[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 40, Volume 21]
[Revised as of July 1, 2006]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 40CFR125.3]
[Page 305-309]
TITLE 40--PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT
CHAPTER I--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CONTINUED)
PART 125_CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM--Table of Contents
Subpart A_Criteria and Standards for Imposing Technology-Based Treatment
Requirements Under Sections 301(b) and 402 of the Act
Sec. 125.3 Technology-based treatment requirements in permits.
(a) General. Technology-based treatment requirements under section
301(b) of the Act represent the minimum level of control that must be
imposed in a permit issued under section 402 of the Act. (See Sec. Sec.
122.41, 122.42 and 122.44 for a discussion of additional or more
stringent effluent limitations and conditions.) Permits shall contain
the following technology-based treatment requirements in accordance with
the following statutory deadlines;
(1) For POTW's, effluent limitations based upon:
(i) Secondary treatment--from date of permit issuance; and
(ii) The best practicable waste treatment technology--not later than
July 1, 1983; and
(2) For dischargers other than POTWs except as provided in Sec.
122.29(d), effluent limitations requiring:
[[Page 306]]
(i) The best practicable control technology currently available
(BPT)--
(A) For effluent limitations promulgated under Section 304(b) after
January 1, 1982 and requiring a level of control substantially greater
or based on fundamentally different control technology than under
permits for an industrial category issued before such date, compliance
as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than three years
after the date such limitations are promulgated under section 304(b) and
in no case later than March 31, 1989;
(B) For effluent limitations established on a case-by-case basis
based on Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) under Section 402(a)(1)(B) of
the Act in a permit issued after February 4, 1987, compliance as
expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than three years after
the date such limitations are established and in no case later than
March 31, 1989;
(C) For all other BPT effluent limitations compliance is required
from the date of permit issuance.
(ii) For conventional pollutants, the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT)--
(A) For effluent limitations promulgated under section 304(b), as
expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than three years after
the date such limitations are promulgated under section 304(b), and in
no case later than March 31, 1989.
(B) For effluent limitations established on a case-by-case (BPJ)
basis under section 402(a)(1)(B) of the Act in a permit issued after
February 4, 1987, compliance as expeditiously as practicable but in no
case later than three years after the date such limitations are
established and in no case later than March 31, 1989;
(iii) For all toxic pollutants referred to in Committee Print No.
95-30, House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT)--
(A) For effluent limitations established under section 304(b), as
expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than three years after
the date such limitations are promulgated under section 304(b), and in
no case later than March 31, 1989.
(B) For permits issued on a case-by-case (BPJ) basis under section
402(a)(1)(B) of the Act after February 4, 1987 establishing BAT effluent
limitations, compliance is required as expeditiously as practicable but
in no case later than three years after the date such limitations are
promulgated under section 304(b), and in no case later than March 31,
1989.
(iv) For all toxic pollutants other than those listed in Committee
Print No. 95-30, effluent limitations based on BAT--
(A) For effluent limitations promulgated under section 304(b)
compliance is required as expeditiously as practicable, but in no case
later than three years after the date such limitations are promulgated
under section 304(b) and in no case later than March 31, 1989.
(B) For permits issued on a case-by-case (BPJ) basis under Section
402(a)(1)(B) of the Act after February 4, 1987 establishing BAT effluent
limitations, compliance is required as expeditiously as practicable but
in no case later than 3 years after the date such limitations are
established and in no case later than March 31, 1989.
(v) For all pollutants which are neither toxic nor conventional
pollutants, effluent limitations based on BAT--
(A) For effluent limitations promulgated under section 304(b),
compliance is required as expeditiously as practicable but in no case
later than 3 years after the date such limitations are established and
in no case later than March 31, 1989.
(B) For permits issued on a case-by-case (BPJ) basis under section
402(a)(1)(B) of the Act after February 4, 1987 establishing BAT effluent
limitations compliance is required as expeditiously as practicable but
in no case later than three years after the date such limitations are
established and in no case later than March 31, 1989.
(b) Statutory variances and extensions. (1) The following variances
from technology-based treatment requirements are authorized by the Act
and may be applied for under Sec. 122.21;
[[Page 307]]
(i) For POTW's, a section 301(h) marine discharge variance from
secondary treatment (subpart G);
(ii) For dischargers other than POTW's;
(A) A section 301(c) economic variance from BAT (subpart E);
(B) A section 301(g) water quality related variance from BAT
(subpart F); and
(C) A section 316(a) thermal variance from BPT, BCT and BAT (subpart
H).
(2) The following extensions of deadlines for compliance with
technology-based treatment requirements are authorized by the Act and
may be applied for under Sec. 124.53:
(i) For POTW's a section 301(i) extension of the secondary treatment
deadline (subpart J);
(ii) For dischargers other than POTW's:
(A) A section 301(i) extension of the BPT deadline (subpart J); and
(B) A section 301(k) extension of the BAT deadline (subpart C).
(c) Methods of imposing technology-based treatment requirements in
permits. Technology-based treatment requirements may be imposed through
one of the following three methods:
(1) Application of EPA-promulgated effluent limitations developed
under section 304 of the Act to dischargers by category or subcategory.
These effluent limitations are not applicable to the extent that they
have been remanded or withdrawn. However, in the case of a court remand,
determinations underlying effluent limitations shall be binding in
permit issuance proceedings where those determinations are not required
to be reexamined by a court remanding the regulations. In addition,
dischargers may seek fundamentally different factors variances from
these effluent limitations under Sec. 122.21 and subpart D of this
part.
(2) On a case-by-case basis under section 402(a)(1) of the Act, to
the extent that EPA-promulgated effluent limitations are inapplicable.
The permit writer shall apply the appropriate factors listed in Sec.
125.3(d) and shall consider:
(i) The appropriate technology for the category or class of point
sources of which the applicant is a member, based upon all available
information; and
(ii) Any unique factors relating to the applicant.
[Comment: These factors must be considered in all cases, regardless of
whether the permit is being issued by EPA or an approved State.]
(3) Through a combination of the methods in paragraphs (d) (1) and
(2) of this section. Where promulgated effluent limitations guidelines
only apply to certain aspects of the discharger's operation, or to
certain pollutants, other aspects or activities are subject to
regulation on a case-by-case basis in order to carry out the provisions
of the Act.
(4) Limitations developed under paragraph (d)(2) of this section may
be expressed, where appropriate, in terms of toxicity (e.g., ``the
LC50 for fat head minnow of the effluent from outfall 001
shall be greater than 25%''). Provided, That is shown that the limits
reflect the appropriate requirements (for example, technology-based or
water-quality-based standards) of the Act.
(d) In setting case-by-case limitations pursuant to Sec. 125.3(c),
the permit writer must consider the following factors:
(1) For BPT requirements: (i) The total cost of application of
technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved
from such application;
(ii) The age of equipment and facilities involved;
(iii) The process employed;
(iv) The engineering aspects of the application of various types of
control techniques;
(v) Process changes; and
(vi) Non-water quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements).
(2) For BCT requirements: (i) The reasonableness of the relationship
between the costs of attaining a reduction in effluent and the effluent
reduction benefits derived;
(ii) The comparison of the cost and level of reduction of such
pollutants from the discharge from publicly owned treatment works to the
cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from a class or category
of industrial sources;
[[Page 308]]
(iii) The age of equipment and facilities involved;
(iv) The process employed;
(v) The engineering aspects of the application of various types of
control techniques;
(vi) Process changes; and
(vii) Non-water quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements).
(3) For BAT requirements: (i) The age of equipment and facilities
involved;
(ii) The process employed;
(iii) The engineering aspects of the application of various types of
control techniques;
(iv) Process changes;
(v) The cost of achieving such effluent reduction; and
(vi) Non-water quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements).
(e) Technology-based treatment requirements are applied prior to or
at the point of discharge.
(f) Technology-based treatment requirements cannot be satisfied
through the use of ``non-treatment'' techniques such as flow
augmentation and in-stream mechanical aerators. However, these
techniques may be considered as a method of achieving water quality
standards on a case-by-case basis when:
(1) The technology-based treatment requirements applicable to the
discharge are not sufficient to achieve the standards;
(2) The discharger agrees to waive any opportunity to request a
variance under section 301 (c), (g) or (h) of the Act; and
(3) The discharger demonstrates that such a technique is the
preferred environmental and economic method to achieve the standards
after consideration of alternatives such as advanced waste treatment,
recycle and reuse, land disposal, changes in operating methods, and
other available methods.
(g) Technology-based effluent limitations shall be established under
this subpart for solids, sludges, filter backwash, and other pollutants
removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters in the same
manner as for other pollutants.
(h)(1) The Director may set a permit limit for a conventional
pollutant at a level more stringent than the best conventional pollution
control technology (BCT), or a limit for a nonconventional pollutant
which shall not be subject to modification under section 301 (c) or (g)
of the Act where:
(i) Effluent limitations guidelines specify the pollutant as an
indicator for a toxic pollutant, or
(ii)(A) The limitation reflects BAT-level control of discharges of
one or more toxic pollutants which are present in the waste stream, and
a specific BAT limitation upon the toxic pollutant(s) is not feasible
for economic or technical reasons;
(B) The permit identifies which toxic pollutants are intended to be
controlled by use of the limitation; and
(C) The fact sheet required by Sec. 124.56 sets forth the basis for
the limitation, including a finding that compliance with the limitation
will result in BAT-level control of the toxic pollutant discharges
identified in paragraph (h)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, and a finding
that it would be economically or technically infeasible to directly
limit the toxic pollutant(s).
(2) The Director may set a permit limit for a conventional pollutant
at a level more stringent than BCT when:
(i) Effluent limitations guidelines specify the pollutant as an
indicator for a hazardous substance, or
(ii)(A) The limitation reflects BAT-level control of discharges (or
an appropriate level determined under section 301(c) or (g) of the Act)
of one or more hazardous substance(s) which are present in the waste
stream, and a specific BAT (or other appropriate) limitation upon the
hazardous substance(s) is not feasible for economic or technical
reasons;
(B) The permit identifies which hazardous substances are intended to
be controlled by use of the limitation; and
(C) The fact sheet required by Sec. 124.56 sets forth the basis for
the limitation, including a finding that compliance with the limitations
will result in BAT-level (or other appropriate level) control of the
hazardous substances discharges identified in paragraph (h)(2)(ii)(B) of
this section, and a finding that it would be economically or technically
infeasible to directly limit the hazardous substance(s).
[[Page 309]]
(iii) Hazardous substances which are also toxic pollutants are
subject to paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
(3) The Director may not set a more stringent limit under the
preceding paragraphs if the method of treatment required to comply with
the limit differs from that which would be required if the toxic
pollutant(s) or hazardous substance(s) controlled by the limit were
limited directly.
(4) Toxic pollutants identified under paragraph (h)(1) of this
section remain subject to the requirements of Sec. 122.42(a)(1)
(notification of increased discharges of toxic pollutants above levels
reported in the application form).
(Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6925, 6927, 6974)
[44 FR 32948, June 7, 1979, as amended at 45 FR 33512, May 19, 1980; 48
FR 14293, Apr. 1, 1983; 49 FR 38052, Sept. 26, 1984; 50 FR 6941, Feb.
19, 1985; 54 FR 257, Jan. 4, 1989]