52  NPDES Permit Writers' Manual Technology Based Effluent Limits Chapter 5 EXHIBIT 5 1 Statutory Deadlines for BPT, BAT, and BCT Pollutant Level of Treatment Statutory Deadlines Conventional Conventional BPT BCT July 1, 1977 March 31, 1989 Nonconventional Nonconventional BPT BAT July 1, 1977 March 31, 1989 Toxic Toxic BPT BAT July 1, 1977 March 31, 1989 5.1.2 Development of National Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Performance Standards Effluent limitations guidelines and performance standards are established by EPA for different industrial categories since the best control technology for one industry is not necessarily the best for another. These guidelines are developed based on the degree of pollutant reduction attainable by an industrial category through the application of control technologies, irrespective of the facility location. Using these factors, similar facilities are regulated in the same manner. In theory, for example, a pulp and paper mill on the west coast of the United States would be required to meet the same technology based limitations as an identical plant located on the east coast ( unless there were special site specific concerns that had to be addressed).

To date, EPA has established guidelines and standards for more than 50 different industrial categories ( e. g., metal finishing facilities, steam electric power plants, iron and steel manufacturing facilities). These guidelines appear in 40 CFR Parts 405 499, a list of which is provided in Appendix B. Additionally, Section 304( m)

of the 1987 Water Quality Act ( WQA) requires EPA to publish a biennial plan for developing new ELGs and a schedule for the annual review and revision of existing promulgated guidelines. As such, EPA is constantly developing new guidelines, and revising or updating existing guidelines.

Developing ELGs is a complicated and time consuming effort. A schematic showing the general guidelines development process is presented in Exhibit 5 2. The regulations are based on complex engineering and economic studies that determine a subcategorization scheme for each industrial category and the wastewater NPDES Permit Writers' Manual  53 Chapter 5 Technology Based Effluent Limits Proposed Regulation Select Preferred Options Industry Designated in Effluent Guideline Plan Select Plants for Visits Survey Questionnaire ° Engineering ° Economics Site Reports on technology Lab analysis of field sampling Studies on Process Modifications and Treatability Critical Path Non Critical Path Statistical Analysis of field data Engineering Economic, Statistical Analysis of Response Review available data   identify data gaps Plant Visits   Process & treatments assessment   In process & stream sampling Assess Technology technology performance, water use, costs, residuals, etc.

Technology Costing Subcategorization Economic Analysis Develop Regulatory Options Calculate Effluent Limitations Environmental Assessments 981B 10 Secondary Data Collection EXHIBIT 5 2 Effluent Guidelines Flowchart 54  NPDES Permit Writers' Manual Technology Based Effluent Limits Chapter 5 characteristics and treatment capabilities of each industrial category and/ or subcategory. The CWA requires EPA to assess certain factors when establishing ELGs, including the following:

° Age of the equipment and facilities involved ° Manufacturing processes used ° Engineering aspects of the application of recommended control technologies, including process changes and in plant controls ° Non water quality impacts, including energy requirements ° Cost ° Other factors, as deemed appropriate.

Where necessary, EPA sets multiple ELGs for facilities within a given category, where data indicates varying conditions warranting different requirements. These subdivisions, known as subcategories, provide EPA with a second level of regulatory control to improve consistency of the guidelines within an industrial category.

EPA develops both daily maximum and long term average limitations for all ELGs, both of which must be included in the permit by the permit writer. The daily maximum limitations are based on the assumption that daily pollutant measurements are lognormally distributed. Long term average limitations are based on the distribution of averages of measurements drawn from the distribution of daily measurements. When designing a treatment system, EPA recommends that the permittee target the design of its treatment system to meet the long term average rather than the daily maximum. The daily maximum is intended to account for variation in effluent concentration above the long term average.

It should be noted that ELGs are not always established for every pollutant present in a point source discharge. In many instances, ELGs are established only for those pollutants that are necessary to ensure that industrial facilities comply with the technology based requirements of the CWA ( i. e., BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS). These are often referred to as " indicator" pollutants. For example, EPA may choose to regulate only one of several metal pollutants that are present in the effluent from an industrial category; however, compliance with the ELG ( i. e., implementation of technology based controls) will ensure that all metals present in the discharge are adequately treated.

NPDES Permit Writers' Manual  55 Chapter 5 Technology Based Effluent Limits EPA produces a number of documents that will prove useful to permit writers responsible for applying ELGs in permits. Most notable are the " Development Documents," prepared by EPA for every industrial category with ELGs. Development Documents are produced by EPA as part of the development of ELGs and provide a detailed overview of the limitations development process, including decisions made on applicability of the regulations to various process operations.

5.1.3 General Considerations Concerning the Use of Effluent Limitation Guidelines Derivation of effluent limits based on ELGs requires that the permit writer have a general understanding of the ELGs for all industrial categories, and detailed knowledge of the ELGs applicable to the permittee. In order to properly apply effluent guidelines, there are several considerations that a permit writer must take into account:

° Categorization   Determination of the proper category and subcategory of the facility and proper use of the guidelines applicable to the category or subcategory under consideration ° Multiple Products or Multiple Categories   Classification of plants that fall under more than one subcategory and/ or have multiple products with multiple measures of production ° Production/ Flow based Limitations   Determination of the appropriate measure of production or flow ° Tiered Permit Limits   Use of alternate limits for varying production and flow scenarios ° Mass Versus Concentration Limits   Considerations in the application of mass versus concentration limits.

Each of these considerations is discussed further below.

Once the appropriate ELGs have been identified, application of the limitations is relatively straightforward since it involves the application of a guideline that has already been technically derived ( and sometimes litigated). Implementation of ELGs does require familiarity with several sources of information, particularly the CFR and the Federal Register ( FR). As an example, two pages of the ELGs for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing industrial category are presented as Exhibit 5 3.

56  NPDES Permit Writers' Manual Technology Based Effluent Limits Chapter 5 EXHIBIT 5 3 ELGs for Iron and Steel Manufacturing NPDES Permit Writers' Manual  57 Chapter 5 Technology Based Effluent Limits EXHIBIT 5 3 ELGs for Iron and Steel Manufacturing ( continued)

58  NPDES Permit Writers' Manual Technology Based Effluent Limits Chapter 5 Categorization To properly use and apply ELGs, the permit writer must first determine which industrial category( s) applies to the facility being permitted. In determining the appropriate category( s) into which a facility falls, the Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) code is often very helpful. SIC codes were developed and are maintained by the Federal government as a way to classify establishments by type of activity for comparing economic and other types of facility specific data. A listing of SIC codes corresponding with ELG categories is provided in Appendix C and is useful for determining applicable industrial categories.

Item V II of NPDES Application Form l requires that the applicant provide the SIC code for the activity covered by the permit application. In some instances, the SIC code will identify both the industrial category and the subcategory of a particular facility. Often, the SIC code will identify the appropriate industrial category, but may not necessarily identify the subcategory.

Example:

A primary smelter of copper, SIC code 3331, falls under the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing category listed in 40 CFR Part 421. In this particular case, SIC code 3331 also clearly identifies the facility in the Copper Smelting Subcategory.

Example:

A facility that manufactures acrylic acids and acrylic acid esters ( SIC code 2869) can easily be classified as subject to the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers ( OCPSF) category based on its SIC code; however, determination of the applicable subcategory requires additional effort. In this example, the permit writer can determine from a review of the industrial categorization discussion in the Development Document for the OCPSF industry that facilities performing these manufacturing operations are subject to Subpart G ( bulk organic chemicals).

Although SIC codes provide a helpful starting point for categorizing a facility,

the permit writer should be cautious of relying exclusively on SIC codes for determining the appropriate industrial category. SIC codes were not developed based on EPA's industrial classification scheme, or vice versa, and, therefore, may not always correspond exactly with the categorization process. It is also important to note that more than one SIC code may apply to a facility. EPA's Development Documents,

NPDES Permit Writers' Manual  59 Chapter 5 Technology Based Effluent Limits provide detailed information on the applicability of the regulations to specific types of facilities and are useful sources of information when categorizing a facility. Similarly,

FR notices of the promulgated ELGs provide additional insight into applicability of the guideline to various types of facilities.

When determining applicable ELGs, it is best to identify the categories first, and then, through a careful analysis of plant operations, determine the subcategories. The determination of applicable categories can be accomplished by quickly classifying the categories as " not applicable" or " potentially applicable."

Example:

If a brewery is under consideration, the Iron and Steel Manufacturing category would obviously not be applicable but Organic Chemicals might be, depending on the extent of recovery and processing of byproducts. A careful analysis of the production of the plant and comparison to the subcategories under Organic Chemicals would establish which, if any, of the subcategories are applicable.

In many cases, industrial facilities may not clearly fall into a category or a subcategory, thus requiring some research on the part of the permit writer to identify the applicable category and subcategory.

Example:

An integrated washing machine producer ( SIC code 3633) would be categorized in the Household Laundry Equipment category ( as specified under the SIC code system). However, depending on the activities occurring at the facility, it may also fall under the Porcelain Enameling, Metal Finishing, or Plastic Molding and Forming categories for purposes of regulation under effluent guidelines.

After determination of potential categories, the permit writer can conduct a more detailed evaluation to narrow the list to only the applicable categories and subcategories using more detailed facility information.

Multiple Products or Multiple Categories There are instances when one facility produces multiple products, or whose production process is covered by multiple categories and subcategories. In these cases, the permit writer must examine the applicable guidelines closely to ensure that ( 1) one guideline does not supersede another, and ( 2) the guidelines are properly 60  NPDES Permit Writers' Manual Technology Based Effluent Limits Chapter 5 applied. For example, as presented in Exhibit 5 4, the preamble to the final rule for the OCPSF ELGs ( 52 FR 42523) identified numerous circumstances where the OCPSF regulations are superseded by existing ELGs for other industrial categories.

When a facility is subject to multiple effluent guidelines, the permit writer must apply each of the effluent guidelines in deriving the technology based effluent limits for the particular facility. If all wastewaters regulated by effluent guidelines are combined prior to treatment and discharge to navigable waters, then the permit writer could simply combine the allowable pollutant loadings from each effluent guideline to arrive at a single technology based effluent limit for the facility ( i. e., a " building block"

approach).

Circumstances will also arise when an effluent guideline for one subcategory regulates a different set of pollutants than the effluent guidelines applicable to another subcategory. If all regulated wastestreams are combined, there are two approaches to ensure proper application of the effluent guidelines:

° If one wastestream containing a pollutant that is not covered by an effluent guideline is combined with another wastestream that has applicable effluent guidelines for the same pollutant, then the permit writers must use BPJ to establish a technology based effluent limit for the non regulated wastewater ( see Section 5.1.4).

° If one wastestream that does not contain a pollutant is combined with another wastestream that has applicable effluent guidelines for the pollutant, the permit writer must ensure that the non regulated wastestream does not dilute the regulated wastestream to the point where the pollutant is not analytically detectable. If this circumstance occurs, then the permit writer will most likely need to establish internal outfalls, as allowed under 40 CFR § 122.45( h).

Effluent guidelines may also specify inconsistent limit expressions that will have to be adjusted. For example, effluent guidelines for one category ( e. g., porcelain enameling) may contain limits with a daily maximum limit, while effluent guidelines for another category ( e. g., electroplating) sets a 4 day average limit for the same pollutant. In this case, both ELGs must be applied in the permit. If this situation arises, a permit writer has several alternatives such as:

NPDES Permit Writers' Manual  61 Chapter 5 Technology Based Effluent Limits EXHIBIT 5 4 OCPSF Effluent Limitations Guidelines 62  NPDES Permit Writers' Manual Technology Based Effluent Limits Chapter 5 ° Place both limits in the permit ( i. e., both the daily maximum and 4 day average)

° Apply the applicable effluent guidelines at internal outfalls [ as allowed under 40 CFR § 122.45( h)].

Example 1:

A facility with a newly constructed metal plating production line is added to a facility with an existing metal plating production line. Wastewater from both of these lines is commingled prior to treatment, treated, and then discharged. In this situation, the combination of the NSPS ( for the new line) and BAT/ BCT standards ( for the older line) would be used to derive a limitation.

Example 2:

An integrated lamp maker conducts copper forming, aluminum forming, metal finishing, and porcelain enameling processes with wastewater combined prior to treatment and discharge. In this situation, the appropriate effluent guidelines for these categories must be applied to each waste stream and combined when developing limitations.

Production/ Flow Based Limitations Most ELGs are expressed in terms of allowable pollutant discharge per unit of production ( or some other measure of production) or are based on wastewater flow rates. In general, production/ flow based standards are developed for industries that incorporate flow reduction practices, and EPA considers this in the ELG development process. This methodology forces permittees to implement comparable measures to comply with the limitations. To determine permit limits, and in accordance with the requirements at 40 CFR § 122.45( b), these standards are multiplied by a reasonable measure of the facility's actual production/ flow rate ( i. e., not the design production or flow rate). Thus, it is necessary for the permit writer to determine the facility's actual production or flow, based on information supplied by the facility in the permit application.

The ideal situation for the application of ELGs is where production or flow is constant from day to day and month to month. Production or flow for the purposes of calculating the limitations would then be the average rate. In actuality, production or flow rates are not as constant as this ideal situation. They vary based on factors such as the market demand, maintenance, product changes, down times, breakdowns, and facility modifications. As such, the production or flow rate of a facility will vary with time.

NPDES Permit Writers' Manual  63 Chapter 5 Technology Based Effluent Limits To apply production/ flow based ELGs to a facility with varying production or flow rates, the permit writer should determine a single estimate of the long term average rate that is expected to exist during the term of the permit being prepared. It is recommended that the permit writer establish this average from the past 5 years of facility data. This single value is then multiplied by the ELGs to obtain permit limits.

In certain instances, the permit writer may find that fewer than 5 years of data may better represent conditions that are anticipated for the next 5 years. This would be the case for a facility that has undergone major renovations that would impact production or flow; making use of data prior to this construction inappropriate to model future process options.

The objective in determining a production or flow estimate for a facility is to develop a single estimate of the long term average production rate ( in terms of mass of product per day or volume of process wastewater per day), which can reasonably be expected to prevail during the next term of the permit. The following example illustrates the proper application of production based guidelines:

Example:

Company A has produced 331,000 tons, 301,500 tons, 361,500 tons, 332,000 tons, and 331,500 tons per year for the previous 5 years operating 255 days per year. What would be a reasonable measure of production for permitting purposes? Assuming that pollutant X has an effluent limitation guideline of 0.1 lbs/ 1,000 lbs for the monthly average and 0.15 lbs/ 1,000 lbs for the daily maximum, what would be the resulting effluent limitations?

Discussion:

The use of the long term average production ( i. e., average production over past 5 years = 331,500 tons per year) would be an appropriate and reasonable measure of production, if this figure represents the actual production expected to occur over the next term of the permit. Also, in evaluating these gross production figures, the number of production days must be considered. If the number of production days per year is not comparable, the numbers must be converted to production per day before they may be compared. To convert from the annual production rate to average daily rate, the annual production rate is divided by the number of production days per year. To determine the number of production days, the total number of normally scheduled nonproduction days are subtracted from the total days in a year.

If Company A normally has 255 production days per year, the annual production rate of 331,500 tons per year would yield an average daily rate of 1,300 tons per day.

Monthly average limit: 1,300 tons/ day x 2,000 lbs/ ton x 0.10 lbs/ 1,000 lbs = 260 lbs/ day Daily maximum limit: 1,300 tons/ day x 2,000 lbs/ ton x 0.15 lbs/ 1,000 lbs = 390 lbs/ day 64  NPDES Permit Writers' Manual Technology Based Effluent Limits Chapter 5 In the example above, the average production rate during the last 5 years was used as the estimate of production. This average rate is appropriate when production is not expected to change significantly during the permit term. However, if historical trends, market forces, or company plans indicate that a different level of production will prevail during the permit term, a different basis for estimating production should be used.

Tiered Permit Limits If production rates are expected to change significantly during the life of the permit, the permit writer can include alternate or tiered limits. These tiered limits would become effective when production exceeds a threshold value, such as during seasonal production variations. As a general rule of thumb, up to a 20 percent fluctuation in production is within the range of normal variability, while changes in production higher than 20 percent could warrant consideration of alternate limits. The major characteristics of tiered limits are best described by illustration and example.

Example:

Plant B produced approximately 40 tons per day of product during spring and summer months ( i. e., March through August) and 280 tons per day during fall and winter months during the previous 5 years. Production during the fall and winter months are significantly higher than during the off season and the permittee has made a plausible argument that production is expected to continue at that level. The guideline for pollutant X is 0.08 lbs/ 1,000 lbs for the monthly average and 0.14 lbs/ 1,000 lbs for the daily maximum. What are the tiered effluent limitations?

Discussion:

The first tier or lower limits would be based on a production rate of 40 tons per day. These limits would apply between March and August.

Monthly average limit: 40 tons/ day x 2,000 lbs/ ton x 0.08 lbs/ 1,000 lbs = 6.4 lbs/ day Daily maximum limit: 40 tons/ day x 2,000 lbs/ ton x 0.14 lbs/ 1,000 lbs = 11.2 lbs/ day The second tier or higher limits would be based on a production rate of 280 tons per day. These limits would apply between September and February.

Monthly average limit: 280 tons/ day x 2,000 lbs/ ton x 0.08 lbs/ 1,000 lbs = 44.8 lbs/ day Daily maximum limit: 280 tons/ day x 2,000 lbs/ ton x 0.14 lbs/ 1,000 lbs = 78.4 lbs/ day NPDES Permit Writers' Manual  65 Chapter 5 Technology Based Effluent Limits Tiered permits with alternate limits should be used only after careful consideration of production data and only when a substantial increase or decrease in production is likely to occur. In the example above, the lower limits would be in effect when production was at " low" levels. During periods of significantly higher production,

the higher limits would be in effect. In addition, alternate limits may also be appropriate in the case of special processes or product lines. The thresholds,

measures of production, and special reporting requirements must be detailed in the permit. Special reporting requirements include provisions such as:

° The permittee notifying the permitting authority at least two business days prior to the month they expect to be operating at a higher level of production and the duration this level of production is expected to continue ° The permittee reporting, in the discharge monitoring report, the level of production and the limitation and standards applicable to that level.

Mass Versus Concentration Limits The regulations at 40 CFR § 122.45( f)( 1) require that all permit limits, standards,

or prohibitions be expressed in terms of mass units ( e. g., pounds, kilograms, grams)

except under the following conditions:

1) For pH, temperature, radiation, or other pollutants that cannot appropriately be addressed by mass limits;

2) When applicable standards and limitations are expressed in terms of other units of measurement; or 3) If in establishing technology based permit limitations on a case by case basis limitations based on mass are infeasible because the mass or pollutant cannot be related to a measure of production. The limitations, however, must ensure that dilution will not be used as a substitute for treatment.

While the regulations require that limitations be expressed in terms of mass, a provision is included at 40 CFR § 122.45( f)( 2) that allows that permit writer, at his or her discretion, to express limits in additional units ( e. g., concentration units). Where limits are expressed in more than one unit, the permittee must comply with both.

As provided by the regulations, the permit writer may determine that expressing limits in more than one unit is appropriate under certain circumstances. For example,

66  NPDES Permit Writers' Manual Technology Based Effluent Limits Chapter 5 expressing limitations in terms of concentration as well as mass encourages the proper operation of a treatment facility at all times. In the absence of concentration limits, a permittee would be able to increase its effluent concentration ( i. e., reduce its level of treatment) during low flow periods and still meet its mass based effluent limits.

Concentration limits discourage the reduction in treatment efficiency during low flow periods, and require proper operation of treatment units at all times.

The derivation of concentration limits should be based on evaluating historical monitoring data and using engineering judgment to be sure they are reasonable. In certain situations, the use of concentration limits may not be appropriate since they may discourage the use of innovative techniques, such as water conservation by the permittee. For example, if a facility had a history of providing efficient treatment of its wastewater and also wished to practice water conservation, inclusion of concentration limits would not be appropriate ( i. e., concentration limits would prohibit decreases in flow that would concurrently result in an increase in pollutant concentration). To summarize, the applicability of concentration limits should be a case by case determination based upon the professional judgment of the permit writer.

It should be noted that the long term average flow should be used to calculate both the monthly average and daily maximum concentrations. The use of the longterm average flow is most appropriate for the calculation of concentration limits because it will reflect the range of concentrations that could be expected in a well operated plant. The use of the maximum daily flow is not appropriate to determine concentration limits from the mass limitations because it will reduce the concentration below the value which could be expected in a well operated plant. Alternatively, use of the lowest flow value will increase the concentration limit to levels above what would be expected in a well operated plant.

Example 1:

An industrial facility ( leather tanner) is subject to effluent limitations guidelines based on its rate of production. The permit writer calculates the applicable mass based limits based on the long term production rate at the facility and incorporates the mass limits in accordance with 40 CFR § 122.45( f)( 1).

In reviewing the past inspection records for the facility, the permit writer notes that while the facility is generally in compliance with its mass limits, the effluent flow and concentration vary widely. To ensure that the treatment unit is operated properly at all times, the permit writer determines that concentrationbased limits are also appropriate. The permit writer consults the EPA Development Document for the leather tanning effluent limitations guidelines and bases the concentration based limits on the demonstrated performance of the treatment technology upon which the effluent guidelines were based. The concentration based limits are then incorporated in the permit in accordance with 40 CFR § 122.45( f)( 2).

NPDES Permit Writers' Manual  67 Chapter 5 Technology Based Effluent Limits Example 2:

For Company A, the mass limits for pollutant X have been set at 260 lbs/ day and 390 lbs/ day monthly average and daily maximum, respectively. What are the monthly average concentration limitations in milligrams per liter ( mg/ l) using both an average flow of 0.9 mgd and the low flow of 0.6 mgd? Note: 8.34 is a conversion factor with the units ( lbs/ day)/( mgd)( mg/ l).

Discussion:

Monthly average limit ( based on average flow): 260 lbs/ day/( 8.34 x 0.9 mgd) = 35 mg/ l Monthly average limit ( based on low flow): 260 lbs/ day/( 8.34 x 0.6 mgd) = 52 mg/ l This is almost 150 percent more than the concentration during average flow!

In determining applicable effluent concentration limitations, the monthly average and daily maximum mass limits divided by the average flow will provide appropriate concentrations.

Monthly average limit: 260 lbs/ day/( 8.34 x 0.9 mgd) = 35 mg/ l Daily maximum limit: 390 lbs/ day/( 8.34 x 0.9 mgd) = 52 mg/ l 5.1.4 Best Professional Judgment Permit Limits Best Professional Judgment ( BPJ) based limits are technology based limits derived on a case by case basis for non municipal ( industrial) facilities. BPJ limits are established in cases where ELGs are not available for, or do not regulate, a particular pollutant of concern. BPJ is defined as the highest quality technical opinion developed by a permit writer after consideration of all reasonably available and pertinent data or information that forms the basis for the terms and conditions of a NPDES permit.

The authority for BPJ is contained in Section 402( a)( 1) of the CWA, which authorizes the EPA Administrator to issue a permit containing " such conditions as the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act" prior to taking the necessary implementing actions, such as the establishment of ELGs.

During the first round of NPDES permits in the early to mid 1970s, a majority of permits were based on the authority of Section 402( a)( 1) of the CWA. These first round so called best engineering judgment permits were drafted because effluent guidelines were not available for many industries. As effluent guidelines began to be promulgated, permit writers had to rely less on their best engineering judgment and could apply the ELGs in permits. As the implementation of the age of toxic pollutant 68  NPDES Permit Writers' Manual Technology Based Effluent Limits Chapter 5 control continues, the use of BPJ conditions in permits has again become more common. However, the statutory deadline for compliance with technology based effluent limits ( including BPJ based pollutant limits) was March 31, 1989. Therefore,

compliance schedules cannot be placed in permits to allow for extensions in meeting BPJ pollutant limits.

BPJ has proven to be a valuable tool for NPDES permit writers over the years.

Because it is so broad in scope, BPJ allows the permit writer considerable flexibility in establishing permit terms and conditions. Inherent in this flexibility, however, is the burden on the permit writer to show that the BPJ is reasonable and based on sound engineering analysis. If this evaluation of reasonableness does not exist, the BPJ condition is vulnerable to a challenge by the permittee. Therefore, the need for and derivation of the permit condition, and the basis for its establishment, should be clearly defined and documented. References used to determine the BPJ condition should be identified. In short, the rationale for a BPJ permit must be carefully drafted to withstand the scrutiny of not only the permittee, but also the public and, ultimately, an administrative law judge.

Establishment of BPJ Permit Limits The NPDES regulations in 40 CFR § 125.3 state that permits developed on a case by case basis under Section 402( a)( 1) of the CWA must consider ( 1) the appropriate technology for the category class of point sources of which the applicant is a member, based on all available information, and ( 2) any unique factors relating to the applicant. To set BPJ limits, a permit writer must first determine a need for additional controls beyond existing ELGs. The need for additional controls may be the result of the facility not falling under any of the categories for which ELGs exist ( e. g.,

barrel reclaimers, transportation equipment cleaning facilities, or industrial laundries) or discharging pollutants of concern that are not directly or indirectly addressed by the development of the ELGs ( e. g., a pharmaceutical manufacturer or a petroleum refiner may discharge elevated levels of organic solvents for which category specific guidelines do not exist). It should be noted that prior to establishing BPJ based limits for a pollutant not regulated in an effluent guideline, the permit writer should ensure that the pollutant was not considered by EPA while developing the ELGs ( i. e.,

BPJbased effluent limits are not required for pollutants that were considered by EPA for regulation under the effluent guidelines, but for which EPA determined that no ELG NPDES Permit Writers' Manual  69 Chapter 5 Technology Based Effluent Limits was necessary). Information contained in the appropriate " Development Document"

should assist permit writers in making this determination.

In setting BPJ limitations, the permit writer must consider several specific factors as they appear in 40 CFR § 125.3( d). These factors, which are enumerated below, are the same factors required to be considered by EPA in the development of ELGs and, therefore, are often referred to as the Section 304( b) factors:

° For BPT requirements:

  The total cost of application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application   The age of equipment and facilities involved*   The process employed*   The engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques*   Process changes*   Non water quality environmental impact including energy requirements*

° For BCT requirements:

  All items in the BPT requirements indicated by an asterisk (*) above   The reasonableness of the relationship between the costs of attaining a reduction in effluent and the effluent reduction benefits derived   The comparison of the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from the discharge of POTWs to the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from a class or category of industrial sources ° For BAT requirements:

  All items in the BPT requirements indicated by an asterisk (*) above   The cost of achieving such effluent reduction.

A permit writer must consider each of these factors in establishing BPJ based conditions in permits. Since BPJ contains an element of judgment or educated opinion, a permit writer with the proper tools should be able to establish BPJ conditions in permits that are both technically sound and reasonable.

A technically sound and reasonable permit is not likely to be successfully challenged by the permittee or a third party. In this context, " technically sound permit conditions" means that the conditions are achievable with existing technology.

70  NPDES Permit Writers' Manual Technology Based Effluent Limits Chapter 5 " Reasonable" means that the conditions are achievable at a cost that the facility can afford. Historically, some of the other factors, such as age, process employed and non water quality impacts have assumed lesser importance than the technical and economic feasibility evaluations.

BPJ Permitting Tools and References Permit writers can develop BPJ limits using one of two different methods. A permit writer can either transfer numerical limitations from an existing source such as from a similar NPDES permit or an existing ELG, or derive new numerical limitations.

Numerous tools and references for BPJ permit writing exist. As one gains experience drafting BPJ permits, it is common practice to rely on some references more than others. Exhibit 5 5 lists references and provides some examples for selected BPJ data sources that have proven useful to permit writers over the years.

Most of the tools and references listed in Exhibit 5 5 can be used to derive new BPJ based permit limits. They provide information related to the expected performance of wastewater treatment systems. For example, the Treatability Manual 4 and associated data base provides treatability information for over 1,400 pollutants.

Information collected for use in developing effluent guidelines and standards can also provide treatability data for a significant number of pollutants and for a variety of types of industrial wastewaters. The Technical Support Document for Water Quality Based Toxics Control 5 provides extensive information and guidance related to the statistical considerations when establishing effluent limits.

Since best management practices ( BMPs) can also be used by permit writers as the basis for effluent limits, the Guidance Manual for Developing Best Management Practices 6 can be used by permit writers to identify potentially applicable BMPs that could be used for the facility to be permitted. In addition, Storm Water Management 4USEPA ( 1980). Treatability Manual, Volumes I  V. EPA 600/ 8 80 042a e. Office of Research and Development.

5USEPA ( 1991). Technical Support Document for Water Quality Based Toxics Control. EPA 505/ 2 90 001. Office of Water Enforcement and Permits.

6USEPA ( 1993). Guidance Manual for Developing Best Management Practices. ( BMPs). EPA 833 B 93 004. Office of Water.

NPDES Permit Writers' Manual  71 Chapter 5 Technology Based Effluent Limits for Industrial Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management EXHIBIT 5 5 BPJ Permitting Tools ° Abstracts of Industrial NPDES Permits ° Treatability Manual and Data Base ° NPDES Best Management Practices Guidance Document ° Guidance Manual for Developing Best Management Practices ( BMPs). EPA 833 B 93 004. ( USEPA, 1993) Office of Water and Storm Water Management for Industrial Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices. EPA 832 R 92 006. ( USEPA, 1992) Office of Water.

° Technical Support Document for the Development of Water Quality based Permit Toxic Control ° Workbook for Determining Economic Achievability for NPDES Permits ° National Environmental Investigation Center reports on specific facilities ° Toxicity reduction evaluations for selected industries ° Industry experts within EPA Headquarters, Regions, and States ° Effluent guidelines development information   CWA Section 308 questionnaires   Screening and verification data   Development documents   Contractor's reports   Proposed regulations   Project Officers ° Permit Compliance System data ° Permit/ compliance file information   Previous NPDES application forms   Discharge Monitoring Reports   Compliance Inspection reports ° Other media permit files ( e. g., Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) permit applications and Spill Prevention Countermeasure and Control ( SPCC) plans)

° Literature ( e. g., technical journals and books).

Practices 7 can be used by permit writers responsible for establishing BPJ permit limits for storm water discharges.

7USEPA ( 1992). Storm Water Management for Industrial Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices. EPA 832 R 92 006. Office of Water.

72  NPDES Permit Writers' Manual Technology Based Effluent Limits Chapter 5 To assist permit writers in identifying other NPDES permits from which technology based effluent limits can be transferred, EPA has developed the NPDES Industrial Permit Abstracts 8. The abstracts are a compilation of NPDES permits issued by authorized State agencies and EPA Regional offices to a variety of nonmunicipal dischargers. The abstracts assist permit writers by providing rapid access to permit information in a standardized, cross referenced and easy to read format.

As previously discussed, permit writers must consider the costs to comply when establishing BPJ permit limits for toxic and nonconventional pollutants. To assist permit writers in determining whether the estimated costs are reasonable for the facility to be permitted, a draft document, Workbook for Determining Economic Achievability for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits 9, has been developed. This guidance document provides a step by step procedure for permit writers to determine the economic achievability of BPJ effluent limits.

BPJ Statistical Considerations The quality of the effluent from a treatment facility will normally vary over time.

If BOD 5 data for a typical treatment plant are plotted against time, the day to day variations of effluent concentrations can be seen. Some of this behavior can be described by constructing a frequency concentration plot. From this plot, one can see that for most of the time, BOD 5 concentrations are near some average value. Any treatment system can be described using the mean concentration of the parameter of interest ( i. e., the long term average) and the variance ( or coefficient of variation) and by assuming a particular statistical distribution ( usually lognormal).

Permit limits are generally set at the upper bounds of acceptable performance.

As required at 40 CFR § 122.45( d), two expressions of permit limits are required   an average monthly limit and a maximum daily limit. The use of average and maximum limits can vary depending on the effluent guidelines and water quality criteria that are consulted. Instantaneous maximums, daily averages and daily maximums, weekly averages, and monthly averages are all commonly used limitation expressions.

8USEPA ( 1993). NPDES Industrial Permit Abstracts 1993. EPA 833/ B 93 005. Office of Water.

9USEPA ( 1982). Workbook for Determining Economic Achievability for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits ( DRAFT). Permits Division Prepared by Putnam, Wayes & Bartlett, Inc.

NPDES Permit Writers' Manual  73 Chapter 5 Technology Based Effluent Limits Generally, the definitions are consistent with those set forth in the Glossary of this manual.

If permit limits are set too lenient relative to the long term average, a discharger not complying with expected performance will not exceed the limits. If permit limits are set too stringently, a discharger that is complying with expected performance may frequently exceed the limits. It is important to note that statistical variability is already built in with respect to the ELGs, and the permit writer may not perform a separate evaluation in those cases where a permit limitation is derived from a guideline.

When developing a BPJ limit, permit writers can use an approach consistent with EPA's ELG statistical approach. Specifically, the daily maximum limitation can be calculated by multiplying the long term average by a daily variability factor. The monthly maximum limitation can be calculated similarly except that the variability factor corresponds to the distribution of monthly averages instead of daily concentration measurements.

The daily variability factor is a statistical entity defined as the ratio of the estimated 99th percentile of a distribution of daily values divided by the mean of the distribution. Similarly, the monthly variability factor is typically defined as the estimated 95th percentile of the distribution of 4 day averages divided by the mean of the monthly averages.

A modified delta lognormal distribution can be fit to concentration data.

Variability factors can then be computed for a facility distribution. The modified deltalognormal distribution models the data as a mixture of non detect observations and measured values. This distribution is often selected because the data for most analytes consists of a mixture of measured values and non detects. The modified delta lognormal distribution assumes that all non detects have a value equal to the detection limit and that the detected values follow a lognormal distribution.

For more details on EPA's use of statistical methods for developing ELGs, refer to Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the 74  NPDES Permit Writers' Manual Technology Based Effluent Limits Chapter 5 Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category 10 or Technical Support Document for Water Quality Based Toxics Control 11.

5.2 Application of Technology Based Effluent Limitations for Municipal Dischargers The largest category of dischargers requiring individual NPDES permits is municipal POTWs. Similar to its approach for controlling the discharges from industrial sources, the 1972 CWA required POTWs to meet performance based requirements based on available wastewater treatment technology. Section 301 of the CWA established a required performance level, referred to as " secondary treatment,"

that all POTWs were required to meet by July 1, 1977.

More specifically, Section 301( b)( 1)( B) of the CWA requires that EPA develop secondary treatment standards for POTWs as defined in Section 304( d)( 1) of the Act.

Based on this statutory requirement, EPA developed secondary treatment regulations which are specified in 40 CFR Part 133. These technology based regulations apply to all municipal wastewater treatment plants and identify the minimum level of effluent quality attainable by secondary treatment in terms of BOD 5, TSS, and pH. The regulations provide for special considerations regarding combined sewers, industrial wastes, waste stabilization ponds, and less concentrated influent wastewater for combined and separate sewers. Pursuant to Section 304( d)( 4) of the CWA, the regulations also define " treatment equivalent to secondary treatment" and the alternative standards that apply to facilities meeting this definition.

5.2.1 Secondary Treatment An important aspect of municipal wastewater is that it is amenable to biological treatment. The biological treatment component of a municipal treatment plant is termed secondary treatment and is usually preceded by simple settling ( primary treatment). In response to the CWA requirements, EPA evaluated performance data 10USEPA ( 1987). Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category. Vol I and Vol II. EPA 440/ 1 87/ 009. Office of Water, Industrial Technology Division.

11USEPA ( 1991). Technical Support Document for Water Quality Based Toxics Control. EPA 505/ 2 90 001. Office of Water Enforcement and Permits.

NPDES Permit Writers' Manual  75 Chapter 5 Technology Based Effluent Limits for POTWs practicing secondary treatment and established performance standards based on its evaluation. Secondary treatment standards, therefore, are defined by the limitations provided in Exhibit 5 6.

EXHIBIT 5 6 Secondary Treatment Standards Parameter 30 Day Average 7 Day Average 5 Day BOD 30 mg/ l 45 mg/ l TSS 30 mg/ l 45 mg/ l pH 6  9 s. u. ( instantaneous)   Removal 85% BOD 5 and TSS   According to 40 CFR § 122.45( f), permit writers must apply these secondary treatment standards as mass based limits using the design flow of the plant. Permit writers may also apply concentration based effluent limitations for both 30 day and 7 day average limitations.

Where nitrification is occurring in a treatment process, BOD 5 may not provide a Example:

A POTW with a design flow rate of 2.0 mgd would have permit limits based on secondary treatment standards as follows:

Mass Based Limit = Design Flow ´ Concentration Based Limit ´ Conversion Factor BOD ( 30 day average) 2.0 mgd ´ 30mg/ l ´ 8.34 ( lb)( l)/( mg)( gal) = 500 lb/ day ( 7 day average) 2.0 mgd ´ 45mg/ l ´ 8.34 ( lb)( l)/( mg)( gal) = 750 lb/ day TSS ( 30 day average) 2.0 mgd ´ 30mg/ l ´ 8.34 ( lb)( l)/( mg)( gal) = 500 lb/ day ( 7 day average) 2.0 mgd ´ 45mg/ l ´ 8.34 ( lb)( l)/( mg)( gal) = 750 lb/ day pH ( instantaneous) 6 9 s. u.

Removal ( 30 day average) 85% BOD 5 and TSS removal reliable measure of the oxygen demand of the effluent. This is because nitrifying bacteria use a large amount of oxygen to consume unoxidized nitrogen and ammonia

76  NPDES Permit Writers' Manual Technology Based Effluent Limits Chapter 5 nitrogen and convert these to oxidized nitrate. In these instances, basing permit limits on carbonaceous BOD 5 ( CBOD 5) instead of BOD 5 eliminates the impact of nitrification on effluent limits. EPA, therefore, allows for the use of CBOD 5 limits to minimize false indications of poor facility performance as a result of nitrogenous pollutants. Allowed under 40 CFR § 133.102( a)( 4), the permit writer does have the discretion to set effluent limits for CBOD 5 in lieu of a BOD 5 limit. EPA has studied the use of a CBOD 5 limit and has concluded that a 25 mg/ l 30 day average and 40 mg/ l 7 day average are effectively equivalent to the ( 30/ 45) BOD 5 limits.

Chemical oxygen demand ( COD) and total organic carbon ( TOC) laboratory tests can provide an accurate measure of the organic content of wastewater in a shorter time frame than a BOD 5 test ( i. e., several hours versus 5 days). Pursuant to 40 CFR § 133.104( b), the permit writer may substitute COD or TOC monitoring for BOD 5 when a long term BOD: COD or BOD: TOC correlation has been demonstrated.

Municipal wastewater treatment facilities are required to meet secondary treatment standards with few exceptions. The exceptions, identified at 40 CFR § 133.103, include:

° Treatment works that receive flows from combined sewers during wet weather can qualify for alternative monthly percent removal limits during wet weather events.

° Treatment works that receive wastes from industrial categories that have ELGs for BOD 5 and TSS less stringent than the secondary treatment requirements in 40 CFR Part 133, can qualify to have their BOD 5 and TSS limits adjusted upwards provided that: ( 1) the permitted discharge is less than would be permitted under the corresponding ELGs for direct discharges, and ( 2) the flow or loading of such pollutants introduced by the industrial category exceeds ten percent of the design flow or loading of the POTW.

° Treatment works that use waste stabilization ponds as the principal process for secondary treatment and whose operation and maintenance data indicate that the TSS values specified in the equivalent to secondary regulations ( discussed in Section 5.2.2) cannot be achieved, can qualify to have their minimum TSS levels adjusted upwards.

° Treatment works that receive less concentrated wastes from separate sewer systems can qualify to have their percent removal limit reduced or receive a mass loading limit provided that: ( 1) the facility can consistently meet its permit effluent concentration limits but cannot meet its percent NPDES Permit Writers' Manual  77 Chapter 5 Technology Based Effluent Limits removal limits because of less concentrated effluent water, ( 2) the facility would have been required to meet significantly more stringent limitations than would otherwise be required by the concentration based standards, and ( 3) the less concentrated effluent is not the result of excessive infiltration/ inflow ( I/ I).

[ Note: The determination of excessive I/ I is based on ( 1) the " excessive I/ I" definition in 40 CFR § 35.2005( b)( 16) as the quantities of I/ I which can be economically eliminated from a sewer system as determined in a costeffectiveness analysis that compares the costs for correcting the I/ I conditions to the total costs for transportation and treatment of the I/ I and ( 2) I/ I is not excessive if the total flow ( i. e., wastewater plus I/ I) to the POTW is less than 275 gallons per capita per day.]

° Treatment works receiving less concentrated wastes from combined sewers during dry weather can qualify to have their percent removal limit reduced or receive a mass loading limit provided that: ( 1) the facility can consistently meet its permit effluent concentration limits, but cannot meet its percent removal limits because of less concentrated effluent water, ( 2) the facility would have been required to meet significantly more stringent limitations than would otherwise be required by the concentration based standards, and ( 3) the less concentrated influent wastewater does not result from either excessive infiltration or clear water industrial discharges during dry weather periods. If the less concentrated influent is the result of clear water industrial discharges, the treatment works must control such discharges pursuant to 40 CFR Part 403.

[ Note: The determination of excessive infiltration is based on ( 1) the " excessive infiltration" definition in 40 CFR § 35.2005( b)( 28) as the quantity of flow which is less than 120 gallons per capita per day ( domestic flow and infiltration) or the quantity of infiltration which cannot be economically and effectively eliminated from a sewer system as determined in a cost effectiveness analysis and ( 2) the criterion that either 40 gallons per capita per day or 1,500 gallons per inch diameter per mile of sewer may be used as the threshold value for that portion of the dry weather base flow attributed to infiltration.]

The NPDES regulations also provide for a waiver from secondary treatment requirements for discharges into marine waters. In these instances, the POTW must file a modification request for a marine discharge in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart G. More detail on marine variance requests is provided in Section 10.1.3.

78  NPDES Permit Writers' Manual Technology Based Effluent Limits Chapter 5 5.2.2 Equivalent to Secondary Treatment Definition Following publication of the secondary treatment regulations, legislative history indicates that Congress was concerned that EPA had not " sanctioned" the use of certain biological treatment techniques that were effective in achieving significant reductions in BOD 5 and SS for secondary treatment. Therefore, to prevent unnecessary construction of costly new facilities, Congress included language in the 1981 amendment to the Construction Grants statutes [ Section 23 of Pub. L. 97 147]

that required EPA to provide allowances for alternative biological treatment technologies, such as a trickling filter or waste stabilization pond. In response to this requirement, definition of secondary treatment was modified on September 20, 1984,

and June 3, 1985, and published in the revised secondary treatment regulations contained in 40 CFR § 133.105. These regulations allow alternative limits for facilities using trickling filters and waste stabilization ponds that meet the requirements for " equivalent to secondary treatment." Several important concepts form the basis for this revision of the regulations:

° Certain classes of biological treatment facilities that are capable of achieving significant reductions in BOD 5 and TSS, but cannot consistently achieve secondary treatment, should be defined as separate and distinct from secondary treatment facilities.

° These facilities ( equivalent to secondary) are cheaper and easier to operate and, therefore, are utilized by smaller communities. The provisions established by EPA should provide for continued use of these technologies where possible.

° The technology based effluent limitation approach used to establish secondary treatment should be retained for equivalent to secondary treatment limits.

° Water quality must not be adversely affected by the application of equivalent to secondary treatment.

° Costly treatment plant upgrading or replacement should be avoided where equivalent facilities are operating sufficiently ( e. g., achieving their original design performance levels).

° Regulations should address variations in facility performance due to geographic, climatic, or seasonal conditions.

In recognition of the above factors, the revisions to include a definition for equivalent to secondary treatment entail a change in the traditional definition of secondary treatment for some POTWs. The capability and performance of an NPDES Permit Writers' Manual  79 Chapter 5 Technology Based Effluent Limits individual plant is assessed, and limits are selected from a range of possible values.

Although this process has been used for industrial facilities, the concept has generally not been applied to municipal permits ( with the exception of interim permit limits).

To be eligible for equivalent to secondary limitations, a POTW must meet all of the following criteria:

° The principal treatment process must be either a trickling filter or waste stabilization pond ( e. g., the largest percentage of BOD 5 and TSS removal is provided by the trickling filter or waste stabilization pond system).

° The effluent quality consistently achieved, despite proper operations and maintenance, is in excess of 30 mg/ l BOD 5 and TSS.

° Water quality is not adversely affected by the discharge.

° The treatment works as a whole provides significant biological treatment such that a minimum 65 percent reduction of BOD 5 is consistently attained ( 30 day average).

A treatment works that is operating beyond its design hydraulic or organic loading limit is not considered an eligible facility. If overloading or structural failure is causing poor performance, the solution to the problem is construction, not effluent limitations adjustment. There are several important implications of the equivalent

tosecondary treatment regulation as it applies to specific municipal permitting issues.

These issues are discussed below.

New Facility Limitations As specified in 40 CFR § 133.105( f), the permitting authority must set more stringent limits for new facilities if an analysis of new plant performance shows that more stringent limits than the maximum equivalent to secondary limits ( 45/ 45) can be met. Recently, a wide range of designs ( e. g., solids contact channels, covers) have been used on trickling filters to improve their performance. This situation creates a performance dichotomy between old trickling filters and current state of the art plants.

The regulations recognize this disparity and encourage States to establish separate limits for new trickling filters based on current design practices in the State. Where possible, an analysis of similar plants is the preferred method for establishing permit limits where in state data on new trickling filters are not available. Where no 80  NPDES Permit Writers' Manual Technology Based Effluent Limits Chapter 5 performance data are available for determining new plant capability, literature values may be used.

Calculation of Permit Limits for Equivalent to Secondary Facilities In most cases, the permit limits for equivalent to secondary facilities will be selected from the 30 to 45 mg/ l BOD 5 and TSS monthly average, and 45 to 65 mg/ l BOD 5 and TSS weekly average range established by the regulation. Obviously, not all permits will be set at the 45 mg/ l monthly average and 65 mg/ l weekly average top of the range. The selection should be based on current performance data for the last two years of operation, at a minimum.

Where the plant performance data contain erroneous values because of plant upsets, or other situations not associated with poor operation or maintenance, an adjustment to the permit limit calculation may be made. The data for the month in question may be adjusted by dropping the erroneous daily value and recalculating the monthly average based on the remaining daily values. Another alternative is to analyze monthly average values for a period greater than two years and drop the monthly averages that are erroneous because of explained upset situations.

Discharge Monitoring Report ( DMR) data should be used for calculations whenever possible. The DMRs must support the permit writer's decision for an equivalent to secondary facility. It should be noted that the burden of proof for performance data and demonstration of proper operation and maintenance is the responsibility of the municipality.

A trickling filter or lagoon will often be combined with another biological process ( i. e., activated sludge process) in one treatment plant. In this case, if the trickling filter or lagoon qualifies for equivalent to secondary limits, the permit limits for the treatment plant can be derived by averaging the equivalent to secondary and conventional secondary treatment limits. To accomplish this, a flow weighted average of the two effluent concentration limits should be calculated and applied as the outfall limitation for the permit. An alternative to this approach is the use of internal waste stream limitations as authorized by 40 CFR § 122.45( h) for each biological process effluent line. The permit writer should encourage the continued use of existing trickling filters and lagoons, where appropriate, through the application of appropriate equivalent

tosecondary limits. However, the permit writer must be sure that these facilities are NPDES Permit Writers' Manual  81 Chapter 5 Technology Based Effluent Limits capable of meeting the proposed effluent limits without causing water quality impacts before the permit limits can be adjusted. If one cannot determine this, equivalent

tosecondary limits cannot be used in the permit.

Alternative State Requirements ( ASRs)

The Alternative State Requirement ( ASR) provision contained in 40 CFR § 133.105( d) of the regulation allows States the flexibility to set permit limits above the maximum levels of 45 mg/ l monthly average and 65 mg/ l weekly average BOD 5 and TSS from lagoons meeting certain requirements. Where lagoon suspended solids requirements are already above 45 mg/ l in accordance with 40 CFR § 133.103( c), an ASR by the State is not necessary, unless higher limits are desired. To establish an ASR, the State must do two things:

° Identify a group of equivalent facilities that warrant different limits in exceedance of the equivalent to secondary values contained in 40 CFR Part 133 ° Justify the higher permit limitations for these facilities.

The group of facilities can be selected because of climatic or geographic location, the type of technology used, or any other supportable criteria. The analysis of plant data for the group must be statistically sound and should follow the methods presented in EPA's Technical Support Document for Water Quality Based Toxics Control. 12 The ASR must be approved by the EPA Region before permits can be written using the ASR values. The public notice of a proposed ASR is the responsibility of the State. EPA has published approved ASRs in 49 FR 37005,

September 20, 1984. Exhibit 5 7 is a summary of the ASRs for each State.

Carbonaceous BOD Limits EPA recognizes that the carbonaceous BOD ( CBOD) test can provide accurate information on treatment plant performance in many cases. However, the use of CBOD in permits should be focused on facilities with known or suspected nitrification 12USEPA ( 1991). Technical Support Document for Water Quality Based Toxics Control. EPA 505/ 2 90 001. Office of Water Enforcement and Permits.

82  NPDES Permit Writers' Manual Technology Based Effluent Limits Chapter 5 problems such as underloaded facilities and new facilities with long detention times.

These conditions favor nitrifying bacteria and can lead to erroneous BOD 5 test results.

The equivalent to secondary treatment regulations in 40 CFR § 133.105( e) allow optional use of a CBOD limit and test procedure in municipal permits as a substitute for the standard BOD 5. This substitution is at the discretion of the permitting authority.

To establish a CBOD limit for an equivalent to secondary treatment facility, the permitting authority must have data to show that nitrifying bacteria in the treatment plant are causing the BOD 5 test results to be significantly impacted. Extensive BOD 5/ CBOD comparisons should not be necessary because the actual CBOD limit will be established by ( 1) determining the BOD 5 limit that can be met through proper operation and maintenance, and ( 2) if the BOD 5 limit is between 30 and 45 mg/ l,

setting the CBOD limit 5 units lower ( e. g., between 25 and 40 mg/ l).

The EPA approved test procedures in 40 CFR Part 136 now contain a CBOD ( nitrogen inhibited) test procedure. The CBOD test can be specified for any municipal permit. However, the BOD 5/ CBOD relationship ( 5 mg/ l difference) may not apply outside the 30 to 45 mg/ l BOD 5 range. If CBOD limits will be used for equivalent

tosecondary permits above 45 mg/ l ( BOD 5), a BOD 5/ CBOD relationship should be established during the ASR process. Where parallel BOD 5/ CBOD test data are available, they must be submitted to the EPA Regional office with the proposed ASRs for approval. For permit limits below 30 mg/ l BOD 5 the corresponding CBOD limit should be developed during an advanced treatment review or from the wasteload allocation. The use of CBOD in the permit is not a substitute for nitrogen or ammonia limits if in stream nitrification or ammonia toxicity is creating a problem.

NPDES Permit Writers' Manual  83 Chapter 5 Technology Based Effluent Limits EXHIBIT 5 7 State Specific ASRs Location Alternate TSS Limit ( 30 day average) ( mg/ l)

Alabama 90 Alaska 70 Arizona 90 Arkansas 90 California 95 Colorado Aerated ponds 75 All others 105 Connecticut None Delaware None District of Columbia None Florida None Georgia 90 Guam None Hawaii None Idaho None Illinois 37 Indiana 70 Iowa Controlled discharge, 3 cell Case by case but not greater than 80 All others 80 Kansas 80 Kentucky None Louisiana 90 Maine 45 Maryland 90 Massachusetts None Michigan: Controlled seasonal discharge Summer 70 Winter 40 Minnesota None Mississippi 90 Missouri 80 Montana 100 84  NPDES Permit Writers' Manual Technology Based Effluent Limits Chapter 5 EXHIBIT 5 7 State Specific ASRs ( continued)

Location Alternate TSS Limit ( 30 day average) ( mg/ l) Nebraska 80 North Carolina 90 North Dakota North and East of Missouri River 60 South and West of Missouri River 100 Nevada 90 New Hampshire 45 New Jersey None New Mexico 90 New York 70 Ohio 65 Oklahoma 90 Oregon East of Cascade Mountains 85 West of Cascade Mountains 50 Pennsylvania None Puerto Rico None Rhode Island 45 South Carolina 90 South Dakota 120 Tennessee 100 Texas 90 Utah None Vermont 55 Virginia East of Blue Ridge Mountains 60 West of Blue Ridge Mountains 78 East slope counties: Loudoun, Fauquier, Rappahannock, Madison, Green, Albemarle, Nelson, Amherst, Bedford, Franklin, Patrick. Case by base application of 60/ 78 limits.

Virgin Islands None Washington 75 West Virginia 80 Wisconsin 80 Wyoming 100 Trust Territories and N. Marianas None Source: 49 FR 37005; 9/ 20/ 84 NPDES Permit Writers' Manual  85


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 238 (Monday, December 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77243-77244]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31699]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2011-1074]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0010

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision to the following collection of information: 1625-0010, Defect/
Noncompliance Report and Campaign Update Report. Our ICR describes the
information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this
ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before February 10,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2011-1074] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate
submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-611), Attn: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, US COAST
GUARD, 2100 2ND STREET SW., STOP 7101, WASHINGTON, DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office
of Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax (202) 475-
3929, for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on
the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek approval of
revisions of the Collection. We will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2011-1074], and
must be received by February 10, 2012. We will post all comments
received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will
include any personal information you provide. We have an agreement with
DOT to use their DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2011-1074], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an email
address, or other contact information in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or hand delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES;
but please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment
online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2011-1074''
in the ``Keyword'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in
blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-1074'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an

association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act
statement regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008,
issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Defect/Noncompliance Report and Campaign Update Report.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0010.
    Summary: Manufacturers whose products contain defects that create a
substantial risk of personal injury to the public or fail to comply
with an applicable Coast Guard safety standard are required to conduct
defect notification and recall campaigns in accordance with 46 U.S.C.
4310. Regulations in 33 CFR Part 179 require manufacturers to submit
certain reports to the Coast Guard concerning progress made in
notifying owners and making repairs.
    Need: Under 46 U.S.C. 4310(d) and (e); and 33 CFR 179.13 and
179.15, the manufacturer shall provide the Commandant of the Coast
Guard with an initial report consisting of certain information about
the defect notification and recall campaign being conducted and follow
up reports describing progress. Upon receipt of information from a
manufacturer indicating the initiation of a recall, the Recreational
Boating Product Assurance Branch assigns a recall campaign number, and
sends the manufacturer CG Forms CG-4917 and CG-4918 for supplying the
information.
    Forms: CG-4917 & CG-4918.
    Respondents: Manufacturers of boats and certain items of
``designated'' associated equipment (inboard engines, outboard motors,
sterndrive engines or an inflatable personal flotation device approved
under 46 CFR 160.076).
    Frequency: Quarterly.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 291 to 252
hours annually.

    Dated: December 5, 2011.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2011-31699 Filed 12-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86123-86124]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27228]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10661-051]

Indiana Michigan Power Company; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for a subsequent license to continue to
operate and maintain the Constantine Hydroelectric Project (project).
The project is located on the St. Joseph River, in the Village of
Constantine, in St. Joseph County, Michigan. Commission staff has
prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
    The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with
appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a
major federal

action that would significantly affect the quality of the human
environment.
    The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity
to view and/or print the EA via the internet through the Commission's
Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov/), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter
the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field, to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected], or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or [email protected].
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to
6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. In lieu of electronic
filing, you may submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S.
Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first
page of any filing should include docket number P-10661-051.
    For further information, contact Colleen Corballis at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or [email protected].

    Dated: December 5, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27228 Filed 12-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 246]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33200]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4245-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002]

Texas; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas (FEMA-4245-DR), dated November 25, 2015, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: December 24, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the Public
Assistance program for the following areas among those areas determined
to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster
by the President in his declaration of November 25, 2015.

Bastrop, Caldwell, Comal, Guadalupe, Hays, Hidalgo, Liberty,
Navarro, Travis, Willacy, and Wilson Counties for Public Assistance
(already designated for Individual Assistance).

Bosque, Hill, Jasper, Newton, and Walker Counties for Public
Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-33200 Filed 1-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37805-37806]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15027]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0701; FRL-9533-1]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Miscellaneous Coating
Manufacturing (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 24, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0701, to: (1) EPA online, using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring Assistance
and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On October 17, 2012 (77 FR 63813), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to both EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0701, which is available for either public
viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at
the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202)
566-1752.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov, to either submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then

key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's
policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in
paper, will be made available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without change, unless the
comment contains copyrighted material, Confidentiality of Business
Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is
restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic
docket, go to www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2115.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0535.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2013. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to either conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes,
or additions to the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHHH. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit an
initial notification report, performance tests, and periodic reports
and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records
of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction
in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which
the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports are required semiannually
at a minimum.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Miscellaneous coating manufacturing
facilities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 135.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually and
annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 171,406 ``Burden'' is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $19,475,893 which includes $16,597,393
in labor costs, $30,000 in capital/startup costs, and $2,848,500 in
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the
respondent burden hours and costs as currently identified in the OMB
Inventory of Approved Burdens. This adjustment increase in burden from
the most- recently approved ICR is due to a projected growth in the
respondent universe, which results in an increase in the total number
of sources, as well as updated labors rates available from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics. The growth in respondent universe also results in
an increase in the total O&M costs.
    There is also a decrease in the EPA burden hours and costs due to a
correction in this ICR. The previous ICR assumed that all existing
sources have submitted an emission averaging plan, but incorrectly
presented EPA burden for the annual review of emission averaging plans.
This ICR corrects this inconsistency, which results in a decrease in
Agency burden.

Richard T. Westlund,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-15027 Filed 6-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 43815]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17508]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Applications for
Modification of Special Permit

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for modification of special permits.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107,
Subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the applications described herein. This
notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public notice. Because
the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the nature of
application have been shown in earlier Federal Register publications,
they are not repeated here. Requests for modification of special
permits (e.g., to provide for additional hazardous materials, packaging
design changes, additional mode of transportation, etc.) are described
in footnotes to the application number. Application numbers with the
suffix ``M'' denote a modification request. These applications have
been separated from the new application for special permits to
facilitate processing.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 12, 2014.

ADDRESS COMMENTS TO:  Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington,
DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for modification of special
permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal
hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR
1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 17, 2014.
Donald Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Regulation(s)       Nature of special
    Application No.             Docket No.             Applicant           affected           permit thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Modification Special Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
012116-M...............  .......................  Proserv UK Ltd,     49 CFR 173.201,     To modify the special
                                                   East Tullos,        173.302a,           permit to authorize a
                                                   Aberdeen.           173.304a and        carboxysilicon
                                                                       173.301(f).         coating to be applied
                                                                                and to certain
                                                                                cylinders.
14447-M................  .......................  Taminco US Inc,     49 CFR 177.834(i),  To modify the special
                                                   Allentown, PA.      172.203(a), and     permit to authorize
                                                                       172.302(c).         the addition of
                                                                                Division 2.1, new
                                                                                Division 6.1, and new
                                                                                Class 3 and 8
                                                                                materials.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-17508 Filed 7-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-M