Current through September 18, 2024
Authority: IC 13-14-8; IC 13-15-1-2; IC 13-15-2-1; IC
13-18-3
Affected: IC 13-18-4; IC 13-18-19
Sec. 2.
(a) A
variance from national limits shall be proposed by the commissioner to EPA for
approval, whether at the commissioner's own initiative or upon the request of
the permit applicant, only if:
(1) there is an
applicable national limit which specifically controls the pollutant for which
alternative effluent limitations or standards have been proposed;
(2) the factors relating to the discharge
upon which the variance request is based are fundamentally different from those
considered by EPA in establishing the national limits and were in existence
prior to EPA's promulgation of such national limits; and
(3) the request for alternative effluent
limitations or standards is made in accordance with the procedural requirements
of 327 IAC 5-3.
(b) A
request for the establishment of effluent limitations less stringent than
applicable national limits shall be recommended by the commissioner only if:
(1) the alternative effluent limitation or
standard to be established is no less stringent than justified by the
fundamental difference; and
(2) the
alternative effluent limitation or standard will ensure compliance with
sections 208(e) and 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA; and
(3) compliance with the national limits
(either by using the technologies upon which the national limits are based or
by other control alternatives) would result in:
(A) a removal cost wholly out of proportion
to the removal cost considered during development of the national limits;
or
(B) an environmental impact not
affecting water quality (including energy requirements) which is fundamentally
more adverse than the impact considered during development of the national
limits.
(c) A
request for alternative limits more stringent than required by national limits
shall be recommended by the commissioner only if:
(1) the alternative effluent limitation or
standard to be established is no more stringent than justified by the
fundamental difference; and
(2)
compliance with the alternative effluent limitation or standard can be achieved
using the technologies upon which the national limits are based or other
reasonably available control alternatives and would not result in:
(A) a removal cost wholly out of proportion
to the removal cost considered during development of the national limits;
or
(B) an environmental impact not
affecting water quality (including energy requirements) which is fundamentally
more adverse than the impact considered during development of the national
limits.
(d)
Factors which may be considered fundamentally different are:
(1) the nature or quality of pollutants
contained in the raw waste load of the applicant's process
wastewater;
(2) the volume of the
discharger's process wastewater and the volume of effluent
discharged;
(3) nonwater quality
environmental impact of the control and treatment of the discharger's raw waste
load (however, this factor will be considered pertinent, generally, only if
such nonwater quality impact would result in the violation of another
applicable federal or state law);
(4) energy requirements of the application of
control and treatment technology;
(5) age, size, land availability, and
configuration as they relate to the discharger's equipment or facilities;
processes employed; process changes; and engineering aspects of the application
of control technology.
(e) Alternative effluent limitations shall
not be established under this section on any of the following grounds:
(1) the infeasibility of installing the
required waste treatment equipment within the time the CWA allows;
(2) the assertion that the national limits
cannot be achieved with the appropriate waste treatment facilities installed,
if such assertion is not based on factor(s) listed in subsection (d);
(3) the discharger's ability to pay for the
required waste treatment; or
(4)
the impact of a discharge on local receiving water quality.
(f) Nothing in this section shall
be construed to abridge the right of the commissioner under section 510 of the
CWA to impose more stringent limitations than the minimum technology-based
effluent limitations applicable under the CWA.