ii

I

~

(~

~

U

~

~

;~k

\~‘j1~

~

j\..•W.

~

~!.

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POU.U’IiON CONTROL

BOARD

NOTICE

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Michael G. Rosenberg

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Alan J. Cook

James R. Thompson Center

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

100 East Erie Street

Chicago, illinois 60601

Chicago, Illinois 60611

Michael McCambridge

Hearing Officer

James R. Thompson Center

100

West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

PLEASE

TAKE

NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Pollution

Control Board the APPEARANCE

of the illinois Environmental Protection

Agency and of the Metropolitan

Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago and a MOTIONFOREXPEDITED CONSIDERAT-ION-in~the-

above matter on behalfof the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and the MetropolitanWater-Reclamation

District of Greater Chicago, a copy of which is herewith served upon you.

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

By:

Connie L. Tonsor

Associate Counsel

Special Assistant Attorney General

Division of Legal Counsel

ARDC # 6186313

Date: October 29, 2001

illinoisEnvironmental

Protection Agency

1021 North Grand AveEast

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL

62794-9276

Coflti~o/Bd

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

WASTEWATER PRETREATMENT

)

UPDATE, USEPA AMENDMENTS

)

(January 1, 2001 through June 30, 2001)

)

)

)

R02-3

(Identical-in-Substance

Rulemaking-Public Water Supply)

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

iN THE MATTER OF:

WASTEWATER PRETREATMENT

UPDATE, USEPA AMENDMENTS

(January

1, 2001

through June 30, 2001)

APPEARANCE

The undersigned, as one ofits attorneys, hereby enters her Appearance on behalf ofthe

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By:

DATED: October 29, 2001

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Post Office Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(217)

782-5544

—I

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

RECEIVED

CLERK’S

OFFICE

OCT

3

1

2001

)

STATE OF IWNOIS

)

Pollution Control Board

)

R02-3

)

(Identical-in-Substance

)

Rulemaking-Public Water Supply)

)

Connie L. Tonsor

Associate Counsel

Division ofLegal Counsel

THIS FILING ISSUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

eL~rn~~

O~~1CE

OCT

s

12001

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

STATE OF IWNOI$

Pollution

Conèpôi Board

IN THE MATTER OF:

WASTEWATER PRETREATMENT

UPDATE, USEPA AMENDMENTS

(January

1,

2001 through June 30, 2001)

)

)

)

R02-3

)

(Identical-in-Substance

)

Rulemaking-Public Water Supply)

)

)

APPEARANCE

I

hereby

file

my

appearance

in

this

proceeding

on

behalf of the

Metropolitan

Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.

Metropolitan

District of Greater Chicago

Water

Reclamation

DATED:

October 26, 2001

Metropolitan Water Reclamation

District ofGreater Chicago

Michael G. Rosenberg

AlanJ. Cook

100 East Erie Street

Chicago, Illinois 60611

(312)751-6588

Michael G. Rosenberg, Attorn~-~

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

t~i~V~p

?~Ij~

OF~P1CE

OCT

2001

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

~TATE

OF IWNOIS

Pollution Control Board

IN

THE

MATTER

OF:

)

)

WASTE

WATER

PRETREATMENT

)

R02-3

UPDATE, USEPA AMENDMENTS

)

(Identical-in-Substance

(January 1, 2001

through June 30, 2001)

)

Rulemaking-Public Water Supply)

)

)

MOTION

FOR

EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION

NOW COME

the

ILLiNOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY (“Illinois

EPA”),

by

one of

its

attorneys,

Connie

L.

Tonsor

and

the

Metropolitan

Water Reclamation

District of Greater Chicago (“MWRDGC”) by its Attorney,

Michael G. Rosenberg, and pursuant

to

35

111.

Adm.

Code

101.512,

move

for

Expedited

Consideration

of

the

United

States

Environmental Protection Agency (“US EPA”) Pretreatment Program Reinvention Pilot

Projects

Under Project XL, amendments to 40 CFR Part 403, 66 Fed. Reg.

50334

(October

3, 2001) in the

instant docket.

In support of the Motion the illinois EPA andthe IvIV~TRDGCstate the following:

1.

Pursuant to

Sections 7.2 and

13.3

of the

illinois Environmental Protection

Act (“Act”),

415

ILCS

5/7.2,

13.3,

the

illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

(“Board”)

shall

adopt

regulations

which are

identical in

substance to

federal regulations

or

amendments that are

promulgated by

USEPA and that are necessary to implement Sections

3 07(b), (c), (d), 402(b)(8) and 402(b)(9) of

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (“FWPCA”), as amended, 33 USC

§~

1317, 1342 (Clean

WaterAct Sections 307, 402).

415

ILCS

5/13.3.

2.

On

October

4,

2001,

the

Board,

in

the

instant

docket,

proposed

for

public

comment

federal

wastewater

pretreatment amendments

that the

USEPA had adopted

in

the period

from

January

1, 2001

through June 30, 2001.

3.

The Board noted:

“As of the date of this opinion and accompanying

order, we have not

identified

any

USEPA

actions

since

June

30,

2001

that

further

amend

the

wastewater

---

pretreatment

rules.

When

the

Board

observes

an

action outside

the

nominal

timeframe

of a

docket that would require expedited consideration in the pending docket, the Board will expedite

consideration of those

amendments.

Federal actions that

could warrant expedited consideration

include

those

that

directly

affect

the

amendments

involved

in

this

docket,

those

for

which

compelling

reasons would

warrant consideration

as

soon

as

possible

and those

for

which the

Boardhad received a request for expedited consideration.”

R02-3

at p. 3.

4.

On August 20,

2000, the Illinois EPA,

the

USEPA and the

MWRDGC

entered

a

fmal

agreement

endorsing

the

MWRDGC’s proposed

Project

XL

modification

of its

pretreatment

program. (Exhibit

A)’

The MWRDGC has

an

application for modification of its pretreatment

program pending before USEPA Region 5.

Project

XL

is a process by which publicly

owned

treatment works (“POTWs”) that have mastered the administrative and procedural requirements

ofthe national pretreament regulations, incorporated into Illinois regulations

111

35

ilLAdm.-Code

310,

may

implement

local

pretreatment

programs

with

effectiveness

measured

against

environmental results rather than strict adherence to programmatic and administrative measures.

5.

MWRDGC is one of fifteen POTWs that have participated in the Project eXcellence and

Leadership (“Project XL”) process

on

the

national

level.

It now seeks to

implement

test pilot

ideas that will

focus resources on

activities

that

it and the

illinois

EPA believe would

provide

greater

environmental

benefits

than

are

achieved

by

complying

with

current

regulatory

requirements.

6.

An amendment to 40 CFR 403 was needed to

adopt the flexibility at the federal level for

the Project XL.

An identical-in-substance amendment of the illinois regulations in 35 Ill. Adm.

Code

310

is needed prior to the

illinois EPA being able to

incorporate the

Project XL

program

into an existing permit for the MWRDGC.

Note:

The signing process necessitated preparation of copies ofthe final document prior to the signing

ceremony.

The Illinois

EPA has included the signature pages with the FinaLAgreernentinExhibitA.

---

7.

On

October 3, 2001, the USEPA adopted amendments to 40 CFR 403

by adding Section

403.20.

The

amendment, effective on October 3, 2001, provides that the approval authority may

allow any publicly owned treatment works (“POTW”)

with a

final “Project XL” agreement

to

implement a pretreatment program

that

includes

legal

authorities

and requirements

which

are

different thanthe administrative requirements otherwise applicable under part 403.

The approved

modified program must be incorporated as

an

enforceable part of the

POTW’s NPDES permit.

66 Fed. Reg.

50339.

The

October 3, 2001

amendment allows a pilot project

for the MWRDGC

that the USEPA has

characterized as

“crucial to EPA’s

ability” to test new strategies that reduce

the regulatory burden and promote

economic

growth while achieving better environmental

and

public health protection.

66

Fed. Reg. 50335. (Exhibit B)

8.

The Illinois EPA

and the MWRDGC urge the Board to include the revisions of 40

CFR

403,

found at

66

Fed.

Reg.

50334 in

this rulemaking docket.

Implementation of the Project XL

agreement

as

soon

as

possible

will

further

the

goals

of the

environment

and

streamline

the

process of effective administration of the pretreatmentprogram.

‘SATherefore, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency andthe MWRDGC respectfully

move

that

the

Board include

the

October

3,

2001

Pretreatment

Program

Reinvention

Pilot

Projects Under Project XL, 66 Fed. Reg. 50334, amendment in R02-3.

---

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

October

25,

2001

1021 North Grand Ave. East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield,IL 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

Michael G. Rosenberg

Alan

J. Cook

100 East Erie St.

Chicago, IL 60611

(312) 751-6588

By:

___________

Connie L.

Tonsd’r

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District ofGreater Chicago

)1~J

J~

By:

Michael G. Rosenberg

---

AFFIDAVIT

I,

Richard

C. Sustich, being duly swornon oath, state as follows:

1.

I am AssistantDirectorofResearch and

Development, Industrial Waste

Division, with theMetropolitan Water Reclamation District ofGreater

Chicago.

2.

As part ofmy position I have worked withthe ProjectXLprogramandam

familiarwiththe factual assertions stated in theMotion for

Expedited

Consideration.

3.

I swear and affirm thatthe factual information within theMotion is

true

and

correct and that I

am competent to t

ti

to the same.

RicIard C.

Sustich

SUBSCRIBED AND

SWORN to

Before me this

~Se

day of

t~’&1b~(,

2001

1\

i’Z/o~ç9~

7I’Kl-

Nota4’ Public

~

OFFflc~~

SEAL

~

AL/~cUc;ç~~ç~q(

---

Exhibit A

---

Project XL

August 30, 2000

In Collaboration with:

United States Environmental Protection Agency

illinois Environmental Protection Agency

---

Table of Contents

I. ProjectXL andFPA

A.

PurposeofProjectXL

B.

Purpose of

this

Final Project Agreement

II.

Executive

Summary

3

ifi.

Existing Pretreatment

Program

Requirements

.~..

A.

Industrial

Waste

Survey Requirements

B.

Permitting

Procedures

C.

Monitoring

Requirements

D.

Enforcement

Procedures

E.

Reporting

Requirements

~.

~.

.

~.

.~.

F.

Local

Limits

Development Process

G.

Current

Resources

~

liv

Project

XL Pil~tProject Description

and

ProposedResources

9

A. Project Description

B. Proposed Resources

~...

1.8

V. PROJECTXL CRITERIA

1.8

A. SuperiorEnvironmental Performance

B. Cost Savings

and

PaperworkReduction

~20

C. Stakeholder Involvement

D. InnovatiorilMulti-MediaPollutionPrevention

. .~.

~~21

E. Transferability

~

F. Feasibility

~

21.

G. Monitoring, Reporting,

and

Evaluation

.22

H.

Shifting of Risk

Burden

.

~~22

VI. Implementation

.

.~.

VII. Events Preventing Project

Implementation!

Unavoidable Delays

23

VIII.

Enforceability of the FPA

IX.

Duration of Agreement

X.

Amendments

or Modifications to

the Agreement

~.24

1

---

XI.

Termination

of

Agreement

A.

Expectations Concerning Termination

25

B.

TerminationProcedures

.~.

~~26

C.

Post-Project Compliance Period

26

XII. Dispute Resolution

~--

..-~-.

.~

XIII.

Right

ofOther

Legal

Remedies

Retained

....~..

27

XIV.

Transfer ofProject Benefits and

Responsibilities

~28

XV.

Reporting and Periodic Reviews

28

XVI.

EffectiveDate

XVII.

FPA Contacts

~

.

.

XVffi.

FPA Signatories

Appendix I: Proposed

Maximum

AllowableDischarge forDi

Minimis CIU Designation

32

Appendix II: Performance Measures to be Incorporated into the

Annual Pretreatment Report

37

Appendix III:

Glossary

.......~.

3.9

2

---

I.

A.

Purpose ofProject XL

Project XL, which stands for“eXcellence

and Leadership,” is a national

pilot

program

to test the

extent towhich regulatory flexibility,

and

other innovative environmental approaches~

can

be

used to

achieve

superior environmental performance and

reduced economic burden. Through

site-specific agreements

with

project sponsors,

EPA is

able to gather data

and project experience

thatwillhelpthe Agency redesign current approaches to public health

and environmental

protection. UnderProjectXL, sponsors—private facilities,muItip1~facilities, industry sectors,

federal facilities, communities

and states—can

implementinnovative strategies thatproduce

superior environmental performance, provide flexibility, cost savings,paperworkreduction or

otEer

benefits to sponsors,

and

promote greater accountability to stakeholders.

B.

Purpose of this Final Project Agreement

This Final Project Agreement(Agreement) is ajoint statementofthe plans, intentions

and

commitments

of theU.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), Illinois EPA

(EPA),

and

the

MetropolitanWater Reclamation District of

Greater Chicago (District) to

carry

out

this

pilot

Project approved forimplementation at the District. ThisProject willbe

part

ofEPA’s Project

XLprogram to develop innovative approaches

to environmental protection.

TheAgreementdoesnot create legal rights or obligations and is notan enforceable contract or a

regulatory action suchas apermit or a rule.

This

applies to both the substantive

and

the

procedural provisions of

this

Agreement. While the Parties to the Agreement fully intend to

follow these procedures, they

are

not legally obligated to do so. Formore detail, please refer to

Section VI. Implementation.

Federal

and

State

flexibility

and enforceable

commitments

described in

this Agreement will be

implemented and

become

effective through

site-specific regulations

and

modification ofthe

existing NPDES permits

forthe District’s facilities.

All

Parties

to

this Agreement

will

strive for

a high level of cooperation, communication,

and

coordination to assure successful, effective, and

efficientimplementationofthe Agreement

and

the Project.

IL

Executive

Summary

This Final

ProjectAgreement (FPA) is an

outgrowth

of theEPA’s

June23,

1998, Federal

Register

Notice (Volume 63,

Number

120)

requestingproposals

from

Publicly

Owned Treatment

Works (POTWs) forXL projects

based

on environmentalperformance measures forPretreatment

Programs.

The intent ofthis effort is to investigateways ofincreasing the effectiveness ofthe

nationalPretreatment

Program and thus to obtain greater environmental benefit.

EPA

is willing

3

---

to providePOTWs regulatory relieffromprogrammatic requirements (e.g., specific monitoring

frequencies, specific controlmechanism issuance requirements, etc.), so that they

can implement

alternative programs that increase environmental benefits.

The District

is a POTW that treats wastewater from domestic, commercial,

and industrial sources

located in the

city

ofChicago

and

126

surrounding communities in

Cook County, Illinois. The

District

has maintained

an

industrial

waste Pretreatment

Program

formore

than 30 years.

Discharges fromthe District’s water reclamation plants (WRP)

are

in full compliance with all

applicable standards oftheir respectiveNational PollutantDischargeElimination System

(NPDES)

permits,

and

biosolids generatedby District

WRPs conform

to the Exceptional Quality

(EQ) criteria ofthe Standards

fortheUse

and Disposal of Sewage Sludge (40

CFR

503).

Through its Pretreatment Program, which it is required to

operate under its NPDES permits, the

District

regulates process wastewater discharges fromapproximately 530

Significant Industrial

Users

(SliT), including

358

Categorical Industrial

Users (CIU),

as ofJune 1, 2000.

In 1996, the

United States Environmental ProtectionAgency

(EPA)

awarded the District the National

ExcellenceAward for Pretreatment Programs in theLarge Category (greater

than

100

SliTs).

Basedon~thesuccess ofits traditional command-and-controlPretreatmentProgram, the District

is in a,position to develop

and

evaluate apilot program incorporatingmany ofthe regulatory

reinvention initiatives recommended by

the

EPA,

theAssociation ofMetropolitanSewerage

Agencies

(AMSA),

the Water Environment Federation

(WEF),

and

the regulated industrial

community.

-

The

intended result ofthis project is the achievement ofenvironmental performancebetter

than

would otherwisebe achieved under

the District’s current program.

A further principle for the

District’s participation

in ProjectXL is that participationmustnot result in a net increase in

Pretreatment Program costs, while

there is substantial likelihood thatparticipationcould result in

a long-term reduction in Pretreatment Program costs.

Therefore, resources for any additional

activities under Project XL can only be provided through operational and regulatory flexibility in

existing Pretreatment Program activities,

with reallocation offreed resources.

These reallocated

resources, in turn, willbe

committed to

achieving

improvements beyond

current environmental

-

performance.

Current environmental performance, including maintenance of

Part

503 EQ

sludge criteria, must

be maintained. Program modifications

or activities with the potential for degradation of

environmental performance will

notbe considered under

this

ProjectXLpilot project.

Inthis XLpilot project, four interrelated activities will demonstrate the application of

• performance-based oversight flexibility withinthe District’s existing Pretreatment Program

framework.

Resources currently allocated to programmatic activities with low potential

for

environmental benefit will be reallocated to new Pretreatment Program activities with a greater

• potential for environmental benefit.

These four activities are summarized briefly below.

4

---

• 1.

•

To effectuate

this project, EPA and

EPA

need to give the District regulatory flexibility

with regard to its. obligation under the General Pretreatment Regulations to provide regulatory

oversight to small

Categorical Industrial Users (ClJs)

into the District’s WRPs.

While oversight

flexibility may not result in direct environmental benefit, such flexibility will allow the District

to reallocate currently committed resources

to other activities with greater potential for

environmental benefit.

2.

The format ofthe District’s Pretreatment Program Annual Report will also need to be

revised to include detailed informationregarding environmental performance that

is not currently

required in the Annual Report.

To offset the District’s commitment to

include this additional

information in its Annual Report, detailed oversight information regarding SliTs will need to be

limited to

only the population ofSills that were found in significant noncompliance at any time

during the reportyear.

3.

Approximately 276 ofthe 358 CIUs regulated underthe District’s Pretreatment Program

are electroplating/metal finishing facilities.

Under the EPA’s

Common

Sense Initiative,

EPA

and the Metal Finishing Sectorhave established the national Strategic Goals Program (SGP) to

facilitate sector-wide environmental performance improvement, including promoting “beyond

compliance” performance by sector leaders.

The District has actively supported the objectives of

the SGP and is currently implementing sri SGP program in the greater Chicago area, in

cooperation with EPA and the EPA.

To furtherpromote the objectives of EPA’s Sector Initiatives, the District will create Strategic

Performance Partnerships (Partnerships) with metal finishing facilities that fully achieve the

individual facility goals outlined in the SGP.

Under these Partnerships, the District will work

cooperatively with demonstrated sector leaders to develop, test, and implement alternative

measurement systems for demonstrating environmental performance.

The District also

intends to

extend Partnership opportunities to CUJs in other industry

sectors in coordination with EPA’s

SectorInitiatives.

4.

Like most POTWs across the nation, the District,

through its Pretreatment Program, has

achieved substantial environmental gains relative to the non-conventional pollutants and heavy

metals, which have been regulated under the NPDES and the District’s local limits for many

years.

However, the same cannot be systematically said for otherpriority pollutants that may be

ofconcern on a local scale.

To address these pollutants, the District will develop Toxic

Reduction Action Plans (TRAPs).

Under TRAPs,

the Parties (District, EPA andEPA) will use existing environmental data (i.e.,

District emission and discharge data and multi-agency ambient environmental monitoring data)

to

identify priority pollutants which are documented to be present in quantities or concentrations

that may be a risk to the District’s facilities or the ambient environment but not

currently subject

to regulation, and. rank these pollutants in order ofimportance to

stakeholders.

As resources

become available through the regulatory flexibility described above, the District will commit to

5

---

specific reductions in the levels of these pollutants in WRP emissions and discharges through

source control.

Sincethese activities would be outside the existing regulatory structure, the

District will be free to use informal action (i.e., educational outreach and pollution prevention)

for these efforts.

The Parties recognize that non-regulatory activities maynot achieve the

anticipated pollutant reductions, but the lessons learned could provide direction for further efforts

and opportunity for future projects.

flI.

Existing PretreatmentProgram Requirements

The following section describes the current status ofthe District’s existing approved

Pretreatmônt Program.

Full annual reports for the District’s Pretreatment Program, beginning in

1995

are available throughthe District’s Public Information Office, (312)

A.

Industrial Waste Survey Requirements

Under its

existing approvedPretreatment Program, the District must identify all nonresidential

users tributary to its facilities, determine the nature oftheir activities and the pollutants discharge

therefrom into the sewerage system,

and advise each user ofapplicable Pretreatment Standards

and its obligation

to

comply with said standards.

The District accomplishes this survey through

ongoing

surveillance ofnon-residential areas ofits service area, through periodic review of

telephone directories, trade association publications, and the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association

directory.

The District also

annually solicits a listing ofall business licenses granted by the 126

individual municipalities within its service area for review.

Facilities identified as potential

industrial users are then sent a Facility Classification Questionnaire (FCQ) and directed to

describe in detail the nature oftheir operations.

FCQ forms are

processed

through a formal

review process and are verified through on-site inspections by District personnel.

Consistent with 40

CFR403.8,

under the District’s Ordinance, a nonresidential user is classified

as a Significant Industrial User (SItU) if it meets any ofthe following criteria:

1)

The Industrial User (RI) is subject to

regulation under a federal Categorical Pretreatment

Standard.

2)

The RI discharges greater than 25,000 gallons per day ofprocess wastewater into the

sewerage system.

3)

The Ill contributes

5

percent or more ofthe hydraulic load. or organic capacity ofthe

receiving WRP.

4)

The District has designated the IU as having a reasonable potential for adversely affecting

the operations of the District’s WRPs or for violating any

standard orrequirement

contained in the Ordinance.

6

---

An 1U

is a Categorical Industrial User (CR1) if it is subject to

reg

lation under

a federal

Categorical Pretreatment Standard (#1 above).

All CIUs are Sills.

B.

Permitting

Procedures

Facilities identified as potential Sills

through the industrial wastô survey process described

above are requiredto submit detailed Discharge Authorization Requests (DAR) (permit

applications) and to obtain Discharge Authorizations (DA)

(permits) from the District forthe

regulation ofprocess wastewaters.

DAs are issued for a period not exceeding five years and

contain specific limitations on the volume ofwastewater and concentrations ofpollutants

discharged from both categoricallyregulated and non-regulated industrial processes.

DAs also

contain specific reporting and self-monitoring requirements applicable to the SIU.

C.

Monitoring Require_ments

Under the District Sewage and Waste Control Ordinance (Ordinance) and DAs issued to

individual

Sills, each SRI is required to conduct

self-monitoring of its process

wastewater

discharg&and to submit Continued Compliance Reports (CCR) twice annually.

For process

wastewater discharges less than 200,000 gallons per day (gpd), the Sill must self-monitor the

wastewater discharge on at least three days during a two-week period for each semi-annual CCR.

Forprocess wastewater discharges exceeding 200,000 gpd, .the SItU must self-monitor the

wastewaterdischarge on at least six days during a two-week period for each semi-annual CCR.-

All monitoring must conform to

the provisions of 40 CFR 403.12

and all analytical methods

must conform to the provisions of40 CFR 136.

An authorized representative ofthe SRI must

certify all data contained in the CCR as accurate and complete.

The District inspects each Sill and monitors the process wastewater discharge from each SRI on

at least four days, annually; to verify continued compliance with the terms and provisions ofthe

DA

issued to

the Sill.

All monitoring must conform to the provisions of40 CFR 403.8

and all

analytical methods must conform to

the provisions of40 CFR 136.

D.

Enforcement Procedures

-

The District’s formal Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) was submitted to EPA, Region

5

in

December 1989

and was incorporated into the District’s Ordinance in 1991.

The ERP describes

the enforcement actions available to the District for responseto instances ofill noncompliance.

These actions range from informal Notices ofNoncompliance for non-significant noncompliance

to formal Cease and Desist (C&D) Orders for significant noncompliance.

The C&D Order

requires the submittal ofa formal Compliance Schedule, certified by an authorized representative

Of the 111 and a professional engineer registered in the state ofIllinois, and the submittal ofa Final

Compliance Report, including the results of self-monitoring conducted to verify that compliance

has been attained.

The ERP also contains a Response Option Matrix that identifies the minimum

enforcement response that may be considered in response to certain critical types of

7

---

noncompliance, such as those

instances involving pass-through and

interference.

The District has statutory authority to assess civil penalties in the range from $100.00

to

$2,000.00 for each day ofviolation, in administrative proceedings before its Board of

Commissioners, and to seek civil penalties in the range from $1,000.00 to $10,000.00 per day of

violation, in civil actions in the Circuit Court.

Wbile the District does not have statutory authority

to

initiative criminal proceedings, it does have authority and established policy forreferral of

potential criminal actions to the State’s Attorney’s

Office or the United States Attorney.

E.

Reporting

Requirements

As indicated above, under the District’s Ordinance and DAs, Sills are required to submit CCRs

semi-annually, to demonstrate continued compliance with applicable Pretreatment

Standards.

Under its NPDES

permits, the Districtmustsubmit

an annual PretreatmentProgram Report to

its

Approval Authority (currently EPA, Region

5),

detailing the District’s conformance with the

Pretreatment Program provisions contained in 40 CFR 403.8.

The annual report must include

detailed information describing the District’s resource commitment to the Pretreatment Program

as well as detailed information describing the compliance

status ofeach SRI.

F.

Local Limits Development Process

The District’s Ordinance

was

first

adopted

in 1969

and

has containedtechnically-based local

limits since 1971. These local limitswere developed through a stakeholderprocess involving

representatives ofthe District, the regulated

community and academia, and are considered

protective ofworker health

and safety, WRP

operations,

and

the environment. Local

limits are

reviewed annually by the District’s Research and Development

Department to ensure

appropriateness.

G.

Current Resources

As reported in the

District’s Pretreatment Program Annual Report

for 1999, the Districthas

devoted the followingresource levels -to administration ofits PretreatmentProgram.

8

---

Resource

Commitment

Field Surveillance

Staff

49.83

Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE)

Enforcement Administration Staff

23.25

IFTEs

Analytical Laboratory Staff

11.14 FTEs

Legal Administration Staff

0.95 FTEs

Total PretreatmentProgram Budget

$7,258,622

IV

Project XL Pilot Project Description

A.

Project Description

The followingdescribes theXLpilot project, andnotes howtheDistrict activities will differ from

current operations.

There willbe no change in the District’s Industrial Waste Survey

Requirements (described above

in

Section III. A.),EnforcementResponse Plan (described above in SectionIII. D.),

and Local

Limits Development and Review Process (described above in Section III. F.).

1.

Reduced Oversight ofDe Minimis and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial Users

This project is intended to provide regulatory flexibility to the District with respect to the

oversight ofsmall CRIs that have very low potential to violate Pretreatment Standards and

Requirements or adversely impact the operations ofthe District’s WRPs and the environment.

Under current regulations all CIUs are classified as Sills.

This pilot project creates two categories

of CIII that are not significant industrial users (SilJ).

For purposes ofthis project there are two

categories ofsmall

CRIs:

(1) de minimis and (2) non-significant categorical industrial users.

Currently, the District re~eives

wastewater from 358

CilJs.

In this XL project, the District

is

seeking to reduce the oversight requirements for “de niinimis” and “non-significant” CIII

facilities.

This part of the XL proposal is consistent with EPA’s proposal regarding “non-

significant” categorical industrial users in its July 22,

1999, Pretreatment Streamlining Proposal

(64 FR 39564).

These reduced oversight requirements will not deregulate~anyCIII in the sense

that they are no longer required to comply with Categorical Pretreatment Standards.

Rather, this

9

---

approachwillreduce boththe CilJ’s

and the District’s burden in demonstrating compliance with

the applicable

standards.

A

CIII

will be considered as de minimis if it discharges no untreated categorical wastewater and it

discharges a total ofless than 100 gallons per day ofprocess wastewater, or if it is only subject to

certification requirements ofapplicable categorical standards.

In addition, the CR1 will not have

been in significant noncompliance (SNC), as defined at 40 CFR 403.3(t), with applicable effluent

discharge standards or requirements forthe prior eight consecutive calendar quarters.

The oversight reductions for those CilJs that meet the de minimis criteria would include:

Non-expiring DischargeAuthorizations (DAs)

Reduction in frequency ofself-monitoring from twice per year to

at the District’s

discretion. These Clils would be requiredto report annually to verify their de minimis

status.

The District will perform a minimum of one random site visit annually.

The site visit will

include,

at a minimum, verification ofproper operation ofwastewater pretreatment

facilities n~ecessary

to maintain compliance with applicable standards and a grab sampling

ofthe CIU’s discharge to the sewerage system.

The District is also seekingreduced oversight requirements for small capacity “non-significant,”

CilJs.

To qualify as a non-significant CIII, the process wastewater subject to Categorical

Pretreatment Standards that

is, discharged from the facility:

Shall not exceed 0.0.1 percent ofthe hydraulic capacity ofthe receiving

WRP or 10,000

gallons per day, whichever is less,

Shall not exceed 0.01

percent ofthe organic treatment capacityofthe receiving WRP, and

Shall not, for all applicable pollutants, exceed 0.01

percent ofthe five-year average

headworks loading at the receiving WRP.

The maximum allowable discharge criteria fornon-significant CRIs tributary to each ofthe

District’s seven WRPs are shown in Appendix I.

In addition:

The

CIII

will not have beenin significant noncompliance (SNC),

as defined at 40 CFR

403.3(t), with applicable effluent discharge standards orrequirements forthe prior eight

consecutive calendar quarters.

The District will reassess conformance ofeach non-significant CIII with the above four criteria at

least annually.

The oversight reductions for those CRIs that meet the non-significant criteriawould include:

10

---

Non-expiring Discharge Authorizations (DAs)

Reduction in

frequency ofself-monitoring

and

submittal ofcompliance reports

from twice

per year to once per year

•

Reduction in frequency of full facility inspection and sampling by the District from once

per year to once every two years

•

During non-inspection years, the District will perform a minimum ofone random site visit

and sampling.

Conformance with the conditions set

forth in the definitions ofde minimis and non-significant

CIII will be reassessed at least annually by the POTW.

If a facility no longer falls within the

scope ofthe de minirnis ornon-significant CIII definition because of a change in the nature ofits

operations or if the facility is found in significant noncompliance (SNC), the facility’s status as a

de minimis or non-significant CIII willbe revoked and the facility will revert to full CIII status.

The District estimates that

80 ofthe 358

CRIs currently regulated under the District’s

Pretreatment Program would qualify for de minimis ornon-significant status.

At the time ofFPA

signature,

~t

is estimated that 2 ofthese 80

CIIJs would qualify as de rninimis and 78 of these 80

CIIJs would qualify as non-significant.

Under this XL pilot project, the District will continue to

ensure that

each facility is in compliance

with standards by issuing a Discharge Authorization (DA)

(permit) to each SRI as described

above in Section ifi. B.

Permitting Procedures.

Currently, under the General Pretreatment

Regulations, the District issues DAs to

all significant industrial users, both categorical and non-

categorical, for a period not exceeding five years.

The DAs will continue to contain specific

limits forthe volume ofwastewaterthat can be generated, maximum allowable concentrations for

pollutants in the wastewater, and requirements for self-monitoring and submittal ofcompliance

reports..

Under current District practice, even if nothing at the facility has changed when the DA expires,

the DA must be reapplied for and reissued.

Under this Project XL pilot project, however, de

minimis and non-significant CRIs willbe issued

“non-expiring” DAs.

“Non-expiring” permits

-

willbe subject to review at the District’s discretion and amended as appropriate.

This XL pilot project would also allow reductions in frequency only ofthe self-monitoring and

reporting requirements for non-significant CRJs from twiceper year to once per year.

In all other

respects, non-significant CRIs will be required to conduct self-monitoring equivalent to current

practice, as described above in Section ifi. C.

Monitoring Requirements.

(For process wastewater

discharges less than 200,000 gallons per day (gpd), the SRI must self-monitor the wastewater

discharge on at least three days during a two-week period for each CCR.

Forprocess wastewater

discharges exceeding 200,000 gpd, the Sill must monitor self-monitor the wastewater discharge

on at least six days during a two-week period for each CCR.

All monitoring must conform to the

provisions of40 CFR 403.12 and all analytical methods must conform to the provisions of40

11

---

CFR

136.

An authorized representative of the SRI must certify all data contained in the CCR as

accurate and

complete.)

Currently, the District inspects each SRI at least yearly and samples process wastewater on at

least four separate days each year.

Under this XL’pilot project, the inspection frequency would be

reduced from once a yearto once every two years fornon-significant CIUs,

and the sampling

frequency will be reduced to

once every other year for these ills.

The inspections conducted

under this XL pilot project willbe equivalent to those currently conducted, as described above in

Section III. C. Monitoring Requirements.

Only the frequency ofthe inspections would change

under the XL pilot project.

As in the Pretreatment Streamlining proposal, the de minimis

and non-significant CUJs will

still

be required to, comply with applicable categorical Pretreatment Standards and related reporting’

requirements.

The District will also still be required to perform oversight for these CRI’s as

currently required:

•

Notification to

CRJs oftheir status

and requirements,

•

Receipt and review ofrequired reports,

Random sampling and inspection, and

Investigation of noncompliance as necessary.

The proposed classification offull, non-significant, and de minimis CRIs, along with the

oversight flexibility described above, is summarized in Table 1.:

Where a de minimis CIII or non-significant CRI

is found to be in SNC, the District will modify

the ill’s DA to reflect full SRI status.

The RI would thenbe requiredto not be in

SNC

for 8

consecutive quarters and to

meet all other applicable criteriato regain its status as a de minimis or

non-significant CR1.

In addition, under the District’s Sewage and Waste Control Ordinance, RIs are required to notify

the District at least 30 days prior to

any change in operations or discharge practices and to receive

written approval of such’change from the District.- A de minimis CRI’s DA will be subject to

review or revision if its operations change significantly (new processes or increased discharge

loadings or flow rates that exceed the de minimis cutoffs.)

If sucha change alters the RIs

eligibility as a de minimis ornon-significant RI, the District will make such a notification to the

RI

and the RI will revertback to full CIII status.

Such a notice by anIII will also prompt the

District to

evaluate the appropriateness ofthe RI’s current DA,

A modification ofthe DA by the

District will be initiated if appropriate.

The SRIwill be required to comply with the additional

requirements causedby reversion to full SRI status, within 6 months of the date of reversion.

12

---

TABLE

1

SELECTIONCRITERIAFORFULL,NON-SIGNIFICANT, AND

DEMINIMIS

CATEGORICAL Th~DUSTRIAL

USER DESIGNATION

Qualification

DeMinimis

CRI

No discharge of

untreated categorical

wastewater and 100

gpd total process

wastewater discharge,

or subject to

certification

requirements only, no

SNC for four

consecutive six month

periods

Non-Significant

CIII

0.01

ofPOTW

design

flow, 0.0 1

of

POTW headworks

organic

load, 0.01

of

headworks load of

categorically regulated

pollutants, no

SNC for

four cOnsecutive six-

month periods

Full

CR1

Subject to

categorical

pretreatment

standards

and

not

qualified as DCRI

orNCRI

Permit length

Control Authority

discretion

Non-expiring, subject

Fiveyears

to Control Authority

review every five

years

Minimum

self-

monitoring

requirements

Minimum reporting

requirements

Control Authority

discretion

Annual

DCRI

certification

Annual

Periodic

Compliance Report

Twice/year

Twice

annual

Period

Compliance Report

Minimum Control

Authority monitoring

One random site

visit/sampling

annually

One full

inspection/sampling

every two years; one

random site

visit/sampling during

non-inspectionyears

Full

inspection/sampling

annually

Once/year

13

---

One of the anticipatedresults of the reduced oversight of de minimis

and non-significant CILJs is

that some facilities that do not initially meet these criteria may be prompted to implement

pollution reduction and water conservation measures in order to obtain de minimis or non-

significant CRI status.

This will result in decreased loadings ofregulated pollutants into the

WRPs.

While the oversight flexibility will not result in direct environmental benefit, it will allow

the District to allocate saved resources toward activities that have greater potential forbenefiting

the environment.

2.

Revisions to Pretreatment Program Annual Report

In accordance with the Federal pretreatment regulations and its NPDES permits, the District

is

required to submit a Pretreatment Program Annual Report (Annual Report) to

its Approval

Authority (EPA Region

5)

each year.

Along with details about staff and funding committed to the

pretreatment program, the Annual Report includes detailed information about the compliance

status ofeach regulated SRI. (Requirements for contents ofthe report appear in 40 CFR

403.12(i)).

Inthis

XL project, EPA

will propose to

amend their rules to require the Annual Report to provide

specific information for only those Sills found to be in significant noncompliance (SNC) during

the reporting year.

Currently, detailed information

and the compliance status related to all Sills (a

total ofapproximately 530) within the District’s jurisdiction are included in the Annual Report.

Under this project, the District would continue to

collect all ofthe information required in 40 CFR

403.12(i), and it would make the information available to EPA, Illinois EPA, and the public as

required.

The Report would not, however, include specific information about the facilities that

are not in SNC.

Information currently reportedin the Annual Report, not published in the revised Annual Report,

would be available through the District’s Public Information Office (312-751-6633).

A Freedom

of Information Act request would not be required to obtain this information.

As

a result of this revision, the number of facilities covered in the Annual Report would vary from

year to year, depending on the number of facilities that are in SNC in a given year.

Instead of

providing specific compliance information on the approximately 530

SRIs currently regulatedby

the District, with this change the number ofSRIs covered in the Annual Reportwould have been

227

in

1995,

208 in

1996, and 56

in 1997.

A second revision to the Annual Report as a result ofthis Agreement is to include additional

environmental data in the report that are not currently required.

The ~isttict

has been collecting

these data for a number ofyears for its own knowledge.

The data will provide more meaningful

information about the quality ofthe wastewaters being discharged and the quality ofthe waters in

the receiving surface water bodies.

The additional information will include summary data relating to the

18 performance measures

14

---

identified b.y the Association ofMetropolitan Sewerage Agencies

in its report entitled “Case

Studies in the Application ofPerformance forPOTW Pretreatment Programs” (1997).

These 18

performance measures ai~e

listed in Appendix. II.

The detailed reporting format for this additional

information will be developed with input from the Stakeholders.

This Agreement does not waive any of the requirements ofthe EPA

Construction Permit

Program.

The District and the EPA~are considering doing anotherpilot project under the State’s

Regulatory Innovation Pilot Program that would delegate management ofthe Construction Permit

Program for certain CRIs.

3.

Alternative Environmental Monitoring Systems

Under the General Pretreatment Regulations,

SRIs must conduct self-monitoring according to

rigorous sampling and analytical protocols provided by EPA.

The self-monitoring currently

required involves traditional, “end-of-pipe” sampling ofeffluent.

The District’belieyes this

type

ofmonitoring may not be ideal because it is relatively costly, it can only be done on an infrequent

basis (due to its cost), it is inconvenient, and it generally provides little to no feedback to the SRI

for improving its processes.

This XL project intends to pilot test alternative environmental monitoring approaches.

This

portion ofthe project willbe possible through reallocating the saved resources from the reduced

oversight of de minimis and non-significant CRIs and the revisions to the Pretreatment Annual

Report.

One possible alternative to traditional effluent discharge monitoring is to use statistical process

control data which is collected by the SRI at critical points within its process train, often at

intervals far more frequent than effluent discharge monitoring.

These data serve to regularly

trackprocess performance and product quality at the SRI, and could potentially serve to assess

pretreatment system performance and wastewater quality.

In order to implement the alternative monitoring systems, the District plans to form Strategic

Performance Partnerships

(.Partnerships) with a number of facilities involved in sector Strategic

Goals Programs (SGP).

Currently the only well-developed sector SGP initiative in the Chicago

area is for the metal finishing sector.

Under the Common Sense Initiative (CSI), EPA and the

Metal Finishing Sector have developed the first sector-wide SGP.

The SGP

established both

facility-specific and sector-wideperformance goals that extend beyond traditional compliance

with environmental regulations.

While the metal finishing sector is currently the only sector with

a well-developed SGP, this Project XL pilot project intends to

develop Partnerships with other

facilities from EPA’s Sector Initiatives as SGPs are developed and associated facilities become

interested in implementing alternative monitoring systems.

The District will extend the objectives ofEPA’ s Sector Initiatives through the Partnerships.

Under these Partnerships, the District will work cooperatively with demonstrated sector leaders to

15

---

develop, test

and

implement alternative measurement systems for demonstrating environmental

performance.

The District will work only with those facilities that have fully achieved the

goals

oftheirrespective SGPs.

Facilities involved in SGP initiatives tend to be forward-thinking and

have demonstrated a willingness to try to perform above

and beyond what is required.

During the development phase of the alternative monitoring system, data both from the alternative

system and from traditional effluent sampling will be collected.

Ifthe Partnership shows, to the

satisfaction of the Parties to this Agreement, that an AMS provides equal or better measurement

ofenvironmental performance, the Partnership will develop Alternative Performance Expectations’

for the facility that utilize the alternative means to demonstrate compliance with applicable

pretreatment standards.

As part of its mandatedregulatory oversight function, the District would

continue to

assess compliance with applicable pretreatment standards through effluent discharge

monitoring appropriate to the applicable standards.

EPA and EPA

will modify

Ehe existing pretreatment regulations to enable the District to

implement the Project XL program.

Regulatory modifications will allow:

1) Alternative

Performance Expectations established to the satisfaction ofthe Partnership to be considered by the

District, EPA and EPA

as a means through which the facility will demonstrate compliance with

applicable Pretreatment Standards and 2) Partnership facilities to

obtain authorization to use~

Alternative Performance

Expectations to

demonstrate compliance with categorical standards.

This authorization will be given only upon approval ofthe District, EPA, and EPA.

The District,

EPA,

and EPA

must be satisfied that the Partnership developed datathat the Alternative

-

Performance

Expectations will satisfactorily demonstrate compliance with categorical standards.

The ultimate intent ofthe pilot tests is to

develop systems that fulfill current self-monitoring and

reporting requirements.

Potential Partnership facilities and the District are concerned about any new categorical

pretreatment standards or requirements that may be promulgated in the future.

Ofgreatest

concern to

the District and industry are the Metal Products & Machinery (MP&M) standards,

which could eventually supercede standards that

currently apply to metal finishers.

If a proposal

to modify an existing categorical pretreatment standard or to adopt a new categorical pretreatment

standard conflicts with the environmental monitoring system being tested or implemented by a.

facility under this XL Agreement, the District and Partnership facilities hope to receive a deferral

of the new ormodified standard or requirement for the Partnership facility in cases where it

conflicts with the goals ofthe

SGP forthe duration ofthe Partnership effort.

EPA is not able to prospectively commit to waiving new or revisedpretreatment standards that

may be promulgated.

However, as stated in a September 9,

1998, memo from EPA’s Office of

Water, Engineering and Analysis Division, that Office is working with the Office ofReinvention,

Office ofPolicy, EPA Region

5,

and outside Parties, to incorporate the objectives ofthe Metal

Finishing Strategic Goals Program into the !vIP&M regulation.

Such incorporation could

conceivably involve recognizing achievement ofcertain best industry practices as a basis

for

determining whether orhow a facility must comply with the MIP&M regulations.

16

---

The District willpropose Partnerships with eligible

facilities upon demonstration that they are

fully achieving the Metal Finishing .SGP goals.

Each Partnership will produce a work plan for the

AMS

within six months ofentering into a Partnership that

is acceptable to the District,

Partnership facilities, EPA, and IEPA.

The work plan will include schedules and strategies

for

piloting various AMSs, and identify reporting mechanisms for the A.MS pilots to EPA and EPA.

The work plan will be distributedto the Stakeholders.

Stakeholders are described in Section V.

C. Stakeholder Involvement, below.

Stakeholders at this time include the following: the District,

EPA, EPA,

Citizens for a Better Environment, North Business and Industrial Council, and

Chicago Metal Finishers Institute.

.

4.

Identification, Ranking, and Control ofNon-Regulated Pollutants

Through its pretreatment program, the District has greatly reducedthe amounts ofnon.-

conventional pollutants and heavy metals regulated under their NPDES permits and under

Pretreatment Standards.

The objective ofthe last component ofthe XL pilot project will be to

make headway on reducing pollutants not covered by either NPDES permits or local limits, but

which are of concern locally.

Implementing this part ofthe plan will also be done using funds and

resources saved from the first two parts ofthe proposal.

The District proposes to implement Toxic Reduction Action Plans (TRA.Ps).

Under TRAPs, the

Stakeholders will establish identification and pollutant selection criteria.

The Parties will review

existing data and identify non-regulated pollutants oflocal concern, as well as ecosystem-wide

pollutants ofconcern. The Parties will initially identify no more than five pollutants, of concern

based on a number offactors, including:

(1) their detectable presence in the influent, effluent, or

biosolids

at District WRPs, (2) their detectable presence in and potential to’ adversely impact WRP

receiving streams, (3) theirpotential to become regulated pollutants

in

NPDES

permits

issued to

District WRPs, and (4) their designation as pollutants ofconcern under national environmental

policy initiatives such as the Great Lakes Initiative.

It should be clear, however, that TRAPs are

intended to address pollutants that are not currently subject to regulation under the NPDES

Program and that TRAPs are not intended as a substitute for enforcement ofeither Categorical

Pretreatment Standards or local limits developed under the National Pretreatment Program.

The Parties will identify and rank the pollutants

in. order ofimportance based on criteria

developed by the Stakeholders.

The Stakeholders will attempt

to identify the ‘source(s) ofthe

identified and ranked pollutants, and establish pollutantreduction targets.

The District and impacted entities will then attempt to reduce discharges and emissions of these

pollutants through a variety ofnon-traditional strategies developed by the Stakeholders and

impacted entities.

Some ofthe strategies that may be considered include: (1) pollution prevention

outreach to industrial and commercial sources; (2).consumer education programs

and increased

household hazardous waste collections; and

(3) point source-point source effluent trading

agreements.

17

---

Ifa

CILJ is afforded regulatory flexibility ofreduced monitoring and reporting, and subject to

less

frequentinspection, as described above in Section IV, A. Reduced Oversight of D.e Minimis

and

Non-Significant Categorical Industrial Users, and/orparticipates as a Partnership facility in the

development ofAMS

as described above in Section IV.

C.

Alternative Monitoring Systems, they

will be expected to fully participate in any of the voluntary emission reduction activities proposed

under TRAPs which are applicable to their facility.

Ifsuch a Clii does not fully participate in

applicable TRAPs emission reduction activities, their status as a de minimis or non-significant

CRI and/or AMS Partnership facility willbe subject to revocation.

-

The District will convene the Stakeholders within three months ofFPA signature for development

of the selection criteria.

The Parties, in consultation with the Stakeholders, as described above,.

will endeavor to

identify the pollutants to be addressed under TRAPs and pollutant sources with

12 months ofproject implementation, and identify reduction strategies within 18 months of

project implementation.

B.

Proposed Resources

The District is not proposing any changes to its current overall resource commitment to the

Pretreatment Program.

Through application ofthe regulatory flexibility regarding small CRIs, the

District anticipates that resources currently committed to mandated programmatic activities will

become available for activities not currently being performed by the District.

These activities

include participation in the previously described Partnerships with industry and the

implementation ofTRAPs.

The cost ofadministering TRAPs will be segregated from and not included in the Pretreatment

Program cost recovery component applicable to Sills, but will be recovered through the District’s

User Charge Program, which is

applicable to all users ofthe District’s services.

The District estimates that initially, it will save

0.5

full time equivalent (FTE) Engineering and 2.0

FTE Field Surveillance Section from this pilot project’s regulatory

flexibility.

These resources

will be equally apportioned to

the AMS and TRAPs portions ofthis project.

V.

A.

Superior Environmental Performance

Under this XL project, Superior Environmental Performance (SEP) will be achieved through the

alternative environmental monitoring systems and the identification, ranking and reduction of

non-regulated pollutants. The other two components ofthe XL proposal (reduced oversight ofde

minimis and non-significant CIIJs, and revisions to the Pretreatment Program Annual Report) will

create regulatory flexibility that will yield time and costs savings

to the District.

These savings

will then be dedicated to the SEP-generating parts ofthe project.

In addition, the reduced

18

---

oversight of de minimis and non-significant CIUs may provide incentive for some

CJiIs to reduce

theirpollutant loadings and waterusage in order to classify as de minimis ornon-significant so

that they can benefit from the resulting regulatory flexibility.

The alternative monitoring system will provide environmental data on a more frequent basis

and/or providó data that are more accurate, more precise, and/or more meaningfulthan traditional

environmental monitoring data.

Integration ofprocess control data with effluent discharge data

will provide Partnership participants with better tools forprocess management and will likely

result in improved process performance, with concurrent decreased loading ofregulated pollutants

and reduced water consumption. It is also anticipated that the alternativemonitoring system will

increase worker safety.

Ifthe opportunity to try out alternative monitoring systems

is considered desirable by the metal

finishing sector, the Partnerships may function as an incentive prompting more facilities to join

the SGP

initiative. In. addition, the Partnerships formed to test the alternative environmental

monitoring systems in this XL project should leadto an increase in the success ofthe SGP

initiative.’ This XL project can thus take “partial credit” for the successes ofthe SGP.

Environmental gains that should be achievedunder the metal linishing SGP include:

Reduced amount ofhazardous and toxic waste generated and released

Decreasedwater and energy cOnsumption

Decreasedworker exposure to toxic materials

Improved resource utilization

Decreased demand for raw materials

Reduced overall loading to the District system

Improved quality of effluent and biosolids

Identifying and reducing non-regulated pollutants will result in environmental gains from the non-

traditional strategies the District will use to reduce emissions ofidentified pollutants.

In order to prevent a decrease in environmental performance due to the reduced oversight of de

minimis or non-significant CflJs, the District will not accept any environmental degradation from

these facilities.

Current environmental performance will be maintained.

If the District observes

any negative indicators, they will take necessary steps to

address the situation, including halting

the project.

Currently the District’s WRPs are operating in compliance.with effluent and Excellent Quality

biosolids, as defined under 40 CFR 503.

The District

is committed to maintaining,

at a minimum,

this level of environmental performance.

Currently the District monitors the environmental

performance oftheir WRPs by taking daily influent and

effluent samples.

The samples are

analyzed for all pollutants regulated under the District’s NPDES permits.

Additionally, WRP

biosolids are analyzed every 16 days (Digester Composite Output), for metals regulated under 40

CFR 503.

The District has already established performance targets for digester output which

19

---

include a safety

factor that ensures continued productionofExceptional Quality biosolids.

Ifthe

digester output at a WRP

exceeds the established target for any parameter, the District will initiate

an investigation, including the installation of continuously operated automatic

samplers, as

appropriate, at point sources’ tributaries to

the WBP

to

identify the facility responsible for the

increased pollutant loading.

Appropriate enforcement action will be taken against facilities

violating their operating permits, including, but not limited

to their removal from the XL pilot

project.

It is anticipated that inclusion ofadditional environmental data in the Annual Report will have a

positive effect on environmental performance. The new report will be more detailed and more

useful to the public.

B.

Cost Savings and

Paperwork

Reduction

The reduced oversight of de minimis and non-signfficant CUJs will reduce the

time

and

cost to the

District for inspections and effluent sampling.

Instead ofone inspection per year and four effluent

sampling events per year for approximately 80 facilities, the District will conduct discretionary

inspections and sampling at de minimis CUJs, and will inspect and sample each non-significant

Clii

onceevery two years.

In addition, the self-monitoring for de

minimis CUJs will be reduced

at the discretion ofthe District, and non-significant CIIJs willhave halfthe amount

ofself-

monitoring and reporting.

District resources to review and follow-up on those reports will be

reduced.

Theproposed revisions to the Annual Report will result in both increases and

decreases in

paperwork, labor, and costs for District.

The additional datain the report will result in some

increases in labor, cost,

and paperwork.

However, by requiring that the Annual Report only

report on those facilities that were in significant noncompliance during the year, significant

savings in paperwork, labor,

and costs will be gained.

Instead ofincluding enforcement data for

over 500 facilities eachyear, the Annual Report will likely report on

100 facilities or less.

It is

also anticipatedthat the alternative monitoring systems developed in this project will be

less

costly to conduct than the current traditional monitoring.

-

,

.

-

C.

Stakeholder Involvement

.

The following organizationswere invited to participate in a stakehoider group withthe

District,

EPA,

and 1EPA to

develop the FPA:

Chicago Metal Finishers Institute (CMFI),

Citizens for a

Better Environment

(CBE),

Center for Neighborhood Technology,

ChicagoLaw

Clinic, Illinois

Waste Management and Research Center, Illinois

Department

ofCommerce

and Community

Affairs, North Business

and Industrial

Council

(NORBIC),

and

BackoftheYards Neighborhood

Council. Meetings were also advertised

and open to the public.

Meetings to

discuss the FPA

were held in Chicago on April

6,

May 3, and June

14, 2000.

CMFI, CBE,

and NORBIC,

participated in the

FPA development to a substantial degree,

and thus are presently considered

20

---

participating Stakeholders.

Along with the District, EPA,

and IEPA, these three groups are

Stakeholders for the purposes ofthis document and project, although other organizations and

individuals with aninterest in the project are welcome

to’ participate as stakeholders during project

implementation.

Stakeholder involvement will continue in project implementation.

Success ofthe AMSs depends

on

development ofPartnerships with facilities involved

in. the Chicago area that have fully

achievedthe SGP goals fortheir respective industry sectors.

The CMFI, CBE,

and NORBIC also

expressed

interest in participating in the TRAPs process as outlined in

Section IV. I). above.

D.

Innovation/Multi-Media Pollution

Prevention

The AMS will be innovative and support pollution prevention.

In. addition, the project’s

identification and control ofnon-regulated pollutants should decrease amounts ofnon-regulated

pollutants in waste’~aterthat are oflocal concern.

This

approach is proactive pollution

prevention.

The non-traditional approaches formaking these environmental gains are innovative.

E.

Transferability

The approaches and management practices in this project, such as modifying the existing

pretreatment regulations to allow Partnership facilities authorization to use Alternative

Performance Expectations, will be readily transferable to other POTWs and industries.

Similarly, if plans to reduce oversight for de minimis and non-significant

CIUs, and to modify the

Annual Report Format are successfully implemented, this information could also be readily

transferred to otherPOTWs.

Finally, plans to reduce non-regulated pollutants through TRAPs

maybe transferred to other POTWs; the EPA may find it appropriate to promulgate future

regulations requiring tighter controls on some pollutants identified in the.TRAPs process.

F.

Feasibility

The District

is financially, technically, and administratively able to conduct this Project XLpilot.

They have made a conirnitrnent to make available sufficient resources and

appropriately qualified

staffto

implement this project.

Implementing the alternative monitoring system component ofthe proposal should be feasible.

Its success will be tied to the success ofthe Chicago SGP in attracting metal finishers willing

and

able to fully achieve the SGP goals, as well as the success and interest from other lesser and

undeveloped sector initiatives.

Identifying and ranking non-regulated pollutants should also be possible.

.

Implementing the

source control plans willbe challenging due to the lack ofdirect regulatory

endpoints, which

support requests for source reductions.

Voluntarypollution prevention efforts conducted by

21

---

POTWs in the past

have, however,

experienced a good degree of success.

The District

has

indicatedthat the requestedregulatory flexibility should be sufficient to enable it

to implement

the planned environmental improvements.

G.

Monitoring, Reporting, and Evaluation

The

District

willcontinue to monitor theperformance of their

WRPs, and

conduct basin sampling

as necessary as

described above in Section V. A. above. Reporting on

this monitoring

and

sampling will be available upon request to the District.

Ifa WRP performance has declined, this

information will

be reported immediately in

writing to

the Parties and Stakeholders.

Work plans for AMS will be prepared within six months ofestablishment ofPartnerships with

individual CItJs.

The pollutants to

be addressed under the TRAPs and

pollutant sources willbe identified within 12

months ofproject implementation.

TRAPs pollutant reduction strategies will be identifiedwithin

18 months ofproject implementation.

H.

Shifting

of

Risk

Burden

This XL pilot project should not result in any adverse shifts in loadings across media.

It is likely

that the 80 or so de minimis and non-significant CIUs that would be subject to reduced

monitoring and oversight are located throughout the seven WRP districts and

do not all discharge

to one WRP.

The environmental benefits will be evenly distributed across the community and

watershed.

Current requirements in the District pretreatment program for protecting worker

health and safety will remain in place.

It is anticipated that the AMSs developed in. this pilot

project will be superior to current monitoring practices with respect to

worker safety..

VI.

Implementation

Implementation ofthis agreement will rely onEPA to issue a

rule

thatwould modify existing

regulations

and

the

IEPA to adopt this rule.

This rule will grant regulatory flexibility to EPA

and

the District

to: 1) provide oversight flexibility for

lBs meeting

de

minimis

ornon

significant CItJ

criteria, 2) allow the District to use an alternative format for

its Pretreatment Annual Report,

and

3) allow Alternative Performance Expectations established to the satisfaction ofthe Partnership to

be consideredby the District, EPA, and IEPA as a means through which the facility will

demonstrate compliance withapplicable Pretreatment Standards, and Partnership facilities to

obtain authorization to use Alternative Performance Expectations to demonstrate compliance with

categorical standards.

The Parties intend that once this is in place, IEPA will issue revised

regulations

and an amended NPDES wastewater treatment facility penuit to

one of the wastewater

treatment plants operated by the District, and the District will need to

apply for a substantial

pretreatment program modification, revise its sewer use ordinance, and issue amended Discharge

22

---

Authorizations to de minimis

and non significant CIIJs.

All ofthese actions are necessary to fully

implement the provisions ofthis project.

The Illinois Pollution

Control Board will be involved in State rulemaking to

allow the District to

implement the regulatory flexibility ofthis Project XL pilot project. The Board is mandated to

adopt regulations that are “identical in substance” to the federally promulgated pretreatment

regulations.

VII.

Events Preventing

Project Implementation! Unavoidable Delays

This section applies to the provisions ofthis FPA that do not encompass enforceable regulatory

mechanisms.

Enforceable mechanisms, such as permit provisions or rules, shall be subject to

modification or enforcement as provided in applicable

law.

“Unavoidable delay” for purposes ofthe project described in this FPA is defined as any event

arising from causes beyond the control ofany Party or Parties that delays or prevents the

implementation ofthe project described in this FPA despitethe Parties’ best efforts to put their

intentions into effect.

An unavoidable delay can be caused by,

for example, a fire or acts ofwar.

An unavoidable delay does not include any increase in costs necessary to undertake-and

successfully complete the project in a timely fashion.

When any event occurs that may delay or prevent the implementation ofthis project, whether or

not it is unavoidable, the Party with knowledge ofthe event will provide verbal notice to

the

designated representatives of the remaining Parties.

Within ten days ofthe Party providing initial

notice ofthe event a written confirming notice will be provided to the Stakehoiders.

The

confirming notice will include the reason forthe

delay, the anticipated duration of the delay,

all

actions taken to prevent or minimize the delay, and the Party’s rationale for considering such a

delay to be unavoidable.

The Party providing notice will include all available documentation

supporting the claim that the delay was unavoidable.

Ifthe Parties, after reasonable opportunity to confer, agree that the delay is attributable to an

unavoidable delay, then the time forperformance ofobligations that are affected will be extended

to cover the period lost due to the delay.

Ifthe Parties agree, the Parties will document their

agreement in a written amendment to

this FPA.

Ifthe Parties do not agree, then the provisions for

Dispute Resolution in Section XIII will be followed.

VIII.

Enforceability

of the FPA

.

-

This Agreement in itself does not create

or modify legal rights or obligations, is not

a contract or a

regulatory action, such as a permit or a nile, and is not legally binding or enforceable against any

Party.

Rather, it expresses the plans

and intentions ofthe Parties without making those plans and

intentions bindingrequirements.

This

applies to

the provisions ofthis Agreement that concern

procedural as well as substantive matters.

Thus, for example, the Agreement establishes

23

---

procedures that the Parties intend to

follow with respect to

dispute resolution and termination (see

Sections XI and XII).

However, while the Parties fully intend

to

adhere to these procedures, they

are not legally obligated

to do so.

EPA intends to propose for public comment the

rule

needed to implement this Project.

Any rules,

permit modifications or legal mechanisms that implement

this

Project willbe effective

and

enforceable as provided under applicable law.

This Agreement is not a “final agency action” byEPA,because it does not create ormodify legal

rights

or obligations

and

is not legally enforceable. This Agreement itself is not subject to judicial

review or enforcement. Nothing any

Party

does or does not do that deviates from aprovision of

this

Agreement, or that is alleged to deviate froma provision of

this

Agreement,

can

serve as the

sole basis for any claim

for damages, compensation or other reliefagainst

any Party.

IX.

Duration ofAgreement

This FPA willbe

in. effect for the period of five years, unless

terminated earlierby the Parties. At

least

180 daysprior to the end ofthe five-yearperiod of

this

FPA, the Districtmayapply for

renewal

or extensionofthe Project period. A renewal or extension ofthe Project period willbe

treated as a modificationofthe FPA, and is addressed in SectionXbelow.

X.

This Project is an experiment designed to test new approaches to environmental protection

and

there is a degree of uncertainty regarding the environmental benefits

and costs associated with

activities to beundertaken in

this

Project. Therefore, itmaybe appropriate to amend

this

Agreement at somepoint during its duration.

Issues

and amendments

maybe raisedby the

Parties

or the Stakeholders.

This Final

ProjectAgreement maybe

amended by

mutual agreement of all

Parties

at

any time

during the duration ofthe

Project. The Parties recognize that amendments to

this

Agreement may

also necessitatemodification of legal implementationmechanisms (such as a rule orpermit) or

may require development ofnew implementation mechanisms.

Ifthe

Agreement is amended,

EPA, the District, and EPA

expect to

work together

with other regulatory bodies

and

stakeholders to

identify

and pursue any necessary modifications or additions to

the

implementation mechanisms in accordance with applicable procedures.

Ifthe Parties

agree to

make a substantial amendment

to

this Agreement, the general

public willreceive notice of the

amendment and

be given an

opportunity to participate in the process, as appropriate.

In determining whether to amend the Agreement, the Parties will evaluate whether the proposed

amendment meets Proj ect XL acceptance criteria and any other relevant considerations agreed on

by the Parties.

All Parties to the Agreement will meet withinninety (90) days following

submission

of any amendmentproposal (or within a shorter or longer period if all Parties agree) to

24

---

discuss- evaluation ofthe proposed. amendment.

Ifall Parties support the proposed amendment,

the Parties will (after appropriate stakeholder involvement) amend the Agreement.

XL

Termination of Agreement

A.

Expectations

Concerning

Termination.

This FPA

is not

a legally binding document and ‘any Party may withdraw from the FPA at any

time.

IfParties do withdraw from

the FPA, the regulation andlor permit will remain enforceable

until modified.

However, it is the desire ofthe Parties that this FPA

should remain. in effect

through the expected minimum Project term, and, during that time, be implemented as fully as

possible.

Although each Party retains its

discretion to terminate the FPA at any time, it is the

intent ofthe Parties that this Project will not be terminated unilaterally during the expected

minimum project term ofthis FPA unless.one ofthe following conditions, set forth below occurs:~

1.

Failure (taking into account its nature and duration) by any other Party to (a) comply with the

provisions ofthe implementation mechanisms for this Project, or (b) act in accordance with

the provisions ofthis

FPA;

2.

Discovery ofthe failure ofany

other Party-to disclose material facts during development of

the FPA;

3.

Failure ofthe Project to provide enhanced

environmentalbenefits an.dlor performance

consistent with the expectations ofthis FPA;

4.

Enactment or promulgation ofany environmental, health, or safety law or regulation after

execution ofthis FPA which renders the Project legally, technically, or economically

impracticable; or

Unless the Parties determine that continuation ofthe Project past the minimum Project term is

warranted, this FPA will be terminated as of the end ofthe minimum Project term.

EPA, Illinois EPA and the District do not intend to withdraw from the Agreement if the District

does not act in accordance with this Agreement or its implementation mechanisms, unless the

actions constitute a substantial failure to act consistently with intentions expressed in this

Agreement and its implementing mechanisms.

The decision to withdraw will, ofcourse, take the

failure’s nature and duration into account.

The District will be givennotice and a reasonable opportunity to remedy any “substantial failure”

before EPA’s or EPA’s

withdrawal.

Ifthere is a disagreement betweenthe Parties over whether

a “substantial failure” exists, the Parties will use the dispute resolution mechanism identified in

Section XII of this Agreement.

EPA and the Illinois EPAretain their discretion to use existing

enforcement authorities, including withdrawal or termination of this Project, as appropriate.

The

25

---

District-retains any existing rights or abilities to defend itself against any enforcement actions, in

accordance with applicable procedures.

B.

Termination

Procedures

The Parties agree that the following procedures will be used to terminate the Project prior to the

minimum Project term, and furtherthat the implementation mechanisms will provide for

withdrawal or termination consistent with these procedures:,

AnyParty desiring to terminate this EPA is expected to provide writtennotice ofits intent to

terminate to the other Parties and Stakeholders at least 60 days prior to termination.

Ifrequested by any one Party during the 60 day period noted above, the dispute resolution

proceedings provided in Section XII herein, may be initiated to resolve any dispute relating to

the

intent to

terminate.

If, following any dispute resolution or informal

discussion, the Party still

desires to terminate, the terminating Party will provide written notice offinal termination to all

Parties to the FPA.

If any Party terminates its participation in this FPA, the remaining Parties will consult with the

District to

determine whether the FPA should be continued in a modified form consistent with

applicable federal and state law, orterminated.

The termination procedures set forth in. this Section apply to the decision to

terminate

participation

in the FPA.

Procedures to be used in modifying or rescinding the legal mechanisms

used to implement the Project will be governed by the terms of those legal mechanisms and

applicable law.

C.

Post-Project Compliance Period

Orderly Returnto Compliance in the Event of Early Termination:

In the event ofany termination not based upon the end ofthe expected minimum Project term

(initially five years), there will be an Interim Compliance Period to provide sufficient time

consistent with permit modificationprocedures

set forth in 40 CFR

§

122.1

et seq. for the District

to come into compliance with the regulations deferred under the Project.

By the end ofthe

Interim Compliance Period, the District will comply with the applicable standards set forth in 40

CFR Part 403

and the applicable Illinois Administrative Code governing the Pretreatment

Program.

Within three months of the termination date, EPA and the Illinois EPA will issue an

order, permit or other legally enforceable mechanism establishing an implementation schedule for

the District’s orderly return to compliance.

The Interim Compliance Period is

15 months from the

date on which EPA, the Illinois EPA orthe District provides written notice offmal termination of

the Project in accordance with the terms ofthis FPA.

It is the District’s intent to be in

full

compliance with all applicable requirements above as soon as practicable,

as will be set forth in

26

---

the implementation

schedule.

Orderly

Return to

Compliance in

the Event ofCompletion ofProjectTerm:

Inthe event ofternimn.ation based upon the end ofthe Project term, the District will achieve

compliance with all applicable requirements within 15 months ofthe end ofthe minimum Project

term, unless the Project is modified in. accordance with Sections IX and X.

Amendment and

Resources.

The District, is expected to anticipate and plan for all activities necessary to come into

compliance upon completion ofthe Project, sufficiently in advance ofthe end ofthe Projectterm.

The District mayrequest a meetingwith EPA and the Illinois EPA to discuss the timing and

nature of any actions that the District will be required to take to

come into compliance with

regulatory requirements that have been deferred under this Project and should request such a

meeting at least 60 days in. advance ofthe anticipated completion date ofthe project term.

The

Parties expect that theywill meet within 30 days ofreceipt.ofthe District’s written request for

such a discussion.

At and following such meeting, the Parties expect that they will engage in

reasonable good faith discussion to identify the extent to which requirements deferred under this

Projectwill apply after termination ofthis Project.

XII.

Dispute Resolution

Any dispute that arises with respect to the meaning, application, implementation, interpretation,

amendment, termination or modification ofthe FPA will, in the first instance, be the subject of

informal discussions.

To initiate informal discussions, any Party that believes it has a dispute

with any other Party will contact all Parties, to

identify and explain the matter(s) in dispute.

This

initial contact should involve staff at the appropriate level forthe nature ofthe dispute.

Ifthe dispute cannotbe resolved by these staff within 30 days ofthe initial contact (or such,longer

time as agreed to by the disputants, then any Party escalate the dispute to the respective chief

administrative officials (signatories to this Agreement).

Writtennotices shall be provided to these

officials and the Stakeholders that explain the issue in dispute and provide a proposal for

resolution. The EPA Region

5

Administrator shall convene a meeting or conference call as soon

as practicable.

These officials mayprepare a final opinion that specifies that agreed resolution or

other appropriate findings

in. a timely manner.

Nothing

in this section willbe construed to

alter the Parties’ expectations regarding the ability to

terminate orwithdraw from the FPA set forth in the provision ofSection Xl Termination of

Agreement.

XIII.

Right

ofOther Legal Remedies Retained

Except as expressly provided in the legal imp1em~ntation

mechanisms,

nothing in the FPA affects

or limits the District’s, EPA’s, or EPA’

s legal rights.

These rights may include legal, equitable,

civjl, criminal or administrative claims or other relief regarding the enforcement of present or

27

---

future

applicable federal and state laws, rules, regulations or pennits with respect to the facility or

the District.

Although the District does not intend to

challenge agency actions implementing the Project

(including any rule amendments or adoptions, permit actions, or other action)

that are consistent

with this EPA, the District nevertheless reserves

any right itmay have to

appeal or otherwise

challenge any and all agency actions implementing the Project.

Nothing in this EPA is intended

to limit the District’s right to administrative or judicial appeal or review ofthose legal

mechanisms in accordance with the applicable procedures for suchreview.

XIV.

Transfer ofProject Benefits and Responsibilities

It is expected that the implementation mechanisms will allow for the transfer ofthe District’s

rights and obligations under the Project to any

future owner or operator upon request ofthe

District and such owner/operator, provided that the following conditions ,aremet:

The District will provide written notice of any such proposed transfer to EPA and the

Illinois EPA at least 45

days prior to the effective date of the transfer.

The notice is

expected to

include identificationofproposedtramisferee, a description ofthe proposed

-

transfere&s financial and technical capability to

assume the obligations

associated with the

Project, and a statement ofthe transferee’s intention to sign the EPA as an additional Party.

Within 30 days ofreceipt ofthe written notice, it is

expected that the EPA and IEPAwill

determine whether the transferee has demonstrated adequate financial and technical

capability to carry out the Project, willingness to sign the FPA,

and is otherwise an

appropriate XL partner.

It is expected that the implementation mechanisms will provide

that,

so long as the demonstration has been made to the satisfaction

and unreviewable

discretion ofthe Agencies, and upon consideration ofother relevant factors, the FPA will

be modified to

allow the proposed transferee to assume the rights and obligations of the

District.

In the event that transfer is disapproved by

any’ agency, withdrawal or

termination may be initiated, as provided in Section XI, A and E.

Upon approval oftransfer under this section, EPA, the Illinois EPA, and the District will

amend the rule, permit

and other implementing mechanism(s) (subject to public notice and

comment) to legallytransfer the rights

and obligations of the District under this project to

the proposed transferee.

The rights

and obligations of this project remain with the District

prior to their final, legal transfer to the proposed transferee.

XV.

Reporting

and Periodic Reviews

The District is required to periodically report the progress of its pilot program, as set forth below.

The District’s periodic report will describe

its Local Pilot Pretreatment Program activities and

28

---

accomplishments, including activities

and accomplishments ofany participating agencies and

public involvement.

The report will include an analysis ofall enviromnental data collected over

the reporting period and activities conducted to reduce pollutant loadings to the environment and

any other activities that address the objectives ofthe Local Pilot Pretreatment Program.

The report following the fourth year ofpilot program implementation will also include the

findings of the pilot.

This report will specifically address all objectives ofthe pilot program and

provide measures related to the effectiveness ofthe program, as implemented, in meeting the

objectives.

The reportwill also include recommendations concerning the implementation ofthe

Pretreatment Program at the local level.

The minimum report requirements will be detailed in the District’s NPDES permit.

This

requirement will be similar to the current requirement for the District to annually report to the

Approval Authority the status ofits

Pretreatment Program

(see 40 CFR 403.12(i).

At the

discretion ofthe NPDES permitting authority, the report may be rec~uired

more frequently than

onceper year.

The District must continue to submit regulatory reports on the requirements ofits

Pretreatment Program that

are unaffected by this FPA, as required under 40 CFR 403.

XVI.

Effective

Date

This FPA shall become

effective upon the date it is dated and signed by EPA’s Regional

Administrator for Region

5.

XVII.

EPA

Contacts

The Parties to this Final Project XL Agreement are the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago and the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency.

The project contacts

are as follows:

.

-

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District ofGreater Chicago

Richard Sustich

Assistant Director ofResearch and Development

Industrial Waste Division

111 East Erie Street

Chicago, Illinois

60611

312-751-3030

29

---

XVIII.

Signatories

to this FPA

Francis X. Lyons, Region~~Thinistrator,

US EPA

Region

5

Tom

Skinner,

ector

Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

/4

~

Hugh

.

McMillan, General Superintendent

Metropolitan

Water Reclamation

District

of Greater

4~J

/~i_

(~

~

ATTES~

Mary C.

West

Clerk of the Board

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District ofGreater

Chicago

,/~~

Date

Date

Date”

—

Gloria Alitto ~Majewski,

tittee

on Finance

Metropolitan

Water

Reclamation

of Greater

Date

I—

~-;~~o

Date

31

---

METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATIONDISTRICT

OF GREATER CHICAGO

PROPOSED MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE FOR DIMINIMUS

CIIU

(Expressed as pounds per day, except flow

gallons

per day)

Calumet WRP

John E. Egan

Hanover Park

James C. Kirie

Lemont WRP

WRP

WRP

WRP

Stickney WRP

Parameter

North

Side

,wp~p

Flow

10,000

3,000

1,200

7,200

230

10,000

10,000,

BOD

38.881

‘

6.274

1.543

6.347

0.239

28.129

201.767

Arsenic

ND’

ND

0.00

ND

ND

ND

ND

Barium

Cadmium

0.021

0.000

0.002

0.000

0.001

ND

0.004

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.014

0.000

0.088

0.002

Chromium

0.002

0.000

0.000

0.001

ND

0.004

0.117

Copper

0.015

0.003

‘

0.001

0.005

0.000

0.013

0.116

Cyanide

0.070

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.005

0.032

Fluorine

0.132

0.028

0.001

0.062

0.001

0.278

1.072

Iron

0.781

0.051

0.009

0.098

0.003

0.249

3.492

Lead

0.001

ND

ND

ND

0.000

ND

0.039

---

Appendix

I (Continued)

METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT

OF GREATER CHICAGO

PROPOSED

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE

FOR

DIMINIMUS CIII

DESIGNATION

(Expressed as pounds per day, except flow gallons

per day)

Calumet

WRP

JohnE. Egan

Hanover Park

,

James

C.

Kirie

Lemont WRP

North

Side

Stickney WRP

Parameter

WRP

WRP

WRP

WRY

Manganese

0.038

0.003

,

0.001

0.005

0.000

0.015

0.130

Mercury

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

Nickel

0.00 1

‘

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.022

Oil & Grease

6.554

0.986

0.302

1.285

‘

0.003

6.665

26.42 1

Phenols

0.179

0.002

0.001

0.004

0.000

0.013

0.316

Selenium

ND

ND

0.000

ND

ND

ND

ND

Silver

ND

0.000

0.000

0.000

ND

0.001

0.006

Zinc

0.098

,

0.004

0.001

0.009

0.000

0.030

3.088

Benzene

0.007

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.001

Chloroform

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

ND

0.004

---

METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO

PROPOSED MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE FOR

DIM1NIMUS CIII DESIGNATION

(Expressed as pounds per day, except flow gallons

per day)

CalumetWRP

John E. Egan

Hanover Park

James C.

Kirie

Lemont

WRP

North

Side

Stickney WRP

Parameter

WRY

WRY

WRP

WRY

Dichlorobromomethane

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.000

1,2-Dichloropropane

ND

‘

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.001

Ethyl benzene

0.001

ND

0.000

0.000

ND

0.00

1

0.002

w

Methylene chloride

0.002

0.003

0.000

0.001

ND

0.002

0.009

Tetrachloroethylene

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.003

0.007

Toluene

0.010

0.000

0.000

‘

0.000

0.000

0.003

0.013

1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

ND

0.001

0.002

Trichloroethylene

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

ND

0.004

0.005

2,4-Dimethylphenol

0.006

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Phenol

0.050

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.00 1

0.066

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

0.000

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.000

0.001

---

Appendix

METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATIONDISTRICT OF GREATER

CHICAGO

PROPOSED MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE FOR DIM~NIMIJS

CIII DESIGNATION

(Expressed as pounds per day, except flow gallons

per day)

Parameter

Calumet WRP

John E. Egan

WRP

Hanover Park

WRP

James C.

Kirie

WRP

Lemont WRP

~

North Side

WRY

Stickney WRP

Anthracene

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.000

Benzo-(a)-anthracene

0.000

ND

ND

0.000

ND

ND

ND

Benzo-(a)-pyrene

0.000

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Benzo-(k)-fluoranthene

0.000

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Butylbenzylphthalate

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.002

‘

0.003

Chrysene

0.000

ND

ND

‘

0.000

ND

ND

0.000

Diethylphthalate

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.003

Di-n-butyl-phthalate

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.002

Di-n-octyl-phthalate

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

ND

0.000

Fluoranthene

0.001

ND

ND

0.000

ND

ND

0.001

Naphthalene

0.002

ND

0.000

ND

ND

ND

0.001

Phenanthrene

0.00

1

ND

ND

0.000

0.000

ND

0.002

---

METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF

GREATER CHICAGO

PROPOSED MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE FOR

DIM1NIMUS CIII

DESIGNATION

(Expressed as pounds per day, except flow gallons

per day)

Parameter

Calumet WRP

John E.

Egan

WRY

Hanover Park

WRP

James C.

Kirie

WRP

Lemont WRY

North

Side

WRY

Stickney WRP

Pyrene

ND

ND

ND

‘

0.000

ND

ND

PCB-1254

0.000

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.000

PCB-1260

0.000

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.000

PCB-1016

,

0.000

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

y-BHC

ND

0.000

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

---

Appendix II

Performance Measures to be Incorporated into the Annual Pretreatment Program Report

1.

Trends in mass loadings ofmetalsand other toxic and non-conventional pollutants in

POTW effluent; and comparisons to

allowable levels in NPDES permits.

2.

Trends in emissions ofhazardous pollutants to the

air, particularly for volatile pollutants

from unit processes and metals from incineration.

3.

Trends in mass loadings ofmetals

and other toxic contaminants to

POTWinfluent, as a

total, and, where possible, divided into domestic, commercial, industrial, and storm

contributions to the total;

and comparison to

allowable loadings as calculated during the

headworks analysis, where such analysis is ayailable.

4.

Reductions in annual average metals levels in biosolids, with an indication ofany trend

towards or compliance with the most stringent nationwide biosolids

standards.

5.

Percent compliance with NPDES permit discharge requirements.

6.

For each POTW, whether the POTW is failing Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) discharge

criteria due to industrial sources.

7.

Percent compliance with non-pathogen biosolids quality limits for the management

method currently used, with sites divided into categories based on applicable regulations,

calculated as the number ofsamples in compliance out of all samples (i.e., the average for

that calendar year).

8.

Percent compliance at each IU with categorical discharge limits.

9.

Percent compliance at each IU with all permit discharge limits.

10.

Percent oflUs in compliance with reporting requirements.

11.

Number and percent ofis

in SNC for the current year that were also in SNC for the

previous year.

12.

Whether an effective method is being used to prevent, detect,

and remediate incidents of

violations of the specific prohibitions attributable to

industrial or commercial sources (e.g.,

fire, explosion hazards,

fume

toxicity, etc.).

13.

Whether an effective procedure is being used to identify non-domestic users

and to

update

the list ofregulated users.

14.

Number ofsample events conducted by the Control Authority per SItU per year,

and

percent

37

---

Appendix II (Continued)

Performance Measures to be Incorporated into the Annual Pretreatment Program Report

ofall sample events that were conducted by the Control Authority.

15.

Number ofinspections per SIU per year.

16.

Whether the Control Authority has site-specific, technically based local limits, based on

the most recent regulatory changes and latest NPDES permit requirements; or a rationale

for the lack ofsuch limits.

17.

Whether the POTW or Control Authority has significant activities or accomplishments

that demonstrate performance beyond traditional goals and standards.

18.

Whether or not the POTW has an effective public involvement program in place.

38

---

Appendix III

Glossary

Approval Authority:

The Director in anNPDES State with anapproved State pretreatment

program and the appropriate EPARegional Administrator in a non-NPDES

State orNPDES

State without an approved State pretreatment program.

40

C.F.R. 403.3(c)

Approved POTW Pretreatment Program: A

program administered by a POTW that meets

the criteria

established in40 C.F.R. 403.8

and

403.9

and which

has been approvedby a

Regional Administrator or State Director in accordance with 40

C.F.R. 403.11.

40

C.F.R.

403.3(d)

Categorical Pretreatment Standards:

Limitations on pollutant discharges to POTWa

promulgated byEPA in

accordance with Section 307 ofthe Clean Water Act, that apply to

specific process wastewater discharges of particular industrial categories

40

C.F.R. 403.6

and

40 C.F.R. Parts 405-471..

Clean Water Act (CWA):

An act passed by the U.S.

Congress to control waterpollution.

It

was formerly referred to as the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act of 1972 or Federal Water

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law

92-500),

33 U.S.C.

1251 et.

Seq.,

as

amended by:

Public Law 96-483: Public Law 97-117; Public Laws 95-217, 97117, 97-440 and

100-04.

Control Authority: A POTW

with an approved pretreatment program or the approval

authority

(State or EPA Region) in

the absence of a POTW pretreatment program 40

C.F.R.

403.12(a).

Indirect Discharge: The

introduction

ofpollutants into aPOTW from

any

non-domestic

source regulated under Section 307(b), (c), or (d)- ofthe Act.

40

C.F.R. 403.3

(g)

Industrial User:

A source of indirect discharge. 40

C.F.R. 403.3

(h)

Local Limits:

Discharge limits imposed by municipalities upon industrial or commercialusers

that discharge to the municipal sewage treatment system.

National pretreatment Standard or Pretreatment Standard:

Any

regulation containing

pollutant discharge limits promulgated by EPAin accordance with Section 307 (b) and © of

the Clean Water, that apply to industrial users.

This

term also includes the prohibited

discharge standards under 40

C.F.R. 403.5. 40

C.F.R. 403.3

(j)

Pretreatment:

The reduction ofthe amount ofpollutants, the elimination ofpollutants, or the

alteration ofthe nature ofpollutant properties in wastewater prior to or in lieu ofdischarging or

otherwise introducing such pollutants to a POTW.

40

C.F.R. 403.3

(q)

39

---

Appendix III (Continued)

Glossary

Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW):

Any

device or system used in the treatment

(including recycling

and reclamation) ofmunicipal sewage or industrial wastes ofa liquid

nature which is owned by a State or municipality.

This includes sewers, pipes, or other

conveyances only if they convey wastewater to

a POTW providing treatment.

Sludge (IBiosolids): The

solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of

wastewater.

Wastewater:

The used waste and water-carried solids from a community (including domestic,

commercial, and industrial sources) that flow to

a treatment plant. Storm water, surface water,

and groundwater infiltration also may be included in the wastewater that

enters a wastewater

treatment plant.

40

---

Exhibit B

---

50334

Federal

Register/ Vol.

66,

No.

192

/ Wednesday,

October

3,

2001/Rules

and

Regulations

(F) One or more ofthe following

wastes

listed in

§ 261.32—wastewaters

from theproduction of carbamates and

carbamoyl oximes (EPA Hazardous

Waste No.

K157)—Provided that the

maximumweekly usage of

formaldehyde, methyl chloride,

methylene chloride,

and

triethylamine

(including all

amounts that can not be

demonstratedto be reacted in the

process, destroyed through treatment,

or

is recovered, i.e., what is discharged or

volatilized)

divided by theaverage

weekly flow of process wastewater prior

to any dilutions into theheadworks of

the facility’swastewater treatment

system does not exceed a total of 5

parts

per million by weight; or

(G) Wastewaters derived from the

treatment of one or moreof the

following wastes listed in § 261.32—

organic waste (including heavy ends,

still bottoms, light ends, spent solvents,

filtrates, and decantates)

fromthe

production of carbamates and

carbamoyl oximes (EPA Hazardous

Waste No. K156).—Provided, that the

maximum concentration of

formaldehyde, methyl chloride,

methylene chloride, and triethylamine

priorto

any

dilutions into the

headworks of the facility’swastewater

treatment system does not exceed a total

of

5

milligrams per liter.

*

*

*

*_

*

(g)*

*

*

(4)

any

mixture

of a solid waste

excluded from regulation under

§ 261.4(b)(7) and a hazardous waste

listed in subpart D of this part solely

because it exhibits one or more ofthe

characteristicsof ignitability,

corrosivity, or reactivity as regulated

under paragraph (a)(2)(iv) ofthis

section

is not a hazardous waste, if themixture

no longer exhibits any characteristic of

hazardous waste identified in subpart C

ofthis

part

for which the hazardous

waste listed in subpart D ofthis

part

was listed.

*

*

*

*

*

FR

Doc.

01—24068 Filed

10—2—01; 8:45

am

BILLING CODE

6560-50—U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40CFR Part 403

IFRL—7073—3

RIN 2090—AAI6

Pretreatment Program Reinvention

Pilot Projects Under Project XL

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection

Agency

(EPA).

ACTION:

Final

rule.

SUMMARY:

This

rule will change the

National Pretreatment Program

regulations

to allow Publicly Owned

TreatmentWorks

(POTWs) that have

completed the Project excellence and

Leadership

(ProjectXL) selection

process, including Final Project

Agreement (FPA) development, to

modify their approved local

Pretreatment Programs. These POTWs

will be allowed to modify their

programs, and implement thenew local

programs as

describedin their FPAs. In

today’srule,

EPA recognizesthat many

POTWs with approved Pretreatment

Programs have mastered the

administrativeand procedural

requirements of theNational

Pretreatment regulations.

Several

of

these POTWs wantthe opportunity to

implementlocal pretreatment programs

with effectiveness measured against

environmental results rather than strict

adherence to progranunatic

and

administrative measures. These POTWs

have expressed an interest in Project XL

to test new pilot ideas that focus

resources on activities that they believe

would provide greater environmental

benefits than are

achieved by complying

with current regulatory requirements.

This rule is intended to provide the

regulatory flexibility that will enable

these and other test programs to move

forward. Currently, five POTWs are

actively involved in

this Project XL

process. The flexibility provided by this

rule revision is limited to fifteen POTWs

that meet theProject XL criteria.

DATES: This final rule is effective

October 3, 2001.

ADDRESSES: A docket containing the

rule, Final Project Agreements,

supporting materials, public

comments

and the official record is available for

public inspection and copying at the

EPA’s Water Docket, EB—57

(East Tower

Basement), 401 M Street,

SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. The record for

this rulemaking has been established

under docket number W—00—30, and

includes supporting documentation.

The

public may inspect the

administrative record from 9 amto

4

pm

Monday through Friday, excluding

Federal holidays.

The public is

encouraged to phone in advance to

review docket materials. Appointments

can be scheduled by phoning theDocket

Office at (202) 260—3027. The public

may copy a maximum of

100

pages from

any regulatory docket at no charge.

Additional copies cost 15

cents per

page.

Project materials are also available

for review for today’s action

on the

world wide web at

http://www.epa.gov/

projectxl/.

Supporting

materialsare also

available for inspection and copying at

U.S. EPA, Headquarters, 401 M Street,

SW., Room 1027 West Tower,

Washington, DC 20460 during normal

business hours. Personswishing to view

thematerials at the Washington, DC

location

are

encouraged to contact Mr.

Chad Carbone in advance by

telephoning

(202)

260—4296.

FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT:

Mr.

Brian Frazer,

(202) 564—0599, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel

Rios

Building, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., (MC 4203), Washington,

DC 20460. Further informationon

today’s action may also be viewed on

the world wide web at

http://

www.epa.gov/projectxl/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this

action are governmental entities

responsible for implementation of the

National Pretreatment Program and

POTWs subject to Pretreatment

Standards and requirements that have

completed the ProjecteXcellence and

Leadership (Project XL) selection

process, including Final Project

Agreement (FPA) development, to

modify their approved local

pretreatmentprograms. Regulated

categories and entities include:

Category

Examples ?~~~ts

en-

Local government

State

and

Tribal

government

Publicly Owned

Treatment

Works.

States

and

Tribes

acting

as

Pretreatment Pro-

gram

Control Authori-

ties or as Approval Au-

thorities.

This table

is

not intended to be

exhaustive,but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that

EPA

is now

aware could potentially be regulated by

this action. Othertypes of entities not

listed in the tablecould also be

regulated. If you have questions

regardingthe applicability of this action

to a particularentity, consult theperson

in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

On October 6, 2000, the

Environmental ProtectionAgency

proposed a rule (65 FR 59791) that set

forth the mechanism

through

which

POTWs that complete the Project XL

process can seek modification oftheir

programs following the procedures in 40

CFR

403.18, and implement thenew

---

Federal

Register/Vol.

66,

No.

192 /Wednesday,

October

3,

2001/Rules

and

Regulations

50335

local programs as described in their

FPAs. Today’s

final rule promulgates

regulations that are identical to the

proposed rule.

Outline ofToday’s

Rule

The information presented in this

preamble is organized as follows:

I. Authority

II. Background

A.

What

is Project XL?

B.

What

is EPA

Announcing?

C. Stakeholder Involvement in the Project

XL Process

D.

Summary

of Public Comments

E. Whatis the National Pretreatment

Program?

F.

Whatare the Current Pretreatment

Program

Requirements?

G. How Do the Current Requirements

Relate to Enviromnental Objectives?

H. Why Is

EPA

Allowing POTW Local Pilot

Pretreatment

Programs

at

this Time?

I.

Are

There

Any

POTWs

Currently

Going

Through

Project XL Approval Process?

J. What

Are

the Environmental Benefits

Anticipated

through

Project XL?

K. What is the Project Duration

and

Completion Date?

L. How Could the Project be Terminated?

III.

Rule

Description

IV. Additional Information

A. Executive Order 12866

B. RegulatoryFlexibility Act

C. Congressional Review Act

D. PaperworkReduction Act

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

F. Executive Order 13045: Protectionof

Children

from

Enviromnental Health

Risks

and Safety

Risks

G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

H.

Executive

Order

13175:

Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

J.

Administrative Procedure

Act

K. Executive Order 13211

L Authority

This regulation is being promulgated

under theauthority

of sections 307, 402

and 501

of the CWA.

H.

Background

A.

What Is Project XL?

Project XL, which stands for

“eXcellence

and

Leadership,” is

a

national pilot program that tests

innovative ways of

achieving betterand

more cost-effective public health and

environmental protection

through

site-

specific agreements with project

sponsors. ProjectXL was announced on

March 16,

1995, as a central part of

EPA’s effort to reinventenvironmental

protection. See 60 FR 27282 (May 23,

1995)

and

60 FR55569

(November 1,

1995).

The intent of ProjectXL is to

allow EPA and regulated entities to

experiment with pragmatic, potentially

promising regulatory approaches, both

to assess whether they provide superior

environmental performance and other

benefitsat thespecific facility affected,

and whether they should be considered

for widerapplication. Such pilot

projects are

intended to allow EPA to

collect moredata on a more focused

basis prior to national rulemaking.

Today’s regulation would enable

implementation of five specific XL

projects as

well as future projects that

successfully complete theProject XL

process. These efforts are crucial to

EPA’s ability to test new strategies

that

reduce theregulatory burden and

promote economic growth while

achieving better environmental and

public health protection. EPA intends to

evaluate the results ofthis and other XL

projects to determinewhich specific

elements of theproject(s), if any, should

be more broadly applied to other

regulated entities

for the benefit of both

the economyand theenvironment.

B.

What Is EPA Announcing?

In theJune

23, 1998, Federal

Register

(63 FR 34170), EPA requested proposals

for XL projects from 15 POTWs based

on environmental performance

measuresfor the pretreatmentprogram.

The process for reviewing and choosing

acceptable pilot program candidates

included input fromPOTWs, State

and

EPA Regional

Pretreatment

Coordinators, as well as opportunity for

public participation.

Asdiscussed in

moredetail below, five POTWs have

advanced

to the final steps ofthe Project

XL process. In today’s rule, EPA

announces revisions to the national

pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR

part

403 that will allow the current and

future selected Local Pilot Pretreatment

Programs to be implemented. The

flexibility provided by this

rule revision

is limited to

15 POTWs that meet the

Project XL criteria. POTWs must submit

revised pretreatment programs for

approval

and obtain modified permits to

authorize thePOTW to implement its

pilot program instead of its currently

Approved POTW Pretreatment Program.

However, please note that theaffected

States may first need to revise their

own

regulations

or statutes to authorize the

pilot programs for pretreatmentXL

project sponsors before this rule can be

implemented in their jurisdictions.

C. Stakeholder Involvement in the

Project XL Process

EPA believes stakeholder involvement

in developing Local Pilot Pretreatment

Programs is crucial to thesuccess ofthe

programs; therefore, as part of the

Project XL proposal, a POTW must

clearly explain its process for involving

stakeholders in the design of the pilot

program.

This process should be based

upon the guidance entitled, Regulatory

Reinvention (XL) Pilot Projects, set out

in theApril

23,

1997, Federal Register

notice (62 FR 19872). The support of

parties that have a stake in the program

is very important. OnceEPA has

accepted a candidate based on its

detailed proposal, the PO’FW, EPA, the

State and local stakeholders typically

develop a Final ProjectAgreement

(EPA). The

EPA is a non-binding

agreement that describes theintentions

and commitmentsof theimplementing

parties. Stakeholders may include

communities near the project, local

or

State governments, businesses,

environmental and other public interest

groups, or

other similar entities.

Stakeholders will also have formal

opportunities to comment on provisions

of theEPA that are incorporated in the

POTW’s revised pretreatmentprogram

under the procedures established at 40

CFR 403.18 and this rule.

D. Summary ofPublic Comments

EPA proposed

this regulation

on

October 6, 2000

(65 FR59791), The

preamble to the proposed rule explains

thechanges inthe regulations. The

public comment period was open for a

period of 30 days and closed on

November 6, 2000.

EPA received a total of three

comments regardingthis rule. The

commentersincluded two States and a

trade group that represents

municipalities. Two of the cominenters

fully

support the revised regulation

which will allow the Project XL process

to move forward and provide a means

to test new ways to streamline the

pretreatmentprogramand provide

greater environmental benefits. The

other conunenter believes that both

major and minor modifications to

expired NPDES permits are prohibited

and requeststhat 40 CFR 403.20 be

clarified to allow approved Pretreatment

Program Modifications that may be

processed as minor NPDES Permit

modifications in accordance with 40

CFR 122.63(g), to be also processed in

cases when theassociated NPDES

Permits are expired.

In response to this

comment, EPA agrees that the Federal

NPDES regulations do not contemplate

modifications to expired NPDES permits

and EPA understands that many

States

have permitting backlogs. However,

EPA does not believe that an exception

to the NPDES permitting regulations is

appropriatein this

narrowly tailored

rulemaking amending the pretreatment

regulations. Rather, EPA believes that

States with NPDES permitbacklogs

would

make

POTWs that qualify under

this rule a high priority

and

reissue

those permits promptly so that those

---

50336

Federal

Register/Vol.

66,

No.

192/Wednesday,

October

3,

2001/Rules

and

Regulations

facilitiescan implement thechanges

to

their permits allowed under this rule.

E.

What Is the National Pretreatment

Program?

The National Pretreatment Program is

part of

the

Clean Water Act’s (CWA’s)

water pollution control program. The

programis a joint regulatory effort by

local, State, and Federal authorities that

requiresthe control of industrial and

commercial sources ofpollutants

discharged to municipal wastewater

plants (called “publicly owned

treatment works” or “POTWs”). Control

of pollutants prior to dischargeof

wastewater to the municipal sewer

systemminimizes thepossibility of

pollutants interfering with the operation

ofthePOTW and reduces the levels of

toxic pollutants in wastewater

discharges fromthe POTW and in the

sludge

resulting frommunicipal

wastewater treatment.

F.

What

Are

the Current Pretreatment

Program Requirements?

The minimum requirements for an

approved

POTW

Pretreatment Program

currentlyare published at 40 CFR

403.8(f). POTWs with approved

Pretreatment Programs mustmaintain

adequate legal authority, identify

industrial users, designate which

industrial users (IUs) are “Significant

Industrial Users” (SIUs) (under 40 CFR

403.3(t)) and perform required

monitoring, permitting

and

enforcement. Othersections of

part

403

require POTWs with Approved

Pretreatment Programs to sample

and

apply nationally applicable

pretreatment standards to the industrial

users discharging pollutants to the

POTW collection system.

POlliVs

are

also required to

develop local limits in

accordance with 40 CFR 403.5. As

announced today, EPA will allow

Approval Authorities to require a POTW

to meet requirements in an

environmentalperformance-based pilot

programinstead of certain

administrative programmatic

requirements currentlyrequired in a

POTW’s

ApprovedPretreatment

Program under 40 CFR

part

403.

G.

How Do the Current Requirements

Relate to Environmental Objectives?

Asdescribed in 40 CFR 403.2, the

general pretreatmentregulations

promote three objectives:

(a) To prevent the introduction of

pollutants into POTWs which will

interfere with theoperation of POTWs,

including interference with theuse or

disposal of municipal sludge;

(b)

To prevent the introduction of

pollutants into POTWs which will pass

through thetreatmentworks

or

otherwise be incompatible with such

works; and

(c)To improve opportunities to

recycle and reclaim municipal and

industrial wastewaters and sludges.

These objectivesrequire local

programs to be designed so they are

preventativein nature, and therefore,

any

pilot program also would need to

maintain this preventative approach.

The

specific requirements for an

Approved POTW Pretreatment Program

are intended to achieve these objectives.

individual pretreatmentprograms,

however, are not routinely required to

report on theachievement of

environmental measures.

The 1991 National Pretreatment

Program Reportto

Congress provides

extensive data relatedto the sources and

amounts of pollutants discharged to

POTWs, theremoval ofpollutants by

secondarytreatment technology, and the

general effectiveness of the pretreatment

program. The 1991 Report did, however,

point to a serious lack of comprehensive

environmental data with which to fully

assess

the effectiveness ofboth the

national

and

local

pretreatment

programs. These Project XL pilots will

help to provide data for this purpose.

H.

Why Is EPA Allowing POTWLocal

Pilot Pretreatment Programs at this

Time?

Some POTWs have mastered the

administrative aspects of the

pretreatment program (identifying

industrial users, permitting, monitoring,

etc.)

and want to move into more

environmental performance-based

processes.

These

POTWs

have

expressed an interest in focusing their

resources on activitiesthat they believe

would provide greaterenvironmental

benefit than is achieved by complying

with thecurrent requirements. Some

POTWs want to be able to make

decisions on allocating resources based

on therisk associatedwith the

industrial contributions they receive or

other factors.

Others want to be able to

focus mOre resources

on ambient

monitoring in their receivingwaters

and/or to integrate their pretreatment

programs with their storm water

monitoring programs. In general, these

POTWs want theopportunity to redirect

limited resources awayfrom currently

required activities that they do not

believe

are

benefitting the environment

and

toward activities that may achieve

measurable improvements in the

environment.

EPA

developed the ProjectXL

programto provide regulated entities

the flexibilityto

conduct innovative

pilot projects.

Today’s rule represents

an attemptto spur innovation in the

pretreatment program, to increase

environmental benefits and, in

conjunction with the streamlining

proposal (see 64

FR 39564), to

determine, if furtherstreamlining ofthe

programis needed, how streamlining

can achieve environmental

improvements and in what direction

those futurestreamlining efforts should

be directed.

I. Are There Any

POTWs

Currently

Going Through Project XL Approval

Process?

In order to implement the

pretreatment XL projects, EPA

is

promulgating this rule to

provide

regulatory flexibility under theClean

Water Act. Currently, five (5) POTWs

have requested flexibility through the

ProjectXL EPA approval process. The

POTWs ale: The NarragansettBay

Commission

(NBC)

in

Rhode

Island; the

JeffersontownWastewater Treatment

Plant (WWTP),owned and operated by

theLouisville and Jefferson County

Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD)in

Kentucky; the MetropolitanWater

Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

(Chicago) in Illinois; the City of

Albuquerque (Albuquerque), New

Mexico; and the City of Denton

(Denton), Texas. The EPA for NBC lays

out the following flexibilities:

(1)

Reduced self-monitoring requirements

for ten (10) categorical industrial users

(CIUs) for tier 1

facilities, (2)

reduced

inspection frequency for ten(10) CIUs

tier 1

facilitiesfrom once everyyear to

once everytwo years, and

(3) allow

participating CIUs tier 1

facilities to not

sample for pollutants not expected to be

present. Under the EPA for MSD, the

POTW is requesting flexibility to

(1) use

an alternative definition

for significant

industrial user (SIU), (2) allow

participating CIUsto not sample for

pollutants not expected to be.present

and (3) use an alternative

definition of

significant noncompliance

(SNC). The

Chicago EPA describes flexibility that

includes (1) use of an alternative

definition for

de

minimis

categorical

industrial user (CIU), and

(2) reduced

self-monitoring and self-reporting

requirements

for participating ClUe and

(3) use of alternative monitoring

methods.

The Albuquerque EPA lays

out flexibility to (1) use an alternative

definition of SIU,

(2) use an alternative

definition of SNC,

(3) reduce permitting

requirements for participating lUs,

(4)

use alternative monitoring methods

and

(5) reduce reporting requirements for

participating lUs. The DentonEPA lays

out flexibility to (1) reduce its

monitoring of participating

lUs

and (2)

reduce its inspection of participating

---

Federal

Register/Vol.

66,

No.

192/Wednesday,

October 3,

2001/Rules

and

Regulations

50337

lUs. In

exchange for these flexibilities,

each individual POTW has committed

to produce certain proportional amounts

of superior environmentperformance as

laid out in the EPA and maintain all

legal and preventative environmental

health and safety standards.

Complete

project site-specific descriptions can be

found on the web at: http://

www.epa.gov/projectxl/.

J.

What

Are

the Environmental Benefits

Anticipated Through Project XL?

These XL projects are expected to

achieve superior environmental

performance beyond that which is

achieved under the currentCWA

regulatory system by allowing POTWe

the ability to identify environmental

goals and allocate thenecessary

resources

on a site specific basis.

Specifically, these projects are expected

to produce additional benefitsby

(i)

reducing pollutant loadings to the

environment or some other

environmental benefit beyond that

currentlyachieved through the existing

pretreatmentprogram (including

collecting environmental performance

data and data related to environmental

impacts in order to measure the

environmental benefit), (ii) reducing

or

optimizing costs relatedto

implementation ofthe pretreatment

programwith thesavings used to attain

environmental benefits elsewhere in the

watershed in any media, and (iii)

providing EPA with information on how

the pretreatment programmight be

betteroriented towardsthe achievement

of measuresof environmental

performance.

EPA’s intent is to allow Local Pilot

Pretreatment Programsto be

administered by those POTWs that best

furtherthose objectives. Each pilot

program’s methodof achieving the

environmentalbenefit should be

transferable so that other POTWs may

be able to implement themethod and

also achieve increased environmental

benefits.

K.

What Is the Project Duration and

Completion Date?

Under

Project XL, local Pilot

Pretreatment Programs may be approved

to operate for theterm expressed in the

FPA. Prior to theend of the EPA

approval period (at least 180 days), the

POTW may apply for a renewal or

extension of theproject period in

accordance with thetermsof the FPA.

Ifa P01W is not able to meet the

performance goals of its Local Pilot

Pretreatment Program, thePretreatment

ApprovalAuthority (either EPA

or the

authorized State) could allow the

performance measures to be adjusted if

theprimary objectivesof the Local Pilot

Pretreatment Program would be

met.

The revised Local Pilot Pretreatment

Program would need to be approved in

accordance with the EPA and the

procedures in 40 CFR 403.18.

If theprimary objectives of the

proposal

are not being met, the

Approval Authoritywould direct the

POTW to

discontinue implementing the

Local

Pilot Pretreatment Program and

resume implementation of its previously

approved pretreatment program. The

Pretreatment ApprovalAuthority would

need to ensure that the POTW’s NPDES

permit includes a “reopener” clause to

implement thisprocedure.

The results of thepilots, including

recommendations in P01W reports,

may be used to determine the direction

of futurePretreatment Program

streamlining and/or reinvention.

L. How Could the Project Be

Terminated?

Either the Approval Authority or the

POTW may terminate a project earlier

than the final project agreement’s (EPA)

anticipated end date. Partieswill follow

procedures for termination set out in the

EPA. The implementing permits will

also reflect the possibility of early

termination. When theNPDES

permitting agency modifies the POTW’s

NPDES permit to incorporate the

flexibility allowed by today’s rule, it

must include a

“reopener” provision

that requires theP01W to returnto

compliance with proviously approved

pretreatment programrequirements at

theexpiration or termination of the

FPA, including an interim compliance

period, ifneeded.

Additional details are

available in thesite-specific FPAs.

IH. Rule Description

Today’s rule modifies 40

CFR

part

403

to allow Pretreatment Approval

Authorities (EPA or State) to grant

regulatory flexibility to Project XL

POTWs with approved FPAs.

The

regulatory flexibility would allow such

POTWs to implementPretreatment

Programs that include legal authorities

and requirements that are different than

the administrativerequirements in 40

CFR

part

403. The P01W would need

to submit any such alternative

requirements as a substantial program

modification in accordance with the

procedures outlined in 40

CFR 403.18.

The approved modified program would

need to be incorporated as an

enforceable part of the POTW’s NPDES

permit. The Approval Authoritywould

approve or disapprove thepilot program

using theprocedures in 40 CFR 403.18.

Forexample, theP01W would work

through the Project XL process as

described above. The P01W either

would or has already developed the

necessary EPA with stakeholder

participation

(local interest groups,

State representatives, EPA,

any other

interested parties). The P01W would

use the EPA as

theblueprint when

developing a revision of the POTW’s

approved local pretreatment program.

The POTW would submit the revised

programto

its Approval Authority (State

or EPA region) requesting a substantial

program

modification using the

procedures outlined in 40 CFR 403.18.

The Approval Authority would review

the programmodification requestto

determine that it contains the provisions

ofthe blue-print EPA and make a

determination to approve or deny the

request. The proposal for modification

wouldbe publicly noticed following the

procedures in 40 CFR 403.11 and 40

CFR 403.18.

After the close of the public

comment period, theApproval

Authoritywould consider and respond

to public

commentsand revise the

POTW’s pretreatmentprogram

accordingly. Then the POTWs NPDES

permitwould be modified by adding the

modified pretreatment program as

an

enforceable

part

of thepermit.

liv. Additional Information

A. Executive Order

12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October

4,

1993) the Agency

mustdetermine whether theregulatory

action is “significant” and therefore

subject to Office of Management

and

Budget (0MB) review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The

Orderdefines “significant

regulatory action” as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effecton the

economyof $100 million or more

or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector ofthe economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious

inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alterthe budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or therights and

obligations ofrecipients thereof; or

(4) Raisenovel

legal or policy

issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

It

has been determined that

this rule

is not a “significant regulatory action”

under the terms ofExecutive Order

12866, and

is therefore not subject to

0MBreview.

---

50338

Federal

Register/Vol.

66,

No.

192/Wednesday,

October

3,

2001/Rules

and

Regulations

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as

Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement FairnessAct of

1996

The

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

5

U.S.C. 601

et seq.,

generally requires

an agency to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking

requirements under theAdministrative

Procedure Act or any other statute

unless theagency certifies that therule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial

number of small

entities.

Small entities include small

businesses, small

organizations, and

small governmentaljurisdictions.

This

rule reduces the regulatory costs to

POTWs of complying with the

pretreatment requirements and affects

only a small number of POTWs. It only

affects those POTWs that elect to

participatein thevoluntary Project XL

Program. Therefore, I certifythat this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

C. CongressionalReviewAct

The Congressional ReviewAct, 5

U.S.C. 801

et seq.,

as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating therule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA

will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required informationto the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

theComptroller General of the United

States priorto publication ofthe rule in

theFederal Register. A major rule

cannot take effectuntil

60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a “majorrule” as

defined by 5 U.S.C.

§ 804(2).

This rule

will

be effective on October 3, 2001.

D. Paperwork Reductibn Act

This rule does not impose any new

information collection burden.

This rule

merely changes theNational

Pretreatment Program regulations to

provide flexibility to allow POTWs that

have completed the Project XL selection

process, including EPA development, to

modify their approved local

Pretreatment Programs. The P01W must

submit any such alternative

requirements as a substantial program

modification

in accordance with the

procedures outlined

in 40 CFR 403.18.

The Office of Management and Budget

(0MB) has previously approved the

information collection requirements

for

40 CFR 403.18 under the provisions of

the PaperworkReduction Act, 44

U.S.C.

3501

et seq.

and has assigned 0MB

control

numbers 2040—0009

(EPAICR

No.

0002.09)

and 2040—0170 (EPA ICR

No.

1680.02).

in

addition, 0MB has

approved the ICR entitled “Regulatory

Reinvention Pilot Projects Under Project

XL: Pre-treatment Program,” and

assigned

0MB

control number 2010—

Q026 (EPA ICR No. 1755.05).

Copies ofthe ICR document(s) may be

obtained fromSandy Farmer, by mail at

the Office ofEnvironmental Information

Collection StrategiesDivision; U.S.

Environmental ProtectionAgency

(2822);

1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460, by email at

farmer.sandy@epa.gov,

or by calling

(202)

260—2740.

A copy may also be

downloaded off the internet at http://

www.epa.gov/icr. include the ICR and/

or 0MB control number in any

correspondence.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide informationto or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to complywith any

previously applicable

instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose theinformation.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor,and

a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid 0MB

control number. The 0MB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part

9

and 48

CFR chapter 15.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title

II of theUnfunded Mandates

Reform Act of

1995

(UMRA),

Public

Law

104—4, establishes requirements for

Federal agenciesto assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal

governments and theprivate

sector. Under section 202 of theUMRA,

EPA generally mustprepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis,

for proposed and final rules

with “Federal mandates” that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to theprivate sector, of $100 million

or morein any one year.

Before

promulgating an EPA

rule for which a

written statement is needed, section

205

ofthe

UMBA

generally requiresEPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most cost-

effective or least burdensome alternative

that achievesthe objectives ofthe rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law.

Moreover, section

205

allows

EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or leastburdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation of why that

alternative was not adopted. Before EPA

establishes any regulatory requirements

that may significantly

or uniquely affect

small governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section

203 of the

UMRA a

small

governmentagency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officialsof affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

theregulatory requirements.

Today’s rule contains no Federal

mandates (under theregulatory

provisions ofTitle

II of theUMRA) for

State, local,

or tribal governments or the

private sector. The rule imposes no

enforceable

duty on any State, local

or

tribal governments or theprivate sector.

Further,

UMBA

generally excludes

from

the definition of “Federal

intergovernmental mandate” duties that

arise from participation in a voluntary

Federal program.

The ProjectXL

Program is a voluntary Federal program.

Thus, today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202

and 205 of

theUMRA. Forthe same reasons, EPA

has determined that this rule contains

no regulatory requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. Thus, today’s rule is not

subject to

UMEA

section 203.

F. Executive Order13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and SafetyRisks

The Executive Order 13045,

“Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks”

(62 FR 19885, April 23,1997)

applies to any

rule that: (1) Is

determined to be “economically

significant,” as defined under Executive

Order 12866;

and

(2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effecton children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

---

Federal Register/Vol.

66,

No.

192

/Wednesday,

October

3,

2001/Rules

and

Regulations

50339

the Agency must evaluatethe

enviromnentalhealth

or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why theplanned regulation

is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order

13045

because it is not an

economically significant rule, as defined

by Executive Order

12866, and because

it

does

not concern an environmental

health

or safety risk that EPA has reason

to believe may have a disproportionate

effecton children.

C.

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

“Federalism” (64 FR43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to

develop an

accountable process to ensure

“meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.” “Policies

that have

federalism implications” is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have “substantial direct

effects

on the States, on therelationship

between thenational government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels ofgovernment.”

This final rule does not have

federalism implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

governmentand the States or on the

distribution of powerand

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as

specified in

Executive Order 13132 because it

provides flexibility to participate in a

voluntary program designed to reduce

administrativerequirements for

facilities that have negotiated

agreementswith, among other parties,

their State and local governments. Thus,

Executive Order 13132 does not apply

to this rule.

H. Executive Order

13175:

Consultation

and Coordination

With Indian

Tribal

Governments

Executive

Order 13175, entitled

“Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments”

(65 FR

67249, November6, 2000), requires EPA

to develop an accountable process to

ensure

“meaningful

and timely input by

tribal officials in thedevelopment of

regulatory policies that have tribal

implications.” “Policies that have tribal

implications” is

defined in the

Executive Order to include regulations

that have “substantial direct effects on

one or more Indian tribes,

on the

relationship between theFederal

government and the Indian tribes, or on

the distribution of power and

responsibilities between theFederal

government and Indian tribes.”

This final rule does not have tribal

implications.

It will not have substantial

direct effects on tribal governments,

or

on the relationship between the Federal

government and Indian tribes, or on the

distribution ofpower and

responsibilities between the Federal

government and Indian tribes, as

specified in Executive Order

13175,

This rule

provided flexibility to

participate in a voluntary program

designed to reduceadministrative

requirements and provide superior

environmental performance for facilities

that have negotiated agreements with,

among other parties, their State and

local

governments. Thus Executive

order

13175

does not apply to this rule.

L National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

As noted in theproposed rule, section

12(d) of theNational Technology

Transferand Advancement Act of 1995

(“NTTAA”), Public

Law 104—113,

section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note)

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in

its regulatory activities

unless to do

so would be

inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards

are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, and business

practices) that are developed or adopted

by voluntary

consensus standards

bodies.

The NTTAA directs EPA to

provide Congress, through 0MB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standard. This

rulemaking does not involve technical

standards. Therefore, EPA did

not

consider the use of any voluntary

consensus standards. EPA requested

comment on this aspect ofthe

rulemaking, but did not receive any

such comments.

J.

Administrative Procedure Act

Section 553 of theAdministrative

ProcedureAct, 5 U.S.C. 553, generally

requiresthat an Agency publish a rule

at least 30 days priorto its

effective

date. However, this requirementdoes

not apply to ruleswhich grantan

exemptionfrom existing requirements

or rules for which theAgency finds

“good cause”

to makethe rule effective

within 30 days

of publication. Because

today’s rule essentially provides a

variance procedure from existing

administrative requirements for certain

PO1Ws, today’s rule grants an

exemption and is not subject to the

requirement to publish 30 days priorto

the effective date ofthe rule. EPA also

believes that it is importantto makethis

rule effective as soon as possible so that

the affected POTWs and their State and

local governments can begin to makethe

changes to

permits and undertake other

necessary measures to allow the EPAs to

be implemented. As a result, this rule is

effectiveon the date of publication.

K. Executive Order 13211

This

rule

is not subject to Executive

Order

13211,

“Actions Concerning

Regulations That Significantly Affect

Energy Supply, Distribution,

or Use” (66

FR 28355, May 22,

2001) becauseit is

not

a significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR

Part

403

Environmental protection,

Confidential business

information,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Wastetreatment and

disposal, Water pollution control.

Dated:

September

27,

2001.

Christine Todd Whitman,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble,

part

403, title 40, chapter I of

theCode of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART

403—GENERAL

PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOR

EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES OF

POLLUTION

1.

The authority for

Part

403

continues to read as

follows:

Authority:

33 U.S.C.

1251

etseq.

2. Section 403.20 is added to read as

follows:

§

403.20

Pretreatment Program

Reinvention Pilot Projects Under Project

XL

The Approval Authoritymay allow

any publicly owned treatmentworks

(P01W) that has a final “Project XL”

agreement to implement a Pretreatment

Program that includes legal authorities

and requirements that are different than

the administrativerequirements

otherwise applicable under this part.

The P01W must submit any such

alternative requirements as a substantial

program modification in accordance

with the procedures outlined in

§403.18. The approved modified

programmust be incorporated as

an

enforceable part of the POTW’s NPDES

permit. The Approval Authoritymust

include a reopener clause in the

POTW’s NPDES permit that directs the

P01W to discontinue implementing the

approved alternative requirements and

---

50340

Federal Register/Vol.

66,

No.

192/Wednesday,

October

3,

2001/Rules

and

Regulations

resume implementation of its previously

=

approved pretreatmentprogram if the

Approval Authority determines that the

primaryobjectives ofthe Local Pilot

Pretreatment

Program

are

not being met

or the “Project XL” agreement expires or

is otherwise terminated.

FRDoc.

01—24713

Filed

10—2—01; 8:45

am

BILLING

CODE

6560—50—P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish

and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1O18—AF89

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Endangered Status for the

Ohlone Tiger Beetle

(Cicindela ohione)

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION:

Final

rule.

SUMMARY: We, the

U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), determine

endangered status pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act (Act) of

1973,

as amended, for the Ohlone tigerbeetle

(Cicindela ohione).

This species

is

endemicto Santa Cruz County,

California, and is threatened by habitat

fragmentationand destruction due to

urban development, habitat degradation

frominvasion of nonnative vegetation,

and vulnerability to local extirpations

fromrandom natural events. This final

rule extends the Federal protection

and

recovery provisions of theAct to

this

species.

DATES:

This final rule is effective

October

3, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The

complete

file for this

rule is available for public inspection,

by appointment,

during normal business

hours at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife

Office,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

2493 Portola Road, Suite B,

Ventura,

California 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Colleen Sculley, Fish and Wildlife

Biologist, VenturaFish

and

Wildlife

Office, at the above address (telephone

805/644—1766; facsimile805/644—3958).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Ohlone tiger beetle

(Cicindela

ohlone)

is

a member of the Coleopteran

family Cicindelidae (tigerbeetles),

which includes over2,000 species

worldwide and over 100 species in the

United States (Pearson

and

Cassola

1992). Tigerbeetles are day-active,

predatory insects

that prey on small

arthropods.

Because many tiger beetles

often feed on insectspecies that are

injurious to man and crops, they

are

regarded as beneficial (Pearsonand

Cassola 1992; Nagano 1982).

Adult tiger

beetles are medium-sized, elongate

beetles that can have a brilliant metallic

green, blue, red, and yellow coloration

highlighted by stripes and spots.

Alternatively, they can be

brown,

black

or dull colored (Knisley

and Shultz

1997).

Adults are ferocious, swift, and

agile predators that seizesmall prey

with powerful sickle-shaped jaws.

Tigerbeetle larvae

are

also predatory.

They live in small

vertical or

slanting

burrows fromwhich they lunge at and

seizepassing invertebrate prey

(Essig

1926; Essig 1942; Pearson 1988).

The

larva

grasps theprey with its strong

mandibles

(mouthparts) and pulls it into

the burrow; once inside theburrow,

the

larvawill feed on thecaptured prey

(Essig 1942; Pearson1988).

Tigerbeetles

share similar larval body forms

throughout theworld (Pearsonand

Cassola 1992).

The larvae, either white,

yellowish, or dusky in coloration, are

grub-like and fossorial (subterranean),

with a hook-like appendage on the

fifth

abdominal segment that anchors the

larvae inside their burrows.

Tiger beetle larvaeundergo

three

instars

(larval developmentstages).

This

period can take

1 to 4

years, but a 2-year

period is the most common (Pearson

1988).

After mating, thetiger beetle

female excavates a hole in the soil and

oviposits (lays) a single

egg

(Pearson

1988; Kaulbars and Freitag 1993; Grey

Hayes, pers. comm. 1998). Females of

many species of

Cicindela

are

extremely

specific in choice of soil type for

oviposition (egg laying) (Pearson 1988).

It is not known

at this timehow many

eggs the Ohlone tigerbeetle female lays,

but

other species of

Cicindela

are

known

to lay between

1

and 126 eggs

per female (C.

Barry Knisley, Randolph-

Macon College,

in

litt.

2000).

After the

larvaemerges fromthe

egg and

becomes

hardened, it enlarges thechamber that

contained the egg into a tunnel (Pearson

1988). Before pupation (transformation

process from larvato adult), the third

instar larvawill plug theburrow

entrance and dig a chamber. After

pupation in this chamber, theadult tiger

beetle will dig out of thesoil and

emerge. Reproduction may either begin

soon after emergence or be delayed

(Pearson1988).

Tiger beetles are a well-studied

taxonomicgroup with a large body of

scientific literature; thejournal

Cicindela

is

devotedexclusively to tiger

beetles.

Scientists have studied the

diversity and ecological specialization

of tigerbeetles, and amateur collectors

have long been attracted by their bright

coloration and swift movements. Tiger

beetle species occur in many

different

habitats, including riparian habitats,

beaches, dunes, woodlands, grasslands,

and other open areas (Pearson 1988;

Knisley and Hill 1992).

A common

habitat component appears to be

open

sunny areas

for hunting and

thermoregulation (an adaptive behavior

to use sunlight or shade to regulate body

temperature) (Knisley et

a.

1990;

Knisley and Hill 1992). Individual

species of tigerbeetle

are

generally

highly habitat-specific because of