Current through August 26, 2024
(1) APPROVABLE FDFV
REQUESTS. A request for the establishment of effluent limitations under this
subchapter may be approved only if all of the following apply:
(a) There is an applicable effluent
limitation guideline that applies and specifically controls the pollutant for
which alternative effluent limitations or standards have been
requested.
(b) Factors relating to
the discharge controlled by the permit are fundamentally different, as
specified in sub. (4), from those considered by EPA or the department in
establishing effluent limitation guidelines.
(c) The request for alternative effluent
limitations or standards is made as part of the permit application.
(2) LESS STRINGENT FDFV
LIMITATIONS. A request for the establishment of effluent limitations less
stringent than those required by effluent limitation guidelines shall be
approved only if all of the following apply:
(a) The alternative effluent limitation or
standard requested is no less stringent than justified by the fundamental
difference.
(b) The alternative
effluent limitation or standard will be consistent with any applicable areawide
waste treatment management plan under ch. NR 121 and with any more stringent
limitations.
(c) Compliance with
the effluent limitation guidelines, either by using the technologies upon which
the effluent limitation guidelines are based or by other control alternatives,
would result in any of the following:
1. A
cost wholly out of proportion to the removal cost considered during development
of the effluent limitation guidelines.
2. A non-water quality environmental impact,
including energy requirements, fundamentally more adverse than the impact
considered during development of the effluent limitation guidelines.
(3) MORE STRINGENT FDFV
LIMITATIONS. A request for an alternative limitation that is more stringent
than required by effluent limitation guidelines shall be approved only if all
of the following apply:
(a) The alternative
effluent limitation or standard requested is no more stringent than justified
by the fundamental difference.
(b)
Compliance with the alternative effluent limitation or standard would not
result in any of the following:
1. A removal
cost wholly out of proportion to the removal cost considered during development
of the effluent limitation guidelines.
2. A non-water quality environmental impact,
including energy requirements, fundamentally more adverse than the impact
considered during development of the effluent limitations.
(4) FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT
FACTORS. Factors that may be considered fundamentally different are limited to
any of the following:
(a) The nature or
quality of pollutants contained in the raw waste load of the applicant's
process wastewater.
(b) The volume
of the discharger's process wastewater and effluent discharged.
(c) Non-water quality environmental impact of
control and treatment of the discharger's raw waste load.
(d) Energy requirements of the application of
control and treatment technology.
(e) Age, size, land availability, and
configuration as they relate to the discharger's raw waste load.
(f) Cost of compliance with required control
technology.
(5)
UNAPPROVABLE FDFV REQUESTS. A variance request or portion of such a request
under this section may not be granted on any of the following grounds:
(a) The infeasibility of installing the
required waste treatment equipment within the time specified in the effluent
limitation guidelines or standards or Clean Water Act.
Note: A variance may be approved based on the
discharger's inability to ultimately achieve effluent limitations, but not
based on the discharger's ability to meet a limit within statutory
deadlines.
(b) The
assertion that the effluent limitation guidelines cannot be achieved with the
appropriate waste treatment facilities installed if the assertion is not based
on factors listed in sub. (4).
(c)
The discharger's ability to pay for the required waste treatment.
(d) The impact of a discharge on local
receiving water quality.
