The following paragraphs describe the minimum level of effluent quality attainable by secondary treatment in terms of the parameters—BOD5, SS and pH. All requirements for each parameter shall be achieved except as provided for in §§ 133.103 and 133.105.
(a) BOD5.
(1) The 30-day average shall not exceed 30 mg/l.
(2) The 7-day average shall not exceed 45 mg/l.
(3) The 30-day average percent removal shall not be less than 85 percent.
(4) At the option of the NPDES permitting authority, in lieu of the parameter BOD5 and the levels of the effluent quality specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3), the parameter CBOD5 may be substituted with the following levels of the CBOD5 effluent quality provided:
(i) The 30-day average shall not exceed 25 mg/l.
(ii) The 7-day average shall not exceed 40 mg/l.
(iii) The 30-day average percent removal shall not be less than 85 percent.
(b) SS. (1) The 30-day average shall not exceed 30 mg/l.
(2) The 7-day average shall not exceed 45 mg/l.
(3) The 30-day average percent removal shall not be less than 85 percent.
(c) pH. The effluent values for pH shall be maintained within the limits of 6.0 to 9.0 unless the publicly owned treatment works demonstrates that: (1) Inorganic chemicals are not added to the waste stream as part of the treatment process; and (2) contributions from industrial sources do not cause the pH of the effluent to be less than 6.0 or greater than 9.0.
[49 FR 37006, Sept. 20, 1984; 49 FR 40405, Oct. 16, 1984]
Notes of Decisions
City of Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304 (1981).
· cites it 4× “371-394, 395-424; see 40 CFR § 133.102 (1980). There is thus no question that the problem of effluent limitations has been thoroughly addressed through the administrative scheme established by Congress, as contemplated by Congress.”
Iowa League of Cities v. Env't Prot. Agency, 711 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2013).
“3 (a)(1); see generally 40 C.F.R. § 133.102 (describing average monthly and weekly “minimum level[s] of effluent quality attainable by secondary treatment”).”
Louisiana Env't Action v. Baton Rouge, 677 F.3d 737 (5th Cir. 2012).
“See 40 C.F.R. § 133.102 . In March 1988, the United States filed a complaint against the City and the State of Louisiana alleging violations of the CWA at the North, Central, and South Wastewater Treatment Plants.”
Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 599 F.2d 151 (7th Cir. 1979).
· cites it 2× “40 C.F.R. § 133.102 . Even though states are authorized to establish more stringent effluent limitations than those required by EPA, §§ 402, 510, there appear to be no Wisconsin regulations imposing more stringent standards, and the NPDES permits issued by the Wisconsin agency…”
Long Island Soundkeeper Fund, Inc. v. New York City Dep't of Env't Prot., 27 F. Supp. 2d 380 (E.D.N.Y 1998).
“While current federal regulations regarding municipal sewage plants do not include settlea-ble solids restrictions, see 40 C.F.R. § 133.102 (a), (b), New York law specifically requires "the removal of substantially all floating and settleable solids.”
Maier v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 114 F.3d 1032 (10th Cir. 1997).
“Effluent limitations on POTWs are set pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 133.102 . This regulation, which the Agency refers to as the Secondary Treatment Information regulation, consistently cites both § 1311(b)(1)(B) and § 1314(d)(1) as its statutory authority, see, e.”
LA Env't Action Ntwrk v. City of Baton Rou (5th Cir. 2012).
“See 40 C.F.R. § 133.102 . In March 1988, the United States filed a complaint against the City and the State of Louisiana alleging violations of the CWA at the North, Central, and South Wastewater Treatment Plants.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.