La. Admin. Code tit. 33 § IX-3705

Current through Register Vol. 50, No. 6, June 20, 2024

Section IX-3705 - 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 LAC 33:IX.2701, 2703, and 2707 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 POTWs, effluent limitations based upon:

a. secondary treatment-from date of permit issuance; and

b. Reserved.

2. for dischargers other than POTWs except as provided in 40 CFR 122.29(d), effluent limitations requiring:

a. the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT):

i. for effluent limitations promulgated under Section 304(b) of the Act 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) of the Act and in no case later than March 21, 1989;

ii. 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;

iii. for all other BPT effluent limitations compliance is required from the date of permit issuance;

b. for conventional pollutants, the best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT):

i. for effluent limitations promulgated under Section 304(b) of the Act, as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than three years after the date such limitations are promulgated under Section 304(b) of the Act, and in no case later than March 31, 1989;

ii. 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;

c. 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):

i. for effluent limitations established under Section 304(b) of the Act, as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than three years after the date such limitations are promulgated under Section 304(b) of the Act, and in no case later than March 31, 1989;

ii. 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) of the Act, and in no case later than March 31, 1989;

d. for all toxic pollutants other than those listed in Committee Print No. 95-30, effluent limitations based on BAT:

i. for effluent limitations promulgated under Section 304(b) of the Act compliance is required as expeditiously as practicable, but in no case later than three years after the date such limitations are promulgated under Section 304(b) of the Act and in no case later than March 31, 1989;

ii. 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;

e. for all pollutants which are neither toxic nor conventional pollutants, effluent limitations based on BAT:

i. for effluent limitations promulgated under Section 304(b) of the Act, 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;

ii. 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 LAC 33:IX.2501:

a. for POTWs, a Section 301(h) of the Act marine discharge variance from secondary treatment ( 40 CFR 125, Subpart G);

b. for dischargers other than POTWs:

i. a Section 301(c) of the Act economic variance from BAT ( 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart E);

ii. a Section 301(g) of the Act water quality related variance from BAT (40 CFR Part 125, Subpart F); and

iii. a Section 316(a) of the Act thermal variance from BPT, BCT and BAT (LAC 33:IX.Chapter 51-Reserved).

2. The following extensions of deadlines for compliance with technology-based treatment requirements are authorized by the Act and may be applied for under 40 CFR 124.53:

a. for POTWs a Section 301(i) of the Act extension of the secondary treatment deadline (LAC 33:IX.Chapter 51-Reserved);

b. for dischargers other than POTWs:

i. a Section 301(i) of the Act extension of the BPT deadline (LAC 33:IX.Chapter 51-Reserved); and

ii. a Section 301(k) of the Act extension of the BAT deadline (LAC 33:IX.Chapter 41-Reserved).

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 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 LAC 33:IX.2501 and Chapter 43.

2. On a case-by-case basis under Section 402(a)(1) of the Act, to the extent that promulgated effluent limitations are inapplicable. The permit writer shall apply the appropriate factors listed in LAC 33:IX.3705.D and shall consider:

a. the appropriate technology for the category or class of point sources of which the applicant is a member, based upon all available information; and

b. 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 LAC 33:IX.3705.D.1 and 2. 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 LAC 33:IX.3705.D.2 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 percent") provided that it 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 LAC 33:IX.3705.C, the permit writer must consider the following factors:

1. for BPT requirements:

a. the total cost of application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application;

b. the age of equipment and facilities involved;

c. the process employed;

d. the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques;

e. process changes; and

f. non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements);

2. for BCT requirements:

a. the reasonableness of the relationship between the costs of attaining a reduction in effluent and the effluent reduction benefits derived;

b. the comparison of the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from the discharge from publicly owned treatment works to the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from a class or category of industrial sources;

c. the age of equipment and facilities involved;

d. the process employed;

e. the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques;

f. process changes; and

g. non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements);

3. for BAT requirements:

a. the age of equipment and facilities involved;

b. the process employed;

c. the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques;

d. process changes;

e. the cost of achieving such effluent reduction; and

f. 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 Chapter 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 state administrative authority 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:

a. effluent limitations guidelines specify the pollutant as an indicator for a toxic pollutant; or

b.i. 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;

ii. the permit identifies which toxic pollutants are intended to be controlled by use of the limitation; and

iii. the fact sheet required by LAC 33:IX.3305 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 LAC 33:IX.3705.G.1.b.ii, and a finding that it would be economically or technically infeasible to directly limit the toxic pollutant(s).

2. The state administrative authority may set a permit limit for a conventional pollutant at a level more stringent than BCT when:

a. effluent limitations guidelines specify the pollutant as an indicator for a hazardous substance; or

b.

i. the permit identifies which hazardous substances are intended to be controlled by use of the limitation; and

ii. the permit identifies which hazardous substances are intended to be controlled by use of the limitation; and

iii. the fact sheet required by LAC 33:IX.3305 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 LAC 33:IX.3705.H.2.b.ii, and a finding that it would be economically or technically infeasible to directly limit the hazardous substance(s).

c. Hazardous substances which are also toxic pollutants are subject to LAC 33:IX.3305.H.1.

3. The state administrative authority 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 LAC 33:IX.3305.H.1 remain subject to the requirements of LAC 33:IX.2703.A.1 (notification of increased discharges of toxic pollutants above levels reported in the application form).

La. Admin. Code tit. 33, § IX-3705

Promulgated by the Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Water Resources, LR 21:945 (September 1995), repromulgated by the Office of Environmental Assessment, Environmental Planning Division, LR 30:231 (February 2004), Amended by the Office of the Secretary, Legal Affairs and Criminal Investigations Division, LR 46791 (6/1/2020).

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 30:2001 et seq., and in particular Section 2074(B)(3) and (B)(4).