SUBCHAPTER 7. CRITERIA AND STANDARDS. 701 Criteria and Standards for Technology-Based Treatment Requirements

Transcription

1 Subchapter 7, Page 1 SUBCHAPTER 7. CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 701 Criteria and Standards for Technology-Based Treatment Requirements (a) Purpose and scope. This section establishes criteria and standards for the imposition of technology-based treatment requirements and represents the minimum level of control that must be imposed in a NNPDES permit. Permits shall contain the following technology-based treatment requirements in accordance with the deadlines indicated herein: (1) For POTWs, effluent limitations based upon Navajo secondary treatment requirements from date of permit issuance. (2) For dischargers other than POTWs, effluent limitations, or in the case of new sources, new source performance standards, requiring: A. The best practicable control technology currently available (BPT) -- For all BPT effluent limitations compliance is required from the date of permit issuance. B. For conventional pollutants the best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) -- For all BCT effluent limitations compliance is required from the date of permit issuance. C. For all toxic pollutants referred to in Committee Print No , House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, the best available technology economically achievable (BAT) -- For all BAT effluent limitations, compliance is required from the date of permit issuance. D. For all toxic pollutants other than those listed on Committee Print No , effluent limitations based on BAT -- For all BAT effluent limitations, compliance is required from the date of permit issuance. E. For all pollutants which are neither toxic nor conventional pollutants, effluent limitations based on BAT -- For all BAT effluent limitations, compliance is required from the date of permit issuance. F. For new sources, compliance with applicable new source performance standards or best professional judgment effluent limitations, compliance is required from the date of permit issuance. (b) Variances and Extensions The following variances from technology-based treatment requirements or caseby-case determinations of technology-based requirements may be applied for under Subchapter 3 for dischargers other than POTWs: (1) Section 301(c) of the CWA economic variance from BAT; (2) Section 301(g) of the CWA water quality related variance from BAT; (3) Section 316(a) of the CWA thermal variance from BPT, BCT and BAT; (4) Fundamentally different factors variances from BPT, BCT and BAT; (5) Section 301(p) of the CWA alternative limitations for coal remining. (c) Methods of imposing technology-based treatment requirements in permits. Technology-based treatment requirements may be imposed through one of the following three methods:

2 Subchapter 7, Page 2 (1) Application of USEPA-promulgated effluent limitations to dischargers by category or subcategory. These effluent limitations are not applicable to the extent that they have been withdrawn or remanded. In the case of a court remand, determinations underlying effluent limitations shall be binding in permit issuance proceedings where those determinations are not required to be reexamined by a court remanding the regulations. In addition, dischargers may seek fundamentally different factors variance from these effluent limitations under 315(a) and 703; (2) On a case-by-case basis to the extent that USEPA-promulgated effluent limitations are inapplicable. The permit writer shall apply the appropriate factors and shall consider: A. The appropriate technology for the category or class of point sources of which the applicant is a member, based upon all available information; and B. Any unique factors relating to the applicant. (3) Through a combination of the methods in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection. Where USEPA promulgated effluent limitations guidelines only apply to certain aspects of the discharger's operation, or to certain pollutants, other aspects or activities are subject to regulation on case-by-case basis in order to carry out the provisions of CWA; (4) Limitations developed under paragraph (c)(2) of this section may be expressed, where appropriate, in terms of toxicity provided it is shown that the limits reflect the appropriate requirements of the act; (5) In setting case-by-case limitations pursuant to 701(c)(2), the permit writer must consider the following factors: A. For BPT requirements: i. The total cost of application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application; ii. The age of equipment and facilities involved; iii. The process employed; iv. The engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques; v. Process changes; and vi. Non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements). B. For BCT requirements: i. The reasonableness of the relationship between the costs of attaining a reduction in effluent and the effluent reduction benefits derived; ii. The comparison of the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from the discharge from publicly owned treatment works to the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from a class or category of industrial sources; iii. The age of equipment and facilities involved; iv. The process employed;

3 Subchapter 7, Page 3 v. The engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques; vi. Process changes; and vii. Non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements). C. For BAT requirement: i. The age of equipment and facilities involved; ii. The process employed; iii. The engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques; iv. Process changes; v. The cost of achieving such effluent reduction; and vi. Non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements). (6) Technology-based treatment requirements are applied prior to or at the point of discharge. (d) Technology-based treatment requirements cannot be satisfied through the use of "non-treatment" techniques such as flow augmentation and in-stream mechanical aerators. However, these techniques may be considered as a method of achieving water quality standards on a case-by-case basis when: (1) The technology-based treatment requirements applicable to the discharge are not sufficient to achieve the standards; (2) The discharger agrees to waive any opportunity to request a variance under 315(b); (3) The discharger demonstrates that such a technique is the preferred environmental and economic method to achieve the standards after consideration of alternatives such as advanced waste treatment, recycle and reuse, land disposal, changes in operating methods, and other available methods. (e) Technology-based effluent limitations will be established for solids, sludges, filter backwash, and other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters in the same manner as for other pollutants. (f)(1) The Director may set a permit limit for a conventional pollutant at a level more stringent than the best conventional pollution control technology (BCT), or limit for a nonconventional pollutant which shall not be subject to modification under sections 301(c) and 301(g) of the CWA where: A. Effluent limitations guidelines specify the pollutant as an indicator for a toxic pollutant; or B.i. The limitation reflects BAT-level control of discharges of one or more toxic pollutants which are present in the waste stream, and a specific BAT limitation upon the toxic pollutant(s) is not feasible for economic or technical reasons;

4 Subchapter 7, Page 4 ii. The permit identifies which toxic pollutants are intended to be controlled by use of the limitation; and iii. The fact sheet required by 604 and 206 of the Uniform Regulations sets forth the basis for the limitation, including a finding that compliance with the limitations will result in BAT-level control of the toxic pollutant discharges identified in (f)(l)(b)(ii) of this section, and a finding that it would be economically or technically infeasible to directly limit the toxic pollutant(s). (2) The Director may set a permit limit for a conventional pollutant at a level more stringent than BCT when: A. Effluent limitations guidelines specify the pollutant as an indicator for a hazardous substances; or B.i. The limitation reflects BAT-level control of discharges (or an appropriate level determined under sections 301(c) or 301(g) of the CWA) of one or more hazardous substance(s) which are present in the waste stream, and a specific BAT or other appropriate limitation upon the hazardous substance which are present in the waste stream, and a specific BAT, or other appropriate limitation upon the hazardous substance is not feasible for economic or technical reasons; ii. The permit identifies which hazardous substances are intended to be controlled by use of the limitation; and iii. The fact sheet required by 604 and 206 of the Uniform Regulations sets forth the basis for the limitation, including a finding that compliance with the limitations will result in BAT-level, or other appropriate level, control of the hazardous substances discharges identified in (f)(l)(b)(ii) of this section, and a finding that it would be economically or technically infeasible to directly limit the hazardous substance(s). C. Hazardous substances which are also toxic pollutants are subject to 701(f). (3) The Director may not set more stringent limits under the preceding paragraphs if the method of treatment required to comply with the limit differs from that which would be required if the toxic pollutant(s) or hazardous substances) controlled by the limit were limited directly. (4) Toxic pollutants identified under 701(f) remain subject to 401(o) which requires notification of increased discharges of toxic pollutants above levels reported in the application form. 702 Criteria for Issuance of Permits to Aquaculture Projects (a) Purpose and scope (1) This section establishes guidelines for approval of any discharge of pollutants associated with an aquaculture project under section 209(A)(1) 302(a)(1) of the NNPDES Act NNCWA. (2) This section authorizes, on a selective basis, controlled discharges which would otherwise be unlawful under the NNPDES Act NNCWA in order to determine the feasibility of using pollutants to grow aquatic organisms which can be harvested and used beneficially. (3) Permits issued for discharges into aquaculture projects under this section are NNPDES permits and are subject to all applicable requirements. Any permit shall include such conditions, including monitoring and reporting

5 Subchapter 7, Page 5 requirements, as are necessary to comply with the NNPDES regulations. Technology-based effluent limitations need not be applied to discharges into the approved project except with respect to toxic pollutants. (b) Criteria (1) No NNPDES permit will be issued to an aquaculture project unless: A. The Director determines that the aquaculture project: i. Is intended by the project operator to produce a crop which has significant direct or indirect commercial value, or is intended to be operated for research into possible production of such a crop; and ii. Does not occupy a designated project area which is larger than can be economically operated for the crop under cultivation or than is necessary for research purposes. B. The applicant has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Director, that the use of the pollutant to be discharged to the aquaculture project shall result in an increased harvest of organisms under culture over what would naturally occur in the area; C. The applicant has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Director, that if the species to be cultivated in the aquacultural project is not indigenous to the immediate geographical area, there will be minimal adverse effects on the flora and fauna indigenous to the area, and the total commercial value of the introduced species is at least equal to that of the displaced or affected indigenous flora and fauna; D. The Director determines that the crop will not have significant potential for human health hazards resulting from its consumption; E. The Director determines that migration of pollutants from the designated project area to waters of the Navajo Nation outside of the aquaculture project will not cause or contribute to a violation of the water quality standards or applicable standards and limitations applicable to the supplier of the pollutant that would govern if the aquaculture project were itself a point source. The approval of an aquaculture project shall not result in the enlargement of a pre-existing mixing zone area beyond what had been designated by the Navajo Nation for the original discharge. (2) No permit will be issued for any aquaculture project in conflict with a water quality management plan or an amendment to a water quality management plan approved by USEPA for which the government had jurisdiction. (3) Designated project areas shall not include a portion of a body of water large enough to expose a substantial portion of the indigenous biota to the conditions within the designated project area. For example, the designated project area shall not include the entire width of a watercourse, since all organisms indigenous to that watercourse might be subjected to discharges of pollutants that would, except for these provisions, violate the NNPDES Act NNCWA. (4) Any modification caused by the construction or creation of a barrier or containment structure shall not unduly interfere with migration of unconfined aquatic species. (5) Any pollutants not required by or beneficial to the aquaculture crop shall not exceed applicable standards and limitations when entering the designated project area.

6 Subchapter 7, Page Criteria and Standards for Determining Fundamentally Different Factors (a) Purpose and scope (1) This section establishes the criteria and standards to be used in determining whether effluent limitations alternative to those required by promulgated USEPA effluent limitations guidelines under sections 301 and 304 of the CWA (hereinafter referred to as "national limits") should be imposed on a discharger because the facility is fundamentally different with respect to a factor (other than cost) considered by the Administrator in establishing such national effluent limitation guideline. This subpart applies to all best practicable control technology currently available (BPT), best available technology economically achievable (BAT), and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) national limits for conventional, nonconventional, and toxic pollutants promulgated under sections 301 and 304 of the CWA, except that these provisions do not apply to BPT limits contained in 40 CFR (Regulatory provisions for fundamentally different factors (FDF) variances from categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) are contained in 817.) (2) In establishing national limits, USEPA takes into account all the information it can collect, develop and solicit regarding the factors listed in section 304(g) of CWA. In some cases, however, data which could affect these national limits as they apply to a particular discharge may not be available or may not be considered during their development. As a result, it may be necessary on a case-by-case basis to adjust the national limits, and make them either more or less stringent as they apply to certain dischargers within an industrial category or subcategory. This will only be done if data specific to that discharger indicates it presents factors fundamentally different from those considered in developing the limit at issue. Any interested person believing that factors relating to a discharger's facilities, equipment, processes or other facilities related to the discharger are fundamentally different from the factors considered during development of the national limits may request a fundamentally different factors variance under 315(a) to request that a facility's discharge be governed by limits either more or less stringent than the otherwise applicable national limits. The applicant may submit information and supporting data until the earlier of the date the application is approved or denied or 180 days from the date the application was filed with the Administrator. In addition, such a variance may be proposed by the Director in the draft permit. (b) Criteria (1) A request for the establishment of effluent limitations under this section (FDF variances) shall be approved only if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director and the Administrator (or delegate) that the following eight (8) criteria are satisfied: A. There is an applicable national limit which is, or will be, applied in the permit that specifically controls the pollutant for which alternative effluent limitations have been requested; and B. The facility is fundamentally different from the facilities on which USEPA based the national limits with respect to at least one of the factors listed in paragraph (b)(2) (other than cost) which USEPA considered in establishing the national limit; and C. The application i. is based solely on information and supporting data submitted by the applicant to the Administrator during the rulemaking for establishment of the applicable national limit specifically raising the factor that is

7 Subchapter 7, Page 7 fundamentally different for the facility; or ii. is based on information and supporting data specifically raising the factor that is fundamentally different for the facility that the applicant did not have a reasonable opportunity to submit to the Administrator during the rulemaking for establishment of the applicable national limit; and D. The alternative limit is i. In the case of a request for less stringent limits, no less stringent than justified by the fundamental difference; or ii. In the case of a request for more stringent limits, no more stringent than justified by the fundamental difference; and E. The alternative limit will not result in a non-water quality environmental impact which is markedly more adverse than the impact considered by the Administrator in establishing such national limit; and F. The alternative effluent limitations will ensure compliance with sections 208(e) and 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA; and F. The Director, on the part of the Navajo Nation, has concurred in the approval of the request and the alternative effluent limitations; and G. The request for alternative limits is made in accordance with the procedural requirements of Subchapter 6 and other provisions of these regulations, as well as Subpart 2 of the Uniform Regulations. (2) Factors which may be considered fundamentally different. In determining whether factors concerning the discharger are fundamentally different, the Director will consider, where relevant, the applicable development documents for the national limits, associated technical and economic data collected for use in developing each respective national limit, records of legal proceedings, written and printed documentation including records of communications, relevant to the development of respective national limits which are kept on public file by USEPA, and any other relevant information. Factors which may be considered fundamentally different are: A. The nature or quality of pollutants contained in the raw waste load of the discharger'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 equipment or facilities; processes employed; process changes; and engineering aspects of the application of control technology; and F. Such other factors as the Administrator considered during the development of the guideline. Waste stream(s) which were not considered in the development of a national

8 Subchapter 7, Page 8 guideline are not covered by the guideline so a fundamentally different factor variance from that guideline for that waste stream is unavailable. These waste streams are subject to Best Professional Judgment limitations. (3) Factors which will not be considered to be fundamentally different. A variance request or portion of such a request under this section will not be granted on any of the following grounds: A. The infeasibility of installing the required waste treatment equipment within the time allowed in 701. B. 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 paragraph (2) of this subsection; C. The discharger's ability to pay for the required waste-treatment; or D. The impact of a discharge on local receiving water quality. E. The cost of compliance with the required control technology. A fundamentally different cost of compliance may not be the basis for an FDF variance. (c) Method of application (1) A written request for a variance under this regulation shall be submitted in duplicate to the Director in accordance with 315 and Subchapter 6, as well as Subpart 2 of the Uniform Regulations. (2) The burden is on the person requesting the variance to explain that: A. Factor(s) listed in 703(b) regarding the discharger's facility are fundamentally different from the factors USEPA considered in establishing the national limits. The person making the request shall refer to all relevant material and information, such as the published guideline regulations development document, all associated technical and economic data collected for use in developing each national limit, all records of legal proceedings, and all written and printed documentation including records of communication relevant to the regulations which are kept on public file by the USEPA; B. The alternative limitations requested are justified by the fundamental difference alleged in paragraph A. of this subsection; and C. The appropriate requirements of 703(b) have been met. 704 Criteria for Determining Alternative Effluent Limitations (a) Purpose and scope. The factors, criteria and standards for the establishment of alternative thermal effluent limitations will be used in NNPDES permits and will be referred to as 315(c) variances to provide for section 316(a) variances under the CWA. (b) Definitions. For the purpose of this section: (1) "Alternative effluent limitations" means all effluent limitations or standards of performance for the control of the thermal component of any discharge which are established under 315(c). (2) "Representative important species" means species which are representative, in terms of their biological needs, of a balanced, indigenous community of fish and wildlife in the body of water into which a discharge of heat is made.

9 Subchapter 7, Page 9 (3) The term "balanced, indigenous community" means a biotic community typically characterized by diversity, the capacity to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal changes, presence of necessary food chain species and by a lack of domination by pollution tolerant species. Such a community may include historically non-native species introduced in connection with a program of wildlife management and species whose presence or abundance results from substantial, irreversible environmental modification. Normally, however, such a community will not include species whose presence or abundance is attributable to the introduction of pollutants that will be eliminated by compliance by all sources with BAT requirements and may not include species whose presence of abundance is attributable to alternative effluent limitations imposed pursuant to 315(c). (c) Early screening of applications for 315(c) variance. (1) Any initial application for the variance shall include the following early screening information: A. A description of the alternative effluent limitation requested; B. A general description of the method by which the discharger proposes to demonstrate that the otherwise applicable thermal discharge effluent limitations are more stringent than necessary; C. A general description of the type of data, studies, experiments and other information which the discharger intends to submit for the demonstration; and D. Such data and information as may be available to assist the Director in selecting the appropriate representative important species. (2) After submitting the early screening information under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the discharger shall consult with the Director at the earliest practicable time, but not later than thirty (30) days after the application is filed, to discuss the discharger's early screening information. Within sixty (60) days after the application is filed, the discharger shall submit for the Director's approval a detailed plan of study which the discharger will undertake to support its 315(c) demonstration. The discharger shall specify the nature and extent of the following type of information to be included in the plan of study: biological, hydrographical and meteorological data; physical monitoring data; engineering or diffusion models; laboratory studies: representative important species; and other relevant information. In selecting representative important species, special consideration shall be given to species mentioned in applicable water quality standards. After the discharger submits its detailed plan of study, the Director will either approve the plan or specify any necessary revisions to the plan. The discharger shall provide any additional information or studies which the Director subsequently determines necessary to support the demonstration, including such studies or inspections as may be necessary to select representative important species. The discharger may provide any additional information or studies which the discharger feels are appropriate to support the demonstration. (3) Any application for the renewal of 315(c) variance shall include only such information described in 704(c)(1) and (2) and (d)(3) as the Director requests within sixty (60) days after receipt of the permit application. (4) The Director shall promptly notify the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior and any affected state and Tribe of the filing of the request and shall consider any timely recommendations they submit.

10 Subchapter 7, Page 10 (5) In making the demonstration the discharger shall consider any information or guidance published by USEPA to assist in making such demonstrations. (6) If an applicant desires a ruling on a 315(c) application before the ruling on any other necessary permit terms and conditions, it shall so request upon filing its application under paragraph (a) of this subsection. This request will be granted or denied at the discretion of the Director. (d) Criteria and standards for the determination of alternative effluent limitations. (1) Thermal discharge effluent limitations or standards established in permits may be less stringent than those required by applicable standards and limitations if the discharger demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that such effluent limitations are more stringent than necessary to assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous community of fish and wildlife in and on the body of water into which the discharge is made. This demonstration shall show that the alternative effluent desired by the discharger, considering the cumulative impact of its thermal discharge together with all other significant impacts on the species affected, will assure the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous community of fish and wildlife in and on the body of water into which the discharge is to be made. (2) In determining whether or not the protection and propagation of the affected species will be assured, the Director may consider any information contained or referenced in any applicable thermal water quality criteria and information published by the Administrator under section 304(a) of the CWA (33 U.S.C. section 1314(a)) or any other information which may be relevant. (3) Existing dischargers may base their demonstration upon the absence of prior appreciable harm in lieu of predictive studies. Any such demonstrations shall show: A. That no appreciable harm has resulted from the normal component of the discharge, taking into account the interaction of such thermal component with other pollutants and the additive effect of other thermal sources to a balanced, indigenous community of fish and wildlife in and on the body of water into which the discharge has been made; or B. That despite the occurrence of such previous harm, the desired alternative effluent limitations, or appropriate modifications thereof, will nevertheless assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous community of fish and wildlife in and on the body of water into which the discharge is made. (e) In determining whether or not appreciable harm has occurred, the Director will consider the length of time in which the applicant has been discharging and the nature of the discharge. 705 Criteria and Standards for Best Management Practices (a) Purpose and Scope. Best management practices (BMP) for ancillary industrial activities shall be reflected in permits, including best management practices promulgated in effluent limitations and established on a case-bycase basis in permits. (b) Definition. "Manufacture" means to produce as an intermediate or final product, or by-product. (c) Applicability of best management practices. Dischargers who use, manufacture, store, handle or discharge any pollutant listed as toxic under

11 Subchapter 7, Page 11 section 307(a)(1) of the CWA or any pollutant listed as hazardous under section 311 of the CWA are subject to the requirements of 705 for all activities which may result in significant amounts of those pollutants reaching waters of the Navajo Nation. These activities are ancillary manufacturing operations including: materials storage areas; in-plant transfer, process and material handling areas; loading and unloading operations; plant site runoff; and sludge and waste disposal areas. (d) Permit terms and conditions. (1) Best management practices shall be expressly incorporated into a permit where required by an applicable promulgated effluent limitations guideline; (2) Best management practices may be expressly incorporated into a permit on a case-by-case basis where determined necessary. In issuing a permit containing BMP requirements, the Director shall consider the following factors: A. Toxicity of the pollutant(s); B. Quantity of the pollutants(s) used, produced, or discharged; C. History of NNPDES permit violations; D. History of significant leaks or spills of toxic or hazardous pollutants; E. Potential for adverse impact on public health (e.g., proximity to a public water supply) or the environment (e.g., proximity to a sport or commercial fishery or grazing area); and F. Any other factors determined to be relevant to the control of toxic or hazardous pollutants. (3) Best management practices may be established in permits under 705(d)(2) alone or in combination with those required under 705(d)(1). (4) In addition to the requirements of 705(d)(1) and (2), dischargers covered under 705(c) shall develop and implement a best management practices program in accordance with 705(e) which prevents, or minimizes the potential for, the release of toxic or hazardous pollutants from ancillary activities to waters of the Navajo Nation. (e) Best management practices programs. (1) BMP programs shall be developed in accordance with good engineering practices and with the provisions of this subpart. (2) The BMP program shall: A. Be documented in narrative form, and shall include any necessary plot plans, drawings or maps; B. Establish specific objectives for the control of toxic and hazardous pollutants. i. Each facility component or system shall be examined for its potential for causing a release of significant amounts of toxic or hazardous pollutants to waters of the Navajo Nation due to equipment failure, improper operation, natural phenomena such as rain or snowfall. ii. Where experience indicates a reasonable potential for equipment failure (e.g., a tank overflow or leakage), natural condition (e.g.,

12 Subchapter 7, Page 12 precipitation), or other circumstances to result in significant amounts of toxic or hazardous pollutants reaching surface waters, the program should include a prediction of the direction, rate of flow and total quantity of toxic or hazardous pollutants which could be discharged from the facility as a result of each condition or circumstance; C. Establish specific best management practices to meet the objectives identified under 705(e)(2)(B), addressing each component or system capable of causing a release of significant amounts of toxic or hazardous pollutants to the waters of the Navajo Nation; D. The BMP program: i. May reflect requirements for Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans under section 311 of CWA and 40 CFR Part 112, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPP),and may incorporate any part of such plans into the BMP program by reference; ii. Shall assure the proper management of solid and hazardous waste in accordance with regulations promulgated under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Management practices required under RCRA regulations shall be expressly incorporated into the BMP program; and iii. Shall address the following points for the ancillary activities in 705(c): 1. Statement of policy; 2. Spill Control Committee; 3. Material inventory; 4. Material compatibility; 5. Employee training; 6. Reporting and notification procedures; 7. Visual inspections; 8. Preventative maintenance; 9. Housekeeping; and 10. Security. E. The BMP program must be clearly described and submitted as part of the permit application. An application which does not contain a BMP program shall be considered incomplete. Upon receipt of the application, the Director shall approve or modify the program in accordance with the requirements of this subpart. The BMP program as approved or modified shall be included in the draft permit. The BMP program shall be subject to the applicable permit issuance requirements of these regulations, resulting in the incorporation of the program (including any modifications of the program resulting from the permit issuance procedures) into the final permit. F. Proposed modifications to the BMP program which affect the discharger's permit obligations shall be submitted to the Director for approval. If the Director approves the proposed BMP program modification, the permit shall be modified in accordance with 506, provided that the Director may waive the requirements for public notice and opportunity for hearing on such modification if he or she determines that the modification is not significant. The BMP program, or modification thereof, shall be fully implemented as soon as possible but not later than one (1) year after permit issuance, modification, or revocation and reissuance unless the Director specifies a later date in the permit. (3) The discharger shall maintain a description of the BMP program at the facility and shall make the description available to the Director upon request.

13 Subchapter 7, Page 13 (4) The owner or operator of a facility subject to this subpart shall amend the BMP program in accordance with the provisions of this subpart whenever there is a change in facility design, construction, operation, or maintenance which materially affects the facility's potential for discharge of significant amounts of hazardous or toxic pollutants into the waters of the Navajo Nation. (5) If the BMP program proves to be ineffective in achieving the general objective of preventing the release of significant amounts of toxic or hazardous pollutants to those waters and the specific objectives and requirements under 705(e)(2), the permit and/or the BMP program shall be subject to modification to incorporate revised BMP requirements. 706 Toxic Pollutants References throughout the NNPDES regulations establish specific requirements for discharges of toxic pollutants. The use of "compounds" below includes organic and inorganic compounds. Toxic pollutants are listed below: (1) Acenaphthene (2) Acrolein (3) Acrylonitrile (4) Aldrin/Dieldrin (5) Antimony and compounds (6) Arsenic and compounds (7) Asbestos (8) Benzene (9) Benzidine (10) Beryllium and compounds (11) Cadmium and compounds (12) Carbon tetrachloride (13) Chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites) (14) Chlorinated benzenes (other than dichlorobenzenes) (15) Chlorinated ethanes (including 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1,1- trichloroethane, and hexachloroethane) (16) Chloroalkyl ethers (chloroethyl and mixed ethers) (17) Chlorinated naphthalene (18) Chlorinated phenols (other than those listed elsewhere; includes trichlorophenols and chlorinated cresols) (19) Chloroform (20) 2-chlorophenol (21) Chromium and compounds (22) Copper and compounds (23) Cyanides (24) DDT and metabolites (25) Dichlorobenzenes (1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-dichlorobenzenes) (26) Dichlorobenzidine (27) Dichloroethylenes (1,1- and 1,2-dichloroethylene) (28) 2,4-dimethylphenol (29) Dichloropropane and dichloropropene (30) 2,4-dimethylphenol (31) Dinitrotoluene (32) Diphenylhydrazine (33) Endosulfan and metabolities (34) Endrin and metabolities (35) Enthylbenzene (36) Fluoranthene (37) Haloethers (other than those listed elsewhere; includes chlorophenylphenyl ethers, bromophenylphenyl ether, bis(dichloroisopropyl) ether, bis-(chloroethoxy) methane and polychlorinated diphenyl ethers) (38) Halomethanes (other than those listed elsewhere; includes methylene chloride, methylchloride, methylbromide, bromoform, dichlorobromomethane

14 Subchapter 7, Page 14 (39) Heptachlor and metabolites (40) Hexachlorobutadiene (41) Hexachlorocyclohexane (42) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (43) Isophorone (44) Lead and compounds (45) Mercury and compounds (46) Naphthalene (47) Nickel and compounds (48) Nitrobenze (49) Nitrophenols (including 2,4-dinitrophenol, dinitrocresol) (50) Nitrosamines (51) Pentachlorophenol (52) Phenol (53) Phthalate esters (54) Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (55) Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (including benzanthracenes, benzopyrenes, benzofluroanthene, chrysenes, dibenzanthracenes, and indenopyrenes) (56) Selenium and compounds (57) Silver and compounds (58) 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) (59) Tetrachloroethylene (60) Thallium and compounds (61) Toluene (62) Toxaphene (63) Trichloroethylene (64) Vinyl chloride (65) Zinc and compounds 5/03