 125.3(g)are met (i.e., that indicators be used onlywhere direct limitation of toxicpollutants is infeasible and thatindicators not be used to require controltechnology which is not needed tocontrol the toxic pollutants), dischargeswill effectively be subject to preciselythose technology-based requirementsrequired by section 301 of CWA.

Many commenters expressed concernover the possible lack of correlation

between levels of indicators and thecontrolled toxic pollutants. Thecommenters noted that certainindicators may be present inconcentrations several orders ofmagnitude greater than the toxicpollutant. This comment was mostImaginatively expressed by theChemical Manufacturers Association,which stated: "To select an 'indicator"controlled to concentrations severalorders of magnitude greater than thetoxics indicated is almost like trying todetermine the weight of a flea byweighing a dog with and without theflea." Still other commenters attemptedto support their objections by submittingcharts demonstrating the poorcorrelation between what they termedan indicator and a specific pollutant(e.g.. total suspended solids and zinc) intheir discharges.

EPA believes that the abovecommenters have misconstrued the"indicator" concept and regulation. EPAdoes not assert that indicators andspecific toxic pollutants controlledthrough the indicator limits must be orare likely to be statistically correlated.Nor does it assert that any pollutantused as a measure of a class ofcompounds will necessarily bestatistically correlated to each or fnycompound in that class. Rather, thefunction of an indicator limit is to assurethe installation and maintenance of BATcontrols for toxic pollutants. Sufficientlylow limits on one or more indicatorsmay require installation of treatmentequipment known to constitute BAT forcertain toxic pollutants. In that case(and only in that case), the indicatorlimits will have served their purpose ofassuring BAT control of the toxicpollutants, whether or not a correlationexists between the indicators andtoxics.

Two commenters urged the use ofbloassays instead of indicators or tocalibrate indicators. The use ofbioassays is discussed below in sectionsIfI.D.2.d and lll.E.2 of this preamble. It isnoted here, however, that bioassays andindicators generally serve differentpurposes and are not generallysubstitutable for each other.

Some industrial commenters arguedthat if the indicator concentrations arenot statistically correlated with the toxicconcentrations, a violation of anindicator limit may occur even when theIndicated toxics are not beingdischarged at signficant levels. EPAdoes not expect this to be a problem.Indicators will be used only wherenecessary to control discharges of toxicpollutants. If a toxic pollutant will notbe discharged at levels above those

33525



Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 98 / Monday, May 19, -1980 / Rules and Regulations

achievable by BAT, then an indicatorlimit will not be authorized by § 122.3(g).

If an indicator limit is violated by thepermittee, this demonstrates improperoperation or maintenance by thepermittee of its treatment system. Insuch a situation, the violation mayproperly result in an enforcement action.Of course, a situation may arise whereindicator limits are set to control toxicpollutants which are discharged aboveBAT levels at the time of permitapplication, but which are later nolonger present at levels requiringcontrol.

In that case, the permittee may applyfor a permit modification to eliminatethe indicator limit or to modify it to aless stringent level authorized by law.

Some environmental groups usedsimilar logic to that used in thepreceding comment by industrialcommenters and argued that if indicatorconcentrations are not correlated withtoxic pollutant concentrations, a Isignificant discharge of toxic pollutantsmay not result in a violation of theindicator limit. EPA agrees, as itacknowledged in the June14 preamble,that this is a possibility in some cases.However, the proper selection ofindicators should assure -hat violationof the indicator limits will occurwhenever the treatment systemis not -properly operated or maintained. Whenthe system is-properly operated ormaintained, the indicated toxics s iouldgenerally be reduced to levels belowBAT. Furthermore, as noted above, theregulations allow the use of indicatorsonly where the direct limitation of toxicpollutants is infeasible.

EPA also notes that occasionalmonitoring of specific toxic pollutants asrequired by the -permitting authoritywould reveal whether an indicated toxicis being discharged at high levels. If so,the application-based notificationrequirements of J 122.61(a) wouldbetriggered. The permitting authority couldthen, if necessary and feasible, -modifythe permit to limit the toxic directly.EPA has rejected 1he suggestion by oneenvironmental commenter thatEPAspecify technology in conjunction withthe use of indicators. Such an approachis inconsistent'with the generalstatntoryapproach that, exceptforthe "specification of bestimanagementpractices in certain instances tsee§ 122.62(k)), permits should specifyeffluent limitations rather thantechnologies or control practices.

Some commenters suggested thatindicators be used only for monitoringpurposes. EPA disagrees.Althoughdirect limitation of toxic pollutants isrequired whenever feasible, indicatorsmay be necessary. as permit limits in

certain situations. However, indicatorsmay be used for frequent monitoringpurposes when toxics are limiteddirectly. In such situations, theindicators would be monitoredfrequently, and the toxics would bemonitored less frequently to redecemonitoring costs.

Some environmentral commenters.suggested that any-violation of anindicator limit should trigger automaticmonitoring of the indicated toxics, aswas suggested in the preamble. Suchmonitoring will often be appropriatewhen indicator limits are violated.However, in many instances, the sourceof the violation may be discerned andcorrected without such testing.Therefore, EPA hasxejected this •

* suggestion. The Director thus retains theflexibility to take the most appropriateapproach to discover and remedy thecause of the violation. In addition, thefinal consolidated regulations [in§ 122.62(g)) require permits to specifythat violations of maximum dailydischarge limitations on indicators, aswell as limitations on toxic pollutantsand hazardous substances, must bereporied within-24 hours, so that theDirector may take appropriate action.

One commenter noted hat thestatutory deadlines for.an-indicator andthe indicated pollutants may differ in -certain cases under section 301(b) of theClean Water AcL When a paranieterisused.as an indicator, any earlierstatutory deadline for the indicatedpollutant controls.

Finally, some commenters argued thatapplication-based limits (proposed§ 122.68(ii)) should not apply-toindicated toxic-pollutants. As explainedin section ULB.1 of this preamble, EPAhas deleted its-proposed application-based limits from the final regulations.Thus, under the final rule indicatedtoxics will not be subject to application-based limits. Theywill, however, besubject to the much less burdensomeapplication-based notificationrequirements in § 122.61(a).C. NPDES Application Requirements forConcefitrated Animal FeedingOperations and Aquatic AnimalProduction Facilities: § 12.53(e) andForm 2b

The requirements for applicationsfrom concentrated animal feedingoperations and aquatic animalproduction facilities appear in§ 122.53(e) of the final xegulations and inForm 2b. Although these requirementswere inadvertently omittedfrom theproposed regulations, draft Form 2b waspublishedin the June -4,.979 FederalRegister (44 FR34393) and was, thesubject of several comments.

The State of Nebraska expressedapproval of Form 2b and noted itssimilarity to the form used by theirState. The American Farm Bureau hadtwo suggestions which were adopted.First, the question on the location of theoperation has been changed to require adetailed description of the location onlyif the ansiver to item VI of Form I wasnot sufficient. Second, the questionabout the number of acres available formanure disposal has been omitted; EPAagrees that it was not relevant to theNPDES program. The Department ofWater Resources of Texas stated thatthe form was too technical andcrowded, but suggested that questionsshould be added requiring a descriptionof the method for disposingcontaminated runoff, the waterdetention facilities, the pesticides used,and the plans for constructing a runoffcontrol system. These suggestions havenot been adopted, because the Agencyhas decided that the suggestedadditional information is not routinelyneeded to set appropriate permit limitsfor these facilities. Of course, Texas andother States may require thisinformation on their application forms.

D. Minimum NPDES ApplicationRequirements for Existing IndustrialDischargers: § 1=.53(d) and Form 2c

1. General Discussion of Requirements;Public Availability of Information

On June 14,1979, EPA proposed nowapplication requirements and a newForm 2c to be used by existing Industrialdischargers. Consistent with the CleanWater Act's mandate that EPA focusupon the control of toxic pollutants andwith EPA's new permitting strategy fortoxic pollutants in response to thatmandate, EPA proposed that existingindustrial'dischargers be required tosubmit in their NPDES permitapplications, in addition to otherinformation,'detailed informationconcerning discharges of toxic (andcertain other) pollutants.

The requirements reflect the Agency'sbelief (which was supported by manycommenters) that dischargers have aduty to be aware of any significantpollutant levels in their discharge. Inaddition, they serve two specificpurposes. Most important, they providethe information which permit writersneed to determine what pollutants arelikely to be discharged in significantamounts and to set appropriate permitlimits. Second, they will be used as abasis for application-based notificationrequirements under § 122.61(a).

The final regulations retain theessential components of the proposedapplication requirements of June 14,

I I I I I

3S526




1979. Some testing requirements weremodified for certain industries based onEPA's continuing review of data onthose industries' discharges. In addition,certain requirements were added withrespect to hazardous substancesdesignated under section 311 of CWA,based on EPA's August 29,1979proposal (44 FR 50780] responding to the1978 Amendments to section 311(a)(2).

Dischargers will generally be requiredto submit applications in threesituations: when an initial permit isneeded, when an existing permit willsoon expire and a new permit will thusbe needed, and when a permit is beingrevoked and reissued under 40 CFR122.15. However, § 124.5 provides thatan application may also be required, ifspecifically requested by the permittingauthority, when grounds for permitmodification exist. This requirementwas also contained in previous NPDESregulations in § 122.14(e) (44 FR 32905).A more extensive requirement in§ 122.10(b), that new applications besubmitted for certain types ofmodifications, has been deleted inresponse to comments pointing out thata new application is not alwaysnecessary in such situations.

The new application requirements andForm 2c apply only to existingdischargers. Until Form 2d is developed,EPA Forms 755G-8, -9 and -23 shouldcontinue to be used by new sources andnew dischargers as well as by existingfacilities which will first begin todischarge through particular outfalls inthe future.

Applicants should note that section402(j) of CWA requires that anyinformation contained in a NPDESpermit application must be madeavailable to the public. (This rule setforth in 40 CFR 122.29 and is highlightedin the instructions to Form 2c.)Therefore, EPA has not accepted thesuggestion by some commenters thatcertain portions of the application beconfidential. However, EPA hasattempted to address this potentialconcern by minimizing requests forinformation which may be regarded bycertain applicants as sensitive.

First, information on the applicant'svolume of production (or other measureof total operation) is requested only ofapplicants who are subject toproduction-based effluent limitationguidelines. Applicants subject only toconcentration-based guidelines or tocase-by-case development ofindividualized permit limits (when noguidelines apply), for example, need notsubmit such information. Second. alleffluent discharge reportingrequirements ask only for end-of-pipeeffluent data, rather than in-process

waste stream data. While permit writersmay request additional information notrequired in the EPA application form(under § 122.53[d)(13), discussed belowin section III. D.3.i of this preamble,such information is subject to theprotections afforded by 40 CFR Part 2.

Some industrial commenters arguedthat product information submitted byapplicants subject to production-basedguidelines should be held confidential.Some argued that if all applicationinformation must be available to thepublic, then product information shouldbe deleted as an applicationrequirement and obtained by permitwriters on a case-by-case basis, such asunder the authority of section 308 ofCWA.

EPA must reject the above suggestionfor several reasons. First it is notadministratively feasible to requirepermit writers to individually requestmany thousands of permit applicants tosubmit such information separately fromthe standard application process. Whilepermit writers will in some instancesneed to request information in additionto that required in the application form,they cannot be expected to do so on aregular basis for routine information.This would result in unacceptabledelays in issuing permits.

Second, much of the information inthe permit application is "effluent data"within the meaning of 40 CFR 2.302(d)(2)and therefore would have to bedisclosed under section 306 of CWA. Forexample, if the applicant is subject to aneffluent limitations guideline of 7 poundsof BOD per 1000 pounds of productproduced, a production figure isnecessary to determine the amount ofBOD discharge authorized by theapplicable limitation. Even if theproduction figure could be protectedfrom public disclosure, the figure couldeasily be calculated from the permitlimitation.

Third and most important. EPAbelieves that the requested productinformation is not sensitive. Applicantsare requested in the instructions to theform to report product informationbased on past production, such ashighest month of the past year or themonthly average of the highest year ofthe past five years. (This reflects therequirements of 40 CFR 122.63(b).) Theapplicant need not identify in theapplication which basis was used todetermine production volume. Moreover,the reported information does notindicate the applicant's estimate offuture product demand or its anticipatedfuture production.

The final application requirementsinclude one new item which might beregarded as touching upon sensitive

data. Applicants are now required to listany toxic pollutants which they use ormanufacture as intermediate or finalproducts or byproducts. EPA has tried tominimize the possibility that reportingthis information will result in revelationof trade secrets. First, applicants neednot indicate on this list the specific basisfor listing any particular pollutant; thebasis will be assumed to be one of theabove factors. Second. applicants neednot list the amount used ormanufactured.

Certain wording changes have beadmade in response to comments in otherquestions on Form 2c to minimize theamount of potentially sensiti-einformation required. These changes arediscussed in more detail in sectionIll.D.3 of this preamble.

2. Required Analyses and Estimates ofPollutant Discharges

a. Toxic Pollutants: § 12253dX (Xii]and item V-C. The chief innovation ofthe new NPDES applicationrequirements is that applicants mustreport discharges of toxic pollutants.The proposal required applicants in 36industries (the 34 primary industrieslisted in the modified NRDC SettlementAgreement, plus the Asbestos andFerroalloys industries] to test for alltoxic pollutants (except for asbestos andTCDD, which are discussed below]. Thefinal regulations have modified thisrequirement for certain industries.

The reporting requirements for toxicpollutants may be summarized asfollows:

(1) All applicants in the 34 primaryIndustries listed in the NRDC ConsentDecree must analyze their processwastewater outfalls and reportquantitative results for the 13 metals onthe toxic pollutant list and for cyanideand total phenols.

(2) All applicants in the 34 primaryIndustries must analyze their processwastewater outfalls and reportquantitative results for some or all of the114 organic toxic pollutants. The organictoxic pollutants have been grouped intothe four fractions which are used in thegas chromatography/mass spectrometry(GC/MS) analytical test method. Theregulations and Form 2c each containtables showing the fractions whichapplicants in each of the 34 industriesmust test for.

(3) All applicants must indicate thepresence of any toxic pollutants whichthey know or have reason to believe areor will be discharged from any ouffall.They are required to analyze only forthose pollutants which they know orhave reason to believe are currentlydischarged.

33527




An exemption from the second andthird requirements listed above isprovided for small businesses whoseaverage annual gross sales total lessthan $100,000 (or, in the case of coalmines, those whose average annualproduction is less than 100,000 tons ofcoal). See section III.F.6.b of thispreamble.

The proposed requirement thatapplicants in the 36 industries analyzefor the 129 toxic pollutants was heavilycommented upon. Environmental groups,many private citizens; and some Stateagencies expressed strong support forthe analysis of the 129 toxic pollutantsas a minimum requirement. (Many ofthese commenters argued, in fact, that -the requirement is insufficient in itselfand should be supplemented bybiomonitoring requirements. Seediscussion in section JII.D.2.d of thispreamble.) On the other hand, manyindustrial commenters argued that therequirement was too broad, imposingsignificant costs to sample and analyzefor pollutants which may be absent fromapplicants' waste streams. In particular,commenters from certain industries(pulp and paper, mining, oil and gas,extraction, metal finishing, steamelectric generating plants, textiles,rubber processing, and laundries)argued for full or partial exemptions fortheir industries or for all industries.

In the June 14 preamble, EPA stated insupport of its proposed reportingrequirements that although EPA hassampled plants in each industrialcategory as part of the effluentguidelines development process, plant-unique situations could be discoveredonly through waste stream analysis byeach discharger. As described today insection 111.B of this preamble, EPA needsto be aware of those specific situationsto write adequate permits. The Agencyrestricted its prbposed requirements tothe'36 industries which EPA concludedwere likely to discharge at least sometoxic pollutants. The Agency noted,however, that it would continue toinvestigate existing data and would addor delete requirements to ensure thatwaste streams be analyzed only forpollutants which may be discharged.

In response to EPA's specific requestfor comments on this issue, severalsuggestions were received. Thecomments and EPA's responses are setforth below:

1. Comment: EPA should requireapplicants to test only for the pollutantsregulated in the relevant effluentlimitations guidelines. Response: EPAhas not adopted this approach becauseit ignores the diversity among plantswhich the application requirements ari"designed to address. It also would -

require EPA to wait forguidelines to befinally promulgated before settingapplication requirements. That approachwould delay the permitting process andpossibly result in failures to meet thestatutory 1984 deadline.

2. Comment. EPA should requireapplicants to test only for those toxicpollutants which they know or havereason to believe are present in theirdischarges. Response: EPA has notadopted this approach for primaryindustries because, as EPA has learnedduring its industry sampling efforts, itcan be difficult to predict what toxicpollutants will be discharged from anoutfall. However, this approach is beingused for secondary industries and forprimary industries' non-processwastewater outfalls, since theirdischarges are much less likely to betoxic.

3. Comment: EPA should leave theapplication requirements to bedetermined on a case-by-case basis bythe Director or should allow the Directorto waive requirements on a case-by-casebasis. Response: EPA has not adoptedeither approach. EPA is required bysection 304(i) of CWA to develop"uniform application forms and otherminimum requirements." While thisdoes not preclude EPA from makingvalid distinctions among industries withdiffering discharges, EPA should notburden permit writers with theobligation of determining the pollutantswhich each particular applicant musttest for. Indeed, as-noted in thepreceding paragraph, it would bedifficult for permit writers andapplicants to determine whether certaintoxic pollutants will be discharged bythe applicant without testing thedischarge. Furthermore, allowingapplication requirements to beestablished on a case-by-case basiswould result in unfairly disparateapplication requirements for similarapplicants. (Note that EPA does not barpermit writers from requesting furtherinformation where appropriate for aparticular discharge. However, theminimum requirements should beuniform as required by law.)

4. Comment: EPA should allow thesubstitution of biomonitoring forchemical monitoring. Response:Although biomonitoring providesinformation on the toxicity of adischarge, it does not identify particularpollutants which may be causing thetoxicity (certain biological methods ofidentifying specific chemicals are in thedevelopment stage, however]. To control-the toxicity, it is important to identifyand address the sources of that toxicity.Thus biomonitoring is not a suitable

replacement for chemical monitoring.although it may be a useful supplementin certain situations (see discussion'insection III.D.2.d and IILE.2 of thispreamble).

5. Comment: Toxic pollutants incertain effluents may be bettercontrolled through Best ManagementPractices programs: thus testing Is notnecessary. Response: Regardless of theappropriate method of control, one firstneeds to identify the toxic pollutantsbeing discharged and the means of thedischarge. Furthermore, BestManagement Practices will be used toregulate process wastewater dischargesthrough outfalls only in relatively fewcircumstances (see § 122.62(k)); end-of-pipe BAT controls generally will be usedfor such discharges.

6. Comment: Applicants should berequired to test only for those pollutantsdetected or likely to be detected atsignificant levels, based on dataavailable to EPA, such as from itsindustry sampling efforts. Response:While EPA has not selected preciselythis approach, the final regulation(described immediately below) takes asimilar approach and imposes similarcosts.

EPA has decided to use differentapproaches for the metals and theorganic chemicals on the toxic pollutantlist.

All applicants in the primaryindustries (the 34 NRDC Consent Decreeindustries) must test their processwaitewater discharges for all the toxicmetals, because almost all primaryindustry applicants discharge somemetals and because the incremental costof testing for all 13 toxic metals over thecost of testing for a few metals isrelatively small. On December 3,1979(44 FR 69464), EPA proposed a newmethod for testing metals In addition tothose already promulgated in 40 CFRPart 136. The method is ICP (inductivelycoupled plasma optical emissionspectroscopy), which provides asimultaneous determination of severalmetals in a sample. When this method ispromulgated, it may make the cost oftesting for all 13 toxic metalscomparable to testing for fewer metalsusing other methods.

All applicants in primary Industriesmust also test their process wastewaterdischarges for cyanide and total phenol.The proposed requirement that allapplicants test all discharges for thesepollutants has been deleted, as severalcommenters suggested, because they arenot likely to be found in most dischargesother than primary industry processwastewater discharges, However.applicants must test for them wheneverthey expect them to be discharged.

I I33528



Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 98 / Monday. May 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

"Process wastewater" is defined inthe Glossary of the instructions to theconsolidated application forms. In casesof uncertainty in applying the definition,applicants should contact theirpermitting authorities.

EPA has modified its proposedrequirements for organic toxic pollutantsby exempting certain industries fromtesting for certain pollutants. Theapproach used by EPA applies twofactors. First, as suggested in the sixthcomment listed above, is the likelihoodthat an applicant may discharge aparticular pollutant. Second is the extentto which deletion of a toxic pollutant orgroup of toxic pollutants from the list ofreportable pollutants results in costsavings.

EPA has determined the likelihood ofdischarge by using an approachsuggested by many commenters. EPAdecided that any pollutant which hasbeen detected at greater than 10 Ig/Il(different cutoffs are ised for severalpesticides) in one or more samples in anindustry should be tested for by allapplicants in the industry. Thisapproach has been selected because, inmost industries, EPA has sampled only asmall percentage of the plants. Thus theappearance of a pollutant in the database for an industry implies that it maybe discharged by several plaptR in thatindustry.

In analyzing the costs of vario-islevels of testing requirements. EPAconsidered both sampling and analyticalcosts. (Detailed derivations of costsassumed in this discussion arecontained below in section IILF of thispreamble.) Sampling costs for oneoutfall ($1,550) are not affected by thenumber of pollutants analyzed. Thus,the cost of collecting a sample toanalyze for all 114 organic toxicpollutants is equivalent to the cost ofsampling for only afew of them.Analytical costs, however, aresomewhat dependent on the number ofpollutants analyzed. Using gaschromatogra phy/mass spectrometry(GCIMS), pollutants are grouped intofour fractions which are based uponsimilar chemical and physicalproperties. Within a fraction, virtuallyidentical analytical costs are incurredwhether one pollutant or all pollutantsin a fraction are tested. Moreover, sincepollutants in the same fraction sharesimilar chemical and physicalproperties, the presence of a pollutant ina discharge indicates some likelihoodthat other pollutants in the fraction mayalso be discharged. However,elimination of entire fractions fromtesting requirements can reduce costs.Thus, assuming that testing for all four

fractions may cost $2,.000, deletion ofone fraction may save $150 to $500,depending on the fraction deleted.

Based on the reasoning outlinedabove, EPA has decided to requireapplicants in each primary industry totest process wastewater for anypollutant which has been found indischarges from plants in that industry,plus any other pollutants which arecontained in the same GC/MS fractionas that pollutant (since this additionalanalysis is virtually costless and mayyield further information ofsignificance). (Applicants with sales ofless than $100,000 per year, orproduction of less than 100.000 tons peryear in the case of coal mines, areexempt from testing for organic toxicpollutants under J 122.53(dX8). See thediscussion in section III.F.6 below.)When no pollutants of a particularfraction have been detected in anysampled plant in an industry, thatfraction has been deleted as arequirement for applicants in thatindustry.

After formulating the rule for testingrequirements as outlined above, theAgency reviewed the data 'which hasbeen generated in its effluent guidelinessampling efforts to determine whichpollutants have been found in each ofthe 34 primary industries. The Agencyrecognizes the technical problems in itsapproach. Most important, EPA's database, the most comprehensive data baseavailable, is to some extent subject toerrors in sampling, analysis andreporting. On one hand, there is somepossibility that a pollutant shown by thedata to have been found in a plant'sdischarge was not actually present. Onthe other hand, it is possible that apollutant which was present in adischarge will be shown in the data tobe absent. Another problem is that thereis limited data for certain categories andespecially for subcategories.

Given the shortcomings in theAgency's data base, it becamenecessary to decide whether to basetesting requirements for a GC/MSfraction on a single detection of apollutant in the fraction, a greaternumber of detections, or upon someminimum ratio of detections to samples.The Agency decided to adopt theapproach of one detection atconcentrations above 10,xg/l. First, thisapproach is less arbitrary than thealternatives, which would have requireda judgment without any technical basisthat some other number correctlyrepresents the degree of error in the database. The selection of a single detectionas a criterion acknowledges thedifficulty of making such a judgment and

relies rather on the assumption that adetection indicates a reasonablelikelihood of actual presence of a toxicpollutant in a discharge.

Second, as noted above, the costsavings of deleting a particular fractionfrom the testing requirements for aparticular industry are only a small partof the remaining sampling and analysiscosts. Therefore, it is appropriate torequire testing of a fraction whenever areasonable likelihood exists that apollutant in the fraction is beingdischarged.

Third. the adopted approach is themost environmentally protectivealternative to EPA's proposed approach:requiring testing for all four fractionswithout exception. Any furtherrelaxation of the proposal would resultin a higher probability that some plantswould not be required to test for certaintoxic pollutants which they discharge.

The need for stringent testingrequirements is particularly strong inlight of the Agency's decision not torequire biomonitoring for toxic effectson a uniform basis. As noted elsewherein the preamble, many private citizensas well as environmental groups haveurged that EPA require biomonitoring.EPA's chief argument for not requiringbiomonitoring at this time is that it ismore appropriate to focus the testingrequirements at this stage uponmonitoring of specific toxic pollutants.This argument would be weakenedsubstantially by a further relaxation ofthe toxic pollutant testing requirements.

The final toxic pollutant testingrequirements for primary industriesstrike a reasonable balance between thecompeting considerations of cost andenvironmental protection by exemptingindustries from testing those GCIMSfractions in which toxic pollutants havenot been found. This criterion hasresulted in the exemption of 16 out ofthe 34 primary industries from testingfor the pollutants in the pesticidefraction. In addition, 3 industries areexempted from testing for pollutants inthe acid fraction. I industry is exemptedfrom testing for the pollutants in thevolatile fraction, and 1 industry isexempted from testing for pollutants inthe base/neutral fraction. See Part 122,Appendix D. Table I, and Table 2c-2 ofthe instructions to Form 2c.

EPA has deleted the proposedrequirement that applicants in theFerroalloys and Asbestos Manufacturingindustries test for all toxic pollutants.EPA's industry toxic pollutant samplingefforts covered only the primaryindustries. EPA thus lacks the data tosupport a supposition that secondaryindustries are discharging toxicpollutants. Thus secondary industries,

33529



Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 98 / Monday, May 19, 1980 1 Rules and Regulations

including the Ferroalloys andAsbestosindustries, are exempted frommandatory testing for toxic pollutants.

However, in additioA to the testingrequirements specified for prodesswastewater discharges from primaryindustries, all applicants aie required toreport discharges of any toxic pollutantwhich they know or have reason tobelieve may'be discharged through anyoutfall. This requirement includespollutants in GC/MS fractions'notmarked in Table 2c-2 of the instructionto Form 2c, pollutants discharged byprimary industries through nonprocesswastewater outfalls, and pollutantsdischarged by seconddry industriesthrough any outfall. This requirement issimilar to the proposal, with one change.The proposal allowed applicants toestimate such discharges. The finalregulation allows estimation of presenceor absence; however, applicants arenow required totest for any pollutantknown or believed to be present in thedischarge.

EPA has decided to require testing forone toxic pollutant for which theproposal all'owed estimates: TCDD(2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzd-p-dioxin).Testing for TCDD was excluded fromthe proposal because the routineshipping and use of analytical standardsof TCDD needed to perform quantitativeanalyses would endanger the public dueto the extreme toxicity of TCDD. TheNational Wildlife Foundation correctlynoted that due to TCDD's toxicity, -"added rather than lessened precautionsmust be taken to avoid'its undetecteddischarge into the environment."Accordingly, EPA will require certaindischargers to screen for TCDD ih'amanner which does not require theshipping of analytical standards.

Applicants who produce or use thefollowing compounds must screen forTCDD:2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy acetic acid

(2,4,5-T)2-(2,4,5-triclfilorophenoxy) propanoic

acid (Silvex, 2,4,5-TP)2-[2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy) ethyl 2,2-

dichloropropionate (Erbon)0,0-dimethyl O-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)

phosphorothinate [Ronnel)Hexachlorophene (HCP)2,4,5-Trichlorophenl (TCP)This list is based upon a recent draftstudy conducted by EPA's Office ofToxic Substances: Dioxins: Sources,-Transport, Exposure qnd Control (April1979). These studies indicate that TCDDis likely to be a contaminant in the sixcompouiid' listed alov.,e. "'' -- " '

TCID 'screening will-be done by theuse of GC with an electrbn capturedetector. This method will reveal the

presence of dioxipibut will not separateits iseoners..However, positive resultsmay then be used by the permit writeras a basis for requiring the use of G6/MS and a TCDD standard to identifyand quan tify TCDD (see method 613,proposed in 40 CFR 136 on December 3,1979, 44 FR at 69526).

EPA'is retaining the proposed .exemptiqn fronitesting for one othertoxic p6llutant aslesios. Due to the lackof a suitable tesi method for asbestos,applicants are required enly to indicatewhether asbestos is 'expected to bedischarged and, if SO, to describe thesource of the discharge and to submitany available a ialytical data.

Applicants whose outfalls wereanalyzed by EPA during EPA's industrysampling program may submitquantitative data generated by EPArather than retest their dischargei, if the'data is less than three years old-andremains representative of the present'discharge. When datahas it beendeveloped by EPA for a particularpollutant, the exemptioh ddes not applyto that pollutant. The exemption shouldaffect at least 100 applicants. The June14 proposal required data-to be no morethan two years old; commenters pointedout that more than two years will I"generally have elapsed since EPA testedthe applicant's effluent. In response,EPA has changed the time to threeyears. (This period is" consistent withregulations requiring permittees to 1retain monitoring records for threeyears.)

For the applicants Who are required to. test their waste streams, EPA has

reduced its sampling requirements fromthe proposed 72-hour single flowproportional composite sample to a 24-hour sample. This change was adoptedin response to comments and afterreconsideration of the relative'costs andbenefits of using 24-hour samples and72-hour samples. - -

The Agency has used 24-, 48-, and 72--hour samples in its data collection ,-efforts. Although a 72-hour sample mayin some instances be morerepresentative of a discharge than a 24-hour sample, other factors such as theretention times of treatment facilitieswould have to be considered in eachinstance to determine the mostappropriate sampling time. Furthermore,preserving a 72-hour sample mayintroduce errors which cancel thebenefits of thelonger time period.-Although the.incremental benefits of

.usinga .2,hqu r.ample instead of a 24-hour sample are questionable, the costsavings of using a 24-hour sample,are.substantial. The gost of sampling a:single outfall for.72 hours is estimatedtobe $2,506, while the cost for 24 hours is

$1,550; thus a 24-hour sample results In asavings of $1,000 per outfall. EPA cannotconclude that the benefits of using a 72-hour sample justify the costs,

Several commenters objected to thelack of standard EPA-approvedsampling methods, However, asdiscussed in the juxe,14,1979 preanblolthe art of sampling is dependent, onexperience and, often not amenable to!standardization of methods.Accordingly, only general guidance onsampling is given in the instructions toForm 2c. Sampling should-be supervisedby an experienced contractor, asassumed by EPA in its samplihg costestimates (section III.F.1 below).(Certain sampling issues are discussedlater in this section of the preamble.)

Many comments were receivedconcerning the lack of promulgatedmethods for the analysis of the organictoxic pollutants. EPA proposed methodsfor analysisof the organic'toxicpollutants on December 31 1979 (44 FR69464). The comment period on themethods, which Include GC, HPLC, andGC/MS, was extended to April 28, 1980,(See 45 FR 15950, March 12, 1980.) .Comments on the adequacy of the testmethods will be considered in that,. ,'rulemaking proceeding and will not beaddressed here, except to note that theelimination of proposed application-,based limit requirementsha& reducedthe importance of high precision andaccuracy in data reported In NPDESapplications.

Because the comment period for thetest methods for organic -toxic pollutantswas extended, the methods may not be,promulgated in 40CFR Part 136 by thetime that some applicants test theirwaste streams.As a result, EPA willallow applicants to use any suitablemethod to test for any pollutant forwhich Part 136 methods do not exist. Toassure quality control, applicants will berequired in such cases to describe themethod used, including sample ,preservation techniques. When anindependent laboratory conducts theanalysis, the applicant should requestthis information so that it may beincluded in the application. Applicantsare encouraged (but not required) to usethe December 3, 1979 proposed methodsfor organic toxic pollutants until thefinal methods are promulgated in Part130. ' 4

b. Other Pollutants, In addition to the 'toxic pollutants, all applicants will berequired to report other pollutants in all I

-types of discharges. Some of these ,,- pollutants are conventional and.:nonconventional (pollutants not listed,-as toxic undersection 307(a) or'., I,-

conventional under section 304(b)) .pollutants which have traditionally beeni.

33530




of concern in the NPDES program, andothers are nonconventional pollutantswhich have not generally been regulatedbefore, such as certain hazardous -substances. Fewer commentersaddressed these requirements than therequirements for testing of toxicpollutants, perhaps because of therelatively smaller costs.

There are three groups of pollutants,other than toxic pollutants, withdiffering reporting requirements:

(1] All applicants must test all theirdischarges for the first group ofpollutants.

f2] All applicants mst indicatewhether they know or have reason tobelieve that any of a second group ofpollutants is present in any discharge.They must then test for any of thosepollutants known or believed to bedischarged.

(3) All applicants must indicatewhether they know or have reason to"believe that any of a third group ofpollutants is present in any discharge.They must then describe the source ofany pollutant known or believed to bedischarged and provide any analyticaldata which they possess.

These requirements are discussedimmediately below.

(i) RequiredAnalyses: § 122.53(d)[7)(i)and item V-A. All applicants mustanalyze for three conventionalpollutants (BOD, TSS, AND pH] andfour nonconventional pollutants(temperature, COD, TOC, andammonia].

Certain minor revisions have beenmade from the proposed requirements.

First, the toxic pollutants cyanide andtotal phenols have been moved from thislist to item V-C. Thus applicants otherthan primary industries, which must testtheir process wastewater ouffalls, arenot required to test for cyanide and totalphenols unless they expect them to bepresent. This change, advocated byseveral commenters, was made becausethese two pollutants are less likely to bedischarged by secondary industries orfrom non-process wastewater outfallsthan the other parameters in item V-A.

Second, the required measure ofnitrogen compounds in item V-A hasbeen changed from total Kjeldahlnitrogen [TKN) to ammonia. Ammonia isthe nitrogen compound of most concernin terms of water quality. EPA hasrecently proposed to add ammonia tothe section 307(a) list of toxic pollutants(45 FR 803, January 8, 1980). Totalorganic nitrogen, which measuresnitrogen compounds, which aregenerally nutrients, is now required initem V-B. (Total Kjeldahl nitrogen is thesum of ammonia nitrogen and totalorganic nitrogen.)

Some commenters requested deletionor selected waiver of the uniform testingrequirements, the development ofindustry-specific requirements, or theaddition of pollutants (total oxygendemand and total organic halogen]. EPAbelieves that the requirements of ItemV-A are generally appropriate for tworeasons. First, the parameters in item V-A are commonly found in many differenttypes of discharges. Second, takentogether they are generally indicative ofthe nature of a discharge. In addition,the testing costs are small. However, inresponse to comments, the regulationshave been modified to provide that theDirector may waive testingrequirements, on a case-by-case basis,for one or more pollutants in Item V-A.This selected waiver is reasonable h.light of the substantial experience whichpermit writers have in regulating theparameters included in Item V-A.

(ii) Required Reporting of Presence orAbsence and, if Present, RequiredAnalysis: § 122.53(d)()(ih) and item V-B. All applicants must indicate expectedpresence or absence of discharges of 2conventional pollutants (fecal coliformand oil and grease) and 23nonconventional pollutants and reportat least one analysis for each pollutantexpected present. These pollutantseither are of less significance or are lesslikely to be found than toxic pollutantsor the pollutants in item V-A, for whichtesting is automatically required.Commenters on the proposal mademany of the same general criticisms andsuggestions as on item V-A. EPA hasnot made changes in response to thesegeneral comments (although somespecific comments were adopted, asdiscussed below], particularly becausethe required level of reporting presentsminimal burdens; actual testing-isrequired only where the applicantknows or has reason to believe that It isdischarging a pollutant. Furthermore,testing costs are relatively inexpensive.As noted earlier in this preamble, permitwriters need to know what pollutantsare present in an effluent to determineappropriate permit limits in the absenceof applicable effluent guidelines.Therefore, EPA does not feel It isappropriate to make the requirements ofitem V-B any less stringent.

One significant change has been madefrom the proposal, which allowedapplicants to estimate the levels ofpollutants known or believed to bedischarged. The final regulations anditem V-B require applicants to test forall such pollutants. This change wasmade because EPA felt that theincreased reliability of a test over anestimate justifies the increased cost in

those cases where one or more of thesepollutants is expected to be discharged.The change also responds to industrycomments pointing out that providing aquantitative estimate is technicallydifficult and to one comment suggestingthat EPA require analysis of expectedpollutants.

Other changes have been made inresponse to suggestions by commenters.The pesticides required to be reported inproposed Item V-C are now listedspecifically in item V-D (discussedbelow). Radioactivity has beensubdivided into alpha, beta, radium andradium 226. Nitrate and nitrite havebeen combined as a single pollutant, inaccordance with the usual practice ofmeasuring their sum. Finally, the form'sInstructions and the regulations specifythat applicants need not test forpollutants expected to be present solelyas a result of their presence in intakewater, but need only indicate that theyare expected to be present.

EPA rejected certain othersuggestions. EPA has retained the use oftotal residual chlorine (rather than thesuggested free available chlorine]because it measures both free availablechlorine and chlorinated amines,because most existing toxicity data is interms of rsidual chlorine, and because

EPA expects to use total residualchlorine as a pollutant measure inforthcoming new effluent guidelines forthe Steam Electric Power GeneratingIndustry. Aluminum has been retained,despite one commenter's argument thataluminum has low toxicity andsolubility, because aluminum remains ofsufficient concern to require limitationsin some cases (see, e.g., 40 CFR 421.32and 404.32).

(iii) Required Reporting of Presence orAbsence of Asbestos and HazardousSubstances: §122.53(d)(7)(iv) and itemV-D. All applicants must indicateexpected presence or absence, andbriefly describe the source (or levels, ifdata is available] if present, ofdischarges of pollutants listed in item V-D. These pollutants include one toxicpollutant (asbestos) and 79nonconventional pollutants which havebeen designated as hazardoussubstances under section 311 of theClean Water Act but not listed as toxicpollutants and reportable in item V-Cand which retain their undissociatedform in water.

The proposed requirement forasbestos was controversial and hasbeen changed. Applicants must nowstate briefly the source of any dischargeof asbestos instead of testing orestimating the level of discharge.However, if they have analytical data

33531




on any such discharges; applicants mustreport them.

Proposed item V-C requiredapplicants to estimate or test for certainpesticides for which EPA had developed(interim) test methods. In response tocomments, EPA has now listed -specifically (in item V-D) each pesticiderequired to be reported: EPA hasdecided to list only those pesticideswhich have been designated ashazardous substances. These pesticidesare contained in the list of 79 hazardoussubstances required by item V-D. EPAfeels that focusing attention onpesticides formally recognized ashazardous in water is a realisticapproach at this time.

Reporting requiremenis for thehazardous substances (other than thosealso listed as toxic pollutants) evolvedout of 1978 Amendments to the CleanWater Act, which changed therelationship between the NPDESprogram amd section 311 of CWA.Proposed § 122.64CdJ[19 and item IX ofthe draft application form provided topermit applicants the option ofsubmitting information on discharges ofhazardous substances designated undersection 311 of CWA to obtain exclusionof those discharges from the variousrequirements of section 311. Theproposal reflected proposed 40 CFR117.12 (44 FR 10271, February 16,1979) inwhich EPA tentatively interpreted the1978 amendments to section 311(a)(2) togrant exclusions for continuous orintermittent discharges which arecaused by events occurring within thescope of relevant operating or treatmentsystems only if certain informationidentifying those discharges is submittedto the permitting authority. In the finalregulations (40 CFR 117.12, 44 FR 50766,August 29, 1979), EPA revised § 117.12 toacknowledge that such discharges bypermittees or permit applicants are-exempt from section 311 even wheninformation on the discharges is notsubmitted to the NPDES permittingauthority.

Concurrently with promulgating 40CFR 117.12 on August 29,1979, EPApublished a notice (44 FR 50780]modifying the June 14 proposedapplication requirements by adding arequirement concerning the reporting ofcertain discharges of hazardoussubstances in NPDES applications. Thisaction was taken in recognition ofCongressional intent that continuous oranticipated intermittent discharges ofhazardous substances are appropriatelyregulated under the NPDES programrather than under section 311. The newproposal required reporting of 73hazardous substances (in,addition to the

June 14 proposal's requirement that,hazardous substances which are on thesection 307(a) toxic pollutant list must

*be reported) and of seven dissociationproducts of hazardous substances. Theproposal required each applicant-toreport any of these pollutants which itknows or has reason to believe it isdischarging. In addition, all applicants in36 industries were required to test for-vanadium.

Estimates -were permitted except for16 substances (13 pesticides, 2chlorinated hydrocarbons andvanadium) for Which official EPA testmethods had already been developed;actual testing was reqbired for these ifexpected present.

Commenters generally supported theapproach of requiring reporting of ahazardous substance discharge onlywhere the applicant knows orlhasreason to believe it is discharging thesubstance. This is a less stringentapproach than used for toxic pollutantsfor several reasons. First, toxicpollutants are required to receive theclosest possible scrutiny in the NPDESprogram under the 1977 Amendments toCWA; thus theymay reasonably bedistinguished from hazardoussubstances in formulating applicationrequirements at thistime. Second, testmethods are lacking for most of thehazardous substances listed in theAugust 29 proposal. Third, most of thehazardous substances for which interimtest methods exist are highly unlikely tobe discharged except by a fewindustries (most notably, the Pesticidesindustry). Thus a more relaxed uniformreporting requirement for hazardoussubstances makes sense.

Several commenters contended thatthe test methods for14 of the 16hazardous substances for which EPAclaims to have published test methodshave not been properly promulgated in40 CFR 136 under section 304 of CWAand that EPA is therefore barred fromrequiring anj such analysis. Theyargued that the published methods hadnot been properly incorporated byreference in Part 136. EPA believes ithas legal authority to require testing forthose substances, whether by use of thePart 136 methods or by allowingapplicants to choose any appropriatemethod. However, commenters furtherargued that the methods for pesticideshave been less widely tested than themethods for toxic pollutants. EPA agreeswith those commenters:

In response to the above comments,the proposed requirements have beenmodified. Applicants are nowrequiredonly to indicate the source of thedischarges for all hazardous substancesunless they have analytical data. Of

course, as always, the'permit writer mayrequire further testing if necessry. EPAfeels this more individualized approachmakes sense at this stage of the NPDESprogram, since leps is known about theanalysis and treatability of many ofthese pollutants in discharges than isknown for other pollutants to beregulated in the next round of permitissuance.

In response to EPA's request forcomments on the list of hazardoussubstances for which applicationreporting was proposed, one commentersuggested that vanadium and uraniumbe omitted, and one commentersuggested that dicamba (a pesticide) beomitted. EPA was not persuaded bythese comments.'All of these pollutantshave been designated by EPA ashazardous substances, which aredesignated to a large extent on the basisof tocicity criteria. Certain hazardoussubstances, such as acetic acid, areomitted from reporting requirementsbecause they are toxic only in cases ofspills causing shock effects; they are nottoxic at the concentrations generallyfdund in continous discharges. How ever,vanadium, uranium and dicamba are ofsufficient concern in continousdischarges to require reporting: Theburden of such reporting is minimal,since the reporting is based on theinexpensive estimation of presence orabsence rather than on more expensivetesting.

c. General Concerns in Sampling,Analysis and Reporting of TestingResults. Several additional aspects ofthe sampling of waste streams and thereporting of analytical results were ofconcern to commenters and arediscussed below.

(i) Sampling Requirements. Theinstructions to item V of Form 2c includesome general requirements about whensamples should be collected. (Not allaspects of these instructions are setforth in the regulations.] The proposedinstructions included the statement thatsamples should be representative of theprevious twelve months of operation.Several comment6rs pointed out thatthis requirement was incompatible withthe minimum requirement of testing onesample. Based on the comments, thisstatement has been deleted from thefinal instructions. The instructions retainthe statement that applicants shouldchoose sampling times which arerepresentative of their normaloperations. If operations are so variablethat no representative time can beselected, as claimed by a fewcommenters, applicants may describe Initem VI of Form 2c any types ofdischarges which differ from those

I II I33532




tested (see section III.D.3.e of thispreamble).

Two commenters objected to therequirement that all composite samplesbe flow-proportional and suggested thattime-proportional samples be allowedwhen retention times are long enough.This suggestion has not been adoptedbecause flow proportional samples givea more accurate measurement of thetotal mass discharged when flows arenot constant. When flows are constant,there is no difference between flow-proportional and time-proportionalsamples. One of these commenters alsorequested clarification of the definitionsof grab and composite samples; this hasbeen done.

Several commenters pointed out thatthe proposed requirement that allsamples be preserved by cooling to 4°

Celsius was unnecessary for somepollutants, paticularly metals. Thisrequirement has been deleted from theinstructions, but applicants must complywith specific requirements for individualpollutants covering sampling containers,holding times, and preservationprocedures when they are promulgated(proposed at 44 FR 69464, December 3,1979). Until these requirements arepromulgated, applicants must describethe holding times and preservationprocedures which they use.

(ii) Reporting of Testing Results.(A] Detection Limits. The proposal

required applicants to report detectionlimits for all pollutants in draft item V-Cfound to be not present. Thisrequirement has been deleted becausethe proposed application-based limitshave been deleted and the promulgatedapplication-based notificationrequirements of 122.61(a) are not basedupon multiples of detection limits.Therefore, the comments which werereceived on reporting of detection limitsare no longer relevant, and the table inthe proposed instructions setting forthdetection limits has been deleted.

[B) Miscellaneous Issues. Onecommenter pointed out that reporting offlow was required in both draft items V-A and V-B. The purpose was to have theapplicant report the flow once tocorrespond to the concentration levelsreported for the toxic pollutants, and asecond time to indicate the average andmaximum flow over the course of oneyear. Flow is now reported only oncebecause of reorganization of the form, asdescribed in the next paragraph.

EPA has adopted certain suggestionsby environmental groups advocatingmore detailed presentation of analyticalresults. Both concentration and mass ofpollutant loadings must be reported inthe application. In addition, pollutant

loadings must now be reported asmaximum daily value and as maximum30-day value and long-term averagevalue, if available. This change does notrequire any additional testing but doesrequire additional calculations."Maximum daily value". "maximum 30-day value" and "long-term averagevalue" are explained in the instructionsto Form 2c. Requirements for types ofsamples (grab or composite) are nowspecified in the instructions; therefore,they no longer have to be specified initem V of the form.

The application form does not requireapplicants to analyze intake water, butthey may do so if they wish to beeligible for net limitations under§ 122.63(h).

In response to a comment, a provisionhas been added to the final regulationallowing the Director to limit testing ofsubstantially identical outfalls to asingle outfall. The applicant must statein the application which outfalls wereactually tested and which were not andexplain why the outfalls are consideredsubstantially identical.

Pollutants required to be reported initem V are listed on separate sheets atthe end of Form 2c, numbered V-i toV-9. In order to provide applicants withsome flexibility in reporting, theinstructions state that applicants maysubmit some or all of the requiredinformation on separate sheets insteadof filling out pages V-1 to V-9, if theyprovide all the required information inthe same format (to allow EPA tocomputerize the data). For example,applicants (or laboratories conductinganalyses for applicants) may programGC/MS data systems to print the data inthe required format, eliminating theneed to copy the information onto aform.

d. Response to Comments AdvocatingBiological Monitoring for NPDES PermitApplications. The final regulations, likethe proposed regulations, do not requirebiomonitoring of effluents as part of theapplication process. However, asdiscussed in the preamble to theproposal at 44 FR 34400, the permittingauthority is encouraged to requiretoxicity testing when the information isneeded to assess the toxicity of apresent discharge. Toxicity informationmay be necessary, for example, (1) whenBAT is basically equivalent to BPT (thatis, no treatment beyond BPT isnecessary to control 307(a) toxicpollutants); (2) when guidelines for BATare absent and permit limits will becase-by-case; or (3) when pollutants willnot be chemically analyzed (e.g.,secondary ihldustries or non-processwastewater) but toxicity is suspected.The results of such tests would then

allow the permit writer to decidewhether to require a process evaluationto determine whether additionaltreatment is required. The option ofusing toxicity tests also provides thepermitting authority with the flexibilityto respond to specialized cases whenthe source of toxicity is something otherthan the listed toxic pollutants.Permitting authorities have the authorityto require acute biological toxicitytesting when toxic conditions haveoccurred in the past, when toxicityinformation is needed for establishingpriorities for permit issuance, or whenreported effluent data is insufficient.This authority is clearly provided insection 308 of CWA, which listsbiological monitoring as an availablemethod for the purpose of developingpermit limitations.

A significant number of commentswere received, particularly from privatecitizens and public interest groups,strongly supporting toxicity testing as amandatory permit applicationrequirement. At a minimum, most ofthese commenters wanted all Group Iindustries (defined in the proposal asthe primary industries plus theForroalloys and Asbestos Manufacturingcategories) to perform a two-tieredtesting program consisting of. (1) a 96-hour, acute, static LC50 toxicity test onseveral appropriate species; and (2)persistency testing by sediment uptakeof priority pollutants or bioaccumulationtest of animal tissues. Commentersargued that such a testing programwould not be an overly-restrictiveburden on Group I industries. EPAdisagrees and feels that these suggestedrequirements are inappropriate at thistime. Toxicity testing is not beingrequired of all applicants because, inmany cases, additional or modifiedtreatment will be required by BAT limitsfor specific pollutants. In thesesituations, the results of toxicity testingmay not be relevant because specificpollutants which are sources of possibletoxicity will be identified chemicallyand permittees will be required toreduce the concentration of thesepollutants. When specific toxicpollutants are identified in the permitapplication, it may be assumed that theeffluent has acute or chronic toxicity,which would make biomonitoringduplicative. EPA believes, therefore,that biomonitoring currently should berequired on a case-by-case basis by thepermitting authority in situations suchas those indentified above, where theinformation is needed to make apermitting decision. However, afterinstallation of BAT treatment,

33533



Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 98 / Monday, Ma y 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

biomonitoring will play an increasinglyimportant role in the NPDES program.

Several commenters argued that EPAcannot require biomonitoring forpollutants other than those regulated bya discharger's NPDES permit, apparentlymisunderstanding that biomonitoringdoes not test for specific pollutants. Oneof the advantages of biomonitoring isthat total toxicity is measure regardlessof the interactions of the constituentscontributing to that toxicity. Therefore,toxicity tests measure the effects ofchemical mixtures which cannototherwise be limited in a permiL

One commenter argued that theAgency, not the regulated industry,should bear the burden of data gatheringunrelated to determining permitcompliance. EPA disagrees. Section 308of CWA requires the discharger, not the..permitting authority, to provide anyinformation necessary to determinepermit limits.

Some commenters argued that thecost of toxicity testing is prohibitive.Although testing for chronic toxicity andbioaccumulation can be expensive, thecost of acute toxicity testing is notprohibitive. Many industries have in-house testing capability and manycompanies have already generatedtoxicity information on their discharges.In addition, a substantial number oflaboratories, in'cluding manyenvironmental engineering firms,.perform toxicity testing on a contractbasis at competitive prices. Thefollowing table represents typicalpresent-day costs of several types ofacute toxicity tests:

ContractorAcute toxicity In-house

testOffsite Onsite

24 hr Static,.. $IO-2D S200-500 $2.000-3.00096 hr StatIc $200-500 SSO-2,500 S4,000-6.000

Renewal.96 hr $300-600 $800-2,500 $6.000-10.000

Ft6wthrough.

Other comnenters suggested'thatnobiomonitoring be required until EPApublishes biomonitoring protocols.Several comments were directed at thelack of standardized test methods,particularly for chronic toxicity testing.Standardized test methods for acutetoxicity testing are available (seeMethods for Measuring the AcuteToxicity of Effluents to AquaticOrganisms, EPA-600/4-78-012) and EPAwill soon propose formal rules undersection 304(h) of CWA to include theseacute toxicity test methods in 40 CFRPart 136. However, test methods forchronic toxicity and bioaccumulationare less standardized. In particular, testsused for the analysis 'of carcinogenic,

mutagenic, and teratogenic properties ofpollutants are still undergoingdevelopment and evaluation. Therefore,test results on these measures should becarefully evaluated before the3f are usedin the NPDES permit program.

Although-biological toxicity testingWill be used only on a case-by-casebasis during the next round of permitissuance, EPA believes that biologicaltesting must play a major role in futuretoxic pollutant control strategy.Therefore, EPA will propose rules in thenear future to require all dischargers inselected subcategorids to evaluate theireffluents after BAT treatment processesare in operation-using a standardbiological screening protocol. Thescreening protocol will be relativelyinexpensive and will identify effluentsstill containing significant toxicity.Further testing and preparation of atoxicity reduction plan may be requiredif screening reveals significantly toxicdischarges. In cases where severetoxicity problems remain, the permitmay be reopened and modifiedaccordingly under § 122.15(a)(2]. Datathus generated will also be used toassess problems associated withspecific discharge types or chemicalclasses which could be involved inhumafi health problems. The informationwill identify those instances where themagnitude of discharge would pose 'particularly hazardous and long termproblems.

EPA expects that many-post-BATdischarges will not have the acutetoxicity problems which have beenassociated with industrial dischargers inthe past. Of increasing importance infuture pollution control will be problemsinvolving chronictoxicity, persistence,and bioaccumulation. EPA plans toincorporate the developing technology inthese area into future biomonitoringrequirements. -

3. OtherApplication Requirementsa. Outfall Location: § 122.53(d)(1) and

Item . A new requirement has beenadded that-applicants list the latitudeand longitude and the name of thereceiving water for each outfall.Applicants should be able to generatethis information easily from the mapprovided in Form 1. This information,suggested by environmental groups, willbe useful to EPA and States in watercfuality studies and planning activities.

b. Flows, Sources of Pollution, andTreatment Technologies: § 122.53(d) (2)-(4) andltem II. The major change fromthe proposal is that, in response tocomments, information required on aline drawing and in tabular form arebetter coordinated. The line -drawingnow must show average flows for all

types of wastewater, and item V-Arequires reporting of the maximum dailytotal flow from each outfall (as well asaverage flows).

The information in Item I is useful tothe permit writer because it revealswhat processes use or contributepollutants to water in the facility, andwhat kinds of treatment wastewatercurrently receives. Therefore, commentssuggesting that these requirements bedeleted as unnecessary and burdensomehave been rejected. EPA has alsorejected the suggestion of environmentalgroups that all flows should bemeasured, not estimated. Estimatedaverage flows are sufficient to give thepermit writer a general picture of thefacility's water use. However, whenactual flow measurements already exist,they must be reported.

All sources of flow to an outfall mustbe identified in the line drawing,including cooling water, sanitarywastewater, and stormwater runoff. Theinstructions have been modified toemphasize that similar processes oroperations may be shown on the linedrawing as a single unit, labeled tocorrespond to the more detailed listingin item JI-B. This responds to commentsobjecting that extensive reporting offlows between many individualprocesses would be burdensome.

The National Coal Associationcommented that the requirement toprovide a line drawing is notappropriate for coal mines. In response,the question allows the applicant, whena water balance is not possible, todescribe the source of the water (e.g.,active surface mine, regraded'area, orpreparation plant) and its route beforebeing discharged.

Average flows contributed by eachoperation to an outfall must now bereported in § 122.53(d)(3) and item li-Bto enable the permit writer to determinethe proportion of the total flowcontributed by operations which arecovered by an effluent guideline,

Identification of treatment systems Isnow requested in a coded form whichwill allow loading of this informationinto an automated data system. Theappropriate codes are listed in theform's instructions.

The instructions have been modifiedin several other Ways. First, processesand operations may be described ingeneral terms, in response tocommenters who feared that thisrequirement would reveal trade secrets.This general identification of processescontributing to wastewater effluent isnecessary to identify the standards andlimitations applicable to the dischqrge.Second, any reasonable measure of theflow contributed by stormwater, such as

33534



Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 98 / Monday, May 19. 1980 / Rules and Regulations

duration or frequency of storm events,may be used. This responds tocomments pointing out the difficulties ofpredicting flows resulting from rainfall.Finally, a description of the final

* disposal of any solid or liquid wasteother than by discharge is required, sothat the permit writer may determine theamount of the effluent discharged andidentify the fate of all wastes.

Other suggestions made bycommenters have not been adopted.One commenter suggested thatestin'ates of future increased flows beallowed in calculating permit limits.However, the general policy of theNPDES program is to base present limitson present operation, rather than onpotential increases. Another commenterstated that the question should not askfor the design flow of the treatmentunits, because the method of treatmentmay change. However, the descriptionin the permit application is not binding.but simply must be representative of thefacility at that time. Permittees maymeet their permit limits by selecting anyappropriate treatment equipment ormethods.

The question requiring additionaldescription of discharges which areintermittent or seasonal (§ 122.53(d)(4)and item II-C) has been modifiedslightly. Columns for outfall andcontributing operation have beenseparated, and the column for volume offlow has been expanded to allowreporting of flow rate and duration ifapplicable.

c. Measure of Maximum Producton"§ 122.53(d)(5) anditem IIL Applicantsmust report maximum production whenproduction-based guidelines apply totheir discharges. This requirement hasbeen changed slightly from the proposal.Applicants must now report only amaximum measure of their actualproduction, not an average measure aswell. The instructions have beenmodified to give examples of guidelinesexpressed in terms of production orother measures of operation. They statethat an applicant that discharges onlynon-process wastewater is not coveredby a guideline and thus need notcomplete this item. Anothermodification is that applicants now mustindicate which outfalls are affected.

d. Currently Required Construction,Upgrading or Operation of WasteTreatment Equipment- § 122.53(d(6) anditem IV. Applicants must report anycurrent requirements for construction ofwaste treatment equipment. Theproposed requirement to describe non-required projects proposed by theapplicant is now optional.

One environmental group wanted itemIV expanded to require listing all interim

dates in the construction schedule (asproposed § 122.64(d](15) required).However, the Agency has decided thatthe application Is not an appropriatemechanism to collect this information.which is usually publicly availableanyway. The final compliance date isrequired to enable the permit writer todetermine how soon the discharge willbe affected or to decide whether tocheck other records for moreinformation.

Item IV-B. which asks about plannedprojects, was made optional in responseto several comments noting that theapplicant's tentative project plans arean internal matter. Thus, applicants mayreport any projects they have inplanning stages if they feel that thisinformation will assist the permit writerin developing permit conditions;however, applicants are not required toreveal their plans.

e. Potential Discharges of ToxicPollutants: § 12253(dKg}HO) and it emVI. Certain information on toxicpollutants must be reported in additionto the testing discussed above in sectionlII.D.2 of this preamble. This additionalinformation will help identify any toxicpollutants which may be dischargedfrom the applicant's facility and thusshould be controlled through permitlimits. It will also be used as one basisfor application-based notificationrequirements. (See section L.B2.a.iii ofthis preamble.]

(i) Toxic Pollutants Used or Producedby the ApplicanL I 122.53(dA(g) and itemVI-A. Applicants must identify toxicpollutants which they use ormanufacture as intermediate or finalproducts or byproducts. Thisrequirement supports § 122.62e). whichrequires that permits be written tocontrol toxic pollutants which are usedor manufactured by the applicant.Several commenters noted thatpollutants which are used ormanufactured at a facility are likely tobe discharged by the facility. Inaddition, several commenters (includingan environmental group and Statepermit-issuing authorities) suggestedthat the application form include arequirement for an inventory of rawmaterials and products. This itemresponds to the above comments.

The Agency considered excludingfrom this application requirement thosepollutants which are used ormanufactured in small amounts. Thisapproach requires aL determination ofcutoff levels of use or manufacture.However, because even relatively smallamounts of a toxic pollutant can be ofsubstantial concern in certaincircumstances, the cutoff levels wouldhave to be quite low. The Agency

concluded, therefore, not to use a cutoffbut rather to uniformly requiresubmission of information identifyingany toxic pollutant used ormanufactured by the applicanL

(ii) Predicted Potential Increases inDischarges of Pollutants" § 122 (dXo)and item VI-B and C. Applicants mustdescribe and explain the causes ofdischarges of pollutants which mayduring the next five years exceed twotimes the maximum levels reported inwaste stream analyses. This informationwill be used by permit writers toidentify any pollutants which areexpected to be discharged at significantlevels and thus require control under§ 125.3 (see section M.B.2.a.i of thispreamble.) In addition. § 122.61(a)requires notification of future dischargesat levels exceeding five times any levelsreported in this question (see I1.B..a.iiof this preamble.)

Items VI-B and C are essentially thesame as the draft items VI-A. B. and C,except that the applicant is nowrequired to report any dischargesexpected to exceed two times themaximum level reported in item Vinstead of five times the average level.

One commenter argued that since theDirector may modify a permit if thedischarge exceeds five times thereported level after the permit is issued.information on expected increasesshould be optional. This suggestion wasrejected. It is appropriate to identifyfuture discharges in the application andto set appropriate limits in the permit.This will help insure the installation ofany equipment necessary to treat thepotential discharges prior tocommencement of the discharges.Reliance on future reporting and permitmodification would result in delays incontrol and should be used only tocontrol discharges which are notforeseeable at the time of permitissuance.

Some commenters contended that thisquestion would be difficult or impossibleto answer. However, the questionrequires only that predictabledischarges or fluctuations be identified.When applicants have no reason tobelieve that such discharges orfluctuations will occur, they may answer"No" to item VI-B. If discharges orfluctuations are not predicted in itemVI-B but later do occur, they will triggerapplication-based notification. Whenapplicants believe that fluctuations mayoccur but cannot predict their degree.they should state their reasons forbelieving that the fluctuations mayoccur-, the permit writer will thendetermine whether more information isnecessary.

33535




One commenter requested that some-provision be made to exempt applicantsfrom liability for false reporting if theestimates reported in item VI turn outlater to be inaccurate. No such provisionis necessary because applicants wouldnot be liable to prosecution for incorrectestimates made in good faith:

Sf. Results of Previous Biomonitoring:§ 122.53(d)(11) and item VII. Eachapplicant must indicate whether or notbiological tests for acute or chronictoxicity have been performed on itsdischarge and describe the results ofthose tests. The proposed requirementthat the test results be reported hasbeen deleted.

Two commenters strongly opposedthe requirement to report the results ofprevious biological toxicity testingbecause the data in many cases wouldhave been developed by EPA in'cooperation with the industries to assistin effluent guidelines develdpment.Another commenter suggested that theproposed reporting requirement unfairlypenalized industries who have beendiligent in their cleanup efforts andwould create serious legal or publicrelations problems for those dischargerswho in the past have had effluentquality problems but have now installedextensive treatment facilities.

EPA agrees that requiring dischargerswho have voluntarily conductedbiomonitoring toxicity tests in the pastto report the results could be unfair,particularly if their cleanup efforts haveresulted in substantial toxicityreductions. The Agency has eliminatedthe requirement to provide the results ofsuch testing on the application form.Instead, item VII requires applicants toreport whether or not biological tests foracute or chronic toxicity have beenperformed on the discharge or on thereceiving water in close proximity to theoutfall. When the results of such testsare likely to indicate the presentsituation (e.g., when no new treatmentsystem has been installed or when noproduction and process changes haveoccurred since the tests wereconducted), the perrit writer can reviewthese factors and decide whether or notto request further information relating tothose tests.

g. Laboratory Conducting Analyses:§ 122.53(d)(12) and item VIII. If any ofthe analyses reported on the applicationform were performed by contractlaboratory or consulting firm, applicantsmust identify each laborator3i and theanalyses which it performed. In theproposal, applicants were not requiredto identify which analyses wereperformed by which laboratories. Thisrequirement was added in response tothe single comment received on this

question. It imposes only a minimalreporting burden, while providing usefulinformation for quickly following up pnproblems relating to the data.

IL Other Information Required by theDirector on a Case-by-Case Basls:§ 122.53(d)(13). In addition to complyingwith specific information requirementson the application form, the applicantmust provide such other information asmay reasonably.be required to assessthe discharges of the facility and todetermine whether to issue an NPDES

,,permit. This information may includeadditional quantitative data andbioassays to assess the relative toxicityof discharges to"fish and other aquaticlife, and requirements to determine thecause of such toxicity. This regulation isessentially the same as proposed§ 122.64(d)(20), except for minorchanges. The word "reasonably" hasbeen added as suggested by onecommenter. In addition, the sentenceconcerning bioassays, which appearedas a comment in the proposal, now hasbeen incorporated into the regulation,with chemical analysis also mentionedexplicity.

Several commenters stated thatpermit writers were being given toomuch discretf6n to ask applicants togenerate new and costly data, and thatthe regulation was too open ended andshould be deleted. One commentersuggested that the specific informationalrequirements were so complete that thisregulation was unnecessary. Anothersuggested that EPA develop a list ofpollutants of concern by industrycategory, and limit requirements to thatlist. None of these-suggestions wasadopted, however, except for addition ofthe word "reasonably," which shouldprovide protection against unreasonablerequests for information. The need for"other information" on a case-by-casebasis for certain discharges has beendemonstrated by prior experience in theNPDES program. While the uniformrequirements should suffice for most -applicants, the flexibility to requestfurther information in appropriatecircumstances must be retained.4. Proposed Application RequirementsDeleted From the Final Regulations andForm

a. Optional Reporting Requirementsfor Hazardous Substances. Proposed§ 122.64(d)(19) gave applicants theoption of submitting information ondischarges of hazardous substancesdesignated under Section 311 of CWA toallow them to apply for exclusions ofthose discharges from the requirementsand penalties of secion 311. Item IX ofthe draft NPDES application formcontained a format for submitting such

optional information to EPA, Both theregulation and Item have been deletedfrom the final regulation and form,

EPA has deleted this question becauseIt is unnecessary, In accordance with 40CFR 117.12 (44 FR 50760, August 29,1979) which states that to obtainexclusions from section 311, applicantsneed not report in their applications anyinformation concerning continuous oranticipated intermittent discharges ofhazardous substances which are causedby events occurring within the scope ofrelevant operating or treatment systems,(See section III.D.2.b.iil of this preamblefor further background.)

Certain discharges by NPDESpermittees or permit applicants, such asspills, remain subject to section 311coverage absent the submission ofappropriate information to the NPDESpermitting authority and coverage in theNPDES permit. However, since thisinformation may be submitted at anapplicant's 6ption under 40 CFR117.12(a)(2) (dealing with "exclusion 2"),no regulatory requirement is needed In§ 122.53(d). Furthermore, no singleformat will serve the purposes of eachapplicant seeking to exclude potentialspills from section 311 coverage underexclusion 2. Instead, the instructions toForm 2c direct applicants seeking suchexclusions to attach the informationrequired by § 117.12(c)(1) to theirapplication forms on additional sheetsof paper.

Information on continuous oranticipated intermittent discharges ofmany hazardous substances is nowroutinely required of certain applicantsby § 122.53(d)(7J(iv) and item V-D ofForm 2c. These requirements reflectCongressional intent that suchdischarges be regulated under theNPDES program rather than undersection 311 of CWA.

b. Submission of Data on AdditionalPollutants. The proposed applicationform contained a question requiringapplicants to report data on anypollutants in addition to those reportedin item V (proposed § 122.64(d)(18) anddraft item VIII). This requirement hasbeen deleted from the final form. Thedeletion is in response to severalcomments objecting that the proposalwas burdensome and required reportingof data that was inaccurate and notuseful. The Agency agrees that theinformation would generally not beuseful to permit writers In this round ofpermit issuances.

An environmental group suggestedthat EPA require applicants to submit orto keep on file any GC and GC/MSprofiles they generate to provideinformation on additional pollutants.EPA considered establishing such a

33536




requirement; however, investigationrevealed several drawbacks. Only acomputer-readable form of the raw data(that is, nine-track magnetic tape] wouldprovide data on additional pollutants,and the cost of storing data in this formcan be significant. The cost ofreanalyzing the tapes ranges up to halfof the cost of analyzing a new sample.Therefore, potential cost savings are notgreat and do not outweigh theadvantages of conducting new samplingand analyses, when necessary, ratherthan retaining raw data on a routinebasis. The retained data would be lesscurrent and would reveal only a limitednumber of additional pollutants.

c. Ancillary Activities Which mayResult in Discharges of Toxic Pollutantsor Hazardous Substances-BestManagement Practices Programs.Proposed § § 122.64(d) (11] and (13) anddraft items DI-B and Ill-C of Form 2crequired each applicant to describe anyactual or potential discharges of toxicpollutants or hazardous substances fromancillary activities and to attach a copyof its Best Management Practices (BMP]program for controlling these discharges.The requirement to develop a BMPprogram was contained in Part 125,Subpart K of the final NPDESregulations published on June 7,1979 [44FR 32854, 32954). The effective date ofPart 125, Subpart K was deferred onAugust 10, 1979 (44 FR 47063) pendingthe availability of a BMP guidancedocument. On March 20,1980 (45 FR17997) the guidance document was madeavailable for a 45-day public commentending May 5, 1980 (see 45 FR 21635;April 2, 1980). Therefore, at this time 40CFR Part 125, Subpart K is not yeteffective.

In light of this timing problem. EPAdecided to omit the requirement tosubmit a BMP program from Form 2c atthis time. When Part 125, Subpart Kbecomes effective Form Zc will beamended as appropriate. This will allowEPA to make any adjustments to therequirements necessary to respond topublic comments on the BMP manual aswell as those previously submitted onproposed § § 122.64(d) (11) and (13) anddraft items in-B and I1-C. In particular,EPA is considering comments submittedon the draft form which suggested that asummary of the BMP program, ratherthan the entire program, be includedwith the application, and that thedescription of actual and potentialdischarges (draft item Ill-B) becombined with this summary.

E. Monitoring Requirements

1. Chemical MonitoringSpecific monitoring requirements for

an individual permittee are establishedby the permit writer when the permit isissued. § 122.11(b) requires that permitscontain monitoring requirements whichare sufficient to yield datarepresentative of the monitored activity.However, it does not establish anyspecific requirements for monitoringtype and frequency, but rather leavesthat to the judgment of the permit writer.This case-by-case approach to settingmonitoring requirements, which hasbeen used in the past in the NPDESprogram, reflects the need to consideroutfall-specific factors such as the flowrate, the types of pollutants discharge,the nature of the receiving water, andthe existence of downstream intakes fordrinking water.

Because monitoring requirements arerelated to many of the issues in theapplication form and permit regulations,the preamble to the proposedregulations contained (at 44 FR 34407;June 14, 1979) a description of a typicalmonitoring scheme under the newtoxics-oriented permitting strategy. Thescheme depicted the usual frequentmqnitoring for pollutants limited in thepermit as well as periodic monitoring forsome or all of the toxic pollutants and.in some cases, periodic biologicalmonitoring. In addition, the proposedregulations included a provision(proposed § 122.71(aXl)) allowingmonitoring requirements to be set forpollutants controlled by the proposedapplication-based limits regulations.although, again, no frequency wasspecified. The preamble also discussedthe costs which might be associatedwith particular compliance monitoringrequirements.

Two major differences between thefinal regulations and the proposal affectmonitoring requirements.

First, the proposal on application-based limits has been deleted, and thefinal regulations contain an application-based notification requirement and aprovision authorizing permitmodification when a toxic pollutant isdischarged at a level exceeding thatachievable by BAT. Althoughapplication-based limits might, as somecommenters argued, have forcedpermittees to monitor their dischargesfrequently to ensure that the limitswould not be violated and that thepermittees would not be subject toenforcement actions, application-basednotification requirements do not imposesimilar burdens. Notification is requiredonly when the permittee knows or hasreason to believe that some activity has

occurred or will occur which wouldresult in increased discharges. Noobligation is imposed by the regulationto monitor for pollutants which are notexpected to be present. Of course,permits for discharges of toxicpollutants are likely to require sometesting for toxic pollutants during the lifeof the permit to determine whethersignificant amounts of toxies are beingdischarged. See § 122.62(1)(i)(4), whichallows permit writers to requiremonitoring for pollutants not limited inthe permit.

Second. the final regulations(§ 122.82(e)] require that permits containlimits to control all toxic pollutantswhich are used or manufactured byapplicants or which are reported at highlevels. These limits will include limits onspecific toxic pollutants unless thepermit writer determines that thedischarge of the toxics will beadequately controlled by limits on otherpollutants. Limits on individual toxicswill require compliance monitoring forthe toxics, which could be expensive insome instances. However, this followsinevitably from the statutoryrequirements that permits assureinstallation of BAT-level treatment tocontrol discharges of toxic pollutants.§ 122.62(e) merely provides certaincriteria governing which toxic pollutantsmay be discharged in significantamounts. EPA expects that where toxicstesting would be very expensive, the useof indicator limits or indicator "monitoring may help alleviate thisproblem.

2. Biological MonitoringIn the preamble to the proposed

regulations, one of the options presentedfor compliance monitoring and reportingwas the use of toxicity tests in additionto chemical analyses. Under thisstrategy, toxicity tests wouldsupplement chemical analyses so thatchemical testing would be required"sparingly" and acute toxicity tests "ona more frequent basis:' EPA reasonedthat because toxicity tests are generallyless expensive than chemical analysesand may lead to the detection ofadditional sources of toxicity not.controlled by the permit, a useful checkon wastestream toxicity could beeconomically provided as part of thecompliance monitoring requirements.

Several commenters, however, arguedthat biological toxicity information isnot relevant or necessary when a permitis based solely on chemical limits andwhen chemical monitoring is required.Several other commenters favoredbiomonitoring but objected toperforming both chemical arid biologicaltesting. The Agency agrees that in most

33537



Federal Register'/ Vol. 45, No. 98 / Monday, May 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

cases where the permit contains only by the revision.of current reporting. regarded as underestimates. The Agencychemical limitation;, toxicity iests -_ requirements for pollutants other than recognizes that GO/MS costs vary withshould not be required for the purpose of the organic toxics, including additions to the QA/QC procedures used but feelpcompliance monitoring. However, there,.' and deltions from the current list-of . that today's cost estimates eflect q,may be circumstances where pollutants which must be reported and reasotiable l per limit'on' the cost of the'considerable doubt.exists concerning changes in the nature of reporting for QA/QC Orocedtirej which will be usedthe adequacy of the chemical limits certain pollutants retained on the list. in performing GC/M,"fialysts.employed as permit limits to control all a. Sampling and analysis of organic A second group qf c0mments receivedsources of toxicity. In these cases, "oxics. For the purpose of calculating a by the Agency concerned thetoxicity tests should be requir6d as part probable cost impact, the Agency is assumptions aboui the fiumber ofof the monitoring plan not to test for assuming that sampling consists of.24- pamples which wilLbe taken by permitcompliance, but to trigger investigations hour composites (a change from the applicants. ene commenter from theof the cause of remaininig toxicity. The proposed requirement of 72-hour coal mining'industry argued that theinvestigations could lead to the * composites). Analysis is assumed to overall cost calculation was anreopening of the permit to control the consist of GC/MS quantification. underestimate because some plants innewly-found problem. Of course, when Applicants may use any method of its industry have as many as 10 outfalls,toxicity limits are specified in the analysis before the publication of final The Agency acknowledges that the totalpermit, the appropriate toxicity tests are 304(h) test methods, but the Agency cost for some applicants will be severalnecessary to ensure compliance, expects that GC/MS will be used most times the average cost figure, but also

Several commenters suggested that often because of the designation of emphasizes teat the figures are used tobiomonitoring could com'pletely replace, testing requirements by GC/MS fraction. calculate the total incremental cost forchemical analy'sis and sere as a Cost data to support the proposal the average plants. In addition, it iscompliance indicatorto trigger more were deyeloped from a, variety, of noted that today's regulations provideexpensive cheniical analysis. However, sources, which yielded'figures over a for testing exemptions for identicaltoxicity testing alone is inadequate relatively large range. These data were outfalls, which should reduce individualbecause ruany ioxic pollutants are not published in the prb'osal's preamble impacts in some, cases;acutely toxic but bioaccumulate or are and comments were received. The Some commenters xegarded the one-carcinogenic or miutagenic. It is Agency verified the data with additional sample assumption as an underestimateimportant to lhow whether those qhecking, but some uncertainties remain, because of the requirement in thepollutants are being discharged. These including the effect of laboratories' proposal that,the sample be..pollutants would'dften be discharged ' increased use of and'familiarity with the representative of the operations of thebelow the levels of acute toxicity and analytical methods, the impact of the plant for the previousperatons Innot be adequately monitored by acute entry of new laboratories into the response to these comments, thetoxicity tests; long-term threats would market, and the level, of quality requirement in today's instructions isthus remain undiscovered. Therefore, assurance/quality control (QA/QC) that the time for sampling'betoxicity tests should not be used which will be required by final representative of the applicant's normal,exclusively for compliance monitoring in regulations under 40 CFR Part 136. The operations. This modification meansthese cases. following cost estimates represent opera tions oconeatePA intenst otnet eyo conservatively high judgments based , that the instructions no longerEPA intends to continue to rely on cosraieyhg uget ae potentially require multiple sampling,chemical testing to insure compliance upon unit prices as of Fall 1979. but only aqsomwhat careful choice ofwith permit limits for specific pollutants. * The Agency received comments from, t ony tsme. c choice o I,However, the Agency believes that a number of sources on the unit cost of sampling time. li poi ,biological toxicity testing is-usefui to sampling and analysis in the preamble Theapplcation-based limits provisionhelp determine whether the toxicity of to the proposal. These comments ranged has been replaced byan application-discharges in' compliance with BAT . from one which indicated that the based reporting requirement in

permit limits has been adequately Agency cost estimate of $4500 was an §22.61(a). This change from thereduced to assure achievement of overestimate by $2,000 of the cost of proposal strengthens the likelihood that'fishable and swimmable wateis as, sampling and analysis to one which each applicant will need to collect and.rirablend sionable 101 r of , Csuggested that the Agency figure was an analyze only one. sample. It makes therequired by Section 101 of CWA. underestimate of that cost by a factor of potential copt of the application-basedTherefore EPA will sd n enter into a two. Several commenters remarked that limit provision a moot issue,toxicity screening tests for certain the Agency estimates for the cost of (i) Sampling Costs. Sampling costsdischargers after they have installed sampling and for the cost of GC/MS will vary significantly, depending on the

BAT. " screeningwere correct; another extent to which the applicant has to relycommenter confirmed the overall on an~independent contractor rather

F. Economic and Resource Impacts of Agency cost estimate. The cost of GC/ than in-house personnel to perform theApplication Reporting Requirements MS quantification was viewed as an sampling. The instructions state that

1, Unit Costs of Sampling andAnalysis • underestimate by, several commenters sampling should be supervised by anbecause of their expectations about the experienced supervisor. The sampling

The incremental costs (over those cost of quality.assurance procedures. costs will also depend on the degree toassociatedwith existing application However, it was unclear from these . which the costlier,,manual (rather thanrequirements) imposed by the new comments What the commenters automated) sanmpling must be used. Thesampling and analysis requirements assumed about the nature of the QA/QC. analysis below assumes that theconsist of thd following two elements: procedures to be employed.. . sampling wll be,perf6rmed manually,(1) costs imposed by the new, Among the comments on the unit. cost _ although either. sampling method Isrequirement that certain applicants of sampling and analysis, only, those . allowed.sample and analyze certain waste concerning the cost of quality assuranre As noted above,.this anlaysis reflectsstreams for some or all of the organic .. procedures spe.pified the manner in, the change.from tfie, proposedtoxic pollutants; and (2) costs imposed. . which EPA-assumpd unit cost.swt.e. , requirement fo.ka 72-hour sample to a

33538




24-hour sample, resulting in substantialcost reductions.

Using current prices, the approximatesampling cost breakdown in the case ofcomplete reliance upon independentcontractors (assuming the use of a 4-person sampling team for a 2-daysampling trip] is as follows:Technicians @ S0/day, X3 sampling

shifts=$240 X2=$480Supervisor @ $120/day=$120X2=$240Reports (1 person-day, supervlsor)=$120Overhead on contract salaries (150%)=S1,280Equipment set up on site, 2 man-days = $160Disposable equipment, sample container

preparation=$130Sample air transport=$100Subtotal, less personnel air fares, local travel

and per diem=S2,490Personnel air fare (estimated average-$200/

ea.=$800Personnel per diem/local travel--$5/day/

person=$400Total=$3,690

Costs in a number of these categories,such as salaries, overhead rates, and airfare may vary significantly. However,the Agency believes that $3,690 is areasonable estimate of the discharger'scost to have an independent 4-personteam to undertake a 2-day sampling trip.

The situation described above is themost expensive case. By using anexperienced contract supervisor andpossibly contract sampling equipmenttogether with in-house technicians,sampling costs may be reduced byapproximately $1850 because overhead,travel, and salary expenses associatedwith the three contractor technicians areeliminated. This leaves a net samplingcost of approximately $1825 per 24-hourcomposite sample collected manually.

If a sampling team can sample at leasttwo outfalls simultaneously, additionalsavings can be achieved becausepersonnel-related costs need not beduplicated. The cost of a two outfallssample is $2,520; $1260 per outfall. Theincrease in cost of nearly $700 is due toadditional expenditures for reportpreparation, overhead, equipment,sample transport, and equipment set-up.

For computing the total incrementalcost of complying with the applicationrequirements (section F(3) below), anaverage sampling cost of $1,550 peroutfall, which is halfway between $1,260and $1,825, will be assumed.

(ii) Cost of Analysis by GC/MSQuantification. For the-purpose ofdetermining the cost of GC/MS testing,it is assumed that applicants willforward their samples to independentlaboratories for analysis. The Agencyhas received data on GC/MS costs fromseveral sources, including Agencyexperience with effluent guidelinesdevelopment, industry, independent

laboratories, and GC/MS equipmentmanufacturers.

The data from these sources, togetherwith the fact that increased volume andimproved technology have been steadilyreducing costs, indicate that areasonable estimate of GC/MS testingcosts (with some QA/QC) is $1,500 to$2,000. This estimate does not take intoaccount that applicants in more thaAhalf of the industries can omit analysisof at least one GC/MS fraction, and Isthus an overestimate of the total cost.The potential for savings from thisexclusion is up to $500 per applicant. Forpurposes of computing the totalincremental cost of complying with theapplication requirements, the Agency isassuming the cost of GC/MS testing Is$2,000. Adding $2,000 for analysis to theassumed average sampling cost of$1,550, the average cost of sampling andanalyzing the toxic organics is estimatedto be $3,550 per outfall.

b. Sampling and analysis of pollutantsother than the organic toxic pollutants.The methods for analyzing for most ofthe pollutants other than the organictoxics (e.g., metals, ammonia, and otherinorganic pollutants) are wellestablished. Cost data for thesepollutants are therefore more certainthan the cost data for organic pollutants.

Section M.D.2.B of this preamblediscusses the new requirements andindicates changes from the June 14proposal. The modifications in thetesting requirements from the proposalwill result in little or no change in costfrom those assumed in the proposal.Little or no change in sampling costswill result from today's requirements.Analytical cost will increase slightly.

The Agency estimates thatincremental sampling and analysis costsfor pollutants other than the organictoxics will range between $180 to $400.For purposes of computing the totalincremental economic impacts in sectionII.F.3 below, an incremental cost of $300

is assumed.

2. Unit Reporting CostsThe preparation of the information

which is required by § 122.53(d)(discussed in section I.D of thispreamble) will require stafftime,resulting in costs in addition to theanalytical testing costs. These reportingcosts include data development;collection and compilation by variouslevels of the applicant's staff (clerical,administrative and professional]; andreview by legal advisors, professionalsupervisors, and managers.

Unit reporting cost are summarized inTable V.

Table V reflects two modifications inthe Agency analysis made since the

proposal. One is the elimination of theitem requiring attachment of a BMPprogram. The other modification is theresult of a change in reportingrequirements for section 311 discharges.In the proposal an applicant had theoption of reporting discharges ofhazardous substance in order to claimexemption from section 311requirements. The final Agencyregulations (44 FR 50766; August 29,1979) provide that an applicant need notreport hazardous substances dischargesas part of its NPDES application toobtain a section 311 exclusion if thedischarges have otherwise been made apart of the public record. Therefore, thecosts to prepare this information havebeen omitted from Table V. (For theremaining application requirement onhazardous substances see item V-D ofForm 2c.) The net result of thesemodifications is a significant reductionin unit reporting costs.

The unit reporting costs will varydepending on the nature and extent ofthe applicant's relevant activities and onthe applicability of various reportingrequirements to the applicant. TheAgency chose in the proposal tocalculate total costs by examining theburden for a typical plant in each of fourcategories: primary major, primaryminor, secondary major, secondaryminor. Costs are highest for primarymajors and lowest for secondary minors.

The chief assumptions underlying thecalculations are:

1. Primary industry dischargers will ingeneral expend greater effort to studywaste stream variability for toxicpollutants (including an examination ofprocesses and raw materials) thansecondary industry dischargers.

2. Major dischargers will generallyhave more complex operations thanminor dischargers. For majordischargers, large numbers of differentprocesses may create complex wastestreams which are then dischargedthrough several outfalls. Theseconsiderations will requiremajordischargers to expend significantly moreresources than minor dischargers.

The unit reporting cost of the newapplication form, on which nosubstantive comments were received,are summarized in Table V.

Tab4 V.-/ftnRepVCos Cts of NewApkabonForm (H*$s/SLrce)

Ty"e of WesWnMWjo rY- maim WkXW

G-eww rwonrtwron_ 3 2 3 2

Erwmww~ e8wrv 2 18 6

33539




Table V.-Unit Reporting Costs of NewApplicalionForm (Hours/Source)

Management of analyticaldata . ...................... . 34 26 21 6

Graphicsa...... . 4 4 4 4-Potential discharges not

covered by analysis...... 26 14 4 2

Total ..... 89 54 48 •20

To assess the incremental reportingimpact of the new form over the oldform, the total unit reporting costs of the.old form were also assessed. It shouldbe noted that-the reporting costassessments performed for Office ofManagement and Budget on the originalNPDES application form indicated anunusually low unit cost of completingthat form. This low.original baselinecost is attributable to the fact that alarge portion of the NPDES applicationrequirements were fulfilled ininanycases by submitting applicationscompleted under the old Refuse'ActPermit Program (RAPP) administered.by-the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Whenthe NPDES program came into being,these RAPP applications were oftenaccepted as NPDES applications, so thatthe reporting costs of the original formwere reported as incremental costs. Forthis reason, the total cost of the old formwas recalculated.

These recalculated tcosts are summarized]

Table VI.-Unit Reporting CForm (Hours/

Type of question

M

General Information . .........Environmental engineering

data-.. ..

Management of analyticaldata .. _.-_-

Graphics ..................... - -Potential discharges not

covered by analysis.

The reporting burdennew application requircomparable to those inexpiring form. A numband burdensome requirexpiring application fodeleted, but these deletoffset by expanded anrequirements.

The hourly reportingTables V and VI weredollars by determininganswering each type ofin those tables by threepersonnel: administrati(assumed to be $10/hobusiness and technicalprofessional, legal and

hour). (No adjustments for inflation havebeen made in the compensation levelssince the proposal.]

Based on the above, the incrementalunit reporting cost of the new form ispresented in Table VII.

Table Vll.-lncremental Unit Costs of NewApplicaton Form

Pdrn ry --- .u.--- yindustry industry

discharger discharger

Major Minor Major Minor

Old Form CosL..-.--.-.. $1855 $765 $1520 $665NewFormCost 2715 ,1565 1790 775

Incremental Cost.- ..-.. $860 $800 5270 $110

Table VII illustrates that while theunit reporting cost of the new form isgreater than the cost for the old form,the new form focuses reportingrequirements on those industries withthd greatestapotential for toxicdischarges (primary industries]. Note,however, that the incremental costshown above for secondary industryminor dischargers is probablyunderstated since some of thesedischargers completed a special "shortform" rather than the complete NPDESapplication form analyzed in Table VIabove.

nit reporting 3. Total Incremental Costs of Complyingin Table VL. With the Proposed Application

ostofOldApplcalTon RequirementsSourc) This section discusses the total

additional-costs imposed by the' industry application requirements of §§ 122.53(d)

sger dirger and 122.4(d) over those imposed byexisting requirements. The Agency has

ajar Minor Major Minor computed the total increnental costs of3 2 3 2 its new requirements during fiscal years

1981-1985 (the period for which the new44 18 36 Is application requirements will be

17 7 14 4 effective) by multiplying the unit costs4 4 4 4 derived above by the number of0 0 0 0 applicants or activities which are

expected to incur those costs during the68 31 57 28 period FY 1981-FY 1985.-The facts,

estimates and assumptions used tois imposed by the compute the total incremental costs ofements are, the form are summarized in Table VIII.posed by the a. Number of applicants. The number'

er of unnecessary of existing industrial dischargers whoements in the will use the new application form during

rm have been FY 1981-FY 1985 is based upon thetions are largely Agency's records of dischargers whod new currently have permits'andmay be

expected to reapply upon permitcosts shown in expiration.

translated into - It should be noted that somethe time spent dischargers will have had their effluentsf question shown tested by EPA as part of EPA's effluente levels of guidelines development program. Inive and clerical general, those test results may beur); mid-level reported and the applicant need not($25/hour); and perform the sampling and analysis. Itismanagerial ($50! estimated that approximately 100

applicants Will be able to takeadvantage of this provision. However,the analysis below assumes that allapplicants will do their own testing; thusthe estimated total cost is probably anoverestimate.

b, Number of outfalls per applicant.The Agency has estimated the averagenumber of outfalls per discharger, basedupon information received from EPA'sRegional offices and from State offices.Due to information received from the*Regional offices since the proposal, theestimated average number of non-process wastewater outfalls per majordischarger has been reduced. Majordischargers are now assumed to averageone and a half non-process wastewateroutfalls and one and a half processwastewater outfalls each. Minordischargers are assumed to average onenon-process wastewater outfall and onehalf of a process wastewater outfalleach. These are averages used forcomputation of total impacts; particularplants may differ significantly. Forexample, as some commenters stated,certain major dischargers have as manyas 10 process wastewater outfalls.However, these situations are balancedby those in which dischargers have noprocess wastewater outfalls.

c. Number of intakes to be tested byapplicants. In addition to sampling andanalyzing outfalls, some applicants willbe testing their intakes to obtain creditfor pollutants in their intakes under 40CFR122.63(h).

EPA took several factors into accountin coming up with its estimate that one-third of all applicants will test oneintake point. First, credit is availableonly under certain circumstances. Forexample, the intake source must be thesame body of surface water (as opposedto a well, piped-in supply or othersource) that receives the discharge forwhich the credit is sought. Also, plantswith many outfalls generally have onlyone source of surface water influent(e.g., a single adjacent stream or lake).Furthermore, the elimination ofapplication-based limits from theregulations will reduce the number ofanalyses below the numbercontemplated in the proposal.

Based on the number of dischargers,tested intakes, process wastewateroutfalls and nonprocess wastewateroutfalls summarized below, Table IXsets forth subtotals and totals of thecosts imposed by the regulations duringFY 1981-1985.

Thelotal incremental cost ofcomplying with the applicationrequirements over a five year period isapproximately $51 million. More thanthree-fourths of that cost will be borneby primary industry applicants.

33540




Approximately 45% of this primaryindustry cost will be incurred betweenApril 1980 and June 1981; more than athird of this cost will be borne betweenJuly 1981 and June 1984. Therefore,calculation of a meaningful annualizedcost figure presents difficulties. Becausethe total cost over five years is less than$100 million (the threshold for aregulatory analysis), the annualized costclearly would not exceed the thresholdno matter how the annualized cost iscalculated.

The Agency believes that theaggregate cost figure overestimates theimpact of the application requirementsfor several reasons. Most important,some primary industry applicants whosepermits expire prior to December 1, 1980are not required to submit the newapplication forms. (See discussion inpreamble to the consolidated regulationsfound elsewhere in today's FederalRegister, at 40 CFR 122.53(c).)Approximately one-sixth of the primaryindustry applicants and probably asimilar portion of the secondaryindustry applicants fall into thiscategory. (However, if issued short-termpermits, they will be required to reapplybefore June 1981, using the newapplication form.)

Second, the Agency is assuming thateach applicant will hire an independentcontractor to perform sampling and thateach applicant will send its samples toan independent laboratory for analysis.To the extent that applicants canperform the sampling and analysisinternally, substantial savings can beachieved,

Third, the Agency's assumptionsabout the number of pipes per plant and

about the number of intake pipes whichwill be tested are probably high.

Fourth, the cost figure does not takeinto account that applicants in morethan half of the primary Industries willnot have to test for certain GC/MSfractions when analyzing their samples.This could result in savings of up to afourth of the analytical costs in theseindustries.

Fifth, the aggregate cost figure doesnot reflect the savings which will resultfrom the general small businessexemption and from the small coal mineexemption (discussed in section I.I.F.6below). These savings could besubstantial for the coal mine exemptionbecause several thousand applicants areinvolved.

The Agency is assuming that therewill be no cost for secondary industryapplicants to sample and analyze fororganic toxics. However, secondaryindustry applicants are required to testfor those organic toxic pollutants whichthey know or have reason to believe arepresent in their discharge. Therefore,some secondary industry applicants willtest for some of the organic toxics if theyknow or have reason to believe thatthey are discharging those toxics.However, the Agency believes that theabove assumption results in only a slightunderestimate because these applicantsare unlikely to have to test for manyorganic toxic pollutants because of thenature of their discharges. The Agencybelieves that any underestimate iscompensated for by overestimateselsewhere and has not attempted toquantify the amount of additionaltesting, because little or no informationis available (none was supplied bycommenters).

Table Vlll.--Bashs for Cakculahg Incremental Costs

[For fsc.! years 1981-851

Prkmy indusby dschuge S4omidy uSuey "C6dwgTOW

malor Minr Meor mo

Number of dischargers 1.500 6,300 700 16,100 24.000Number of intakes tested - 500 2,100 230 5.370 8200Number of process wastewater ouUalls -. 2.250 3.150 1,050 ,060 14.500Number of non-process wastewater outfalls - 2,250 6,300 1,050 16.100 25,700

Table IX- Total Incremental Costs of New Appkqnbon Form

Mounded to fhe nearest thousandi

Primary wJusby dchrr SeOndary WKIay echwtgerTOWJ

mlaio Mir MW WWW

Cost of Sampjng and AnaziJ $or OrgaricToxics 9.76.000 S18.638.000 0 0 S2S.401,000

Incremental Cost of Sampk and Analyzn forPollutants Other Than Organic To)c 1.500.000 3.465,000 S .00000 SOAK6.00 14520.000

.ncremental ReportN Cost 1.290.000 5.040.000 189.000 1.77"i.000 .20".00

Total Incremental Cost .... 51,211.000

4. Economic Impacts Upon SelectedIndustries

The Agency conducted an analysis ofthe economic impact of the revisedapplication reporting requirements uponprimary industry dischargers withprocess wastewater discharges (uponwhom the chief burden of the newrequirements falls). The analysisfocused primarily on those facilitieswhich will be most affected: marginal,small volume facilities in primaryIndustries. The analysis was conductedfor five ndustries-leather tanningwood preserving, electroplating,foundries, and iron and steel. The firstfour industries were selected becausemany of the plants are small and thusmore sensitive to newly imposed costburdens than other industries. The ironand steel industry was selected toexamine the analytical costs for atypical plant which contains a largenumber of process wastewater outfalls,resulting in correspondingly largeanalytical costs. No industry wasdiscovered which consistedpredominantly of small firms with morethan one process wastewater outfall.

Costs vary significantly from plant toplant depending on the number ofoutfalls at a particular plant. Thecombined analytical and reporting costsfor a plant with one process wastewateroutfall will be small, on the order of$5,000, while the cost to a steelmakingfacility with 10 process wastewateroutfalls may be as high as $35,000.

The impact on prices, profits, andplant closures should be small for mostindustries although impacts may besignificant in individual cases. Althoughthe Agency has concluded that theapplication requirements will not forceclosures, small businesses with highlytoxic, variable, or complex dischargesmay find the requirements burdensome.In an effort to minimize this burden, theAgency is including a small businessexemption in the testing requirements(see section U.F.6 below).

The key economic indicatorsexamined to estimate economic impactsare the ratios of testing costs to sales, toprofits, and to total pollution controlinvestment. The ratio of testing cost tosales indicates impact on priceincreases while the ratio of testing costto profit provides a rough indication ofimpact on profits and of the possibilityof closures. Table X summarizes theresults for average small plants in eachindustry analyzed during the year thatthe permit application is submitted.These results represent changes fromTable X in the proposal due to thedecrease in the estimated testing costs.

335U.




For a more detailed analysis of theimpact of the regulation on each of thefive industries, the reader is referred tothe preamble of the proposed regulation(44 FR 34393 at 34412-3, June 14, 1979).That discussion should be read with themodifications in Table X below in mind.The Agency received no comments onthat portion of the analysis.

Table X.-Economlc Impacts of Testing Costs[Figures in percentagesl

Ratio of testing costs to--

Industry . PollutionSales Profits Control

cost

Small Tanneries.....-.... ,09 4.6 1.1Wood Preservers_ . 2.4 N/A* 5.5Electroplaters (1-4

person job shops)..... .4.4 55 N/A*Foundries (10 person

shops)._.-_-... 1.6 31.5 N/A*

Iron and Steel..... N/A* N/A* .75-1.5

*N/A means Information Is not available.

5. Impact of Reporting RequirementsUpon Independent LaboratoryCapability

The Agency received severalcomments on the proposed regulationwhich suggested that the NPDESanalytical requirements woild exceedlaboratory capacity for GC/MS analysis.One commenter noted that GC/MSinstruments are very expensive and thatmany applicants will not be able toobtain one. The analysis of demand forindependent laboratory GC/MSanalyses is based on the assumptionthat all analyses will be done byindependent laboratories and not by the-applicants themselves. To the extentthat industry-associations andindividual applicants possess laboratorycapacity for these analyses, the estimateof demand for independent lab .capability below is an overestimate.

The impact of other Agency programshas been included in the discussionbelow in response to a comment. -Although it is expected that regulationof toxic pollutants will result in someincrease in monitoring requirements fortoxic pollutants (see section III.E.1 ofthis preamble), the Agency has notincluded the effect of monitoring on thedemand for laboratory capacity, assuggested by one commenter, because itanticipates that any increase inmonitoring requirements would occurafter the period during which labdemand will be at its peak due to theapplication requirements. In addition,monitoring may in some cases beconducted for a selected group ofpollutants by use of GC rather than GC[MS.

After reevaluation, the Agency hasconcluded that GC/MS laboratory ,capacity should be sufficient to meetexpedted demand, although some delaysin obtaining analytical services may'occur during the peak period from April1980 to June 1981.

The Agency evaluated expecteddemand on GC/MS capacity from theapplication form testingrequirements byassuming that all required analyses willbe done using GC/MS and that, onaverage, one analysis will require tworuns through the machine. Since thenumber of process wastewater outfallsand intakes to be tested for the primaryindustry applicants is estimated to be8,000, the number of GC/MS runs shouldbe between 8,000 and 16,000.. Analysis 6f the permit expirationdates for the primary industryapplicants indicates that about 45% ofGC/MS tests will be performed between'April 1980 and June 1981. The range ofdemand for GC/MS tests is'projected tobe beyeen 240 and 480 analyses permonth during this peak period. Demandfor. GC/MS capacity from otherprograms within EPA during the sameperiod is expected to be 650-850analyses per month.

Agency information and a recentmanfacturers survey of availablelaboratories identified 66 laboratories;vith 129 GC/MS systems capable ofperforming the required analyses.(These figures represent increases fromthose reported in the proposal.) Current,lIboratory exp-erience indicates thatlarger laboratories (with 3 or more GC/MS systems and an independent datasystem) are capable of analyzing 60-80samples per month. The smallerlaboratories are capable of.performing20-25 analyses per month.Approximately one quarter oflaboratories are of the larger type. A'conservatively low estimate of currentlaboratory capacity, with a 25%allowance for machine failure, appearsto be 2,000 analyses per month on asingle shift basis and 4,000 analyses permonth on a double shift basis. Thiscapacity is in addition to the in-houseGC/MS capacity which many industriesand universities have for research andother purposes. Some growth in capacitycan be anticipated; GC/MS capability inservice laboratories doubled over thetwo'years prior to Summer 1979. Thisincrease is a reflection of how rapidlyadditional laboratory capacity becomesavailable to meet demand.

Thus, sufficient capacity appears to'exist, especially if the existing

equipment is used on a double shiftbasis.6. Small Business Exemption

a. General. EPA is exempting anybusiness with annual sales less than$100,000 (in second quarter 1980 dollars)from the requirement to test for theorganic toxic pollutants. To qualify forthe exemption the permit applicant mustsubmit to the permitting authorityannual sales figures for the most recentthree years. The average of those threeyears must be less than $100,000 for theapplicant to qualify.

In developing the $100,000 ceiling forthis exemption, the Agency used as aguideline its final report implementingExecutive Order 12044 (44 FR 30988,May 29, 1979). This report indicates thatan analysis of the potential economicimpact should be conducted when theadditional costs of a regulation exceed5% of a product's selling price. In thisinstance, the Agency is using 5% ofannual sales as an indicator that thereporting requirements may have anadverse impact on a firm.

As noted above, the average costs ofthe application requirements are $3,550for sampling and analysis of organictoxic pollutants. The incremental unitreporting costs for primary industryminor dischargers, $1,250 (see Table VIIabove), are expected to be more typicalof the small business firm than thereporting costs of the primary industrymajor discharger. The sum of theseanalytical and reporting costs isapproximately $5,000. This wouldexceed 5% of annual sales if a firm hasannual sales of $100,000 or less.

Based on data secured by the Agencyduring the development of effluentguidelines, the Agency estimates thatbetween 2 and 5% of primary industryapplicants will be eligible for theexemption from the sampling andanalysis requirements for the organictoxic pollutants in process wastewater.The typical savings for the individual.applicant are expected to be on theorder of $4,100, which is the sum of thecost of analysis for organic toxics andthe reporting costs associated withmanaging the organic loxics data, Theestimated total savings from thisexemption are expected to be between$1 million and $2 million. Thesereductions in the total number ofapplicants performing the sampling andanalysis of discharges for the organictoxic pollutants have not been takeninto account in the calculation of thetotal incremental cost of this regulation,

It should be noted that this exemptiondoes not preclude the permitting

33542




authority from exercising any of itsoptions to obtain information on organictoxic pollutants under section 308 ofCWA. However, the Agency expectsthat permitting authorities will need toexercise those options in a smallnumber of cases, because theseapplicants generally exert a minorenvironmental impact.

b. CoalMines. EPA has fashioned aseparate exemption for small coal mineswhich is somewhat analogous to thegeneral small business exemptiondiscussed in the preceding section. Coalmines which are likely to produce lessthan 100,000 tons of coal per year, basedon predicted or historical productionfigures, are not required to test fororganic toxic pollutants.

In section 507 of the Surface MiningControl and Reclamation Act of 1977(SMCRA), Congress established asubstantial set of applicatipnrequirements for coal mines, including inpart a description of mining methods;maps of land to be affected;identification of affected watersheds; adetermination of probable hydrologicconsequences of mining and reclamationoperations; results of test borings orcase samplings; analyses of chemicalproperties of the coal; the sulfur contentof coal seams; chemical analyses ofpotentially acid or toxic formingsections of the overburden; andchemical analyses of the stratum.immediately underneath the coal to bemined.

Due to the appropriately extensiveapplication requirements of SMCRA,EPA is seeking to minimize its requestsfor either duplicative or overlyburdensome information. This is part ofthe broad efforts by EPA and theDepartment of Interior's Office ofSurface Mining (OSM), which regulatescoal mines under SMCRA (see 30 CFRChapter VII), to coordinate theirpermitting and other activities. See, e.g.,44 FR 55322, September 25, 1979(announcing the availability for publiccomment of a draft Memorandum ofUnderstanding on permit coordinationbetween EPA and OSM). EPA hastherefore decided to require testing fororganic toxic pollutants only in the caseof large coal mines, whose discharges, iftoxic, are likely to have more significantimpact on receiving waters than those ofsmall mines. In addition, they shouldgenerally be able to afford both toprovide the information required underSMCRA and to test for the organic toxicpollutants.

In selecting 100,000 tons annualproduction as the criterion fordistinguishing large coal mines fromsmall ones, EPA was guided by sections502(c) and 507(c) of SMCRA. Section

507(c) provides that certain hydrologicaland other information shall, uponwritten request of the operator of asmall coal mine. be developed by alaboratory and paid for by the regulatingauthority rather than by the coal mine.The cutoff used in that section is 100,000tons annual production. Section 502(c)uses the same cutoff to provide smallcoal mines with an extended transitionperiod to comply with the initialregulatory program under SMCRA. EPAfeels that the cutoff selected byCongress in sections 502(c) and 507(c) ofSMCRA is similarly appropriate here.

EPA expects that the exemption forsmall coal mines will exemptapproximately 80% of all coal mineapplicants. Because these small coalmines produce only about 20n of all coalproduced in the United States,discharges from larger mines producing80% of our nation's coal will remainsubject to the organic toxic pollutanttesting requirements. (Percentagesstated in this paragraph are based uponFigures 2 and 3 on pages 6 and 7 ofOSM's Final Regulatory Analysis, OSM-RA-1, March 1979.) The estimated totalsavings from this exemption areexpected to be approximately $8 million,which was not taken into account inTable IX.

IV. PART A OF HAZARDOUS WASTEAPPLICATIONS REQUIREMENTS:§ 122.24 AND FORM 3

The RCRA permit program differsfrom the other permit programs coveredby these Consolidated ApplicationForms in providing for an application intwo stages. Six months after thepromulgation of regulations setting upthe RCRA program in its initial form,every facility which is treating. storing,or disposing of hazardous waste mustfile Part A of the permit applicationform. These initial regulations are beingpromulgated today. Part A of the permitapplication consists of Forms I(discussed in Section II of this preamble)and 3 of the Consolidated PermitApplication Forms. Form 3 tracks theregulatory requirements of 40 CFR122.24. Upon filing a Part A permitapplication in satisfactory form, ahazardous waste management facility(HWM facility) becomes entitled to"interim status," which means that it isnot subject to enforcement for operatingwithout a permit.

About a year from now the full RCRApermit program will become effective.Facilities may then be required by thepermitting authority to complete theirpermit applications by submitting Part Bof the permit application. Part B willalso be submitted by persons wishing toconstruct and operate new HWM

facilities. The permitting authority willthen proceed to process the applicationand issue a permit. Part B will besubmitted as a narrative; EPA is notpromulgating a form for it.

Only limited portions of therequirements for Part B of the permitapplication are being promulgatedtoday. They are set forth at 40 CFR122.25. The remaining portions will bepromulgated with the rest of the initialset of RCRA requirements in the fall of1980.

Form 3 is required to be usedpresently by all existing HWM facilitiesand by new HWM facilities seeking EPApermits. Under RCRA. States may in thefuture operate the permit program.Although EPA encourages States withapproved RCRA permit programs to usethe Federal application forms, or formsas similar to those forms as possible, itis not requiring the use of EPA forms.States may use their own forms, subjectto EPA approval, provided that thoseforms incorporate the applicationrequirements of 40 CFR Part 122,Subpart B.

The above is a simple sketch of thebasic features of the RCRA permitprogram. A far more detailedtdescriptionis contained in 40 CFR Parts 122,123 and124, and the preambles to them,published elsewhere in today's FederalRegister. The general outlines of theprogram will not be discussed furtherhere.

Instead, the balance of this preamblediscusses the comments received on thePart A application requirements whichare specific to RCRA. namely thecomments on Form 3 of theConsolidated Application Forms (PartA). Comments on the provisions of 40CFR 122.24, which discusses Part A. arealso discussed. However, comments onPart B application requirements arediscussed in Part 122 and not here, bothbecause there is no set "form" for Part Band because the complete requirementshave not yet been promulgated.

Probably the single point mostemphasized in the comments on Form 3was that it was too long andcumbersome to fill out. Commentersstressed that EPA would be receivingmany thousands of these forms in a veryshort time, at the same time that otheraspects of the RCRA program werestarting up. Therefore, commenters felt,EPA would probably not have the timeto review extensive forms in detail; thusthe information would not serve asignificant regulatory purpose andwould be in conflict with Congressionalintent that interim status be relativelyeasy to apply for.

EPA agrees with these comments andhas accepted many of them. Specifically:

33543



Federal Regisier/' V61. 45,- No: 98 /-Mbnday, Mlay 19, 1980./ Rules and Regulations

1. EPA has reduced the spedificity ,'with which waste must be described.The proposal would have-required theDOT shipping name, the EPA-assigned,hazardous waste number, and-the ,common name for all-wastes. In the finalversion; EPA will require the EPAhumber only.

2. The proposal would have required alisting of the exact quantity of each typeof waste to be handled at the facility. Inresponse to comments, this has beenchanged to an estimate of the quantities.

3.The requirements for submitting "allavailable"' drawings and specificationsrelating to aHWM facility, contained inthe proposal, has bean greatly cut back.All that will now be required is a scaledrawing and photographs of the existingstructures. EPA agreed with thecommenters that argued that theproposed requirements could haveresulted in the submission of vastquantities of paper that would have hadlittle 'practical regulatory use.

4. The requirement to submit thezoning status of the site set forth in theproposal has been dropped, as somecommenters suggested. EPA assumesthat as a general rule existing facilitiesconform to the applicable zoningrequirements and that applications fornew facilities as a practical matter willonly be filed for locations where the

'local landuse laws would permit it.Accordingly, no general regulatory'purpose would be served by requiringthis information to be listed in all cases.EPA acknowledges that there may becases where zoning questions maybecome extremely important to adecision on an individual facility, andwhere questions of Federal pre-emptionmay arise. The preamble to the Part 123regulations discusses some of the pointsinvolved. However, those instancesshould be rare enough to permit thenecessary information to be gathered ona case-by-case basis.

5. There will no longer be specialrequirements for experimental or healthcare facilities since those special permitcategories have been dropped from thefinal regulations.

However, EPA has not accepted allthe suggestions for simplification and insome cases has added items to the formas proposed or has changed items whileleaving basic substantive requirementsin place.,

Specifically, EPA will still require alist of the exact wastes thatwill behandled in each facility, broken downby EPA code number; and a list of thetreatment, storage, and disposal • ,methods 'that will be -used. The latter'requirement replaces the one in theproposal for listing a "handling code."

-This information is needed to' , .establish-how the existing patterof ....HWM facilities deals with the natibnal"universe" of hazardous wastes which,will have been-defined at the same time.That information will tellEPA which 'facilities are most in need of-regulatoryattention (for example, because they aredealing With large quantitids of wastes,'or because the" wastes they deal with,are particularly hazardous, or becausetheir treatment, storage, or disposalmethods from the desdription given-seem open to question). -- -

In addition-to the above, several lesssignificant changes have been made-inForm 3:

1. A listing of the latitude andlongitude of each facility is nowrequired. This will furnish EPA withmore precise data on the location ofHWM facilities.

2. The proposed form would haverequired applicants to specify whetherthe facility was existing, proposed, orunder construction. This requirementhas been replaced in the final form witha requirement to list whether the facilityis new or existing, whether the permitapplication is new or revised, andwhether the facility has a RCRA permit*or interim status. These are thepermitting categories which the statuteand the implementing regulations laydown, and to require the forms to reflectthem willmake-it easier to handle thoseforms and.assign the action requiredunder them to its proper category.- 3. Applicants with existing facilities

are now required to indicate the datethat operation began or the dateconstruction commenced at theirfacility. This information will help EPA ,verify that the facility qualifies forinterim status. For new facilities,applicants are required to provide thedate that operation is expected to begin.This information will assist EPA insetting priorities for processingapplications for new facilities.

4. As discussed in the preamble toPart 122, RCRA permits bind both theowner and the operator of HWMfacilities where those two persons aredifferent. Accordingly, the form providesfor the signature of both these persons.

Impact of Form 3 reporting -requirements. It is estimated thatapproximately 26,400 owners andoperators of hazardous wastemanagement facilities will be requiredto complete and submit Form 3. Theestimated workload and economicburden on these applicants issummarized in Table XI.

Table XI.-Summary of Form' 3 ImpactNumber of irepondents..................... 26,400,Frequency-of response ...............................once

Work hours to prepare response...15.1 per rO-. 3 1 sponsoCost to prepare response..... $472 per response

Evaluation Plan.

, EPA will review the usefulness andcontinued need for the consolidatedapplication forms no later than 5 yearsfrom their effective date. The reviewwill consider the effectiveness of theconsolidated format; the usefulness ofthe required information in issuingpermits and meeting other programneeds; the need to change certainrequirements to reflect statutory andregulatory changes and changingprogram priorities; financial andadministrative burdens placed uponEPA, State agencies, and the regulatedcommunity; and any more effective orless costly alternative, to fulfill thepurposes intended by the currentapplication requirements., The reviewwill be conducted, as the presentrequirements have been developed,through various means calculated toencourage participation by all Interestedmembers of'the public as well as byperm it writers and permittees.

Note.-Executive Order 11821, as amendedby Executive Order 11949, and OMB CircularA-197 require the preparation of economicimpact statements for major regulations,defined as those with incremental annualimpacts exceeding one hundred milliondollars. As demonstrated In this preamble,the Environmental Protection Agency, hasexamined costs and economic impacts aspart of its decision-making process. It hasdetermined, based on this analysis, that thisdocument does not constitute a majorregulation requiring the preparation of aseparate economic impact statemement.However, it believes that the detailedanalysis contained in section 111-F of thispreamble complies with the spirit andpurpose of the executive orders and OMBcircular.

Dated: May 2,1980.Douglas M. Castle,Administrator.Instructions for Consolidated PermitApplication Forms

The Consolidated Permit ApplicationForms are:Form 1-General InformationForm 2-Discharges to Surface Water

(NPDES Permits)a.'Publicly Owned Treatment .Works

lReservedib. Concentrated Animal Feeding:

Operations and Aquatic AnimalProduction Facilities

c. Existing Manufacturing, Commercial.Mining, and Silvicultural Operations

d. New Manufacturing, Commercial, Miningand Silvicultural Operations [Reserved]

Form 3-:-Hazardous Waste Application Form(RCRA Permits)

Form 4-Underground Injection of Fluids(UIC Permits) [Reserved)'

33544




Form 5-Air Emissions in Attainment Areas(PSD permits) [Reserved]

Table of Contents of This PacketA. General InstructionsB. Instructions for Form IC. Activities Which Do Not Require PermitsD. GlossaryE. Form 1

Instructions for Consolidated PermitApplication Forms

Section A. General Instructions

Who Must Apply?With the exceptions described in

section C of these instructions, Federallaws prohibit you from conducting anyof the following activities without apermit

NPDES (National Pollutant DischargeElimination System under the CleanWater Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251). Discharge ofpollutants into the waters of the UnitedStates.

RCRA (Resource Conservation andRecovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901).Treatment, storage, or disposal ofhazardous wastes.

UIC (Underground Injection Controlunder the Safe Drinking Water Act. 42U.S.C. 300f). Injection of fluidsunderground by gravity flow orpumping.

PSD (Prevention of SignificantDeterioration under the Clean Air Act.72 U.S.C. 7401). Emission of an airpollutant by a new or modified facilityin or near an area which has attainedthe National Ambient Air QualityStandards for that pollutant.

Each of the above permit programs isoperated in any particular State byeither the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) or by anapproved State agency. You must usethis application form to apply for apermit for those programs administeredby EPA. For those programsadministered by approved States,contact the State environmental agencyfor the proper forms.

If you have any questions aboutwhether you need a permit under any ofthe above programs, or if you needinformation as to whether a particularprogram is administered by EPA or a -State agency or if you need to obtainapplication forms, contact your EPARegional office (listed in Table 1).

Upon your request, and based uponinformation supplied by you, EPA willdetermine whether you are required toobtain a permit for a particular facility.,Contact your EPA Regional office (listedin Table 1). Be sure to contact EPA ifyou have a question, because Federallaws provide that you may be heavilpenalized if you do not apply for apermit when a permit is required.

Form 1 of the EPA consolidatedapplication forms (attached to theseinstructions) collects generalinformation applying to all programs.You must fill out Form 1 regardless ofwhich permit you are applying for. Inaddition, you must fill out one of thesupplementary forms (Forms 2-5) foreach permit needed under each of theabove programs. Item I of Form 1 willguide you to the appropriatesupplementary forms.

You should note that there are certainexclusions to the permit requirementslisted above. The exclusions aredescribed in detail in section C of theseinstructions. If your activities areexcluded from permit requirements thenyou do not need to complete and returnany forms.

Note: Certain activities not listedabove also are subject to EPA-administered environmental permitrequirements. These include permits forocean dumping, dredged or fill materialdischarging, and certain types of airemissions. Contact your EPA Regionaloffice for further information.

Table 1.-Addkhet of EPA Regiott Oti'es andStates With" Th JnS6L*in

Region IPermit Contact. Environmental and Economic

Impact Office, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency. John F. KennedyBuilding. Boston. Massachusetts 0203.(617) 223-4635, FTS 223-4635. Connecticut,Maine. Massachusetts, New Hampshire.Rhode Island, Vermont.

Region IIPermit Contact, Permits Administration

Branch. Room 432, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 26 Federal Plaza, NewYork. New York 10007, (211. 264-9880. FTS264-9880. New Jersey. New York. VirginIslands. Puerto Rico.

Region I1Permit Contact (3 EN 23). U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency. 6th & Walnut Streets,Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19100, (215)597-8816, FTS 597-8816. Delaware, Districtof Columbia. Maryland, Pennsylvan:a,Virginia, West Virginia.

Region A'

Permit Contact, Permits Section, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. 345Courtland Street. N.E., Atlanta. Georgia30365, (404) 881-2017, FTS 257-2017.Alabama, Florida. Georgia. Kentucky.Mississippi. North Carolina. SouthCarolina, Tennessee.

Region VPermit Contact (SEP). U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 230 South DearbornStreet, Chicago. Illinois 60604. (312) 353-2105, FTS 353-2105. Illinois. Indiana.Michigan. Minnesota, Ohio. Wisconsin.

Region 17Permit Contact (6AEP). U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency. First InternationalBuilding. 1201 Elm Street. Dallas, Texas75270. (214) 767-2765. FTS 729-2765.Arkansas. Louisiana, New Mexico.Oklahoma. Texas.

Region 17lPermit Contact. Permits Branch. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. 324 East11th Street. Kansas City. Missouri 64106,(816) 758-5955, FTS 758-5935. Iowa.Kansas. Missouri. Nebraska.

Region ViPermit Contact (BE-WE), Suite 103, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1816Lincoln Street. Denver. Colorado 80203,(303) 837-4901, FrS 837-4901. Colorado,Montana. North Dakota. South Dakota.Utah. Wyoming.

Rejion ECPermit Cohtact Permits Branch (E-4). US.

Environmental Protection Agency, 215Freemont Street. San Francisco, California94105. (415) 538-3430, FS 538-345.Arizona. California. Hawaii. Nevada,Guam. American Samoa. Trust Territories.

Region XPermit Contact. (MIS 521. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1200 6thAvenue. Seattle. Washington 98101, (206442-7176. FTS 399-7176. Alaska, Idaho,Oregon. Washington.

Where To File

The application forms should bemailed to the EPA Regional office whoseRegion includes the State in which thefacility is located (see Table 1].

If the State in which the facility islocated administers a Federal permitprogram under which you need a permit,you should contact the appropriate Stateagency for the correct forms. Your EPARegional Office (Table 1) can tell you towhom to apply and can provide theappropriate address and phone number.

When To File

Because of statutory requirements, thedeadlines for filing applications varyaccording to the type of facility youoperate and the type of permit you need.These deadlines are as follows: I

Table 2.--F,g Dwes for Pentts

For ' Wtt, To fitN

2i(t%.PESi.- 180 daris before yotx presentlNPOES perrIt expes

2b;2ES) 1530 days Iefore yur prese tNPOES pem- t expies- or1ao days pnor starp ,iyou are a m~w facihty

' r: te L".e V' , -as of thc'e f:.=s are r t yeta'.2!a for tue and ax hsed as "Reserved" a, the

ot g 01 diese tastructQoS Coc!3iot y=~ EPA Kegiomloff ofx faromaFeUA CG on M=W app0icaion requkeinifiand Lfurs.

33545




Table 2.-Filing Dates for Permits-Continued

Form (permit) When to file

2c (NPDES) .................. 180 days before your presentNPDES permit expires'

2d (NPDES) ............ .... 180 days prior to startup3 (Hazardous Waste). ... Existing faclirty 180 days

following pubrcation ofregulations listinghazardous wastes

New facility 180.days beforecommencing physicalconstruction

.4 (U ............... Areasonable time prior toconstruction for new wells;

directed by te Diretdrfr existing wells

6 (PSI .. ........ ... Prior to commencment ofconstruction

• If your p~resent permit explres on or before November 30.1960,'thefiling'date Is the date on which your permit expires.If your permit expires during the period December 1,1980-May 31, 1982, the filing date Is gO days before yourpermit expires.

Federal regulations provide that youmay not begin to construct a new sourcein the NPDES program, a new hazardouswaste management facility, a newinjection well or a facility coiered bythe PSD program before the issuance ofa permit under the applicable program.-Please note that if you are required toobtain a permit before beginning'construction, as'described above, yodtmay need to submit your permit ,application well in advance of an.applicable deadline listed in Table 2."

FeesK' The U.S. EPA does not require a fee

for applying for any permit under theconsolidated permit programs.(However, some States Whichadminister one or more of. theseprograms require fees for the permitswhich they issue.)

Availability of Inform'ation to Public

Information contained in theseapplication forms will, upon request, bemade available to the public for -inspection and copying. Howeveiyou -may request confidential treatment-forcertain information which you submit oncertain supplementary forms. The -

specific instructions for eachsupplementary form state whatinformation on the form, if any, may beclaimed as confidential and whatprocedures govern the claim. Noinformation on' Forms.1 and 2 piay beclaimed as confidential. "

Completion of Forms

Unless otherwjse specified ininstructions to the forms, each item ineach form must be answered. To

indicate that each item has beenconsidered, enter "NA," for notapplicable, if a particular item does notfit the circumstances or characteristicsof ybur facility or activity.

If you have previously submittedinformation to EPA or to an approvedState agency which answers a question,you may either repeat the information inthe space provided or attach a copy ofthe previous submission. Some items inthe form require narrative explanation.,If more space is necessary to answer aquestion, attach a separate sheetentitled "Additional Information."

Financial Assistance for PollutionControl

There arel number'of direct loans,;loan guarantees, and grants aailableltofirms and communities for pollutioncontrol expenditures. These areprovided by the Small BusinessAdministration, the EconomicDeyelopment Administration, theFarmers Home Administration, and theDepartment of Housing and UrbanDevelopment Each EPA Regional office(Table 1) has an economic assistancecoordinator who can provide you withadditional information.

EPA's construction grants programunder Title I of the Clean Water Act is"'an additional sourte of assistance to'publicly owned.treatment.works.Contact your EPA-Regional office fordetails. "Secion B. Instructions for Form 1-Genierallnformatiop.. .,...

This form must be completed by allapplicants.

Completing this form. Please type orprint in the unshaded areas only. Someitems have small graduation -marks inthe fill-in spaces. These marks indicatethe number of characters that may beentered into our data system. The marksare spaced at YV" intervals whichaccommodate elite type (12 charactersper inch). If you use another type youmay ignore the marks. If you print, placeeach character between the marks.Abbreviate if necessary to stay withinthe number of characters allowed for,each item. Use'one space for breaks-between words, but not for punctuationmarks unless they are needed to clarify.your response.

Item I Space is provided at the upperright-hand corner of Form 1 for insertionof your EPA Identification Number. Ifyou have an existing facility, enter yourIdentification.Number. If you don't knowyour EPA Identification Number, pleasecontact your EPA Regional office (table1), which will provide you with yournumber. If your facility is new (not yet

- constructed),-leave this item blank. ,

'Item I Answer each question todetermine which supplementary formsyou need to fill out. Be sure to check theglossary in section D of theseinstructions for the legal definitilond ofthe bold faced words. Check section Cof these instructions to determinewhether your activity is excluded frompermit requirements.

If you answer "no" to every question,then you do not need a permit, and youdo not need to complete and return anyof these forms.

If you answer "yes" to any question,then you must complete and file thesupplementary form by the'deadline

* listed in Table-2 along with this form,( (The applicable form number followseach question and is enclosed inparentheses.) You need not submit asupplementary form if you already havea permit under the appropriate Federalprogram, unless your permit Is due toexpire and you wish to renew yourpermit.

Questions (I) and (J) of Item I refer tomajor new or modified sources subjectto Prevention of SignificantDeterioration (PSD) requirements underthe Clean Air Act. For the purpose of thePSD program, major sources are definedas (1) sources listed in Table 3 whichhave the potential to emit 100 tons ormore per year emissions, and (2) allother sources with the potential to emit250 tons or more per year. See section Cof these instructions for discussion of

- exclusions of certain modified sources.

Table 3.-28 Industrial CategoriesListed in Section 169(1) of the lean AirAct of 1977

Fossil fuel-fired'steam generators ofmore than 250 million BTU per hour heatinput

Coal cleaning plants (with thermal dryers)Kraft pulp millsPortland cement plantsPrimary zinc smeltersIron and steel mill plantsPrimary aluminum ore reduction plantsPrimary copper smelters.

Municipal incinerators capable of'charglngmore than 250 tons of refuse per day

Hydrofluoric acid plantsNitric acid plantsSulfuric acid plantsPetroleum refineriesLime plants -Phosphate rock processing plantsCoke oven batteriesSulfur recovery plantsCarbon black plants (furnace process)Primary lead smeltersFuel conversion plantsSintering plantsSecondary metal production plantsChemical process plant'.

133546




Fossil fuel boilers for combinationthereofn totaling more than 250 millionBTU per hour heat input

Petroleum storage and transfer unitswith a total storage capacity exceeding300.000"barrels

Taconite ore processing plantsClass fiber processing plantsCharcoal production plants.Item Il. Enter the facility's official or

legal name. Do not use a colloquialname.

Item IV. Give the name, title, andwork telephone number of a person whois thoroughly familiar with the operationof the facility and with the factsreported in this application and who canbe centacted by reviewing offices ifnecessary.

Item V. Give-the complete mailingaddress of the office wherecorrespondence should be sent. Thisoften is not the address used todesignate the location of the facility oractivity.

Item V. Give the address or locationof the facility identified in Item I of thisform. If the facility lacks a street nameor route number, give the most accuratealternative geographic information (e.g.,section number, quarter section number,or description).

Item VII. List, in descending order ofsignificance, the four 4-digit standardindustrial classification (SIC) codeswhich best describe your facility interms of the principal products orservices you produce or provide. Also,specify each classification in words.These classifications may differ from theSIC codes describing the operationgenerating the discharge, air emissions,or hazardous wastes.

SIC code numbers are descriptionswhich may be found in the "StandardIndustrial Classification Manual"prepared by the Executive Office of thePresident Office of Management andBudget, Which is available from theGovernment Printing Office,Washington, D.C. Use the currentedition of the manual. If you have anyquestions concerning the appropriateSIC code for your facility, contact yourEPA Regional office (see Table 1).

Item VIII-A. Give the name, as it islegally referred to, of the person, firm,public organization, or any other entitywhich operates the facility described inthis application. This may or may not bethe same name as the facility. Theoperator of the facility is the legal entitywhich controls the facility's operationrather than the plant or site manager. Donot use a colloquial name.

Item VIII-B. Indicate whether theentity which operates the facility alsoowns it by marking the appropriate box.

Item VIII-C. Enter the appropriateletter to indicate the legal status of theoperator of the facility. Indicate "public"for a facility solely owned by localgovernment(s) such as a city, town.county, parish, etc.

Items VIII-D--H. Enter the telephonenumber and address of the operatoridentified in item VIII-A.

Item IX Indicate whether the facilityis located on Indian lands.-Item X. Give the number of eachpresently effective permit issued to thefacility for each program or, if you havepreviously filed an application but havenot yet received a permit, give thenumber of the application, if any. Fill inthe unshaded area only. If you havemore than one currently effective permitfor your facility under a particularpermit program, you may list additionalpermit numbers on a separate sheet ofpaper. List any relevant environmentalFederal (e.g., permits under the OceanDumping Act. section 404 of the CleanWaterAct or the Surface Mining Controland Reclamation Act). State (e.g., Statepermits for new air emission sources innonattainment areas under Part D of theClean Air Act or State permits undersection 404 of the Clean Water Act) orlocal permits or applications under"other."

Item XI. Provide a topographic map ormaps of the area extending at least toone mile beyond the propertyboundaries of the facility which clearlyshow the following:

4 The legal boundaries of the facility;* The location and serial number of

each of your existing and proposedintake and discharge structures;

* All hazarous waste managementfacilities;

* Each well where you inject fluidsunderground; and

* All springs and surface waterbodies in the area, plus all drinkingwater wells within mile of the facilitywhich are identified in the public recordor otherwise known to you.

If an intake or discharge structure.hazardous waste disposal site, orinjection well associated with thefacility is located more than one milefrom the plant, include It on the map, ifpossible. If not, attach additional sheetsdescribing the location of the structure,disposal site, or well, and identify theU.S. Geological Survey (or other) mapcorresponding to the location.

On each map, include the map scale, ameridian arrow showing north, andlatitude and longitude at the nearestwhole second. On all maps of rivers.show the direction of the current, and intidal waters, show the directions of theebb and flow tides. Use a 7 minuteseries map published by the U.S.

Geological Survey, which may beobtained through the U.S. GeologicalSurvey Offices in Washington, D.C.,Denver, Colorado, or Anchorage,Alaska. If a 7 minute series map hasnot been published for your facility site,then you may use a 15 minute seriesmap from the U.S. Geological Survey. Ifneither a 71/ nor 15 minute series maphas been published for your facility site,use a plat map or other appropriate map,including all the requested information;in this case, briefly describe land uses inthe map area (e.g., residential,commercial).

You may trace your map from ageological survey chart, or other mapmeeting the above specifications. If youdo, your map should bear a noteshowing the number or title of the mapor chart it was traced from. Include thenames of nearby towns, water bodies,and other prominent points. An exampleof an acceptable location map is shownin Figure A of these instructions.

(Note-Figure A is provided forpurposes of illustration only, and doesnot represent any actual facility.)BIMN CODE 656"-r44

33547



Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 98 /-Monday, May 19, 1980 / Rules and Reulations

"4' z . j "-

• o -

soi!w

00w

0 U

z,.2o, c c

°~ 0

w O ..

33548




Item XII. Briefly describe the nature ofyour business (e.g., products producedor services provided).

Item XIII. Federal statues provide forsevere penalties for submitting falseinformation on this application form.

18 U.S.C. section 1001 provides that"Whoever, in any matter within thejurisdiction of any department or agencyof the United States knowingly andwillfully falsifies, concdals or covers upby any trick, scheme, or device amaterial fact, or makes or uses any falsewriting or document knowing same tocontain any false, fictitious or fraudulentstatement or entry, shall be fined notmore than $10,000 or imprisoned notmore than five years, or both."

Section 309(c)(2) of the Clean WaterAct and section 113(c)(2) of the CleanAir Act each provide that "Any personwho knowingly makes any falsestatement, representation, orcertification in any application,...shall upon conviction, be punished by afine of no more than $10,000 or byimprisonment for not more than sixmonths, or both."

In addition, section 3008(d](3) of theResource Conservation and RecoveryAct provides for a fine up to $25,000 orimprisonment up to one year for a first-conviction for making a false statementin any application under the Act, and fordouble these penalties upon subsequentconvictions.

Federal regulations require thisapplication to be signed as follows:

(1) For a corporation, by a principalexecutive officer of a least the level ofvice president. However, if the onlyactivity in item II which is marked "yes"is Question G, the officer may authorizea person having responsibility for theoverall operations of the well or wellfield to sign the certification. In thatcase, the authorization must be writtenand submitted to the permittingauthority.

(2) For partnership or soleproprietorship, by a general partner orthe proprietor, respectively- or

(3) For a municipality, State, Federal,or other public facility, by either aprincipal executive officer or rankingelected official.

Section C. Activities Which Do NotRequire Permits

I. National Pollutant DischargeElimination System Permits under theClean Water Act You are not requiredto obtain an NPDES permit if yourdischarge is in one of the followingcategories, as provided by the CleanWater Act (CWA] and by the NPDESregulations (40 CFR Parts 122-125].However, under section 510 of CWA adischarge exempted from the federal

NPDES requirements may still beregulated by a State authority, contactyour State environmental agency todetermine whether you need a Statepermit.

A. Discharps from Veisex.Discharges of sewage from vessels,effluent from properly functioningmarine engines, laundry, shower, andgalley sink wastes, and any otherdischarge incidental to the normaloperation of a vessel do not requireNPDES permits. However, discharges ofrubbish, trash, garbage, or other suchmaterials discharged overboard requirepermits, and so do other dischargeswhen the vessel is operating in acapacity other than as a means oftransportation, such as when the vesselis being used as an energy or miningfacility, a storage facility, or a seafoodprocessing facility, or is secured to thebed of the ocean, contiguous zone, orwaters of the United States for thepurpose of mineral or oil exploration ordevelopment.

B. Dredged or Fill Material.Discharges of dredged or fill materialinto waters of the United States do notneed NPDES permits if the dredging orfilling is authorized by a permit issuedby the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers oran EPA-approved State under section404 of CWA.

C. Discharges into Publicly OwnedTreatment Works (POTW). Theintroduction of sewage, industrialwastes, or other pollutants into a POTWdoes not need an NPDES permit. Youmust comply with all applicablepretreatment standards promulgatedunder section 307(b) of CWA, whichmay be included in the permit issued tothe POTW. If you have a plan or anagreement to switch to a POTW in thefuture, this does not relieve you of theobligation to apply for and receive anNPDES permit until you have stoppeddischarging pollutants into waters of theUnited States.

[Note: Dischargers into privatelyowned treatment works do not have toapply for or obtain NPDES permitsexcept as otherwise required by the EPARegional Administrator. The owner oroperator of the treatment works itself,however, must apply for a permit andidentify all users in its application.Users so identified will receive publicnotice of actions taken on the permit forthe treatment works.]

D. Discharges from Agricultural andSilviculturalActivities. Most dischargesfrom agricultural and silviculturalactivities to waters of the United Statesdo not require NPDES permits. Theseinclude runoff from orchards, cultivatedcrops, pastures, range lands, and forestlands. However, the discharges listed

below do require NPDES permits.Definitions of the terms listed below arecontained in the Glossary section ofthese instructions.

(1) Discharges from ConcentratedAnimal Feeding Operations. (SeeGlossary for definitions of "animalfeeding operations" and "concentratedanimal feeding operations." Only thelatter require permits.]

(2] Discharges from ConcentratedAquatic Animal Production Facilities.(See Glossary for size cutoffs.]

(3) Discharges associated withapproved Aquaculture Projects.

(4) Discharges from Silvicultural PointSources. (See Glossary for the definitionof "silvicultural point source.") Non-point source silvicultural activities areexcluded from NPDES permitrequirements. However, some of theseactivities, such as stream crossings forroads, may involve point sourcedischarges of dredged or fill materialwhich may require a section 404 permit.See 33 CFR 209.120.

E. Discharges in Compliance with anOn-Scene Coordinator's Instructions.

U. Hazardous Waste Permits underthe Resource Conservation andRecovery Act. You may be excludedfrom the requirement to obtain a permitunder this program if you fall into one ofthe following categories.

Generators who accumulate their ownhazardous waste on-site for less than 90days:

Certain small generators;Owners or operators of totally

enclosed treatment facilities; orFarmers who dispose of waste

pesticide from their own use.Check with your Regional office for

details. Please note that even if you areexcluded from permit requirements, youmay be required by Federal regulationsto handle your waste in a particularmanner.

IlL. UndergroundInjection ControlPermits under the Safe Drinking WaterAct. You are not required to obtain apermit under this program if you:

Inject into existing wells used toenhance recovery of oil and gas or tostore hydrocarbons (note, however, thatthese underground injections areregulated by Federal rules); or

Inject into or above a stratum whichcontains, within '/ mile of the well bore.an underground source of drinkingwater (unless your injection is the typeidentified in item II-H, for which you doneed a permit). However, you mustnotify EPA of your injection and submitcertain required information on formssupplied by the Agency, and youroperation may be phased out if you area generator of hazardous wastes or ahazardous waste management facility

33549



33550 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 98 / Monday, May 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

which uses wells or septic tanks todispose of hazardous waste.

IV. Prevention of SignificantDeterioration Permits uncer the CleanAir Act. The PSD program applies tonewly constructed or modified facilities(both of which are referred to as "newsources") which increase air emissions.The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977exclude small new sources of airemissions from the PSD review program.Any new source in an industrialcategory listed in Table 3 of theseinstructions whose potential to emit isless than 100 tons per year is notrequired to get a PSD permit. Inaddition, any new source in anindustrial category not listed in Table 3whose potential to emit is less than 250tons per yeak is exempted from the PSDrequirements.

Modified soiirces which increase theirnet emissions (the difference betweenthe total emission increases and totalemission decreases at the source) lessthan the significant amount set forth inEPA regulations are also exempt fromPSD requirements. Contact your EPARegional office (Table 1) for furtherinformation.

Section D. Glosgary

Note: This Glossary includes termsused in the instructions and in Forms 1,2b, 2c, and 3. Additional terms will beincluded in the future when other formsare developed to reflect therequirements of other parts of theconsolidated permit program. If youhave any questions concerning themeaning of any of these terms, pleasecontact your EPA Regional office (Table1).

"Aliquot" means a sample of specifiedvolume used to make up a totalcomposite sample.

"Animal feeding operation" means alot or facility (other than an aquaticanimal production facility) where thefollowing conditions are met:

1. Animals (other than aquaticanimals) have been, are, or will bestabled or confined and fed ormaintained for a total of 45 days or morein any 12-monih period, and

2. Crops, vegetation, forage growth, orpost-harvest residues are not sustainedin the normal growing season over anyportion of the lot or facility.

Two or more animal feedingoperations under common ownershipare a single animal feeding operation ifthey adjoin each other or if they use acommon area or system for the disposalof wastes.

"Animal unit" means a unit ofmeasurement for any animal feeding-operation calculated by adding thefollowing numbers: the number of

slaughter and feeder cattle multiplied by1.0, plus the number of mature dairycattle multiplied by 1.4, pIus the numberof swine weighing over 25 kilograms(approximately 55 pounds) multiplied by0.4, plus the number of sheep multipliedby 0.1, plus the number of horsesmultiplied by 2.0.

"Application" means the EPAstandard national forms for aipplying fora permit, including any additions,revisions, or modifications to the forms;or forms approved by-EPA for use inapproved States, including anyapproved modifications or revisions. ForRCRA, "application" also means"Application,,Part B."

"Application, Part A" means that partof the consolidated permit applicationforms which a RCRA permit applicantmust complete to qualify for interimstatus under section 3005(e) of RCRAand for consideration for a permit. PaitA consists of Form 1 (GeneralInformation] and Form 3 (HazardousWaste Application Form).

"Application, Part B", means that partof the application which a RCRA permitapplicant must complete to be issued apermit. (Note: EPA is not developing aspecific form for Part B of the permitapplication, but an instruction bookletexplaining what information must besupplied is available from the EPARegional office.)

"Approved program" or "approvedState" means a State program which hasbeen approved or authorized by EPAunder 40 CFR Part 123.

"Aquaculture project"means adefined managed water area which usesdischarges of pollutants into thatdesignated area for the maintenance orproduction of harvestabIe freshwater,estuarifie, or marine plants or animals."Designated area" means the portions ofthe waters of the United States withinwhich the applicant plans to confine thecultivated species, using a method ofplan or operation (including, but notlimited to, physical confinement) which,on the basis of reliable scientificevidence, is expected to ensure thespecific individual organisms" comprisingan aquaculture crop will enjoy increasedgrowth attributable to the discharge ofpollutants and be harvested within a.defined geographic area.

"Aquifer" means a geologicalformation, group of formations, or partof a formation that is capable of yieldinga significant amount of water to a wellor spring.

"Area of review" means the areasurrounding an injection well which isdescribed according to the criteria setforth in 40 CFR § 146.06.

"Area permit" means a UIC permitapplicable to all or certain wells within

a geographic area, rather than to aspecified Well, under 40 CFR § 122.37.

"Attainment area" means, for any airpollutant, an area which has beendesignated under section 107 of theClean Air Act as having ambient airquality levels better than any nationalprimary or secondary ambient airquality standard for that pollutant.Standards have bheen set for sulfuroxides, particulate matter, nitrogendioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, leadand hydrocarbons. For purposes of theGlossary, "attainment area" also refersto "unclassifiable area," which means,for any pollutants, an area designatedunder section 107 as unclassifiable withrespect to that pollutant due.toinsufficient information.

"Best Management Practices"("BMP") means schedules of activities,prohibitions of practices, maintenanceprocedures, and other managementpractices to prevent or reduce thepollution of waters of the United States,BMPs include treatment requirements,operating procedures, and practices tocontrol plant site runoff, spillage orleaks, sludge or waste disposal, ordrainage from raw material storage.

"Biological monitoring test" neansafny test which includes the use ofaquatic algal, invertebrate, or vertebratespecies to measure acute or chronictoxicity, and any biological or chemicalmeasure of bioaccumulation.

"Bypass" means the intentionaldiversion of wastes from any portion ofa treatment facility."Concentrated animal feedingoperation" means an animal feedingoperation which meets the criteria setforth in either (1) or (2) or which theDirector designates as such on a case-by-case basis:

1. More than the numbers of animalsspecified in any of the followingcategories are confined:

(A) 1,000 slaughter or feeder cattle,(B) 700 mature dairy cattle (whether

milked or dry cows),(C) 2,500 swine each weighing over 25

kilograms (approximately 55 pounds),(D)-500 horses,(E) 10,000 sheep or lambs,(F) 55,000 turkeys,(G) 100,000 laying hens or-broilers (if

the facility has a continuous overflowwatering]

(H) 30,000 laying hens or broilers (ifthe facility has a liquid manure handlingsystem),

(I) 5,000 ducks, orU) 1,000 animal units; or2. More than the following numbers

and types of animals are confined:(A) 300 slaughter or feeder cattle,(B) 200 mature dairy cattle (whether

milked or dry cows),



Federal Register /Vol. 45, 'No. -98 / Monday, May 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

(C] 750 swine each weighing over 25kilograms (approximately 55 pounds),

(D) 150 horses,(E) 3,000 sheep or lambs.(F3 16,500 turkeys,(G) 30,000 laying hens or broilers (if

the facility has continuous overflowwatering],

(Hi 9,000 laying hens or broilers (if thefacility has a liquid manure handlingsystem),

(1) 1,500 ducks, or() 300 animal units;

and either one of the followingconditions are met: pollutants aredischarged into waters of the UnitedStates through a manmade ditch.flushing system or other similarmanmade device ("manmade" meansconstructed by man and used for thepurpose of transporting wastes]; orpollutants are discharged directly intowaters of the United States whichoriginate outside of and pass over,across, or through the facility orotherwise come into direct contact withthe animals confined in the operation.

Provided, however, that no animalfeeding operation is a concentratedanimal feeding operation as definedabove if such animal feeding operationdischarges only in the event of a 25 year,24 hour storm event.

"Concentrated aquatic animalproduction facility" means a hatchery,fish farm, or other facility whichcontains, grows or holds aquaticanimals in either of the followingcategories, or which the Directordesignates as such on a case-by-casebasis:

1. Cold water fish species or othercold water aquatic animals including,but not limited to, the Salmonidaefamily of fish (e.g., trout and salmon) inponds, raceways or other simarstructures which discharge at least 30days per year but does not include:

(a) Facilities which produce less than9,090 harvest weight kilograms(approximately 20,000 pounds) ofaquatic animals per year, and

(b] Facilities which feed less than2,272 kilograms (approximately 5,000pounds) of food during the calendarmonth of maximum feeding.

2. Warm water fish species or otherwarm water aquatic animals including,but not limited to, the Ameiuridae,Cetra'clurdae, and Cyprinidae familiesof fish (e.g., respectively, catfish, sunfishand minnows] in ponds, raceways, orother similar structures which dischargeat least 30 days per year, but does notinclude:

(a) Closed ponds which dischargeonly during periods of excess runoff;, or

(b) Facilities which produce less than45,454 harvest weight kilograms

(approximately 100,000 pounds) ofaquatic animals per year.

"Contact cooling water" means waterused to reduce temperature whichcomes into contact with a raw material.intermediate product, waste productother than heat, or finished product.

"Contiguous zone" means the entirezone established by the United Statesunder article 24 of the convention of theTerritorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone.

"CWA" means the Clean Water Act(formerly referred to the Federal WaterPollution Control Act) Pub. L. 92-500. asamended by Pub. L 95-217 and Pub. L95-576, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

"Direct discharge" means thedischarge of a pollutant as definedbelow.

"Director" means the EPA RegionalAdministrator or the State Director asthe context requires.

"Discharge (of a pollutant)" means:(1) Any addition of any pollutant or

combination of pollutants to waters ofthe United States from any point source,or

(2] Any addition of any pollutant orcombination of pollutants to the watersof the contiguous zone or the ocean fromany point source other than a vessel orother floating craft which is being usedas a means of transportation.

This definition includes dischargesinto waters of the United States from:surface runoff which is collected orchannelled by man; discharges throughpipes, sewers, or other conveyancesowned by a State, municipality, or otherperson which do not lead to POTW's;and discharges through pipes, sewers, orother conveyances, leading intoprivately owned treatment works. Thisterm does not include an addition ofpollutants by any indirect discharger.

"Disposal" (in the RCRA program)means the discharge, deposit, injection,dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing ofany hazardous waste into or on anyland or water so that the hazardouswaste or any constitutent of it may enterthe environment or be emitted into theair or discharged into any waters,including ground water.

"Disposal facility" means a facility orpart of a facility at which hazardouswaste is intentionally placed into or onland or water, and at which hazardouswaste will remain after closure.

"Effluent limitation" means anyrestriction imposed by the Director onquantities, discharge rates, andconcentrations of pollutants which aredischarged from point sources intowaters of the United States, the watersof the continguous zone, or the ocean.

"Effluent limitation guideline" meansa regulation published by theAdministrator under section 304(b) of

the Clean Water Act to adopt or reviseeffluent limitations.

"Environmental Protection Agency"("EPA") means the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency.

"Exempted aquifer" means an aquiferor its portion that meets the criteria inthe definition of USDW, but which hasbeen exempted according to theprocedures in 40 CFR § 122.35(b).

"Existing HWM facility" means aHazardous Waste Management facilitywhich was in operation, or for whichconstruction had commenced, on orbefore October 21,1976. Constructionhad commenced if (1) the owner oroperator had obtained all necessaryFederal, State and local preconstructionapprovals or permits. and either (2a) acontinuous on-site, physicalconstruction program had begun, or (2b]the owner or operator had entered intocontractual obligations, which could notbe cancelled or modifed withoutsubstantial loss, for construction of thefacility to be completed within areasonable time.[Note: This definition reflects the literallanguage of the statute. However. EPAbelieves that amendments to RCRA nowin conference will shortly be enactedand will change the date for determiningwhen a facility is an "existing facility"to one no earlier than May of 1980;indications are the conferees areconsidering October 30 1980.Accordingly. EPA encourages everyowner or operator of a facility whichwas built or under construction as ofthepromulgation date of the RCRA programregulations to file Part A of its permitapplication so that it can be quicklyprocessed for interim status when thechange in the law takes effect. Whenthose amendments are enacted, EPAwill amend this definition.]

"Existing source" or "existidischarger" (in the NPDES program)means any source which is not a newsource or a new discharger.

"Existing injection well" means aninjection well other than a new injectionwelL

"Facility" means any HWM facility,UIC underground injection well NPDESpoint source. PSD stationary source, orany other facility or activity (includingland or appurtenances thereto) that issubject to regulation under the RCRA,UIC. NPDES or PSD programs.

"Fluid" means material or substancewhich flows or moves whether in asemisolid, liquid, sludge, gas, or anyother form or state.

"Generator" means any person by sitelocation, whose act or process produceshazardous waste identified or listed in40 CFR Part 261.

33551



3 Federal R6gister / Vol. 45, 'No. -98 / Monday, May 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

S"Groundwater" means water belowthe land surface'in a zone of saturation.

"Hazardous substance" means any ofthe.substances designated under 40 CFR -Part 116 pursuant to section 311 ofCWA. [Note: These substances are..listed in Table 2c-4 of the instructions toForm 2c.]I "Hazardous waste". means ahazardous waste as defined in.40 CFR§ 261.3.

"Hazardous waste managementfocility" ("HWM facility") means allcontiguous land,.structures,appurtenances, and improvements onthe land, used for treating, storing,'or.

.disposing of-,hazardous wastes.A. facility may consist of several treatment,,,storage or disposal operational units (forexample, one or more landfills, surfaceimpoundments, or combinations ofthem).

"In operation" means a facility whichis treating, storing, or disposing ofhazardous waste.

"Indirect discharger" means a non-domestic discharger introducingpollutants to a publicly owned treatmentworks.

"Injection well" means a welLintowhich fluids are being injected.1. "Interim authorization" meansapproval by EPA of a State hazardouswaste progrim which has met the.requirements of section 3006(c) of RCRAand applicable requirements of 40 CFRPart 123, Subparts A, B, and F,

"Listed State" means a State listed bythe Administrator under section 1422 of,SDWA as needing a State UIC program.

"MGD" means millions of gallons perday.

"Municipality" means a city, village,town, borough, county, parish, district,association, or other public bodycreated by or under State law andhaving jurisdiction over disposal ofsewage, industiial wastes, or otherwastes, or an Indian tribe or anauthorized Indian tribal organization, ora designated and approved managmentagency under section 208 of CWA.

"National Pollutant Discharge -Elimination System" ("NPDES") means -the national program for issuing,,modifying, revoking and reissuing,terminating, monitoring, and enforcingpermits and imposing and enforcingpretreatment requirements, undersections 307, 318, 402 and 405 of CWA.The term includes an approved program.

"New discharger" means any building,structure, facility, orinstallation: (1) ,from which there is or may be a new oradditional discharge-of pollutants at asitelat which on October 18,1972, it hadnever. discharged pollutants; (2) whichhas -never received a finally effectiveNPDES permit for discharges at that site;

and (3) which is not "new source." Thisdefinition includes'an indirect'discharger which commences,discharging into waters of the UnitedStates. It also includes any existing.mobile point source, such as an offshoreoil drilling rig, seafood processingvessel; or aggregate plant that beginsdischarging at a location for which itdoes not have an existing permit,

"New-HWM facility"means aHazardous Waste Management facilitywhich began operation or for whichconstruction-commenced qfter October:21,1976."

"New injection well" means a wellwhich begins injection after a UICprogram-for the State in which the Wellis located is approved.

"New source" (in the NPDES program)means any building, structure, facility,or installation from which there is ormay be a discharge of pollutants, theconstruction of which commenced:

(i) After promulgation of standards ofperformance under section 306 of CWAwhich are applicable to such source, or

(ii) After proposal of standards of :perforimance in accordance with section306 of CWA which are applicable tosuch source, but only if the standardsare promulgated in accordance withsection 306 within 120 days of their -proposal.

"Non-contact cooling water" meanswater used to reduce temperature which-does not come into direct contact withany raw material, intermediate product,waste product (other than heat), orfinished product.

"Off-site" means any'site which is not"on-site."

"On-site" means on 'the same orgeographically cohtiguous-propertywhich may be divided by public orprivate right(s)-of-way, provided theentrance and exit between theproperties is at a cross-roadsintersection, and access is by crossingas opposed. to going along, the right(s)-of-way. Non-Contiguous propertiesowned by the same person, but 'connected by a right-of-way which theperson controls and to which the publicdoes n~t have access, is also consideredon-site property.

"Outfall" means a point source."Permit" means an authorizatioi,

license, or equivalent control documentissued by EPA or an approved State toimplement the requirements of 40 CFRParts 122, 123, and 124.

"Physical construction" (in the RCRAprogram) means excavation, movementof earth, erection of forms or structures,or similar activity to prepare a HWMfacility to accept hazardous waste.

"Point source" means any discernible,confined, and discrete conveyance,

including but not limited to any pipe,ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well,discrete fissure, container, rolling stock,concentrated animal feeding operation,vessel or other floating craft from whichpollutants are or may be discharged.This term does not include return flowsfrom irrigated agriculture.

"Pollutant" means dredged spoil, solidwaste, incinerator residue, filterbackwash, sewage, garbage, sewagesludge, munitions, chemical waste,biological materials, radioactivematerials (except those regulated underthe Atomic Energy Act of 1954, asamended (42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.)),heat, wrecked or discarded equipment,rocks, sand, cellar dirt and industrial,municipal, and agriculture wastedischarged into water. It does not mean:

(1) Sewage from vessels; Or(2) Water, ghs, or other material which

is injected into a well to facilitateproduction of oil or gas, or waterderived in association with oil and gasproduction and disposed of In a well, Ifthe well used either to facilitateproduction or for disposal purposes Isapproved by authority of the State inwhich the well is located, and If theState determines that the Injection ordisposal will not result in thedegradation of ground or surface waterresources.

[Note: Radioactive materials coveredby-the Atomic Energy'Act are thoseencompassed in its definition of source,byproduct, or special nuclear'materials.Examples of materials not coveredinclude radium and acceleratorproduced isotopes. See Train v.Colorado Public Interest ResearchGroup, Inc., 426 U.S. 1 (1976).]

"Prevention of significantdeterioriation" (PSD) means the nationalpermitting program under 40 CFR 52.21to prevent emissions of certainpollutants regulated under the Clean AirAct from significantly deteriorating airquality in attainment areas.

"Primary industry category" meansany industry category listed In theNRDC Settlement Agreement (NaturalResources Defense Council v. Train, 8ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified 12 ERC1833 (D.D.C. 1979)).

"Privately owned treatment works"means any device or system which is (1)used to treat wastes from any facilitywhose operator is not the operator of thetreatment works and (2) not a POTW.

"Process wastewater" means anywater which, during manufacturing orprocessing, comes into direct contactwith or results from the production oruse of any raw material, intermediateproduct, finished product, by-product, orwaste product.

I- 33552




"Publicly owned treatment works" or"POTW" means any device or systemused in the storage, treatment, recycling,and reclamation of municipal sewage orindustrial waste of a liquid nature whichis owned by a State or municipality.This definition includes any sewers thatconvey wastewater to a POTW, butdoes not include pipes, sewers, or otherconveyances not connected to a POTW.

"Rent" means use of another'sproperty in return for regular payment.

"RCRA" means the Solid WasteDisposal Act as amended by theResource Conservation and RecoveryAct of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-580, as amendedby Pub. L. 95-609,42 U.S.C. § 6901 etseq.).

"Rock crushing and gravel Washingfacilities" ate facilities which processcrushed and broken stone, gravel, andriprap (see 40 CFR Part 436, Subpart B,and the effluent limitations guidelinesfor these facilities).

"SDWA" means the Safe DrinkingWater Act (Pub. L. 95-523, as amendedby Pub. L. 95-1900,42 U.S.C. § 300f) etseq.).

"Secondary industry category" meansany industry category which is not aprimary industry category.

"Sewage from vessels" means humanbody wastes and the wastes from toiletsand other receptacles intended toreceive or retain body wastes that aredischarged from vessels and regulatedunder section 312 of CWA, except thatwith respect to commercial vessels onthe Great Lakes this term includesgraywater. For the purposes of thisdefinition, "graywater" means galley.bath, and shower water.

"Sewage sludge" means the solids,residues, and precipitate separated fromor created in sewage by the unitprocesses of a POTW. "Sewage" asused in this definition means anywastes, including wastes from humans,households, commercial establishments,industries, and storm water runoff, thatare discharged to or otherwise enter apublicly owned treatment works.

"Silvicultural point source" meansany discernable, confined, and discreteconveyance related to rock crushing,gravel washing, log sorting, or logstorage facilities which are operated inconnection with silvicultural activitiesand from which pollutants aredischarged into waters of the UnitedStates. This term does not include non-point source silvicultural activities suchas nursery operations, site preparation.reforestation and subsequent culturaltreatment, thinning, prescribed burning,pest and fire control, harvestingoperations, surface drainage, or roadconstruction and maintenance fromwhich there is natural runoff. However,

some of these activities (such as streamcrossing for roads] may involve pointsource discharges of dredged or fillmaterial which may require a CWAsection 404 permit. "Log sorting and logstorage facilities" are facilities whosedischarges result from the holding ofunprocessed wood, e.g., logs orroundwood with bark or after removalof bark in self-contained bodies of water(mill ponds or log ponds) or stored onland where water is appliedintentionally on the logs (wet decking].(See 40 CFR Part 429, Subpart J, and theeffluent limitations guidelines for thesefacilities.]

"State" means any of the 50 States,the District of Columbia, Guam, theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico, theVirgin Islands, American Samoa, theTrust Territory of the Pacific Islands(except in the case of RCRA), and theCommonwealth of the Northern MarianaIslands (except in the case of CWA).

"Stationary source" (in the PSDprogram) means any building, structure,facility, or installation which emits ormay emit any air pollutant regulatedunder the Clean Air Act. "Building,structure, facility, or installation" meansany grouping of pollutant-emittingactivities which are located on one ormore contiguous or adjacent propertiesand which are owned or operated by thesame person (or by persons undercommon control).

"Storage" (in the RCRA programmeans the holding of hazardous wastefor a temporary period at the end ofwhich the hazardous waste is treated,disposed, or stored elsewhere.

"Storm water runoff" means waterdischarged as a result of rain, snow, orother precipitation.

"Toxic pollutant" means any pollutantlisted as toxic under section 307(a)(1) ofCWA.

"Transporter" (in the RCRA program]means a person engaged in the off-sitetransportation of hazardous waste byair, rail, highway, or water.

"Treatment" (in the RCRA program)means any method, technique, orprocess, including neutralization,designed to change the physical,chemical, or biological character orcomposition of any hazardous waste soas to neutralize such waste, or so as torecover energy or material resourcesfrom the waste, or so as to render suchwaste non-hazardous, or less hazardous;safer to transport, store, or dispose of; oramenable for recovery, amenable forstorage, or reduced in volume.

"Underground injection" means wellinjection.

"Underground source of drinkingwater" or "USDW' means an aquifer or

its portion which is not an exemptedaquifer and:

(1] Which supplies drinking water forhuman consumption, or

(2) In which the ground watercontains fewer than 10,000 mg/l totaldissolved solids.

"Upset" means an exceptionalincident in which there is unintentionaland temporary noncompliance withtechnology-based permit effluentlimitations because of factors beyondthe reasonable control of the permntfee.An upset does not includenoncompliance to the extent caused byoperational error, improperly designedtreatment facilities, inadequatetreatment facilities, lack of preventivemaintenance, or careless or improperoperation.

"Waters of the United States" means:1. All waters which are currently

used, were used in the past, or may besusceptible to use in interstate or foreigncommerce, including all waters whichare subject to the ebb and flow of thetide;

2. All interstate waters, includingInterstate wetlands;

3. All other waters such as intrastatelakes, rivers, streams (includingintermittent streams], mudflats,sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairiepotholes, wet meadows, playa lakes,and natural ponds, the use, degradation.or destruction of which would or couldaffect interstate or foreign commerceincluding any such waters:

(a] Which are or could be used byinterstate or foreign travelers forrecreational or other purposes;

(b) From which fish or shellfish are orcould be taken and sold in interstate orforeign commerce;

(c) Which are used or could be usedfor industrial purposes by industries ininterstate commerce;

4. All impoundments of watersotherwise defined as waters of theUnited States under this definition;

5. Tributaries of waters identified inparagraphs (--(4] above;

6. The territorial sea; and7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other

than waters that are themselveswetlands) identified in paragraphs (1}-(6] of this definition.

Waste treatment systems, includingtreatment ponds or lagoons designed tomeet requirement of CWA (other thancooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR§ 423.11(m) which also meet the criteriaof this definition) are not waters of theUnited States. This exclusion appliesonly to manmade bodies of water whichneither were originally created.in watersof the United States (such as a disposalarea in wetlands) nor resulted from the

33553



33554 .Federal. Register / Vol. 45, No. 98 , Monday, May, 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

impoundments of waters of the UnitedStates.

"Well injection" or "undergroundInjection" means the subsurfaceemplacement of fluids through-a bored,drilled, ordriven well; or through a dugwell, where the depth of the dug well isgreater than the largest surfacedimension.

"Wetlands" means those areas thatare inundated or saturated by surface orground waterat-a frequency andduration sufficient to support, and thatunder normal circumstances do support,a prevalence of vegetation typicallyadapted for life m saturated soilconditions. Wetlands generally includeswamps, marshes, bogs, and.similarafxas'.BILNG CODE 6560-01-M



Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 98 / Monday, May 19, 1980 I Ruled and Regulations

Please print or type in the unshaded areas onlyForM Aooved OM B No. 158- RO5

I

33555

GENERAL INFORMATION '_ I I I, I ' i a A

MW ~ Conso/ide ed Permits Ptm FE RAL I (Road the 'General Instruc'ions" before stantinr.-

LABEL ITEMS GNRLISRCINI. EPA I.D. NUMBER It a Intlabel ha been provided, affix' L\ \\ \ \ \it in thel doune sWecs. Review the inform-

_ • kin carfully it any of it is Inc~orrect. crossthrough it "~ enter th correct dat inth

I. FACILITY NAMEbelow. A, i any of

the piepranted data is absent (the am to theleft of bt labet space kae #e ifon-tmon

F I Yier should appar, please provide it in theMAILING ADDRESS PLEASE PLACE LABEL IN THIS SPACE proper f.l4n at*a*) below. If the lbel iscomplete and Correct, you need not CompletelItrm 1, Ill. V. and VI lexcepr VI-E whi.hmosfbe om olki ed regartiea. Comple all

A CILITY \ \ \ i If no I hi b povidd. Refer toV 10 Nt h e i n s t r c t ~ n ; f o r d e t a il e d i t e m n d e c ~ i p -

tio and foe the legl authorizations under7 7 \ which this clt is Collected

II. POLLUTANT CHARACTERISTICS1

INSTRUCTIONS: Complete A through J to determine whether you neet to submit any prmit application forms to the EPA. If you awner "yes" to anyquestions, you must submit this form and the supplemental form listed In the parentheois following tht qu elion. Mark "X" In te box In the third columnif the supplemental form is attached. If you answer "no" to each question, you need not submit any of these forms. You mary aewer "ne" if your activityis excluded from permit requirements; see Section C of the instructions. See also, Section I of the lnstructions ftor dfinitim of Iel-facad tsms.

SPECIFIC QUESTIONS SPECIFIC QUESTIONS V o IA. Is this facility • publicly owe treatma f S . Don or Will thi faci;lity foittar xk/k or proosed)I

which results in a discharge to waters ,fiduds a eow ntete d &rAU. f.( i opertlo) or(FORM 2A) acl~~~Iutle ariil prdcto facility Whihresults; Ina

hazaFOu 2Aste? (FORMdisha to .tm of the U.&? (FORM 2S) ... beC is this a facility which currently reSults~l ni ht4 s P h. 0. Is this'a pr o c ~liW foUdw Du Thom i;7W

to waters of the U.S. other than those d-I.,bd or A ovl Whic ;h will reslt In aschis to !

Aor_ 8_above?(FORM2CI waters a tU..? (FORM 2D) r? F..oyou or will you inject at this facility nInduotril orE. Does or will this facility treat, store, or dispose of /Q (pol effluent beo th laocn straturncn

hazardous Wastes? (FORM 3) N 11;n one quare nio fe~r of

the ("IMe bore,

water or other fluids which are brought to the surfaim H, -. I rt this faci ity fluids for rae-

In connection with conventional oil or natural ga prfur by the Frpsro

duction, inject fluids used for enhanced recovery of ta(o of s ,sa , , -4. I situ energy?

oil or natural gas, or inject fluids for storage of liquid (FORM 4)

hydrocarbons? (FORM 4) _-';--_"___. ____

I. Is this facility a propoged stationary source which is J. Is this facIlity I pr llony source wnich aone of the 28 industrial categories listed In the In. NOT one of the 28 Incls siaa caoral4 iw ltd In thestructions and which will potentially emit 100 tone Instructions and which will postistly oeit 250 songper year of any air pollutant regulated under the Pr year of amy air polluta regulated under the CleanClean Air Act and may affect or be located In an Air Act and may effec or be located In an atisinntatir nt are? (FORM 51 woo? (FORM 5"III,.NAME or AClL' iTIYi

T I I I I a I I I I I I I IIIIiI |I|I

IV. FACILITYCONTACT IIII I! I II I "I

V. FACILITY MAILING ADDRESS

EST A. STREET OR P.O IIC T

IU. COUNTY NAME

3 i 1-' r -I I I I I I i I I a I & I' , I I..... ....I , . l .i , ,*.. oo111.CITY ORTOWN ICSTATZ o.ziFcooE .ONTCO

41 -TI I I ' T -I I- T 1 I - I a I I I A 1 -1i I i i I =' 1 | "

E5 . . . . .. . .1 " . . .. . .

EPA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 COUNT H50AMM8 OTIU N EES

EPA Form 3510-1 (5-80) CONTINUE ON REVERSE




CONTINUED FROM THE FRONT

VII. SIC CODES (4.digkr, in order of priority)-

A. FIRST ID. SECOND

I(specify) (specif )

C.THIRD 0. FOURTH

(specify) specif)

76 , ESTET. 7..BXs

Vill.-OPERATOR INFORMATION R_'___.T______ "_ .NDAN

A. NAME * I the name listed inItmViII'A also the

8 .E3YS EO NO

K 'G, . -0 it - , I 4 G5S EISTN PEMIS--s

C. STATUS OF OPERATOR (Enter the appropriate letter into the answer box., if "Other". specify.) c. PHONE (area code & flo.)

F =FEERL I - PUBLIC [other thanfederat or state) (specify) AS - STATE 0 -OTHER (specify)AP - PRIVATE * , * ~* .2

E. STREET OR P.O. BOX

A. r, JPOES (Discharge. to Surface Water) 0.S i n m Proposed Sources)

C.,ITCRA (Hazardous Wastes) E. OTHER (specZfyN

XI. MAP

Attach to this application a topographic map of the area extending to at least one mile beyond pr~a bounderies. The map must showthe outline of the facility, the location of each of its existing and proposed intake and discharge ctures, each of its hazardous waste

treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, and each "well where it injects fluids underground. Include all springs, riversand other surfacewater bodies in the aap area. See instructions for precise requirements.

XI. NATURE OF BUSINESS (provideabrief description

XIII. CERTIFICATION (see instruc--ons) - -

I certify under penalty of law that I havepersonally examined and am familiar with tho information submitted in this application and allattachments and that, based on my inquiry of those persons immediately responsible for obtaining the information contained In theapplication, I believe that the information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submittingfalse information, Including the possibility of fine and imprisonment

A. NAM C & OFFICIAL TITLE (type or print) WSIGNATURE C. DATE SIGNED

COMMENTS FOR OFFICILUEOL i ... "il

EPA Form 3510.1 (5-80) REVERSEBILLING CODE 6560-01-C



Instructions -Form 2b-Application forPermit To Discharge Wastewater

Concentrated Animal FeedingOperations andAquatic AnimalProduction Facilities

This form must be completed by allapplicants who check 'res" to item i-Bin Form 1. Not all animal feedingoperations or fish farms are required toobtain NPDES permits. Exclusions arebased on size and occurrence ofdischarge. See the description of thesestatutory and regulatory exclusions theGeneral Instructions which accompanyForm 1. In particular, for animal feedingoperations, the size cutoffs depend onwhether or not pollutants are dischargedthrough a man-made device or by directcontact with the facility or animals. Afacility for laying hens or broilers is notrequired to have a permit unless it has aliquid manure handling system orcontinuous overflow watering. Also.facilities which discharge only in thecase of a 25 year, 24 hour storm eventare not required to have a permit.

For aquatic animal productionfacilities, the size cutoffs are based onwhether the species are warm water orcold water, on the production weight peryear in harvestable pounds, and on theamount of feeding in pounds of food (forcold water species). Also, facilitieswhich discharge less than 30 days peryear, or only during periods of excessrunoff (for warm water fish) are notrequired to have a permit.

Item I-A. See the note above and theGeneral Instructions which accompanyForm 1 to be sure that your facility is"concentrated."

Item I-B. If your answer to item VI ofForm 1 does not give a complete legaldescription of your facility's location,use this space to provide a completedescription, such as quarter, section,township, and range.

Item I-C. Check "proposed" if yourfacility is not now in operation, or notnow "concentrated" under the definitionin the glossary found in the GeneralInstructions which accompany Form 1.

Item I Supply all information in itemI if you checked (1) in item I-A.

Item II-A. Give the maximum numberof each type of animal in openconfinement or housed under roof(either partially or totally) which areheld at your facility for a total of 45 daysor more in any 12 month period.

Use the following categories for typeof animals:

Slaughter Cattle; Feeder cattle;Mature Dairy Cattle (milked or dry);Swine (each weighing over 55 pounds);

Horses; Sheep; Lambs; Turkeys; LayingHens; I Broilers; t Ducks.

Item li-B. Give only the area used forthe animal confinement or feedingfacility. Do not Include any area used forgrowing or operating feed.

Item Il-C. Check "yes" if any systemfor collection of runoff has beenconstructed. Supply the informationunder (1), (2), and (3) to the best of yourknowledge.

Item IX. Supply all information in itemIII if you checked (2) in item I-A.

Item IlI-A. Outfalls should benumbered to correspond with the mapsubmitted in item XI of Form 1. Valuesgiven for flow should be representativeof your normal operation. The maximumdaily flow is the maximum measuredflow occurring over a calendar day. Themaximum 30-day flow is the average ofmeasured daily flows over the calendarmonth of highest flow. The long-termaverage flow is the average of measureddaily flows over a calendar year.

Item III-B. Give the total number ofdiscrete ponds or raceways in yourfacility. Under "other," give adescriptive name of any structure whichis not a pond or a raceway but whichresults in discharge to waters of theUnited States.

Item 11l-C. Use names for thereceiving water and source of waterwhich correspond to the map submittedin item XI of Form 1.

Item III-D. The names for fish speciesshould be proper, common, or scientificnames as given in special PublicationNo. 6 of the American Fisheries Society."A List of Common and ScientificNames of Fishes from the United Statesand Canada." The values given for totalweight produced by your facility peryear and the maximum weight presentat any one time should be representativeof your normal operation.

Item IlI-E. The value given formaximum monthly pounds of foodshould be representative of your normaloperation.

Item IV. The Clean Water Actprovides for severe penalties forsubmitting false information on thisapplication form.

Section 309(c)(2) of the Clean WaterAct provides that "Any person wthoknowingly makes any false statemefdt,representation, or certification in anyapplication.... shall upon conviction,be punished by a fine of no more than$10,000 or by imprisonment for not morethan six months, or both."

Federal regulations require thecertification to be signed as follows:

'A permit Is not required unless the facility has aliquid manure handling system or continuousoverflow watering.

(1) For corporation, by a principalexecutive officer of at least the level ofvice president;

(2) For a partnership or soleproprietorship, by a general partner orthe proprietor, respectively; or

(3) For a municipality, State, Federal.or other public facility, by either aprincipal executive or ranking electedofficial.SLLMC COOE 6641-lM

i



33558

JEPA I.D. NUMBER fcopy from Item I of Form I)jPlease stinit or tee in the unshaded areas only. Form Approved OMB No. t58.10174

FORM U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYAPPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER

CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS AND AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION FACILITIESNPDES Consolidated Permits ProgramI. GENERAL INFORMATION

A. TYPE OF UIJSINESS D. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY LOCATION C. FACILITY OPERATION STATUS

CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING0 . OPERATION (complete Items B. C, and 0" '. XISTING FACILITY'Section II)2CO. CENTRATED ACUATIC ANIMAL Qi. PROPOSED FACILITY

02. ROD C 1O A ILl (complete

II. CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS U. NO. OF ACRES FOR

A. TYPE ac NUMBER OF ANIMALS IN OPEN CONFINEMENT & HOUSED UNDER ROOF CONFINEMENT FEEDING

I. TYPE. 2. NO. IN OPEN CONFINEMENT 3. NO. HOUSED UNDER ROOF

C. It there is open confinement, hs 8runoff diversion and control system

• been constructed?

• r-A.YES complete Items 1. 2. & 3

ONO (go to Section IV)

1. What is the design basis for the control system?a, to YEAR. " ...2 YQ OTHER .... ..24 - HOUR STORM 0 24- TO , 0 (specify tnchc(specify Inches) *spc ,ilrh .,&type)

2..Report the number of acres of contributingdrainage, I 3. Report the design safety factor.

I1. CONCENTRATED AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION FA..IL V CHA NIIISTICSA. For each outfall give the maximum daily flow, maximum 30 day Iqty.) ste the total number of ponds, raceways, and similar structures in

and the long term average flow. . 'ity.

I, OUTFALL 2. FLOW (gallons per day) L1 12. RACEWAYS 13, OTHER

NO. a. MAXIMUM UM C. L.. ... .o.. Ii.. III DAy AVERACC ' --

S" Y , CAC. Prov'. .'O f. of thert< iving water and the source of water used by

J .RECEIVIN % I V ! ' 2. WATER SOURCE '

D. List the species of fish or aquatic animals held and fed at your facility. For each species, give the total weight produced by your facility per year in poundsof harvestable weight, and also give the maximum weight present at any one time.

1. COLD WATER SPECIES 2. WARM WATER SPECIESa E b. HARVESTABLE WEIGHT (pounds) Ib. HARVESTABLE WEIGHT (poland$)

() TAL YIEARLY f2) MAXIMUM a.I TOTA.. ve '.Ly' 1ll MAXIMUM

E. Report the total pounds of food fed during the calendar month of 1. MONTH 2. POUNDS OF FOOD

maximum feeding.

IV. CERTIFICATION

I certify under pnalt of low that I have personally examined andam familiar with the information submitted in this application and ell attachmentr and that,based on my Inquiry of those Individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I bclieve that the Information Is true, accurato aid complete.I am aware that them are significant penales for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonmenL

EPA Form 3710-2B (5-U0)BILUNG CODE 6560-01-C

Federal Register / Vol. 45-, No. 98 / Monday, May 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

A. NAME & OFFICIAL TITLE (print or type) .I * PHONE NO. (area code & no.)

C. SIGNATURE 0. DATE SIGNED

I

Please pritit or type in the unshaded areas only. '



Federal Register / Vol. -5, No. 98 / Monday, May 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

Instructions.-Form 2o-Application forPermit To Discharge Wastewater

Existing Manufacturing, Commercial,Mining, and Silvicultural Operations

This form must be completed by allapplicants who check 'Yes" to item Il-Cin Form 1.

Public Availability of SubmittedInformation. Your application will notbe considered complete unless youanswer every question on this form andon Form 1. If an item does not apply toyou, enter "NA" (for not applicable) toshow that you considered the question.

You may not claim as confidential anyinformation required by this form orForm 1, whether the information isreported ou the forms or in anattachment. This information will bemade available to the public uponrequest.

Any information you submit to EPAwhich goes beyond that required by thisform and Form 1 you may claim asconfidential, but claims for informationwhich is effluent data will be denied. Ifyou do not assert a claim ofconfidentiality at the time of submittingthe information, EPA may make theinformation public without furthernotice to you. Claims of confidentialitywill be handled in accordance withEPA's business confidentialityregulations at 40 CFR Part 2.

Definitions. All significant terms usedin these instructions and in the form aredefined in the glossary found in theGeneral Instructions which accompanyForm 1.

EPA LD. Number. Fill in your EPAIdentification Number at the top of eachpage of Form 2c. You may copy thisnumber directly from item I of Form 1.

Item I You may use the map youprovided for item XI of Form I todetermine the latitude and longitude ofeach of your outfalls and the name ofthe receiving water.

Item I-A. The line drawing shouldshow generally the route taken by waterin your facility from intake to discharge.Show all operations contributingwastewater, including process andproduction areas, sanitary flows, coolingwater, and stormwater runoff. You maygroup similar operations into a singleunit, labeled to correspond to the moredetailed listing in item HI-B. The waterbalance should show average flows.Show all significant losses of water toproducts, atmosphere, and discharge.You should use actual measurementswhenever available; otherwise use yourbest estimate. An example of anacceptable line drawing appears inFigure 2c-1 to these instructions.

Item l-B. List all sources ofwastewater to each outfall. Operations

may be described in general terms (forexample, "dye-making reactor" or"distillation tower"). You may estimatethe flow contributed by each source ifno data is available, and for stormwater,you may use any reasonable measure ofduration, volume, or frequency. For eachtreatment unit, indicate its size, flowrate, and retention time, and describethe ultimate disposal of any solid orliquid wastes not discharged. Treatmentunits should be listed in order and youshould select the proper code fromTable 2c-1 to fill in column 3-b for eachtreatment uniL Insert "XX" into column3-b if no code corresponds to atreatment unit you list.

If you are applying for a permit for aprivately owned treatment works, youmust also identify all of yourcontributors in an attached listing.BILNG CODE 65680-01--M

-33559



33560 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 98 I Monday, May 19, 1980/'Rules and Regulations

Iw

iCL=

0D0O(9c0

, In 0LU 0 C10

00cc 0,

o Co I---

0CD

L) Z .z ,z I o

>00CD,

0v o, o,0

cc 00 CL c c U.

D wC w LU Li

0-

"3LU0,

C. cc+ -

C " 0 E = _

<0

OO,,

<. a. ,

EE C)

z CC

UJ 0 Z




Table 2c-.--Codes for Treatment Units

Physical Treatment Processes

1-A-Ammonia Stripping1-B-Dialysis1-C-Diatomaceous Earth Filtration1-D-Distillation1-E-Electrodialysis1-F-Evaporation1-C-Flocculation1-H-Flotation1-I-Foam Fractionation1-J-Freezing1-K-Gas-Phase Separation1-L--Grinding (Comminutors)1-M-Grit Removal1-N-Microstraining1-0-Mixing1-P-Moving Bed Filters1-Q--Multimedia Filtration1-R-Rapid Sand Filtration1-S--Reverse Osmosis (Hyperfiltration)1-T-Screening1-U-Sedimentation (Settling)1-V-Slow Sand Filtration1-W-Solvent Extraction1-X-Sorption

Chemical Treatment Processes

2-A-Carbon Adsorption2-B-Chemical Oxidation2-C--Chemical Precipitation2-D-Coagulation2-F-Dechlorination2-F-Disinfection [Chlorine)2-C--Disinfection (Ozone)2-H--Disinfection (Other)2-1-Electrochemical Treatment2-J-Ion Exchange2-K-Neutralization2-L-Reduction

Biological Treatment Processes

3-A-Activated Sludge3-B-Aerated Lagoons3-C-Anaerobic Treatment3,-D-Nitrification-Denitriflcation3-E-Pre-Aeration3-F-Spray Irrigation/Land Application3-G-Stabilization Ponds3-H-Trickling Filtration

Other Processes

4-A-Discharge to Surface Water4-B-Ocean Discharge Through Outfall4-C--Reuse/Recyle of Treated Effluent4-D-Underground Injection

Sludge Treatment and Disposal Processes

5-A-Aerobic Digestion5-B-Anaerobic Digestion5-C-Belt Filtration5-D-Centrifugation5-E--Chemical Conditioning5-F--Chlorine Treatment5-C-Composting5-H-Drying Beds5-I-Elutriation5-J-Flotation Thickening5-K-Freezing5-L-Gravity Thickening5-M-Heat Drying5-N-Heat Treatment5-O-Incinceration5-P-Land Application5-Q--Landfil5-R-Pressure Filtration

5-S-Pyrolysis5-T-Sludge Lagoons5-U-Vacuum Filtration5-V-Vibration5-W-Wet Oxidation

Item I--C. A discharge is intermittentunless it occurs without interruptionduring the operating hours of the facility,except for infrequent shutdowns formaintenance, process changes, or othersimilar activities. A discharge isseasonal if it occurs only during certainparts of the year. Fill in every applicablecolumn in this item for each source ofintermittent or seasonal discharges.Base your answers on actual datawhenever available; otherwise, provideyour best estimate. Report the highestdaily value for flow rate and totalvolume In the "Maximum Daily"columns (columns 4-a-2 and 4-b-2).Report the average of all daily valuesmeasured during days when dischargeoccurred within the last year in the"Long Term Average" columns (columns4-a-i and 4-b-i).

Item I1-A. All effluent guidelinespromulgated by EPA appear in theFederal Register and are publishedannually in 40 CFR Subchapter N. Aguideline applies to you if you have anyoperations contributing process "wastewater in any subcategory coveredby a BPT, BCT, or BAT guideline. If youare unsure whether you are covered bye promulgated effluent guideline, checkwith your EPA Regional office (Table 1).You must check "yes" if an applicableeffluent guideline has been promulgated,even if the guideline limitations arebeing contested in court. If you believethat a promulgated effluent guidelinehas been remanded for reconsiderationby a court and does not apply to youroperations, you may check "no."

Item IlI-B. An effluent guideline isexpressed in terms of production (orother measure of operation] if thelimitations are expressed as mass ofpollutant per operational parameter, forexample, "pounds of BOD per cubic footof logs from which bark is removed," or"pounds of TSS per megawatt hour ofelectrical energy consumed by smeltingfurnace." An example of a guideline notexpressed in terms of a measure ofoperation is one which limits theconcentration of pollutants.

Item Il-C. This item must becompleted only if you checked "yes" toitem III-B. The production informationrequested here is necessary to applyeffluent guidelines to your facility andyou may not claim it as confidential.However, you do not have to indicatehow the reported information wascalculated.

Report quantities in the units ofmeasurement used in the applicable

effluent guideline. The figures providedmust be a measure of actual operationover a one-month period, such as theproduction for the highest month duringthe last twelve months, or the monthlyaverage production for the highest yearof the last five years, or otherreasonable measure of actual operation,but may not be based on designcapacity or on predictions of futureincreases in operation.

Item IV-A. If you check "yes" to thisquestion, complete all parts of the chart,or attach a copy of any previoussubmission you have made to EPAcontaining the same information.

Item JV-B. You are not required tosubmit a description of future pollutioncontrol projects if you do not wish to orif none is planned.

Item V-A, A C, andD. These itemsrequire you to collect and report data onthe pollutants discharged from each ofyour ouffalls. Each part of this itemaddresses a different set of pollutantsand must be completed in accordancewith the specific instructions for thatpart. The following general instructionsapply to the entire item.

General Instructions: Part A requiresyou to report at least one analysis foreach pollutant listed. Parts B and Crequire you to report analytical data intwo ways. For some pollutants, you maybe required to mark "X'" in the "TestingRequired" column (column 2-a, Part C],and test (sample and analyze) andreport the levels of the pollutants in yourdischarge whether or not you expectthem to be present in your discharge.For all others, you must mark "X' ineither the 'elieve Present" column orthe "Believe Absent" column (columns2-a or 2-b. Part B, and columns 2-b or 2-c, Part C) based on your best estimate,and test for those which you believe tobe present. Part D requires yon to listany of a group of pollutants which youbelieve to be present, with a briefexplanation of why you believe it to bepresent. (See specific instructions on theform and below for Parts A through D.]

Base your determination that apollutant is present in or absent fromyour discharge on your knowledge ofyour raw materials, maintenancechemicals, intermediate and finalproducts and byproducts, and anyprevious analyses known to you of youreffluent or of any similar effluent. (Forexample, if you manufacture pesticides,you should expect those pesticides to bepresent in contaminated stormwaterrunoff.] If you would expect a pollutantto be present solely as a result of itspresence in your intake water, you mustmark "Believe Present" but you are notrequired to analyze for that pollutanL

33561



33562. Federal Register [ay , 1980 iules and Regulations

Instead, mark an "X" in the "Intake"column.

a. Reporting. All levels must bereported as concentration and as totalmass. You may report some or all of therequired data by attaching separatesheets of paper instead of filling outpages V-I to V-9 if the separate sheetscontain all the required information in aformat which is consistent with pagesV-i to V-9 in spacing and inidentification of pollutants and columns.(For example, the data system used inyour GC/MS analysis may be able toprint data in the proper format.) Use thefollowing abbreviations in the columnsheaded "Units" (column 3, Part A, andcolumn 4, Parts B and C).

Concentration lassppm-parts per million lbs-poundsmg/l-milligrams per liter ton-tons (English tons)ppb-parts per billion rg-milligramsug/i-micrograms per g--grams "

liter ki-kilogramsT-tonnes (metric tons)

If you measure only one daily value,.complete only the "Maximum Daily - ,Values" columns and insert "1" into the"Number of Analyses" columns(columns 2-a and 2-d, Part A, andcolumns 3-a and 3--d, Parts B and C).The permitting authority may requireybu to conduct additional analyses tofurther characterize your discharges. Forcomposite samples, the daily value isthe total mass or average concentration.found in a composite sample taken overthe operating hours of the facility duringa 24-hour period; for grab samples, the-daily value is the arithmetic'or flow-weighted total mass or averageconcentration found in a series of atleast four grab samples taken over theoperating hours of the facility during'a24-ho6r period.

If you measure more than one dailyvalue for a pollutant, determine theaverage of all values within the last yearand report the concentration and mass'

* under the "Long-term Average Values"columns (column 2-c, Part A, and •column 3-c, Parts B and C), and the totalnumbbr of daily values tinder the"Number of Analyses" columns (cohinin2-d, Part A, and'column 3-d, Parts B andC). Also, determine the average of alldaily values taken during each calendarmonth, and report the highest averageunder the "Maximum 30-day Values"columns (column 2-.c, Part A, andcolumn 3-b, Parts B and C).

a. Sampling: The collection of thesamples for the reported analysesshould be supervised by a personexperienced in performing sampling-ofindtfstrial wastewater. You may contactyour EPA 6r State'permitting authority'for detailed guidance on sampling' "...techniques and'for answers to p' ecific

questions. Any specific requirementscontained in the applicable analyticalmethods should be followed for samplecontainers, sample preservation, holdingtimes, the collection of duplicatesamples, etc. The time when you sampleshould be representative of your normaloperation, to the extent feasible, with allprocesses which 6ontribute wastewaterin normal operation, and with'yourtreatment system operating properlywith no system upsets. Samples shouldbe collected from the center of the flowchannel, where turbulence is at'a 'maximum, at a site specified in yourpresent permit, or at any site adequatefor the collection of a representativesample.

Grab and composite samples aredefined as-followd:

Grab sample: An individual sample ofat least 100 milliliters collected at arandomly-selected time over a periodnot exceeding 15 minutes.

Composite sample: A combination ofat least 8 sample aliquots of at least 100milliliters, collected at periodic intervals.during the 9perating hours of a facilityover a 24 hour period. For volatilepollutants, aliquots must be combined inthe laboratory immediately beforearialysis. The composite must be flowproportional; either the time intervalbetween each'aliquot or the volume ofeach aliquot must be proportional toeither the stream flow at the time ofsampling or the total stream flow sincethe collection of the previous aliquot.Aliquots may be collected manually orautomatically.

c. Analysis: You must use testmethods promulgated in 40 CFR Part136; however, if none has beenpromulgated for a particular pollutant,you may use afiy suitable method formeasuring the'level'of the pollutant inyour discharge provided that you submita description of the method or areference to a published method. Yourdescription should include the sampleholding times, preservation techniques,and the quality control measures whichyou used. If you have two or moresubstantially identical outfalls, you mayrequest'permission from your permittingauthority to sample and analyze onlyone outfall and submit the results of theanalysis for other substantially identical.outfalls. If your request is granted by thepermitting authority, on a separate sheetattached to the application form identifywhich outfall you did test, and describewhy the butfalls which you did not testare substantially identical to the outfallwhich you did test.

d. Reporting of Intake Data: You are.not required to report data Under the"Intake" columns unless you wish todemoistrate your eligibility for a "net"

effluent limitation for one or morepollutants,'that is, an effluent limitationadjusted by subtracting the averagelevel of the pollutant(s) present in yourintake water, NPDES regulations allownet limitations onlyin certaincircumstances. To dem6nstrate youreligibility, under the "Intake" columnsreport the average of the results of 'analyses on your intake water (if yourwater is treated before use, test thewater after it is treated), and attach aseparate sheet containing the followingfor each pollutant:

1. A statement thit the intake watoi' isdrawn from the body of water intowhich the discharge is made.(Otherwise, you are not eligible for netlimitations.)

2. A statement of the extent to whichthe level of the pollutant is reduced bytreatment of your wastewater. (Yourlimitations will be adjusted only to theextent that the pollutant is notremoved.)

3. When applicable (for example,when the pollutant represents a class ofcompounds, a demonstration of theextent to which the pollutants in theintake vary physically, chemically, orbiologically from the pollutantscontained in your discharge. (Yourlimitations will be adjusted only to theextent that the intake pollutants do notvary from the discharged pollutants.)

Part V-A. Part V-A must becompleted by all applicants for alloutfalls, including outfalls containing,only noncontact cooling water or stormrunoff. However, at your request, thepermitting authority may waive therequirements to test for one or more ofthese pollutants, upon a determinationthat testing for the pollutant(s) is notappropriate for your effluents,

Use composite samples for allpollutants in this Part, except use grabsamples for pH and temperature, Seediscussion in General Instructions toitem V for definitions of the columns inPart A. The "Long Term AverageValues" column (column 2-c) and"Maximum 30-day Values" column(column 2-b) are not compulsory butshould be filled out if data is available.

Part V-B. Part V-B must be completedby all applicants for all outfalls,including outfalls containing only"noncontact cooling water or stormrunoff.

Use composite samples for allpollutants you analyze for in this Part,except use grab samples for residualchlorine, oil and grease, and fecalcoliforr. The "Long-term Averago.t,Values'" column (column 3-c) and,"Maximum 30-day'Values" column(column 3-b) Are not compulsory butshould be filled out if data is availablo.'




Part V-C. Table 2o-2 lists the 34"primary" industry categories in the left-hand column. For each outfall, if any ofyour processes which contributewastewater falls into one of thosecategories, you must mark "X" in"Testing Required" column (column 2-a)and test for (1) all of the toxic metals,cyanide, and total phenols, and (2) theorganic toxic pollutants contained in thegas chromotography/mass spectrometry(GC/MS) fractions indicated in Table2c-2 as applicable to your category,unldss you qualify as a small business(see below). The organic toxic pollutantsare listed by GS/MS fractions on pagesV-4 to V-9 in Part V-C. For example,the Organic Chemicals Industry has anasterisk in all four fractions; therefore,applicants in this category must test forall organic toxic pollutants in Part V-C.If you are applying for a permit for aprivately owned treatment works,determine your testing requirements onthe basis of the industry categories ofyour contributors. When you determinewhich industry category you are in tofind your testing requirements, you arenot determining your category for anyother purpose and you are not giving upyour right to challenge your inclusion inthat category (for example, for decidingwhether an effluent guideline isapplicable) before your permit is issued.

For all other cases (secondaryindustries, non-process wastewateroutfalls, and non-required GC/MSfractions], you must mark "X" in eitherthe "Believed Present" column (column2-b] or the "Believed Absent" column(column 2-c) for each pollutant, and testfor those you believe present (thosemarked "' in column 2-b]. If youqualify as a small business (see below)you are exempt from testing for theorganic toxic pollutants, listed on pagesV-4 to V-9 in Part C. For pollutants inintake water, see discussion in GeneralInstructions to this item. The "Long-termAverage Values" column (column 3-c)and "Maximum 30-day Values" column(column 3-b) are not compulsory butshould be filled out if data is available.

Use composite samples for allpollutants in this Part, except use grabsamples for total phenols and cyanide.

Table 2o-2--Testng Requirements for OrganicToxic Pollutants by Industry Category

GC/M5 fraction'industry calegoy

Volatle Acid Base/ POSV-neutral ode

Adtheswes and sealantsAkum y fomr~nvAuto and other landjies -

Battery marnuactxng.Coal minig,Coi ostingCopper lorkng

') (') ')') ') C')') ') C' C')(' - (') -C') ') ') ')

Table 2o-2.-Testng Requirerents for OrganicToxic Pollutants by Industry Category-Contbiued

GCJMs k&cton1IdAWAy uategory

Volft Ad Bage PISnO,1a ode

Etackic an elwrow~

Electr€oplt e-__

Foundres-Gum and wood chrocals

loin and a" miwua&cbkg.Lather tlnnr V ad *n"gMechanica productS

Nod ro&Al

oric cheicerla

Paint and a* lom a bon

Phapmookod prepabonsptoeogrhac qpwer t and

sup--iodc= -

Plastic and 5s ithwt maeals

Piastic procesqgPorcelain aune gRk" arid pb" -gRitp and papaiboard miRubber pivoeeig..-Soap anWdet-rg

Steam alackt power planL..

Tv*er products procewo..

C') C')C') (')C')') (')') (')

C') C')C') ')C') ')

C') C')

C') ')C') C')

C') ')1') C')C') C')C') C')C') C')

C') C')

C') ')

(') 0

C')

') (')') ')

C') C')

C') C')C*) C')C') C*)

C') ')(')')

C') ')

C') ('

t') -'C') C')

I') ')') ')

C') C')C') C')C') C')..(') C')C') t'

C') C')

C') ')

C') ')') ')

I The pDoAant in each kectbon a Isled in itmi V-C."Tesing ra

You are required to mark "TestingRequired" for dioxin if you use ormanufacture one of the followingcompounds: (a) 24,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, (2,4,5-TI; (b) 2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy) propanoic acid,(Silvex, Z4,5-TP); (c) 2-(2.4,5-trichlorophenoxy) ethyl 2,2-dichloropropionate, (Erbon); (d) 0,0-dimethyl O-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)phosphorothioate, (Ronnel); (e) 2.4,5-trichlorophenol, (TCP); or (0)hexachlorophene, (HCP). If you mark"Testing Required" or "Believe Present,"you must perform a screening analysisfor dioxins, using gas chromotographywith an electron capture detector. ATCDD standard for quantitation is notrequired. Describe the results of thisanalysis in the space provided; forexample, "no measurable baselinedeflection at the retention time ofTCDD" or "a measurable peak withinthe tolerances of the retention time ofTCDD." The permitting authority mayrequire you to perform a quantitativeanalysis if you report a positive result

The Effluent Guidelines Division ofEPA has collected and analyzedsamples from some plants forthepollutants listed in Part C in the courseof its BAT guidelines developmentprogram. If your effluents were sampled

and analyzed as part of this program inthe last three years, you may use thisdata to answer Part C provided that thepermitting authority approves, andprovided that no process change orchange in raw materials or operatingpractices has occurred since the sampleswere taken that would make theanalyses unrepresentative of yourcurrent discharge.

Small Business Exemption. If youqualify as a "small business," you areexempt from the reporting requirementsfor the organic toxic pollutants, listed onpages V-4 to V-9 in Part C. If yourfacility is a coal mine, and if yourprobable total annual production is lessthan 100000 tons per year, you maysubmit past production data orestimated future production (such as aschedule of estimated total productionunder 30 CFR § 795.14(c)) instead ofconducting analyses for the organictoxic pollutants. If your facility is not acoal mine, and if your gross total annualsales for the most recent three yearsaverage less than $100,000 per year (insecond quarter 1980 dollars), you maysubmit sales data for those yearsinstead of conducting analyses for theorganic toxic pollutants.

The production or sales data must befor the facility which is the source of thedischarge. The data should not belimited to production or sales for theprocess or processes which contribute tothe discharge, unless those are the onlyprocesses at your facility. For salesdata, in situations involving intra-corporate transfers of goods andservices, the transfer price per unitshould approximate market prices forthose goods and services as closely aspossible. Sales figures for years after1980 should be indexed to the secondquarter of 1980 by using the grossnational product price deflator (secondquarter of 1980=100). This index isavailable in National Income andProduct Accounts of the Udted States(Department of Commerce, Bureau ofEconomic Analysis).

Port V-D. List any pollutants in Table2c-3 that you believe to be present andexplain why you believe them to bepresent. No analysis is required, but ifyou have analytical data, you mustreport it.

Note: Under 40 CFR 117.12(a)(2),certain discharges of hazardoussubstances (listed in Table 2c-4 of theseinstructions] may be exempted from therequirements of section 311 of CWA,which establishes reportingrequirements, civil penalties, andliability for clean-up costs for spills ofoil and hazardous substances. Adischarge of a particular substance maybe exempted if the origin, source and

33563



Federal Register / Vol. "4 .No.;8"/ Moiady< May 19, 1980 / R es and Regulations

amount of the discharged substance areidentified in the NPDES permitapplication or in the permit, if tl'e permitcontains a requirement for treatmnt ofthe discharge, and if the treatment is inplace. To apply for an exclusion of thedischarge of any hazardous substancefrom the requirements of section 3il,attach additional sheets of paper to yourform, setting forth the followinginformation:

1. The substance and the amount ofeach substance which may bedischarged.

2. The origin and source of thedischarge of the substance.

3. The treatment which is to beprovided for the discharge by:

a. An on-site treatment systemseparate from any treatment systemtreating your normal discharge;

b. A treatment system designed totreat your normal discharge and which.is additionally capable of treating theamount of the substance identifiedunder paragrap~h 1 above; or

c. Any combination of the above.See-40 CFR § 117.12(a)(2) and (c),

published on August 29, 1979, in 44 FR50766, or contact your Regional office(Table 1), for futher information onexclusions from section 311.Table 2c-3.-Toxic Pollutants and HazardousSubstances Required'to be Identified by -

Applicants If Expected to be-Present

Toxic PollutantsAsbestosHazardous SubstancesAcetaldehydeAllyl alcoholAllyl chlorideAmyl acetateAnilineBenzonitrileBenzyl chlorideButyl acetateButylamineCaptanCarbarylCarbofuranCarbon disulfideChlorpyrifosCoumaphos'CresolCrotonaldehydeCyclohexane2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid)DiazinonDicambaDichliobenilDichlone2,2-Dichloropropionic acidDichlorvosDiethyl amineDimethyl amineDintrobenzeneDiquatDisulfotonDiuronEpichlorohydrin

EthanolamineEthionEthylene diamineEthylene dibromide - -FormaldehydeFurfuralGuthionIsopreneIsopropanolamineKelthaneKeponeMalathionMercaptodimethurMethoxychlorMethyl mercaptanMethyl methacrylate.Methyl parathionMevinphos -MexacarbateMonoethyl amineMonomethyl amineNalddNapthenic acidNitrotolueneParathionPhenolsulfonatePhosgenePropargitePropylene oxidePyrethrinsQuinolineResorcinolStrontiumStrychnineStyrene2.4,5-T (2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid)TDE (Tetrachlorodiphenyl ethane)2,4,5-TP [2-(2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy]

propanoic acid]TrichlorofonTriethylamineTrimethylamineUranium IVanadiumVinyl acetateXyleneXylenolZirconium

Item VI-A. You may not claim thisinformation as confidential; however,you do not have to distinguish betweenuse or production of the pollutants or listthe amounts. Under NPDES regulationsyour permit will contain limits to controlall pollutants you report in answer tothis question, as well as all pollutantsreported in item V or VI-B at levelsexceeding the technology-based limitsappropriate to your facility. Your permit.will also require you to report to EPA ifyou in the future begin or expect thatyou will begin to use or manufacture asan intermediate or final product orbyproduct any toxic pollutant which youdid not report here, and your permit maybe modified at that time if necessary tocontrol that pollutant.

Item VI-B. For this item, consid&r onlythose variations which may result in'concentrations of pollutants in effluentswhich may exceed two times themaximum values you reported in item V.These variations may be part of your

routine operations, or part of yourregular cleaning cycles.I Under NPDES regulations your permitwill contain limits to control anypollutfArit 3,6ti repdrt' n afiswer to thisquestion at levels eceedlng thetechnology-based limits appropriate toyour facility. Your perifit will alsorequire you to report to EPA if you knowor have reason to believe that anyactivity has occurred or will occurwhich would make your discharge ofany toxic pollutant five times themaximum values reported in'item V-C orin this item,'and your permit may bemodified at that time If necessary tocontrol the pollutant.

Do not consider variations which arethe result of bypasses or upsets.Increased levels of pollutants which aredischarged as a result of bypasses orupsets are regulated separately underNPDES regulations.

Item VL-C. Examples of the types ofvariations to be described here include:

Changes in.raw or intermediatematerials;

Changes in process equipment ormaterials;

Changes in product lines;Significant chemical reactions

between pollutants in waste streams;and

Significant variation in removal,efficiencies of pollution controlequipment.

You may indicate other types ofvariations as well, except those whichare the result of bypasses or upsets. Thepermitting authority may require you tofurther investigate or documentvariations you report here.I Base you prediction of expected levelsof these pollutants upon your knowledgeof your processes, raw materials, pastand projected product ranges, etc., orupon any testing conducted upon youreffluents which indicates the range ofvariability that can be expected in youreffluent over the next five years.

Example: Outfall 001 discharges waterused to clean six 500-gallon tanks. Thesetanks are used for formulation ofdispersions of synthetic resins In water(adhesives). Use of toxic pollutantswhich can be expected in the next 5years is:

1. Copper acetate inhibitor, '/ lb. pertank

2. Dibutyl phthalate, 50 lbs. per tank3. Toulene, 5 lbs. per tank4. Antimony oxide, 1 lb. per tank.Based on normal cleaning, an average

of 1% and a maximum of 3% of thecontents of each tank is collected anddischarged once every two weeks In the150 gallons of water used for cleaning.Treatment (pH adjustment, flocculation,

33564.




filtration) removes 85% of metals and50% of organic compounds.

Item VII. Self explanatory. Thepermitting authority may ask you toprovide additional details after yourapplication is received.

Item VIII. Self explanatory.Item JX. The Clean Water Act

provides for severe penalties forsubmitting false information on thisapplication form.

Section 309(c)(2) of the Clean WaterAct provides that "Any person whoknowingly makes any false statementrepresentation, or certification in anyapplication, .. . shall upon conviction,be punished by a fine of no more than$10,000 or by imprisonment for not morethan six months, or both."

Federal Regulations Require theCertification To Be Signed as Follows:

(1) For a corporation, by a principalexecutive officer of at least the level ofvice president;



Table 2o-4,-Hazardous Substances1. Acetaldehyde2. Acetic acid3. Acetic anhydride4. Acetone cyanohydrin5. Acetyl bromide6. Acetyl chloride7. Acrolein8. Acrylonitrile9. Adipic acid10. Aldrin11. Allyl alcohol12. Allyl chloride13. Aluminum sulfate14. Ammonia15. Ammonium acetate16. Ammonium benzoate17. Ammonium bicarbonate18. Ammonium bichromate19. Ammonium bifluoride20. Anmonium bisulfite21. Ammonium carbamate22. Ammonium carbonate23. Ammonium chloride24. Ammonium chromate25. Ammonium citrate26. Ammonium fluoroborate27. Ammonium fluoride28. Ammonium hydroxide29. Ammonium oxalate30. Ammonium silicofluoride31. Ammonium sulfamate32. Ammonium sulfide33. Ammonium sulfite34. Ammonium tartrate35. Ammonium thiocyanate36. Ammonium thiosulfate37. Amyl acetate38. Aniline39. Antimony pentachloride

40. Antimony potassium tartrate41. Antimony tribromide42. Antimony trichlorlde43. Antimony trifluoride44. Antimony trioxide45. Arsenic disulfide46. Arsenic pentoxide47. Arsenic trichloride48. Arsenic trioxide49. Arsenic trisulfide50. Barium cyanide51. Benzene52. Benzoic acid53. Benzonitrlle54. Benzoyl chloride55. Benzyl chloride56. Beryllium chloride57. Beryllium fluoride58, Beryllium nitrate59. Butylacetate60. n-Butylphthalate61. Butylarnine62. Butyric acid63. Cadmium acetate64. Cadmium bromide65. Cadmium chloride66. Calcium arsenate67. Calcium arsenite68. Calcium carbide69. Calcium chromate70. Calcium cyanide71. Calcium dodecylbenzenesulfonate72. Calcium hypochlorite73. Captan74. Carbaryl75. Carbofuran76. Carbon disulfide77. Carbon tetrachloride78. Chlordane79. Chlorine80. Chlorobenzene81. Chloroform82. Chloropyrifos83. Chlorosulfonic acid64. Chromic acetate85. Chromic acid86. Chromic sulfate87, Chromous chloride88. Cobaltous bromide89. Cobaltous formate90. Cobaltous sulfamate91. Coumaphos92. Cresol93. Crotonaldehyde64. Cupric acetate95. Cupric acetoarsenite96. Cupric chloride97. Cupric nitrate98. Cupric oxalate99. Cupric sulfate100. Cupric sulfate ammoniated101. Cupric tartrate102. Cyanogen chloride103. Cyclohexane104. 2.4-D acid (2.4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic

acid)105. 2.4-D esters (2A4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic

acid esters)106. DDT107. Diazlnon108. Dicambaio9. Dichlobenil110. Dichlone111. Dichlorobenzene112. Dichloropropane113. Dichloropropene

114. Dichloropropene-dichloproropane mix115. 2,2 Dichloropropionic acid116. Dichlorvos117. Dieldrin18. Diethylamine119. Dimethylamine120. Dinltrobenzene121. Dinitrophenol122. Dinitrotoluene123. Diquat124. Disulfoton125. Diuron125. Dodecylbenzesulfonic acid127. Endosulfan128. Endrin129. Epichlorobydrin130. Ethion131. Ethylbenzene132. Ethylenediamine133. Ethylene dibromide134. Ethylene dichloride135. Ethylene diaminetetracetic acid

(EDTA)136. Ferric ammonium citrate137. Ferric ammonium oxalate138. Ferric chloride139. Ferric fluoride140. Ferric nitrate141. Ferric sulfate142. Ferrous ammonium sulfate143. Ferrous chloride144. Ferrous sulfate145. Formaldehyde146. Formic acid147. Fumaric acid148. Furfural149. Guthlon150. Heptachlor151. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene152. Hydrochloric acid153. Hydrofluoric acid154. Hydrogen cyanide155. Hydrogen sulfite156. Isoprene157. Isopropanolamine

dodecylbenzenesulfonate158. Kelthane158. Kepone10. Lead acetate161. Lead arsenate162. Lead chloride163. Lead fluoborate164. Lead flourite165. Lead iodide106. Lead nitrate167. Lead stearate168. Lead sulfate100. Lead sulfide170. Lead thiocyanate171. Llndane172. Lithium chromate173. Malathion174. Malelc acid175. Maleic anhydride176. Mercaptodimethur177. Mercuric cyanide17. Mercuric nitrate179. Mercuric sulfate180. Mercuric thiocyanate181. Mercurous nitrate182. Methoxychlor183. Methyl mercaptan184. Methyl methacrylate185. Methyl parathion186. Mevinphos187. Mexacarbate

33565



Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 98 / Monday, May 19, 1980 '/ Rules and Regulations

188. Monoethylamine189. Monomethylamine190. Naled191. Napthalene192. Napthenic.acid193. Nickel ammonium sulfate194. Nickel chloridb195. Nickel hydroxide196. Nickel nitrate197. Nickel sulfate198. Nitric acid199. Nitrobenzene200. Nitrogen dioxide201. Nitrophenol202. Nitrotoluene203. Paraformaldehyde204. Parathion205. Pentachlorophenol206. -Phenol

.207. Phosgene208. Phosphoric acid209. Phosphorus210. Phosphorus oxychloride211. Phosphorus pentasulfide212. Phosphorus trichloride213. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)214. Potassium arsenate215. Potassium arsenite210. Potassium bichromate217. Potassium chromate218. Potassium cyanide219. Potassium hydroxide220. Potassium permanganate221. Propargite222. Propionic acid223. Propionic anhydride224. Propylene oxide

-225. Pyrethrins226. Quinoline227. Resorcinol228. Selenium oxide229. Silver nitrate230. Sodium231. Sodium arsenate232. Sodium arsenite233. Sodium bichromate234. Sodium bifluoride235. Sodium bisulfite236. Sodium chromate237. Sodium cyanide238. Sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate239. Sodium fluoride240. Sodium hydrosulfide241. Sodium hydroxide242. Sodium hypochlorite243. Sodium methylate244. Sodium nitrite245. Sodium phosphate (dibasic)246. Sodium phosphate (tribasic)247. Sodium selenite248. Strontium chromate249. Strychnine250. Styrene251. Sulfuric acid252. Sulfur monochloride253. 2,4,5-T acid (2,4,5-

Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid)254. 2,4,5-T amines (2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy

acetic acid amines)255. 2,4,5-T esters (2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy

acetic acid esters)256. 2,4,5-T salts (2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy

acetic acid salts)257. 2,4,5-TP acid (2,4,5-TrichIorophenoxy

.propanoic acid)258. 2,4,5-TP acid esters (2,4.5- -

Trichlorophenoxy propanoic acid esters)

259. TDE (Tetrachlorodiphenyl ethane)260. Tetraethyl lead261. Tetraethyl pyrophosphate262. Thallium sulfate263. Toluene264.' Toxaphene265. Trichlorofon266. Trichloroethylene267. Trichlorophenol268. Triethanolamine

dodecylbenzenesulfonate269. Triethylamine270. Trimethylamine271. Uranyl acetate272. Uranyl nitrate273. Vanadium pentoxide274. Vanadyl sulfate275. Vinyl acetate276. Vinylidene chloride277. Xylene278. Xylenol279. Zinc acetate280. Zinc ammonium chloride281. Zinc borate282. Zinc bromide283. Zinc! carbonate284. Zinc chloride-285. Zinc cyanide286. Zinc fluoride287. Zinc formate288. Zinc hydrosulfonate289. Zinc nitrate290. Zinb phenolsulfonate291. Zinc phosphide292. Zinc silicofluoride293. Zinc sulfate294. Zirconium nitrate295. Zirconium potassium flouride296. Zirconium sulfate297. Zirconium tetrachlorideBILUNG CODE 6560-01-4

3356633566



Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 98 / Monday, May 19, 1980 I Rules and Regulations

Please print or type in the unshaded ares only. r'^'° ,", "-U =w OPy tmm " M i of Rwn° al I Fom "A ad OMB N. IS-ROIlf

OFFICIAL. USE ONLY (effluent gLudelusrs sub-cete9o re.)

t

33~;I;7336

FOMU.S. ENVIRONME'NTAL

PRlOTErCTION AGZ[NCVY

2C d"E P EXISTING MANUFACTURING, COMMERCIAL. MINING AND SILVICULTURAL OPERATIONSNOs 1 C01WolA*(ed P&nnhProgr&m

1. OUTFALL LOCATION

For each outfall. list the latitude and longitude of Its location to the nesreet 15 seconds and the nmie of the ractrving water.A.OUTFALL B. LATITUDE C. LONGITUDE

NUMBER 0. RECEIVING WATER (FAW)(li'/,) I. ... L sM.N a. sac, a. arc. .t. sun. a, src,

II. FLOWS, SOURCES OF POLLUTION. AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIESA. Attach a line drawing showing the water flow through the facility. Inmca, e soucs of Intake tetefo operations Contriuting taweter to the effluent.

and treatment units labeled to correspond to the more detailed deecriptions In Iteim S. Coseruct a water balance an the lne dr;wing by show ng avergeflows between intakes, operations, treatment units. w tfalls. If a water balance cannot be determined (& , for c*u mhig asM'zv ). provide apictorial description of the nature and amount of any I water and any collection or itfl nMieurLe.

B. For each outfall, provide a description of: (1) ionl t¢buting vatweter to the efiluent. 1t uding PocM weet W.e-,tr, sitary uteweTr,Cooling water, and storm water runoff; (2) The o ibuted by each operation; and (3) The tratsnel recel d by the wastawater. Continuaon additional sheets if necessary. ,Z

I. OUT- 7. OPERATION(S) CONTRIBUTING P 2. TREATMENT__FALLN. b. , ,.,. LST CODES PO, -U

(lst) a. OPERATION ( t a. DESCRIPTION J TA.LO c-s1

I K

EPA Form 3510-2C (5-80) PAGE_ I OF 4 CON lTIUE: ON RE"VERS



33568 Federal Register / Vol.-45, No. 98 / Monday, May 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

CONTINUED FROM THE FRONTC. Except for storm runoff, leaks, or spills, are any of the discharges described In Items II-Ajor B intermittentor seasonal?

Q YES (complete the following table) ON O (go to Section Ill)

3. FREQUENCY 4. FLOWO2O T FLOW RATE b. TOTAL VOLUME

1UITFALL 2. OPERATION(} I DAYS b. MONTHS a(in mgd) (.pecify with units) . OUR.NUMBER CONTRIBUTING FLOW PER WEEK PER VEAR ATION(list) (list) (specify (Specify I. LONG .. .MAXIUP. $.LONG Y MIIM ."Ai umaverage) average) AVSSAD. DAILY AVZIISAG DAILV (in days)

Ill. MAXIMUM PRODUCTION -I - -A. Does an effluent guideline limitation promulgated by EPA under Section 304 of the Clean Water Act apply to your facility?

1 --]YES (complete Item IIIB) ONO (to to Section IV)0. Are the limitations in the applicabl 1 Unt guideline expressed in terms of production (or other measure of operation)?.VZ -c l . DN 0o,o Section IV)C. If you answered "Yes" to Item B, It unti~h represents an actual measurement of your maximum level of production, expressed In the termsand units used in the applicable eafluen a ~dp,/ e the affected outfalls.

Q t XIM Q N4TV2. AFFECTED

3. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 UATT uDA b.NTSC AUIEA ODUCT. MAYKIIIAL, STC. OUTFALLS4. GauNTITr P9X DAY b. umtvs or MKASU~T 11ye ne fZTO (list outfall numbers)

IV. IMPROVEMENT--

A. Are you now required-by any Federal, State or local authority to meet any implementation schedule for the construction, upgrading or operation of waste.water treatment equipment or practices or any other environmental programs which may affect the discharges described In this application? This Includes,but Is not limited to, permit conditions, administrative or enforcement orders, enforcement compliance schedule letters, stipulations, court orders, and grantor loan conditions. rViZ (complete the following table) 0 N a (go to Item IV.B)

t • 4, Fl AL COM-I. IDENTIFICATION OF CONDITION. 2. AFFECTED OUTFALLS - LINCI OATM

AGREEMENT. E "TC. . UNIEF DUIICRIPTION OF PROJ pCT

B. OPTIONAL: You may attach additional sheets describing any additional water pollution control programs (or other environmental projects which may affectyour dischargesJ you now have underway or which you plan. Indicate whether each. program is now underwa or planned, and Indicate your actual orplanned schedules for construction. []MARK "X"' IF DESCRIPTION OF ADDITIONAL CONTROL PROGRAMS IS ATTACHED

PAta~ Z OF 4 uur~ I IIMUE Urd r~uc .aEPA~ Form .3510-2L. to-oui PAGE Z OF 4 CONTINUE ON PAGE



Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 98 / Monday, May 19, 1980 1 Rules and Regulations

IAlJJ~llCrl lalll DAtO-I 5 rPA .D. uME , (COPY from I.,m I a ,, Forn, ,Aoo, ed OMU P o. 15&R10173

V. INTAKE AND EFFLUENT CHARACTISTICS

A, B. & C: See instructions before proceeding - Complete one let of tables for each outfal - Annotate the outfall number tn the spe Provided.NOTE: Tables V-A. V-B. and V-C are Included on separate sheets noumbered V-1 throug V-9.

D. Use the space below to list any of the pollutants listed In Table 2c3 of the instrctions. which you know or he" raon to blee k discharged or may bedischarged from any outfall. For every pollutant you list, briefly describe the reasons you belikve It to be praeent and report any analytical data in yourposession.

S. POLLUTANT 7- SOURCE I POLLUTANT Z. SOURCE

A. Is any pollutant listed in Item V-C a substance o-~c~ I 4-y .kh yo do Or expect that you WI1 over the next 5 years use or manufacture

CYS (list 011 such Poll.rat W NbR. D a MOU0100 It VI.B)

B. Are your operations such that your raw materials, processes, or products can reesocabl be expected to wry so that your dscharges of pollutants may during

the next 5 years exceed two times the maximum values reported In Item V?

[DYES (complete item tiI.C below) O-NO (to tao et n V1)

C. If you answered "Yes" to Item VI-B, explain below and describe in detail the sources and expected Iees of such pollats whch you anticpate will bedischarged from each outfall over the next 5 years, to the best of your aility at this time. Continue on additial sheets if you need more space.

OOA C....,, scaO.OP I~.ff'A PAGE 3 CF 4 CONTINUE ON REVERSE

3356

=-:A I- -aln_ ,r In-QMl~l PAGE 3 OF 4 CONTINUE ON REVER.SE



33570 Federal Register / Vo1,45, No. 98. / Monday, May 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

CANITINIJPfl CRAM TWC PRAIUT

VII. BIOLOGICAL TOXICITY TESTING DATA -

Do you have any knowledge or reason to believe that any biological test for acute or chronic toxicity has been made on any of your discharges or on 0receiving water in relation to your discharge within the last 3 years?

•[YES (identify the test(s) and describe theirpurpose'sbelow) -] No (go to Section VIIi) I

III.CONTRACT ANALYSIS INFORMATION I I 1 1 1Were any of the analyses reported in Item V performed by a contract labori ohr a L nfim

["]YES (list the name, address, and telephone number of, and poll eNO (go to Section IX)analyzed by. each such laboratory or firm below) ". N.,

a NAUE an Ee

" *T£1. 'HOEI ' OLLUTANTS ANAtYTEOA. NAME .. A. (area code & no.) (list)

€f

IX. CERTIFICATION

/ certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this application and allattachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the Information, I believe that the In-formation is true, accurate and complete., I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including thepossibility of fine and imprisonment

A. NAME & OFFICIAL TITLE (type or print)

C. SIGNATURE o. DATE SIGNED

~PA -arm iuz Iuuj PGE 4OPI

o. PHONE NO. (area code & no.)

EPA Form 3510-2C (5-80) - PAGE 4OF 4, : o .

& 16i (Dmhn, /-1-, -



Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 98 / Monday, May 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 33571



33572 Federal Reogister Vol.'45,N 0:9 8 1 May 19, 1980 / Thles and Regulations



Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 98 / Monday, May 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 33573




0 I.6<w

I - - - I-,--I- - - 1.

d 9

00

0 01-0

Z z i

-0 12S

0

SII

! [4V.; , (

Id w<

1. -,

,,-S >

Go

c >

0

I. 1

I. or) - 0t

l - cc 1_ .2-1 5

Jam 6 : ,j E t cov--. .. f-

i %oU.m i m UI iS6 0w 0ol Ct ' :a

o 4' ;5E A I .

>! >0 -:g5 95 o5 m

of 1 " o.f40aN . V:;an 6o ~S o c !aE: Sl a -. Pa = 8a



Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 98 / Monday, May 19,1980 / Rules and Regulations

O.Ja

z

V ... II I

,,,m 0 _;

o u

4 ,

U!!

l- .

i i izi-

5, -5.i,,

o l

d ol

• - --. -l 8

I-' (

. .. I

Z fa

. . .. -

z

( 6

z 4> x

<

0-- -"- . ... ' " - "- - - - -

00

>

td0

0L C-3

LU I

Z 0 ~ 6, Cca.. C - . . .. . . - a -! . i i "

cia * jC - s-, C3 4~. 9,. a'Q- .. . n r- v• -

.

i*

3357



33576- Federal Register -Vol. 45,-No. 98 I/Monday, M ay 19, 1980 / Rule'sand Regulations



Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 68 / Monday, May 1, 19 0 / Rules and Regulations 33577



33578, Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 98 -Monday, May 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations



Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 98 / Monday, May 19,1980 / Rules and Regulations 33579



Federal Register / -Vo.45; No. 98 I Monday, May 19, i980 [Rules and Regulations

Instructions.-Form 3-RCRAHazardous Waste Permit Application

This form must be completed by allapplicants who check "'yes" to Item II-Ein Form 1.

General Instructions

Permit Application Process.-Thereare two parts to a RCRA permit

- application-Part A and Part B. Part Aconsists of this form and Form I bf the,Consolidated Permit Application. Part Brequires detailed site-specificinformation such as geology, hydrology,and engineering data. 40.CFR 122.25specifies the information that will berequired from hazardous wastemanagement facilities in Part B.

RCRA established a procedure forobtaining "interim status" which allowsexisting hazardous waste managementfacilities to continue their operationsuntil a final hazardous waste permit isissued. In order to qualify for interimstatus, existing hazardous wastemanagement facilities must submit PartA of the permit application to EPAwithin six months after the promulgationof regulations under section 3001 ofRCRA (40 CFR Part 261). In order'toreceive a hazardous waste permit,existing facilities must submit acomplete Part B within six months afterit is requested by EPA. New facilitiesmust submit both Part A and Part B toEPA at least 180 days before physicalconstruction is expected to commence.

Operation During Interim Status.-Asprovided in 40 CFR 122.23(b), Part A ofthe permit application defines theprocesses to be used for treatment.storage, and disposal-of hazardouswastes; the design capacity of suchprocesses; and the specific hazardous'wastes to be handled at a facility, duringthe interim status period. Once Part A issubmitted to EPA, changes'in thehazardous wastes handled, changes indesign capacities, changes in processes,and changes in ownership or operationalcontrol at a facility during the-interimstatus period may only be made inaccordance with the procedures in 40CFR 123.23(c). Changes in designcapacity and changes in'processesrequire prior EPA approval. Changes inthe quantity of waste handled at afacility during interim status can bemade without submitting a revised PartA provided the quantity does not exceedthe design capacities of the processesspecified in Part A of the permitapplication. Failure to furnish, allinformation required to process a pernit' application ii grounds for termination ofinterim status.

Confidential Information.-Allinformation submitted in this form will

be subject to public disclosure, to theextent provided by RCRA and theFreedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.Section 552, and EPA's BusinessConfidentiality.Regulations, 40 CFR Part2 (see especially 40 CFR 2.305). Personsfiling this form may make claims ofconfidentiality. Such claims must beclearly indicated by marking"confidential" on the specificinformation on the form for whichconfidential treatment is requested or onany attachments, and must beaccompanied, at the time of filing, by awritten substantiation of the claim, byanswerin the following questions:

1. Which portions of the informationdo you claim are entitled to confidential'treatment?

2. For how long is confidentialtreatment desired for this information?

3. What measures have you taken toguard against undesired disclosure ofthe information to others?

4. To what extent has the informationbeen-disclosed to others, and whatprecautions have been taken inconnection with that disclosure?

5. Has EPA or any other Federalagency made a pertinent confidentialitydetermination? If so, include a copy ofsuch determination or reference to it, ifavailable.

6. Will disclosure of the informationbe likely to result in substantial harmfuleffects on your competitive position? Ifso, what would those harmful effects beand why should they be viewed assubstantial? Explain the causalrelationship between disclosure and theharmful effects.

Information covered by aconfidentiality claim and the abovesubstantiation will be discloseil by EPAonly to the extent and by means of theprocedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.

If no claim of confidentiality or nosubstantiation accompanies theinformation when it is submitted, EPAmay make'the information available tothe public without further notice to thesubmitter.

Definitions.-Terms used in theseinstructions and in this form are definedin the Glossary section of theseinstructions. For additional definitions'and procedures to-use in applying for apermit for a hazardous wastemanagement facility, refer to theregulations promulgated under Section3005 of RCRA and published in 40 CFRParts 122 and 124.

Line by Line Instructions

Completing this form. Please type orprint in the unshaded areas only. Someitems have small graduation marks orboxes in the fill in spaces. These marks

indicate the number of characters thatmay be inputted into our data system.The marks are spaced at V" Intervalswhich accommodate elite type (12characters per inch-one space betweenletters). If you do not have a typewriterwith elite type then please print, placingeach character between the marks.Abbreviate if necessary to stay withinthe number of characters allowed foreach item. Use one space for breaksbetween words, but not for punctuationmarks unless the space is needed toclarify your information.

Item . Existing hazardous wastemanagement facilities should enter theirEPA Identification Number (if known).New facilities should leave this itemblank.

Item II A. First Application,-If this isthe first application that is being filedfor the facility place an "X" in either theExisting Facility box or the New Facilitybox'

1. Existing Facility.-Existingfacilities are:

(1) Those facilities which receivedhazardous waste for treatment, storage,and/or disposal on or before October 21,1976, or

(2) Those facilities for whichconstruction had commenced on orbefore October 21, 1976. Constructionhad "commenced" only if:

(a) The owner or operator hadobtained all necessary Federal, State,and local pre-construction approvals orpermits; and

(bi) A continuous physical, on-siteconstruction program had begun (facilitydesign or other preliminary non-physicaland non-site specific preparatoryactivities do not constitute an on-siteconstruction program), or

(b2) The owner or operator hadentered into contractual obligations(options to purchase or contracts forfeasibility, engineering, and designstudies do not constitute contractualobligations) which could not becancelled or modified withoutsubstantial loss. Generally, a loss isdeemed substantial If the amount anowner or operator must pay to cancelconstruction agreements or stopconstruction exceeds 10% of the totalproject cost.

(Ndte-This definition of "existingfacility" reflects the literal language ofthe statute. However, EPA believes thatamendments to RCRA now Inconference will shortly be enacted andwill change the date for determiningwhen a facility is an "existing facility"to one no earlier than May of 1980;indications are the conferees areconsidering October 30, 1980. Whenthose amendments are enacted, EPA

i I I I33580




will amend the definition of "existingfacility."

Accordingly; EPA encourages everyfacility built or under construction onthe promulgation date of the RCRAprogram regulations to notify EPA andfile Part A of the permit application sothat it can be quickly processed forinterim status when the change in thelaw takes effect.)

Existing Facility Date.-If the ExistingFacility box is marked, enter the datehazardous waste operations began (i.e.,the date the facility began treating,storing, or disposing of hazardouswaste) or the date constructioncommenced.

2. New Facility.-New facilities areall facilities for which constructioncommenced, or will commence, afterOctober 21,1976.

New Facility Date.-If the NewFacility box is marked, enter the datethat operation began or is expected tobegin.

B. Revised Application.-If this is asubsequent applicatibn that is beingfiled to amend data filed in a previousapplication, place an "X" in theappropriate box to indicate whether thefacility has interim status or a permit.

1. Facility Has Interim Status.-Placean "X" in this box if this is a revisedapplication to make changes at a facilityduring the interim status period.

2. Facility Has a PermiL-Place an"X" in this box if this is a revisedapplication to make changes at a facilityfor which a permit has been issued.

(Note-When submitting a revisedapplication, applicants must resubmit intheir entirety each item on theapplication for which changes arerequested. In addition, items I and IX(and item X if applicable) must becompleted. It is not necessary toresubmit information for other itemsthat will not change).

Item III The information in item IIIdescribes all the processes that will beused to treat, store, or dispose ofhazardous waste at existing facilitiesduring the interim status period, and atnew facilities after a permit is issued.The design capacity of each processmust be provided as part of thedescription. The design capacity ofinjection wells and landfills at existingfacilities should be measured as theremaining, unused capacity. See theform for the detailed instructions to itemIII.

Item IV. The information in item IVdescribes all the hazardous wastes thatwill be treated, stored, or disposed atexisting facilities during the interimstatus period, and at new facilities aftera permit is issued. In addition, theprocesses that will be used to treat,

store, or dispose of each waste and theestimated annual quantity of each wastemust be provided. See the form for thedetailed instructions to item IV.

Item V. All existing facilities mustinclude a drawing showing the generallayout of the facility during interimstatus. This drawing should beapproximately to scale and fit in thespace provided on the form. Thisdrawing should show the following:

* The property boundaries of thefacility;

* The areas occupied by all storage,treatment, or disposal operations thatwill be used during interim status;

* The name of each operation.(Example-multiple hearth incinerator.drum storage area, etc.):

e Areas of past storage, treatment, ordisposal operations;

* Areas of future storage, treatment,or disposal operations; and

• The approximate dimensions of theproperty boundaries and all areas

See Figure 3-1 for an example of afacility drawing. New facilities do nothave to complete this item.BILLING CODE 6560-o1-1

33581



33582 Federal Register / Vol. 45 No Q$ / ?r.,. , Xr ... , .... Oi / ax 4e uai-" ~ ~ ~ ~~~A c--,........t,.,y vuY -1. luou R ules and Regulations

Continued from page 4. Form APnoroved OMS No. 156-S8004V. FACILITY DRAWING (see-page 4J)

EXAMPLE

.7o7

Poijc -st r1 l "L~ t P I. r: ~ h I .T N X~ c f u e t~ i I~ A S T '~ L A tN D F jL L ~ e E A ~ c

I r

1----I

q R o 13 1 C

L n ,o a t-j 6a)

024

Sibt -G .

100 PTr.

7 ,F

?.T FT

I *ifilrr LA=13.PJLL 42r:.(4

I.

IL

IL

0_D3 oo F'..

.CALr-" I jt4c4= I FooT

FIGURE 3-1

EPA Form 3510-3 (r-8) -----

5 OFjt 5

10 ATE

.10

EPA Form 3510-3 (5.80)

t= ^ ......E




Item VI. All existing facilities mustinclude photographs that clearlydelineate all existing structures; alexisting areas for storing, treating, ordisposing of hazardous waste; and allknown sites of future storage, treatment,or disposal operations. Photographs maybe color or black and white, ground-level or aerial Indicate the date thephotograph was taken on the back ofeach photograph.

Item VII. Enter the latitude andlongitude of the facility in degrees,minutes, and seconds. For largerfacilities, enter the latitude andlongitude at the approximate mid-pointof the facility. You may use the map youprovided for Item X of Form 1 todetermine latitude and longitude.Latitude and longitude information isalso available from Regional Offices ofthe U.S. Department of Interior,Geological Survey: from State Agencies,such as the Department of NaturalResources; and from the NationalCartographic Information Center, U.S.Geological Survey, 12202 Sunrise ValleyDr., Reston, VA. 22092.

Item VIII. See the form for theinstructions to item VII.

Item IX and Item 7 All facilityowners must sign Item IX. If the facilitywill be operated by someone other thanthe owner, then the operator must signItem X. Federal regulations require thecertification to be signed as follows.

(1) For a corporation, by a principalexecutive officer at least the level ofvice president;



The Resource Conservation andRecovery Act provides for severepenalties for submitting falseinformation on this application form.

Section 3008(d) of the ResourceConservation and Recovery Actprovides that "Any person whoknowingly makes any false statement orrepresentation in anyapplication. ... shall, upon convictionbe subject to a fine of not more than$25,000 for each day of violation, or toimprisonment not to exceed one year, orboth."BILLING CODE 6560-01-M

33583



33504 . Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 98 .[Monday, May 19, 1980J . Rules and Regulations

Please print or type in the unshaded areas only(fill-n oroas are spaced for elite type, 1 e., 12 charaeterstinchl.

FORM I

RCRA'EPA

-rom Anmved OMR No. 15-RSR004

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYHAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT APPLICATION

Consolidated Permits Program(This information is required under Section 3005 of RCRA.)

i. EPA I.D. I

I 1I itL L LL LLitFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

AP. _ I DTII.,..a!ECEIVED I COMMENTS

-__T O N I_ I I __ I I -- i11._FIRST OR REVISED APPLICATION___________________________Place an "X" in the appropriate box in A or B below (mark one box only) to indicate whether this is the first application you are sub itting for your facility or arevised application. If this is your first application end you already know your facility's EPA I.D. Number, or if this is a revised aplion, enter your facility'sEPA I.D. Number In Item I above.

A. FIRST APPLICATION (ptace an X"

below and provide the appropriate date)F n n. EXISTING FACILITY (SeeanstructtonsordfiHon of"existing"focilty. E-.NEWFA P : em below,)71Coplt item OeO. Et W FACILITIES,

... .. .. ING FACILITIES. PROVIDE THE DATE (yr.. Mo.. & day) P - --. &day) OPERAM'' "' Wi R---[-1CPE~RTION BEGAN OR THEDATE CONSTRUCTION COMMENCEDO H-r~ -"- "DiGAN OR Islute the boxes to-the left) EXPECTED TO BEG IN

B. RVIS0 APPLICATION (place on -X" below and complete ItemI above)51. FACILITY HAS INTERIM STATUS fZ. FACILITY HAS A RCRA PERMIT

111. PROCESSES - CODES AND DESIGN CAPACITIES"

A. PROCESS CODE - Enter the code from the list of process codes below that best describes each proces t i ty/.tY Ten lines are provided forentering codes. If more lines are needed, enter the code(s) in the space provided. Ife process wiil= use ced in the list of codes below, thendescribe the process (including Its design capcltyJ in the space provided on the form (item Ill.C).

B. PROCESS DESIGN CAPACITY- For each code entered in column A enter the capacity of the process.1. AMOUNT - Enter the amount.2. UNITOF MEASURE - For each amount entered in column O11), enter the code from thi unit measure codes below that describes the unit of

measure used. Only the units of measure that are listed below should be used. //

- PRO- APPROPRIATE UNITS OF PRO- APPROPRIATE UNITS OF• C ~ CESS MEASURE FOR PROCESS CESS MEASURE FOR PROCESSPROCESS CO DSG AAIYp ;E .CODE DESIGN CAPACITY

storage:Treatment:CONTAINER (barrl, drum, ctc) SOS GALLONS OR LITERS TANK TOO GALLONS PER DAY ORTANK 502 GALLONS OR LITERS LITERS PER DAYWASTE PILE S03 CUBIC YARDS OR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT T2o GALLONS PER DAY OR

SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT

INJECTION WELLLANDFILL

LAND APPLICATIONOCEAN DISPOSAL

SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT

UNIT OF MEASURE

CUBIC METERS$04 GALLONS OR LITERS INCINERATOR

D79 GALLONS OR LITERSD80 ACRE-FEET (the Uolume that (Use for physlcal chemical,

would cover one acre to a r biologice treatmentdepth of one foot) OR *not occurring in tanks,HECTARE-METER -poundmnist or inciner.

D08 ACRES OR HECTARES Descrbe theprocesses In082 GALLONS PER DAY-OR 8 ace provid d; Item Il.C)

LITERS PER DAY053 GALLONS OR LITERS

UNITOF -UNIT OFMEASURE MEASURE

'CODE UNIT OF MEASURE CODE UNI'

LITERS PER DAYT03 TONS PER HOUR, METRIC

TONS PER HOUR.GALLONS PER HOUR ORLITERS PER HOUR

T04 GALLONS PER DAY ORLITERS PER DAY

r OF MEASURE

UNITOFMEASURE

CODE

'GALLONS ..................... G L P*R DAY ......... ........ V ACRE-:EET.... ................ ,ALITERS ............ ........ . P OUR ........... .0:•o HECTARE-METER.................FCUBIC YARDS .... ......... Y 0 PER HOUR ........ W ACRES............. SCUCIC METERS ............... C RHOUR........... E "HECTARES............. .GALLONS PER DAY ............ U L r PEN HOUR ............. H

EXAMPLE FOR COMPLETING ITEM III (shown In line num 4 and X-2 below): A facility has two storage tanks, one tank can hold 200 gallons and theother can hold 400 gallons. The facility also has en Incinerator can burn up to 20 gallons per hour.

B.A. I D. PROCESS CAPACITY D. PROCESS DESIGN CAPACITY,'F- IOR

SOFFICIAL AMOUNT r I FICIALz(from liat SURE USE Ii5 lfa s e 1AON UE usehis OD , .. (fo sSR-z n1 (enter ONLY E ove) (etr ONLY

_____________ 10

-ElS1012 600 G O ON MX4 Tj 3 20 E 1,16 1

.. 7

2 8

.. . .. . . ... .. . . . . . .. . .

. U wlr# G WlI

UNIT OF ME SURE r

, EPA Forto 3510-3 (&-8) PAGE I OF 5- CONTINUE ON REVERSE



Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 98 I Monday, May 19, 1980 I Rules and Regulations 33585

Continued from the front.

Ill. PROC'ESSES (~nrsdC. SPACE FOR ADDITIONAL PROCESS CODES OR FOR OSCRINING OTHNR PROCESSES (000d -M543. FOR CAC34 PROCESS ENTERED HERE

INCLUDE DESIGN CAPACITY.

IV. DESCRIPION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE oh

A. EPA HAZARDUS WASTE NUMBER - Enter the lour-digit numbe from 40 CFR. Suba D fo a you will hande. If youhandle hazardous wastes which are not listed in 40 CFR, Subpart 0,enterthe fo r-digilt nunm. (: from 40 CFR. Subpart C that descr e the characteris-tics andtorthe toxic contaminants of those hazardous wastes.

B. ESTIMATED ANNUAL QUANTITY - For each rated waste entered in column A ha Illy of that vastet that will be handled on an annualbasis. For each charc eiscor toxic con artnint entered In column A estimate tha Ihy of ll the non-Wetd vastars that will be handledwhich posses that characteristic or contaminant.

C. UNIT OF MEASURE - For each qutity entered In column Ba nter the unit of meaure cod. of masure which must be ueed and the appropiatecodes are:

ENGI IS14 UIITOF MFASIF METRIC UNITOF MEASUJRE COOFPOUNDS... ....... .............. p KILOGRAMS...............KTONS................................. MrIITONS.*.... ....... 4

If facility records use any other unit of measure for quantity, the units be converted Into oae of the reuired units of measure tang Intoaccount the appropriate density or specific gravity of the waste.

0. PROCESSES1. PROCESS CODES:

For listed hazardous weant For each listd hazardous wte an A select the codaft) from the lIst of proem cod s contained In 11m Ito indicate how the wastie will be stored, treated, andlor disposed of 'at *ty.For nos-listed hazardous waste For each characristic or toxic contm t entered In column A. select the codes) from the list of process codcontained in Item III to indicate all the processes that will be ued to store, treat, a-Ilr dispoof ail the non-ite hazardous Vts thiat posthat characteristic or toxic contaminantNote: Four spaces are provided for intering pr0cu codes. If more an nesdd: (1) Enter the firs thrle an described above; t2) Enter '000 I theextreme right box of Item IVDl;ed()Ete W~~sc~~a on pop 4, the Kone number aid the additional code(s).

2. PROCESS DESCRIPTION: Ifeacode is not listed for~~hv be used, describe the procem In the spae provided on the forms.

NOTE: HAZARDOUS WASTES DESCRIBED BY MORE TtbINI6N E EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE NUMBER - Hazardous wates tht can be descr:ed bymore than one EPA Hazardous Waste Number shal be described e f orm,ps follows:

-1. Select one of the EPA HazardousWasta Numbers end enter 4n column A. On the me line complet columns B.C0 and D by stimeting the total annualquantity of the waste end describing all the processes to be ued to tret, store, or dlpose of the waste.

2. In column A of the next line enter the other EPA Hazardous Waste Number that can be uied to describe h4 wste. In column 0(21 on that lne enterincluded with above" and make no other antrw on that line.

3. Repeat step 2 for each other EPAWaste Number that can be used to descrbe the hazardous wea.

EXAMPLE FOR COMPLETING An & Wliesnbe X.1. X-2,X.3, a X.4below -A icilitymill treat and dispoes ofan estimatd 9 pourdsper year of chrome shavings from ni finishing operation. In adk:ition, the facility will treat a dispose of three non-lesad wasms. Two wastasare corrosive only and ther will be I , d pounds per ye of each wste. The other waest Is corrosive end Illntable and shr will be an astidtad100 pounds per year of that wuai. Treast an Incinerator and dhspoel will be In a landfill.

A. EPA , C. UNIT 0. PROCEMS'51 HAZARD. 3. ESTIMATED ANNUAL oF MA-Z6 VASTENO QUANTITY OF WASTE SI* 5. PROCES CODEK S. PROCESS DESCRIPTION..IZ (enter code) (enter) (it a cod III n enered In D(J))

X-1 K 0 514 900 P T 0 3 D 8O 0

X-2 0100 400 P T03D80

X-3 0 1 00 100 P T'03D8'0

X-4 1 0 0 0 included with above

EPA Form I G3 (5-80) CONTINUE ON PAGE 3PAGE 2 OF 5



Federal Register ] Vol., 45,'No. 98 / Monday, May 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

Continued from page 2.NOTF Phntnonv !m, nu ne, hMt'm nnllr,?na ;F u hve nnre_ thn 2E sa~tr to hit.

Form Aooroved OMB No. 158.$80004

EPA 1.0. NUMBER (enter from page 1) FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

WIIIIIIIIIII I DUP2IV. DESCRIPTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES continued

A. EPA C.UNIT D. PROCESSES1I HAZARD. B.ESTIMATED ANNUAL OFMEA

WASTENO QUANTITY OF WASTE (ente I. PROCESS CODES 2. PROCESS DEscRIP'ION.. "z (ntercode) code) (enter) (IPcode (a not enterd in D(1))

AL

(i

-rd-

o1,±r

ei 4 t Lei - L

DL

I • A

2 I I ---

4-4 -' _' i " n -r. ..-

6

7

8

9

10

12

12

- . , -- - -i

13

17

18

' 1920,

. . ,

16*

P Form 351 - C I ON REVER

17 I i - b .. i h-

18

' _ _ _ _ - -- ] I r I - -i -

1- -- t , .i --

20 '

_ __I Ii - .. i. i

24

2 5 I - ..F

U... . .. ..j.a a - ~ 1 uu.

(e1tj-"I IB. C" ec be .n th 'odnlyhtcpepue

33586



L',n0o!a 1gatatai, I VtnV 62. Mn. t IMnnrlav. May ig. 1980 1 Rules and Re ]ations *--

Continued from the front.

IV. DESCRIPTION OF-HAZARDOUS WASTES (contnued)

E. USE THIS SPACE TO LIST ADDITIONAL PROCESS CODES FROM ITEM 3(t1 ON PAGE 3.

EPA I.D. NO. (enter from pae 1)S UnF ."

V. FACILITY DRAWING_All existing facilities must include in the space provided on page 5 scale drawing of the facility bewftiroIV formone deidl.

V-1 PHOTOGRP Hs

All existing facilities must include photo§raphs (aerial or ground-level) that dearly delineate all existing structures; existing storage.

treatment and disposal areas; and sites of future storage, treatment or disposal aeas (se nsructionrs for more detol).

VIL FACILITY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONILATITUO (degrees. m"fes. I seconds) LONGITUDE (derees, minute & iseco

ad)

[] A If the facility owner is also the facility operator ag listed in Section NA) Form 1. "Grwil Informatoon". place an "X- in the box to the left and

skip to Section I X below.

B. If the facility owner is not the facility operat led in Section VIII on Form 1. complete the followvirg itvm

1. MAME or L S AL OWNER 2. PHONE NO. (ova codE & no.)

3. STREET OR P.O. BOX 4. CITY OR TOWN IST. ,. ZIP CODE

X. OPETR CERTIFICATION

I certify under penalty of at ave ersonally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this and all attached

documents, and that based on my inquity of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the Inforntion, I believe that the

submittedinformation i e, ccu d complete. I am aware that there are sinificant pemiek for submitting fale information,

including the possibility of fine and ronment.

A. NAME (print or type) 3.SIGNATURE C. DATE SIGNED

X. OPERATIR CERTIFI PATIO

I certify tinder penalty of law that I have personally examined and arm farnllar with the Inforrmation submnitted in this and all attached

documents, and that based on my Inquiry of those individuals immediately rvsonsible for obtaining the Information, I belewe that the

submitted information is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are *nifkant penalties for submitting false information,

including the possibility of fine and imprisonent.

A. NAME fPiorJ.' typ) 0 *I SIGNATURK C . DATE SIGNED

I !

33587

PAGE J% %or aEF-Ar'I I DIP orma l %-Mj'




Continued from page 4.

V FACILITY DRAWING (see page 4)

1e

EPA Form 3510-3 (5-80)

IFR Doc. 80-14313 Filed 5-16-0; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-01-C

PAGE 5 OF 5

Form Aproved OMB No. 158:580004

I Q

33588



supplementary information: dates · 2016-03-18 · products, which were proposed on june 14,1979...

Documents