C.F.R. » Title 40 » CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY › SUBCHAPTER N—EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS › PART 403—GENERAL PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOR EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES OF POLLUTION

40 C.F.R. § 403.5

National pretreatment standards: Prohibited discharges

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)(1) General prohibitions. A User may not introduce into a POTW any pollutant(s) which cause Pass Through or Interference. These general prohibitions and the specific prohibitions in paragraph (b) of this section apply to each User introducing pollutants into a POTW whether or not the User is subject to other National Pretreatment Standards or any national, State, or local Pretreatment Requirements.

(2) Affirmative Defenses. A User shall have an affirmative defense in any action brought against it alleging a violation of the general prohibitions established in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and the specific prohibitions in paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (b)(7) of this section where the User can demonstrate that:

(i) It did not know or have reason to know that its Discharge, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, would cause Pass Through or Interference; and

(ii)(A) A local limit designed to prevent Pass Through and/or Interference, as the case may be, was developed in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section for each pollutant in the User's Discharge that caused Pass Through or Interference, and the User was in compliance with each such local limit directly prior to and during the Pass Through or Interference; or

(B) If a local limit designed to prevent Pass Through and/or Interference, as the case may be, has not been developed in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section for the pollutant(s) that caused the Pass Through or Interference, the User's Discharge directly prior to and during the Pass Through or Interference did not change substantially in nature or constituents from the User's prior discharge activity when the POTW was regularly in compliance with the POTW's NPDES permit requirements and, in the case of Interference, applicable requirements for sewage sludge use or disposal.

(b) Specific prohibitions. In addition, the following pollutants shall not be introduced into a POTW:

(1) Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in the POTW, including, but not limited to, wastestreams with a closed cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees Fahrenheit or 60 degrees Centigrade using the test methods specified in 40 CFR 261.21;

(2) Pollutants which will cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW, but in no case Discharges with pH lower than 5.0, unless the works is specifically designed to accommodate such Discharges;

(3) Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will cause obstruction to the flow in the POTW resulting in Interference;

(4) Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants (BOD, etc.) released in a Discharge at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration which will cause Interference with the POTW.

(5) Heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity in the POTW resulting in Interference, but in no case heat in such quantities that the temperature at the POTW Treatment Plant exceeds 40 °C (104 °F) unless the Approval Authority, upon request of the POTW, approves alternate temperature limits.

(6) Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in amounts that will cause interference or pass through;

(7) Pollutants which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the POTW in a quantity that may cause acute worker health and safety problems;

(8) Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the POTW.

(c) When specific limits must be developed by POTW. (1) Each POTW developing a POTW Pretreatment Program pursuant to § 403.8 shall develop and enforce specific limits to implement the prohibitions listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) of this section. Each POTW with an approved pretreatment program shall continue to develop these limits as necessary and effectively enforce such limits.

(2) All other POTW's shall, in cases where pollutants contributed by User(s) result in Interference or Pass-Through, and such violation is likely to recur, develop and enforce specific effluent limits for Industrial User(s), and all other users, as appropriate, which, together with appropriate changes in the POTW Treatment Plant's facilities or operation, are necessary to ensure renewed and continued compliance with the POTW's NPDES permit or sludge use or disposal practices.

(3) Specific effluent limits shall not be developed and enforced without individual notice to persons or groups who have requested such notice and an opportunity to respond.

(4) POTWs may develop Best Management Practices (BMPs) to implement paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. Such BMPs shall be considered local limits and Pretreatment Standards for the purposes of this part and section 307(d) of the Act.

(d) Local limits. Where specific prohibitions or limits on pollutants or pollutant parameters are developed by a POTW in accordance with paragraph (c) above, such limits shall be deemed Pretreatment Standards for the purposes of section 307(d) of the Act.

(e) EPA enforcement actions under section 309(f) of the Clean Water Act.

If, within 30 days after notice of an Interference or Pass Through violation has been sent by EPA to the POTW, and to persons or groups who have requested such notice, the POTW fails to commence appropriate enforcement action to correct the violation, EPA may take appropriate enforcement action under the authority provided in section 309(f) of the Clean Water Act.

[46 FR 9439, Jan. 28, 1981, as amended at 51 FR 20430, June 4, 1986; 52 FR 1600, Jan. 14, 1987; 55 FR 30129, July 24, 1990; 60 FR 33932, June 29, 1995; 70 FR 60192, Oct. 14, 2005]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am. v. Amerace Corp., 740 F. Supp. 1072 (D.N.J. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am. v. Amerace Corp., 740 F. Supp. 1072 (D.N.J. 1990). · cites it 13× “15, and by the Joint Meeting of Essex and Union Counties (“Joint Meeting”), 40 C.F.R. § 403.5 . 1 Plaintiffs also seek summary judgment on the issue of Harvard’s liability for failing to report numerous federal and local waste-water discharge violations, including violations of…”
United States v. Thomas E. Iverson, Sr., 162 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 1998). · cites it 4× “40 C.F.R. § 403.5 (e). Those local regulations are deemed pretreatment standards under the CWA.”
Arkansas Poultry Fed'n v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 852 F.2d 324 (8th Cir. 1988). · cites it 4× “dustrial user cannot be held liable if it did not know or have reason to know that its discharge, alone or in combination with discharges from other sources, would result in *328 violation of a POTW’s NPDES permit or would prevent lawful sludge use or disposal, and can…”
Stephens v. Koch Foods, LLC, 667 F. Supp. 2d 768 (E.D. Tenn. 2009). · cites it 3× “] [[Image here]] In addition, the NPDES permit requires the City to “enforce 40 CFR 403.5 prohibited discharges.” The permit also states that the City “shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems (and related appurtenances) for collection and…”
Riverdale Mills Corp. v. Pimpare, 392 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2004). “§§ 1317 (b)(1), 1319(c)(2)(A); 40 C.F.R. § 403.5 (b)(2). Knott and Riverdale moved to suppress evidence obtained during the October 21, 1997 and November 7, 1997 searches.”
United States v. Knott, 256 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2001). “40 C.F.R. § 403.5 (b)(2). Any person who “knowingly” violates these standards is subject to felony prosecution.”
Nat'l Ass'n of Metal Finishers v. Env't Prot. Agency, 719 F.2d 624 (3rd Cir. 1983). · cites it 4× “See 40 C.F.R. § 403.5 (a) (1982). That “prohibited discharge” standard contains a general prohibition of the introduction into a POTW of pollutants that “Pass Through a POTW or *639 Interfere with the operation or performance of the works.”
United States v. Hajduk, 370 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (D. Colo. 2005). · cites it 3× “) 40 C.F.R. part 403.5(a)(1) states: “(a)(1) General prohibitions.”
Frilling v. Vill. of Anna, 924 F. Supp. 821 (S.D. Ohio 1996). · cites it 2× “(Count Eleven, slug loading Indirect Discharge permit violations, against Defendant Honda); Defendant Honda has violated and will continue to violate 40 C.F.R. § 403.5 (c)(1) and § 403.5(b)(4), which prohibit interference with a POTW, a violation of pretreatment standards (Count…”
United States v. Wilfred Page Van Loben Sels, 198 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “Correspondingly, the CWA requires POTWs to create their own regulatory programs, see 40 C.F.R. § 403.5 (c), and those regulations are deemed pretreatment standards under the CWA, see 40 C.”
United States Env't Prot. Agency v. City of Green Forest, 921 F.2d 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “” 40 C.F.R. § 403.5 (1989). Tyson relies on the holding in NAMF, supra, 719 F.”
United States v. Hartsell, 127 F.3d 343 (4th Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “Those regulations, in turn, mandate the issuance of permits to “Industrial User(s)” which contain specific effluent limits for those users, 40 C.F.R. 403.5(c). The individualized limits in these permits are deemed “standards” within the meaning of 33 U.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— 40 C.F.R. § 403.5(a)(1) — 1 case
United States v. Hajduk, 370 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (D. Colo. 2005). “) 40 C.F.R. part 403.5(a)(1) states: “(a)(1) General prohibitions.”
— 40 C.F.R. § 403.5(b)(7) — 1 case
United States v. Hajduk, 370 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (D. Colo. 2005). “) 40 C.F.R. part 403.5(a)(1) states: “(a)(1) General prohibitions.”
— 40 C.F.R. § 403.5(c) — 3 cases
United States v. Hartsell, 127 F.3d 343 (4th Cir. 1997). “Those regulations, in turn, mandate the issuance of permits to “Industrial User(s)” which contain specific effluent limits for those users, 40 C.F.R. 403.5(c). The individualized limits in these permits are deemed “standards” within the meaning of 33 U.”
United States v. Gene Wesley Hartsell, A/K/A Gene Wesley Gabe Hartsell, United States of Am. v. Keith Norland Eidson, United States of Am. v. Cherokee Resources, Inc., 127 F.3d 343 (4th Cir. 1997).
Pure Wafer, Inc. v. City of Prescott, 14 F. Supp. 3d 1279 (D. Ariz. 2014).
— 40 C.F.R. § 403.5(d) — 2 cases
United States v. Hartsell, 127 F.3d 343 (4th Cir. 1997). “Those regulations, in turn, mandate the issuance of permits to “Industrial User(s)” which contain specific effluent limits for those users, 40 C.F.R. 403.5(c). The individualized limits in these permits are deemed “standards” within the meaning of 33 U.”
United States v. Gene Wesley Hartsell, A/K/A Gene Wesley Gabe Hartsell, United States of Am. v. Keith Norland Eidson, United States of Am. v. Cherokee Resources, Inc., 127 F.3d 343 (4th Cir. 1997).
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.