Laserfiche WebLink
with limitations in the permit would be significant. Note that this would only apply to <br />limitations that were developed from production based categorical standards, and only in <br />the case that those limitations were more stringent than local limitations. In the I/N Tek — <br />I/N Kote discharge permit, the only limitations developed from production based <br />standards are Iead and zinc. If the production rate were to increase significantly enough <br />that the discharge limitation might change, the user would be required to notify the <br />Director within (2) days of having a reasonable basis to know. Failure to submit this <br />notification would result only in the user having to comply with the existing limitations in <br />the permit. Note: the discharge limitations for lead and zinc in I/N Teks — IIN Kote's <br />permit were adjusted using the combined wastestream formula to account for both <br />dilution waters and wastewater regulated by two different categories, and therefore only <br />the pollutant load allocated for the production based standard would be modified in the <br />formula, resulting in only an indirect modification of the final limitations. <br />3. Sec 17 -10 (a) (1) — Page 29, Users shall provide wastewater treatment as <br />necessarta comply with this Division and shall achieve compliance with all <br />categorical Pretreatment Standards, ,Local Limits, and the prohibitions set out in <br />Section 17-8(c) of this Division within the time limitations specified by EPA the <br />State or the Director, whichever is more stringent. An facilities necessar for <br />compliance shall be provided, operated, and maintained at the User's ex ense. <br />Detailed plans describing such facilities and operating rocedures shall be <br />submitted to the Board or its designee for review, and no construction shall be <br />commenced until approval in writing is granted. The review of such plans and <br />operating procedures shall in no way relieve the user from the responsibility of <br />Cit y under the provisions of this Division. All facilities necess for compliance <br />shall be sub'ect to eriodic inspection by the City to determine that such facilities <br />are being operated in conformity with applicable Federal, State and local law. <br />The owner shall maintain operational ,records of the influent and effluent to show <br />the performance of the treatment facilities and for comparison against City <br />monitoring records. Does this mean written approval is required to mods or <br />improve facilities? The above language seems to require approval before <br />treatment facilities can be modified or constructed and yet hold the discharger <br />accountable to insure that the discharge is acceptable. The City should not be in <br />the position of approving treatment systems unless hey are willing to accept the <br />consequences of the failure of the approved system to meet discharge limitations. <br />The City appreciates your comments on Section 17 -10 (a)(1), and shares concern <br />regarding the "approval" of pretreatment equipment. The purpose for the this provision <br />is to allow the City of South Bend (City) to review proposed modifications to industrial <br />facility to determine if those modifications comply with the conditions of the existing <br />permit. The City's intent is not to approve the design or anticipate performance. The <br />following change had been made: <br />