Monday
Movember 15,
1982
and
Metal .Molding
Category; -Effluent
'•Pretreatment
Performance
Regulation
Casting Point Source
Limitations Guidelines;,
Sti nciards, and New Source
Sti ndards; Proposed
-------
51512
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 220 / Monday, November 15, 1982 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 464
IOW-FRL-2220-8]
Metal Molding and Casting Point
Source Category; Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards,
and New Source Performance
Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed regulation.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a regulation
to limit the effluent that metal molding
and casting plants (foundries) discharge
to waters of the United States and into
publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs). This proposal provides
effluent limitations based on "best
practicable technology" and "best
available technology" and establishes
now source performance standards and
protreatment standards under the Clean
Water Act. After considering comments
received in response to this proposal,
EPA will promulgate a final rule.
DATES: Comments on this must be
submitted by January 14.1983.
ADDRESS: Send comments to: Mr. Ernst
P. Hall, Chief, Metals and Machinery
Branch, Effluent Guidelines Division
(WH-552), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street, SW., Washington,
D.C. 20460, Attention: EGD Docket
Clerk, Proposed Metal Molding and
Casting (Foundry) Rules. The supporting
Information and all comments on this
proposal will be available for inspection
and copying at the EPA Public
Information Reference Unit, Room 2404
(EPA Library Rear] 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. The EPA information
regulatidn (40 CFR Part 2) provides that
a reasonable fee may be charged for
copying. Copies of the technical
documents may be obtained from the
Distribution Officer at the above
address or call (202) 382-7115. The
economic analysis supporting this
proposal may be obtained from John W.
Kukulka, Economic Analysis Staff (WH-
580), Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M. St. SW., Washington, D.C. 20480,
or call (202) 382-5388.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Technical information may be obtained
form Mr. Ernst P. Hall at the address
listed above, or call (202) 382-7126.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Supplementary information section of
this preamble describes the legal
authority and background, the technical
and economic bases, and other aspects
of the proposed regulations. That section
also summarizes comments on a draft
technical document circulated in May,
1980, and solicits comments on specific
areas of interest. The abbreviations,
acronyms, and other terms used in the
Supplementary Information section are
defined in Appendix A to this notice.
This proposed regulation is supported
by three major documents. Chemical
analysis methods are discussed in
Sampling and Analysis Procedures for
Screening of Industrial Effluents for
Priority Pollutants. EPA's technical
conclusions are detailed in the
Development Dqcument for Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, New
Source Performance Standards and
Pretreatment Standards for the Metal
Molding and Casting (Foundry) Point
Source Category. The Agency's
economic analysis is found in Economic
Analysis of Proposed Effluent Standards
and Limitations for the Metal Molding
and Casting (Foundry) Industry. Copies
of these technical and economic
analysis documents may be obtained as
indicated above.
Organization of This Notice - »
I. Legal Authority
n. Background
A. The Clean Water Act and Prior
Regulation of this Industry
B. Overview of the Industry
HI. Summary of Methodology for Developing
the Proposed Regulation
IV. Data Gathering efforts
V. Sampling and Analytical Program
VI. Industry Subcategorization -
VB. Available Wastewater Control and
Treatment Technology .
A. Status of In-Place Technology
B. Control Technologies Considered
C. Treatment Effectiveness"
Vm. Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available (BPT).
A. General Criteria and Methodology
B. Proposed BPT Limitations
1. General •
2. BPT of 100 Percent Recycle for 14
Process Segments
3. BPT for Other Process Segments
4. Other BPT Options Considered.
DC. Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT)
A. General Criteria and Methodology
B. Proposed BAT Limitations
X. New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) - . » -
XI. Pretreatment Standards for Existing
• Sources [PSES)
XII. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
fPSNS)
Xm. Best Conventional Technology (BCT)
Effluent Limitations
XIV. Regulated Pollutants .
XV. Pollutants and Subcategories Not
Regulated
A. Exclusion of Pollutants
B. Exclusion of Subcategories
XVI. Monitoring Reguirements
XVH. Costs, Effluent Reduction Benefits, and
Economic Impacts
XVIII. Non-Water Quality Impacts of
Pollution Control -
XIX. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
XX. Upset and Bypass Provisions
XXI. Variances and Modifications
XXII. Relationship to NPDES Permits
XXIII. Summary of Public Participation
XXIV. Solicitation of Comments
XXV. OMB Review
XXVI. Appendices:
A—Abbreviations, Acronyms and Other
Terms Used in this Notice
B—Pollutants Proposed for Specific
Regulation
C—Toxic Pollutants Not Detected
D—Toxic Pollutants Detected Below the
Nominal Quantification Limit
E—Toxic Pollutants Not Treatable by End-
of-Pipe Technologies Considered
F—Toxic Pollutants Controlled But Not
Specifically Regulated
G—Subcategories and Process Segments
Not Regulated
I. Legal Authority
The regulation described in this notice
is proposed under authority of Sections
301, 304, 306, 307, and 501 of the Clean
Water Act (the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as amended by the
Clean Water Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-217)
(the "Act"). This regulation is also
proposed in response to the Settlement
Agreement in Natural Resourcef!
Defense Council, Inc. v. Train, 8 ERE
2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified March,
1979,12 ERG 1833. '
II. Background
A. The Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 established a
comprehensive program to "restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's -
waters," Section 101(a).
- Section 301(b)(l)(B) set a-deadline of
July 1,1977, for existing industrial direct
dischargers to achieve "effluent
limitations requiring the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available" ("BPT").
Section 301 (b)(2)(A) set a deadline of
July 1,1983, for these dischargers to
achieve "effluent limitations requiring
the application of the best available'
technology economically achievable
* * **which will result in reasonable
further progress toward the national
goal of eliminating the discharge of all
pollutants ("BAT").
•>• Section 306 required that new
industrial direct dischargers comply
with new source performance standards
(NSPS"), based on best available
demonstated technology.
Sections 307(b) and (c) required EPA
to set pretreatment standards for new •
and existing dischargers to publicly
-------
Federal'Register /Vol. 47. No. "220>/ Monday, -•; November 15, 19|i2 / JProposed Rules^^,^, 52513
owned treatment works ("POTW").
While the requirements for direct
dischargers were to be incorporated into
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES]. permits
issued under Section 402, the Act made
pretreatment standards enforceable
directly against dischargers to POTWs
(indirect dischargers).
Section 402(a)[l) of the 1972 Act does
allow requirements for direct
dischargers to be set case-by case.
However, Congress, intended control
requirements to be based for the most
part on regulations promulgated by the.
Administrator of EPA. • , V
'Section 304(b) required regulations
that establish effluent limitations
reflection the ability of BPT and BAT to
reduce effluent discharges.
Sections 304(c) and 306 of the Act
required regulations for NSPS.
Sections 304)g), 307tb), and 307(c)
required regulations for pretreatment
standards. •.
In addition to these regulations for
designated industry categoriest Section
307(a) required the Administrator to
promulgate effluent standards
applicable to all dischargers of toxic
pollutants..
Finally, Section 5Ql(a) authorized the
Administrator to prescribe any
additional regulations "necessary to
carry out his functions"^ under the Act.
The EPA was unable to promulgate
many of these regulations by the
deadlines contained in the Act, and as a
result, in 1976, EPA was sued by several
environmental groups. In settling this
lawsuit, EPA and the planitiffs executed
a "Settlement Agreement required EPA
to develop a program and meet a
schedule for controlling 65 "priority"
pollutants and classed of pollutants. In
carrying out this program EPA was
directed to promulgate BAT effluent
limitations, pretreatment, standards, and
new source performance standsrds for
21 major industries, including the :
foundries industry. See Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc. v.
Train, 8 ERG 2120 (D.D.C. 1976),
modified, 12 ERG 1833 (D.D.C. 1979).
Several of the basic elements of the
Settlement Agreement program were •
incorporated into the Clean Water Act
of 1977. This law also makes several
important changes in the Federal water
pollution control program.
, Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 301 (b)(2)(C)
of the ACt now set July 1,1984 as the
"deadline for industries to achieve ''
effluent limitations requiring application
of BAT for "toxic" pollutants. "Toxic"
pollutants here includes the 65 "priority"
pollutants and other classes of
pollutants which Congress,declared
''toxic" under Section 307(a): of the Act.
: Likewise, EPA's programs for new
source performance standsrds and ./•
pretreatment standards are now aimed
principally at controlling toxic "."..
pollutants.
To "strengthen the toxics control .
program, Section 304(e) of the Act
authorizes the Administrator to
prescribe certain "best management
practices"(BMPs"). These BMPs are to
prevent the release of toxip and
hazardous pollutants from: (1) Plant site
runoff, (2) spillage or leaks, (3) sludge or
waste disposal, and (4) drainage from
raw material storage if any of those
events are associated with, or ancillary ,
to, the manufacturing or treatment
process. . •-;...
In keeping with its emphasis'on toxic
pollutants, the Clean Water Act of 1977
also revises the control program for-non- -
toxic pollutants.
For "conventional" pollutants
identified under Section 3jp4(a)(4)'' ,
(including biochemical oxygen demand,
suspended solids, fecal coliform and
• pH), the new Section-301(b)(2)(E)
' requires ''effluent limitations requiring
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology" ("BCT")
instead of BAT to be achieved by July 1,
1984. The factors considered in . ; .
assessing.BCT for an indus.try are the
relationship between the cost of
attaining a reduction in effluents and the
effluent reduction benefits attained, and ,
a comparision of the cost and level of
reduction-of such pollutants by publicly
owned treatment works and industrial ,
sources. For non-toxic, nonconventional
pollutants, Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and
(b)(2)(F) require achievement of BCT
„ effluent limitations within three years
•after their establishment or by July 1,
1984, whichever is later, but not later
than July 1,1987.
The purpose of this proposed
regulation is to establish BPT and BAT
effluent limitations and NSPS, PSES, and
PSNS for the Metal Molding and Casting
(Foundries) Category.
• EPA has not previously proposed or
promulgated effluent guidelines
limitations or standards specificallyfor
the Metal Molding and Casting ;
(Foundry) Point Source Category.
B. Overview of the Industry^
The Metal Molding and Casting
..(Foundry) Category includes'those . .
plants that remelt and cast metal. These
plants form a cast intermediate ^or final
product by pouring or forcing the molten
metal into a mold. However, the casting
of ingots, pigs, or other cast shapes .
related to primary metal smelting are
not included in this category. These .
operations are covered under other
regulations. Casting plants are included
wiljhin the United States Department of
Coiinmerce, Bureau of the Census
Sta.nda;pd Industrial Classification (SIC)
Ma;jor Group 33^-Primary Metal :
Industries. Those parts of this major _
Group 33 covered by this proposal are"
thei subgroup SIC Nos. 3321, 3322; 3324,
3325, .3361, 3362, and 3369. The types of
meia'l associated with these SIC codes
anil considered for regulation under this
category are:'Gray iron, ductile ironi
maileable iron, steel, aluminum, copper,
leaflj magnesium-and zinc and their
respective alloys, The casting of these
metals represent over 98 percent of the
total of all metals cast in the country.
The Agency also considered for .
regjulation the casting of nickel, tin, and
tjtcinium but has determined that no
process wastewater pollutants result
from the casting of these, metals.
:'[Tie Agency's data from a 1977 survey
of the industry indicate that over 3,600
commercial casting plants are located in
tiiej United-States employing '
approximately 300,000 workers and
producing over 19 million tons per year
of cast products. The foundry industry
raifks fifth among all manufacturing
industries based on "value added by
mfijnufacture" according to data issued
byjthe United States Department of _
Cbmmorce in 1970 (Survey of
Manufacturer's, SIC 29-30),
]?lan1:s h> this, industry include both
"captive" plants (plants that sold 50% or
mcjre of their production to customers
outsidei the corporate entity) and "job
shibps" (plants that sold 50% or more of
th«iir products internally or were used
within the corporate entity). They vary
greatly in metal cast, production
wastewater source and volume, size,
agta, and number of employees,
Annual castings production has '
raiiiged between 15 and 20 million tons
during most of the last 20 years. Ferrous
castings have accounted for about 90
percent of the total tons_produced
annually since 1956. "..
. The number of smaller iron foundries "
has dropped dramatically in the past 20
ye af s, while the number of large and
mcidiuia size iron foundries has
mdderately increased. Among the - •
nobfenrous metals, aluminum casting
hab been increasing whereas the trends
foil the other metals are mixed. There is
a Irend toward a decreasing percentage
of.-zinc casting shipments compared with
tolial foundry shipments and compared "
to •aluniinum casting shipments.
Metal casting is done in several ways,
and the selection and use of a particular1
miinufacturing process, e.g., type of mold
medium, is often governed by the type of
metal oast* However, the variety of
manufacturing processes can be typified
-------
51514
Federal Register / Vol; 47, No. 220 / Monday, November 15, 1982 / Proposed Rules
by essentially six standard process
steps: (1) Metal is remelted in a furnace,
(2) molds are prepared, (3) the molten
metal is poured or injected into a mold,
(4) the mold medium is separated from
the casting, (5) the casting is cooled, and
(0) the casting is further processed
before shipment. Generally, this
regulation is applicable to the first five
of Uiese processes and would not apply
to the sixth step. The sixth step would
be covered by proposed effluent
limitations and standards applicable to
electroplating and metal finishing. See
48 FR 9-102 (January 28,1981, Part 413)
and 47 FR 38462 (August 31,1982, Parts
413,433). The casting of magnesium.
however, is the exception; grinding
scrubber operations are covered by this
proposed regulation.,
Water is used throughout these
various process steps and becomes
contaminated eitherUhrough its use in
air pollution control devices associated
with the various manufacturing
processes or through direct contact of
the water with some part of the process
or casting. The pollutant characteristics
of the resulting wastewater may vary
depending on the type of metal cast, the
manufacturing process employed and,
the type of air pollution control device
associated with the manufacturing
proceas. About 80% of the wastewater
associated with foundry operations is
generated by air pollution control
devices. This watewater does not
contact the products cast.
Of the 3800 commercial foundries in
the United States, only 965 generate
process wastewater. Over one-third of
the 905 plants completely recycle their
waatewater.
Hie most significant pollutants and
pollutant properties present in foundry
wastewaters are suspended solids, oil
and grease, chromium, copper, lead,
zinc, listed and non-listed phenols,
acenaphthlene, para-chlorometacresol,
chloroform, crysene, tetrachlorethylene
and pH.
III. Summary of Methodology for
Developing the Proposed Regulation
This proposed regulation would
establish BPT and BAT limitations and
NSPS, PSES, and PSNS for the foundries,
category.
EPA, in developing this proposed
regulation, has performed extensive
analyses of the foundry industry and the
water pollution problems associated
with it. The Agency and its laboratories
and consultants developed analytical
methods/or toxic pollutant detection
and measurement, which are discussed
under the Sampling and Analytical
Program section of this notice. EPA has •
also gathered technical and financial
data about the industry. EPA's analyses
arer summarized here and under Data
Gathering Efforts, Section IV of this
notice.
EPA studied the foundry industry to
determine whether differences in raw
materials, final products, manufacturing
processes, equipment, age and size of
plants, water usage, wastewater
constituents, or other factors required
the development of separate effluent
limitations and standards for different
subcategories of the industry. This study
included the identification of raw waste
and treated effluent characteristics
including the sources and volume of
water used, the processes employed,
and the sources of pollutants and
wastewaters. This study is explained in
detail in Section IV of the Development
Document. As'a result of this study the
Agency has determined the constituents
of wastewaters, including toxic
pollutants. Section V of .the
Development Document explains these
determinations in detail. EPA then
identified for each of the subcategories,
the pollutants that are being considered
for effluent limitations guidelines and
standards of performance, as discussed
in detail in Section VI of the
Development Document.
Next, EPA identified specific control
and treatment alternatives or options,
including both in-plant and end-of- -
process technologies, that are in use or
are capable of being used in the foundry
industry. Specific treatment alternatives
were identified that have demonstrated
effective removal of pollutants from raw
wastewaters characteristic of metal
molding and casting process
wastewaters. In may foundries,
treatment technologies are combined to
form a treatment train comprised of_
various treatment technologies or unit
processes. Each component of the
treatment train perform a specific
function. The Agency has investigated
both the treatment technologies
themselves and the ways in which these
technologies are coupled together to
achieve desired results. In this way the
Agency developed several treatment
alternatives. The Agency also compiled
and analyzed historical data and newly
generated data on the effluent quality
resulting from th'e application of these
technologies. The long-term
performance, operational limitations, -
and reliability of each of the treatment
and control technologies were also ""
identified. In addition, EPA considered
the non-water quality environmental -
impacts of these technologies, including
impacts on air quality, solid waste
generation and disposal, water scarcity,
and energy requirements.
. The Agency then estimated the cost of
each control and treatment option by
using standard engineering costing
practices. EPA derived costs for each
treatment process unit (i.e., primary
coagulation-sedimentation, activated
' sludge, multi-media filtration, etc.) from
model treatment plant characteristics..
Model treatment plant characteristics
were developed using raw waste
characteristics including wastewater
flows, industry supplied production
data, and treatment technology .
capabilities and performance data. To
determine the cost of the' treatment
these unit process costs were summed to
yield total treatment cost for each
treatment alternative. Both investment
cost and operating and maintenance
costs have been developed in this
manner. EPA has confirmed the
reasonableness of this methodology by
comparing EPA cost estimates with
actual treatment system costs reported
by the industry and to costs (for similar
equipment of similar size) developed by
" consulting firms not associated with the
development of this proposed regulation.
Based on the technical data collected,
EPA identified various control and
. treatment alternatives and their
resulting effluent levels of pollutants
whose performance could serve as the
basis for a proposed regulation setting
effluent limitations and standards for
BPT, BAT, PSES, PSNS, and NSPS. In
addition, the Agency selected pollutants
to be regulated specifically from among
those that were considered for
regulation. •
The proposed effluent limitations and
standards identified in the Development
Document for BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES,
and PSNS are expresed as either no
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants or as mass limitations, kg/kkg
(lbs/1,000 Ibs) of pollutants per unit of
metal poured for these subcategories or
segments for which a discharge is
allowed. Pollutant concentration was
not chosen as an appropriate measure
for limitations because mass-based
limitations achieve much greater"
quantifiable reductions in the discharge
of pollutants.
Details about the selection of the
- production-normalized parameters used
to calculate mass limitations are set
forth in Section IV of the Development
Document.
IV. Data Gathering Efforts
The Agency collected extensive
technical data prior to the preparation of
this proposal. Initially, in 1974, the
Agency conducted several plant visits
• and collected wastewater samples and
made analyses for conventional
-------
" Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 220 /Monday, November 15, 1§82;-/'Propose'd 'Rales ''51515
pollutants and some metal pollutants. In
•1977 the Agency conducted an extensive
mail survey to.supplement existing data.
The mail survey was designed to collect
information about all types of plants
engaged in metal molding and casting.,
Information was requested on, among
other things, plant size, age, historical
production, number of employees, land
availability, water usage, manufacturing
processes, raw material and process^
chemical usage, as well as air pollution
, control techniques that result in a
process wastewater,,wastewater
treatment technologies, the known or
-believed presence or absence of toxic ."
pollutants in the plant's raw and treated
process wastewaters, and other
pertinent factors. The mail survey was
sent to 1,200 plants; 960 plants
responded. .'-•-....
During review of existing data, 15 '
trade associations and interest groups •
associated with metal molding and
casting activities were identified.
Representatives of these 15 groups met
with EPA to review a draft.
questionnaire. Their comments were
reviewed and, where appropriate, were
incorporated into the final
questionnaire. .,
The survey questionnaire was mailed
1,in December, 1977.'It requested •
technical information reflective of plant
operations pertinent to calendar year
1976. A detailed discussion of this
survey and the information obtained are
presented in Section V of the
Development Document.
EPA also obtained data from NPDES
permit files, contact with pollution
control equipment-suppliers, treatability
studies, and literature searches.
In 1981 the Agency again updated its
technical data base because-the Agency
became aware that continued progress
had been made by the foundry industry
in the installation of pollution control
technologies and in the abatement«f
pollutant discharge. Therefore, a phone
survey was undertaken to determine
what additional control equipment had
been installed during the 1976 thru 1980
period and to determine the current
costs of wastewater treatment sludge
disposal. Through this survey the
'Agency obtained information from 153
foundries and found a continuing'trend
towards, implementation of 100 percent
recycle of process wastewater.
Based on the data gathered, the
Agency estimates that there are 287
direct discharging foundries, 327 .
foundries that discharge wastewaters to
POTWs and 351 foundries do not
- discharge process wastewaters. •
V. Sampling and Analytical Program
In a two-phase sampling and analysis
program, EPA checked for the presence
and quantities in foundry wastewaters
of the toxic pollutants designated in the
Glean Water Act. The Agency also "
sampled and analyzed for conventional
and nonconventipnal pollutants. " .
Before sampling and analyzing
foundry wastes, EPA isolated specific
toxic pollutants for analysis. It was not
feasible to analyze for every pollutant
included in,the group of 65 "priority"
pollutants and classes of pollutants
identified in the Clean Water Act; this
group potentially encompasses
thousands'of specific pollutants. ''"•-
Instead, EPA selected 129 specific toxic
pollutants for study in this and other
rulemakings.,The criteria for choosing
these pollutants included the frequency
of their occurrence in water, their
chemical stability and structure, the
amount of the chemical produced, and
the availability of chemical standards
for measurement.
In addition to the 129 toxic pollutants,
EPA sampled for several other
conventional -and nonconventional
pollutants and pollutant properties such
as total suspended "solids; oil and
grease; pH; iron; ammonia; and
nonlisted phenolics. ,
. EPA derived data in a field sampling
program designed to determine the
concentrations of pollutants in foundry
wastewaters. Sampled plants were
selected to be representative of the
manufacturing processes, the prevalent
mix of production among plants, and the
in-place treatment technologies found in'
the industry. EPA obtained and
analyzed samples from 40-facilities.
Before visiting a plant, EPA reviewed
available plant.specific data on •
manufacturing processes and
wastewater treatment. The Agency ';
selected representative points to sample
the-raw wastewater leaving the
manufacturing process or air pollution
control device prior to treatment and to
•sample the final treated wastewater.
The Agency prepared, reviewed, and
approved a detailed sampling plan
showing the selected sample points and
the overall sampling procedure.
Under the sampling plan, the Agency
conducted the sampling hi the following-
manner: sampling visits were made
during three consecutive days of plant
operation, with raw wastewater
samples taken before treatment. Treated
effluent samples were"taken following
application of in-place treatment
technologies. EPA also sampled plant
intake water to determine the presence"
of pollutants prior to contamination by
manufacturing processes. :
This first phase of the sampling
program detected and quantified waste
constituents included in the list of 129
toxic pollutants. Wherever possible,
feach. sample of an .individual raw waste
stream or a treated effluent was
collected by an automatic, time-series- "
compositor over three consecutive 8 to
24 hour sampling and operational ;
periods. Where automatic compositing
ivas not possible, grab samples were
take a and composited manually. The
second phase of the sampling program
confirmed the presence and further
quantified the concentrations and
pollutant mass loadings of the toxic
pollutants found during the first phase of
the program.
" Metal analyses for the first phase of
sampling and analysis were made by
inductjvely coupled plasma atomic
emission spectrometry, except that the
standard flameless atomic adsorption
method was used for mercury. Metals
analyses for the second phase were by a
combination of flame and flameless
atomic adsorption methods.
1 Analyses for cyanide and cyanide
amenable to chlorination were
performed using methods promulgated
by the Agency under Section 304(h) of
.the Act (304(h) methods).
: Analysis for asbestos fibers included
transmission electron microscopy with '
selected area detraction; results were
reported as chrysotile fiber counts"..
' Analyses for conventional pollutants
[BOD5, TSS, pHJ and oil and grease) and
fioncspnventional pollutants [ammonia,
fluoride, and iron] were performed by
|Q4(h) methods. - -
! EPA employed the analytical methods
for the organic pollutants that are
described in a sampling and analytical
protocol. This protocol is set forth in
"Sampling and Analysis Procedures for
Screening of Industrial Effluents for
Priority Pollutants", revised April, 1977.
I Analysis for total phenols was
performed using the 4-aminoantipyrme
(4AAP) method.
: . Full details of the sampling and
analysis, program and the water and
wastewater data_derived from that
'program are presented in Section V of •
the Development Document,
VT. Industry Subcategorization ;
'".• This proposed regulation
subcategorizes the. industry into six
subcategories, which encompass 19
process segments. ' , ~
j Included in the foundry category are a
number of different kinds of plants
which cast a'variety .of metals and •
: employ various metal molding and' ' '.
casting techniques. Foundries which
Cast dissimilar metals, employ different
-------
51516 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 220 / Monday, November 15, 1982 / Proposed Rules
manufacturing processes (many of
which require air pollution control
devices) have substantially different
raw waste characteristics and employ
different process wastewater treatment'
and control technologies. EPA
concluded, therefore, that this category
was not amenable to a single set of
effluent limitations and standards.
Section IV of the Development
Document contains a detailed
discussion of the factors considered and
the rationale for subcategorization of the
foundry category.
In developing the subcategorization
scheme, the Agency examined the
following factors:
1. Type of metal cast
2. Manufacturing process
3. Air pollution sources and control
devices
4. Water use
5. Process wastewater characteristics
8. Raw materials
7. Process chemicals
8. Wastewaler treatability
9. Plant size
10. Plant age
11. Geographic location
12. Non-water quality impacts; solid
waste generation and disposal; energy
requirements
The type of metal cast is the principal
factor affecting the Agency's
subcategorization scheme. Metals differ,
among other things, in physical and
chemical properties. While ferrous
metals are all alloys of iron, nonferrous
metals, i.e., aluminum, copper, lead,
magnesium, zinc, etc., differ among
themselves in physical and chemical
aspects and differ substantially from the
alloys of iron in most aspects.
Differences in the physical and chemical
properties of the various types of metal
cast result in a diversity of
manufacturing processes, raw materials,
process chemical use, sources of air
pollution, water use, and process
wastewater characteristics.
Accordingly, the six subcategories
reflect the six types of base metal. EPA
has determined that differences in alloys
of the same base metal were not
significant enough to warrant
subcategorization by alloy.
Consideration of the various
manufacturing processes helped to
refine the subcategorization scheme.
•Subcategories based on metal type were
divided in 19 process segments to allow
for dissimilar manufacturing processes
among the different subcategories. In
some cases, different process segments
contain different pollutants, requiring
treatment by different control systems
(e.g. oil and grease by emulsion breaking
in aluminum die casting and metal
removal by precipitation in iron and
steel melting furnace scrubber) or are
dissimilar with respect to water usage
and flow rates. The proposed
subcategorization scheme reflects these
differences.
Each sUbcategory follows the same
basic process of remelting the metal or
its alloy to form a cast intermediate or .
final product by pouring or forcing the
molten metal into a mold (except for
ingots, pigs, or other cast shapes related
to primary metal smelting).
The proposed subcategories for the
foundry industry are as follows:
(1) Subpart A—Aluminum Casting
Subcategory. Aluminum casting
operations involve 5 manufacturing
process segments that are sources of
process wastewater; investment casting,
melting furnace scrubber, casting
quench, die casting, and die lube.
(2) Subpart B—Copper Casting
Subcategory. Copper casting operations
involve 2 manufacturing process
segments that are sources of process
wastewater; dust collection scrubber,
and mold cooling and casting quench.
(3) Subpart C—Icon and Steel Casting
Subcategory. In the Iron and Steel
Casting Subcategory 5 manufacturing
process segments are sources of process
wastewater; dust collection scrubber,
melting furnace scrubber, slag quench,
mold cooling and casting quench and
sand washing.
(4} Subpart D—Lead Casting
Subcategory. In the Lead Casting
Subcategory 3 manufacturing process
segments are sources of process
wastewater; melting furnace scrubber,
continuous strip casting, and grid
casting scrubber.
(5) Subpart E—Magnesium Casting.
Magnesium casting involves 2
manufacturing process segments,that
are sources of process wastewater;
grinding scrubber, and dust collection
scrubber.
(6) Subpart F—Zinc Casting. In the
Zinc Casting Subcategory 2
manufacturing process segments are
sources of process wastewater; casting
quench, and melting furnace scrubber.
VII. Available Wastewater Control and
Treatment Technology
A. Status ofln-PIace Technology
In-plaee treatment technologies in the
foundry industry vary widely. Many
plants have eliminated the discharge of
process wastewater. These plants have
either eliminated the use of process
water entirely or have installed
treatment technologies consisting of
simple settling tanks or lime and settle
equipment followed by 100% recycle of
process wastewater. Other plants have
installed treatment technologies to treat
discharges designed to meet permit
limitations. In some cases, oil skimming
devices have been added to the settling
tanks to remove oil. Some plants have
installed other physical/chemical
treatment technologies inpluding
flocculatipn/fQtration, emulsion
breaking and carbon adsorption. About
80 percent of the plants in the industry -
have installed little or no equipment to
control discharges of pollutants.
The phone survey conducted in 1981
to update the Agency's technical data
base-revealed that foundries had •
increased their water pollution controls
between 1976 and 1980 and indicated
• several trends; the most significant of
these was the elimination of the
discharge of pollutants from all1 or some
of the foundry water pollution sources.
About 25% of the 153 plants contacted
have eliminated the discharge of process
, wastewater from one or more of their
manufacturing processes through •
complete recycle of process wastewater.
More specific details of the results of
the 1981 phone survey are contained in
Section V of the Development Document
and in the Administrative Record for
this rulemaking.
B. Control Technologies Considered
To control the level of pollutants at
the BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and>PSNS-
levels- oj treatment, various treatment
systems were evaluated. These
treatment systems are discussed in
detail in Section VII of the Development
Document Some of these include in-
plant controls; however, most involve
the installation of additional add-on.
treatment components followed by
recycle of process Wastewater.
In-plant controls are available and in
use in many plants and as a result, are
being incorporated into the treatment
models at the BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES,
and PSNS levels. These fa-plant control
measures include the reduction of
wastewater generation via process
wafer reduction and recycle. (Recycle of
process wastewater is the practice of
treating and returning water to be used
again for the same purpose).
. Add-on treatment components
considered include:
Chemical Precipitation, Chemical
precipitation generally involves
adjusting pH and adding flocculating, (
agent to precipitate out of solution metal
ions and certain anions.
Sedimentation, Sedimentation is a
process which removes solid particles
from a liquid by gravity. This is done by
reducing the velocity of the feed stream
in a large volume tank, clarifier, lagoon
or other similar device so that
gravitational settling can occur.
-------
'•'Federal'Register / Vol.' 47, No.'220 /Monday, November' 15,! 1982^ Pr^osecT Rales
Chemical precipitation and
sedimentation is-generally referenced in
this notice as lime and settle,technology.
Oil skimming. .Oil and other materials
with a specific gravity less than water
.often float unassisted to the surface of :.
the wastewafer. Skimming removes ';
these floating wastes usually in a tank
designed to allow floating debris to rise
while the water flows to an outlet \ , .
located below the floating layer. A
variety of devices are used to rempve
the floating layer from the surface. - .. -
Chemical emulsion breaking.
Chemical emulsion breaking is used to
break stable oil water emulsions. By
adding chemicals, and adjusting the pH,
the oil water attraction induced hi the
emulsion is diminished allowing the oil
fraction to separate and float on the
water fraction where it can be skimmed
off. ,
Carbon adsorption. The use of • '
activated carbon to remove dissolved
organics is one of the most efficient
organic pollutant removal^rocesses
available. The carbon removes
contaminants from water by the process
of adsorption or the attraction and
accumulation of one substance on the
surface of another. Activated carbon
preferentially adsorbs organic.
compounds and because of this
selectivity.js particularly effective in
removing organic compounds from
aquenous solution.
C. Treatment Effectiveness
The Agency.has a limited amount of
''effluent analytical data from foundries.
Nearly half of the plants sampled during
the sampling program did not have
effluents to sample bacause they recycle
100 percent of their wastdwater.
To develop proposed effluent
limitations and standards for the
process segments with an allowable
discharge allowance, the Agency
examined the technologies treating -
foundry wastewaters and compared the
performance of these technologies with
the performance of identical . ,. .
• technologies found hi other industries
with wastewater characteristics similar
to those of foundry wastewaters.
The other industries with wastewaters
similar to foundry wastewaters are:
Copper and-aluminum forming, battery
manufacturing, porcelain enameling, and
coil coating. The Agency has assembled
"a combined treatment effectiveness data
base for lime and settle technology
compiled from effluent data from plants
in these industries. This data base is '
referred to as the "combined metal data
base." The Agency is transferring from
these industries to 4 process segments of
- the Foundry Category. These process
segments are aluminum investment
casting, melting furnace scrubber and
die casting and zinc melting furnace '.."'
scrubbers. . -.
The wastewaters.from these 4 process
segments are similar to the wastewaters
of the plants in the combined metals
data base with respect to suspended.
solids, zinc, arid (for aluminum die
casting) lead. These wastewaters
contain similar ranges of these metals ;
and solids which can be readily
removed by lime and settle technology.
The Agency'compared the available
treatment performance data for these 4
process segments arid compared it to the
performance data of the combined
metals data base. For aluminum
investment casting and melting furnace
and zinc melting furnace process
segments the Agency found the
performance of the lime and settle
treatment systems at the sampled plants.
to be inadequate compared to other well
operated lime and settle treatment
systems whose performance is included
in the combined metals data base. For ' •.
example, the effluent solids
concentration of the treatment systems
for the 3 process segments mentioned
above exceeds the maximum, effluent
level of the combined metals data base
for 5 out of the 6; sampling days at the
plants sampled. For the-one sampling
day below the maximum value, the , .
.effluent solids concentrations at the
sampled plant exceeds the monthly
average values by 35 and 74 percent
" respectively. The.performaric.e of the
treatment systems at these plants is
considered to be inadequate. -
For aluminum die casting the '.-•'•
performance of the one plant with lime,
settle and filter technology (plant 17089)
is nearly identical to or better than the.--
performance pf lime, settle and filter
technology in the combined metals data
base. For example, the effluent
suspended solids level at the sampled
plant for all three sampled are 13 mg/1,
10 mg/1, and 3 mg/1 respectively. These '
concentrations'are below the maximum
value of 15 mg/1 for the combined data
base. For two of the three days the •
solids concentration is below the 30 day
average value of 10 mg/1 of the .
combined date base. For one day, the
sampled concentration of .12mg/l
exceeds the 30 day average by 3 mg/1.
The zinc effluent concentration pf 0.45,
0.14,0.13 for the three days of sampling
is well belaw both the 30 day (0.31 nig/1)
and 1 day maximum (1.2 mg/1) values of
the combined data base. •
Because data from the one plant with
properly operating technology does not
provide an adequate statistical base for.
establishing limitations for this process
segment, We have based limitations on
the treatment effectiveness data in the
isombined metals data base. The results
ikoted above from one plant in the L
process segment indicate that the
recommended technology will achieve
results equal to that achieved in the
plants from which the combined metals j
(data base was compiled.
Technologies which could be added to
liheEIPT level of control have also been
evaluated for BAT, NSPS, PSES; and
1PSNS. Some of these technologies for
control of the toxic pollutants include:
chemical oxidation, granular activated
carbon (carbon adsorption)* and
pressure filtration. Details on these
'treatment systems are presented in
Section X of the Development
Document. ' •
'Bin. Best Practicable Control
Tecbmology Currently Available (BPT)
A.'General Criteria and Methodology
. I. The factors considered in identifying
BPT include the total-cost of application
bf technology in relation to the effluent
Deduction benefits of the technology, the
age of equipment and facilities involved,
the process employed, the engineering
/ aspects of the application of the various
types of control techniques, process
changes, non-water quality
environmental impacts (including energy
requirements), and other factors the
Administrator considers appropriate. In
general, the BPT technology levels '
represent the average of the best
existing performances of plants,of
yarious ages, sizes, processes, or other
common characteristics. Where existing
performance is uniformly inadequate; ~
BPT may be established through transfer
of technology from a different
sub category or category. See Tanners'
Council of America v. Train, (540 F. 2d
1188, 4th Cir. 1976). BPT may include
process changes or internal controls
where such measures are common
industry practice.
"•' 'The cost-benefit inquiry for BPT is a',
limited balancing, committed to EPA's
.discretion, which does not require the
Agency to quantify benefits in monetary
terms. See, e.g., American Iron and^Steel
•Institute v.EPA, 526 F. 2d 1027 (3d Cir.
1975). In balancing costs in relation to ;
effluent reduction benefits, EPA -
considers the volume and nature of ,
(discharges expected after application of
iBPT, the general environmental effects
"!of die pollutants, and the cost and
'economic impacts of the required
'pollution control level. The Act does not
require or permit consideration of water
iquallty problems attributable to
.[particular point sources or industries, or
'water quality improvements in
^particular water bodies: Therefore, EPA
-------
51518
Federal Register /, Vol. 47, No. 220 / Monday," November 15, 1982 / Proposed Rules
has not considered these factors. See
Wayerhauser Company v. Costle, 590 F.
2d 1011 (B.C. Cir. 1978).
Tlie initial step in the development of
BPT involves a review of technologies
available for the removal of pollutants
characteristic of foundry process
wnslewaters. These technologies are
simple settling, lime and settle, chemical
emulsion breaking, carbon adsorption
and the other technologies discussed
previously under the status of in place •
technologies. Each technology was
evaluated in terms of the degree of
effluent reduction attainable through its
application to plants within a
subcategory and within a sub category
process segment. In a few instances, the
proposed BPT limitations are based on
technology transferred from one process
segment to another. Such technology
transfers are detailed below and in
section IX of the Development
Document.
B. Proposed BPT Limitations
1. General. EPA is proposing BPT
limitations for 18 process segments of all
six subcategories. (For one process
segment, lead continuous strip casting,
there are no direct dischargers; therefore
EPA is not proposing BPT limitations for
this process segment]
EPA is proposing complete recycle [no
discharge) of process wastewater
pollutants for 14 process segments: 9
process segments of the iron and steel,
copper and magnesium casting.
subcategories and 5 process segments
associated with the other 4
subcategories. These five other process
segments are: the aluminum casting
quench and die lube, lead melting
furnace scrubber and the lead grid
casting scrubbers, and the zinc casting
quench process.
EPA is proposing BPT limitations and
standards for the remaining 4 process
segments based on treatment followed
by some discharge of pollutants. These 4
process segments arer Aluminum
investment casting, melting furnace
scrubber, and die casting, and zinc
melting furnace scrubber. Discharges
would be allowed for these process
segments because 100 percent recycle
has not been demonstrated for the first
three process segments, and technology
for implementing 100 percent recycle
cannot easily be transferred. Complete
recycle has been demonstrated in one
zinc melting furnace scrubber process
and is considered under BAT.
Proposed BPT limitations would result
in the removal of an estimated 285.3
thousand kilograms per year of toxic
pollutants, and 4,2 million kilograms per
year of other pollutants (primarily.
suspended solids and oils and greases).
The Agency estimates that investment
costs for BPT are $44.6 million (first
quarter 1982 dollars). Total annual costs
are estimated to be $10.7 million. EPA
estimates that 10 plant closures may
result from compliance costs associated
with BPT. EPA estimates a loss of
approximately 168 jobs if these closures
occurred.
2. BPT of 100percent recycle for 3.4
Process Segments. One hundred percent
recycle is demonstrated extensively
throughout 9 process segments. For Eve
other psocess segments, technology '"
transferred from other foundry process •
segments can achieve 100 percent
recycle. The number of plants achieving
100 percent recycle in the 9 process
segments ranges from 20 percent for
sand washing processes to 80 percent
for lead melting furnace scrubber.
Specific details about these plants are
summarized in Section IK of the
Development Document.
No discharge of process wastewater is
achieved by plants in the industry in a
variety of ways, the most common of
which are simple settling and complete
recycle or lime and settle technology
with complete recycle. Oil removal
equipment for some process segments is
also used. The proposed BPT limitations
are based upon these technologies.
Simple settling and 100 percent recycle
is the basis for BPT limitations for
twelve of the fourteen process segments
for which no discharge would be
allowed. Lime and settle followed by
100 percent recycle is the basis for BPT
limitations for the ferrous melting
furnace scrubber process segment. Die
lubricant reclamation through cyclonic
• separation and recycle is the basis for
BPT limitations for the aluminum die
lube process segment Appendix B of
this notice lists the pollutants proposed
for specific regulation.
The Agency has concluded that 100
percent recycle is technically and
economically feasible for fourteen
process segments. These conclusions are
based on several sources of information,
Plant supplied information via data
collection questionnaires and data
collected at plant visits serve as the
primary technical basis. Many plant
visits confirmed the practice of 100
percent recycle when reported in the
'data questionnaire. For many of the
plants not visited, other source's of
information confirming the feasibility of
no discharge was sought. Several EPA
regions and State environmental
authorities supplied information. In
addition, three engineering design firms
were contacted which design 100
percent recycle treatment systems for
foundries and other similar plants.
Client lists of these firms were obtained
and confirmatory phone calk made to
verify that 100 percent recycle was
feasible and was being used widely in
foundries. Finally, for s.ome plants which
furnished confusing information follow-
up phone calls'were made to determine
if the plant was in fact achieving no
discharge of process wastewater.
Most of the technical data were
collected in 1978. The Agency updated a
portion of its data base to reflect the
degree of treatment technology in place
as of 1980. The Agency obtained
information from 153 plants.previously
surveyed and found a continuing trend
toward complete recycle of process r
wastewater. • •
.During plant visits and in phone calls
to many plants, inquiries were made to
identify possible operating and '
maintenance problems, and the
solutions implemented to overcome the
problems encountered by plants with
100 percent recycle of process
wastewater. Information from plants
operating un'der conditions of high total
dissolved solids or other conditions
conducive to fouling and scaling of
pipes, pumps, air pollution control
equipment, and related equipment
indicates that through periodic
maintenance, maintaining a proper \
• water balance within the recycle _
systems and properly operating a well-
designed treatment system, [for example,
controlling pH within recommended
limits and adding biocides when
needed), fouling and scaling conditions
are manageable plant operating
problems and within the scope .of
routine maintenance activity.
Additionally, EPA, as part of its
sampling and analysis effort, analyzed
water chemistry data which indicate ,
that many plants operating at 100 ' . „
percent recycle.are operating ...-'.
successfully under severe fouling or
scaling conditions. Details of these
analyses are in Section IX of the
Development Document. Many plants
have operated for many years with 100
percent recycle of process wastewater.
• For five process segmnts (aluminum
casting quench, copper mold cooling and
casting quench, lead grid casting
scrubber, and magnesium grinding and,
dust collection scrubbers) 100 percent
recycle is based on transfer technology
from another foundry process segment.
Most plants provide little or no
treatment for these processes.
Therefore, the Agency concluded that
treatment was uniformly inadequate.
Treatment information from other '.
processes was examined to determine
an appropriate transfer of treatment
technology. For the above process
segments EPA has transferred
-------
Federal. Register / Vol. 47, No. 220 / Monday. November 15, IjMJk' /
technology from the following process
segments: from zinc casting quench to
aluminum casting quench; from ferrous
mold cooling and casting quench to
copper mold cooling and casting quench;
from lead melting furnace scrubbers to
lead grid casting scrubbers; from ferrous
dust collection scrubbers to magnesium
grinding and dust collection scrubbers.
EPA has examined the wastewaters :
from these processes and determined
that the wastewater between the
respective processes are similar in, all
material respects.
After consideration of the engineering
'aspects of transferring this technology,
the Agency concludes that the •
performance of :the technology • ,
transferred would be substantially equal
to the performance achieved in the
process from which it is transferred.
3. BPT. for Other Process Segments, -
For four process segments, BPT will be
based upon treatment and some
discharge. Generally, this treatment
consists of settling and partial recycle Or
lime and settle technology, oil removal
where required, and partial recycle.
a. Aluminum Investment Casting: EPA
is basing proposed BPT limitations for
aluminum investment casing on the
combined metals data base for lime and
settle technology and the average
effluent flow of the investment easting
plants with the lowest effluent flows. No
aluminum investment casting plants ,
recycle process wastewater and EPA is
not basing effluent limitations on the use
of recycle following lime and'settle
treatment. No investment casting plants
recycle process wastewater and only ''•
one plant has any degree of treatment in
place; it has lime and settle technology. •'
The Agency used the combined metals
data base to set BPT limitations because
the operation of lime and .settle
technology at the one plant in the
process segment with technology in
place was judged to be poor. EPA is
proposing aluminum investment casting
effluent BPT limitations for total ' . .
suspended solids* oil and grease and pH.
EPA estimates proposed BPT
.compliance costs for aluminum
investment casting of $2.3 million for ,
capital investment and $411,500 for
'annual operating costs, Proposed BPT
would result in the removal of 857.4
'kilograms per year of conventional and
nonconventiohal pollutants. No toxic
organic pollutants were found in
aluminum investment casting
wastewaters. Copper and zinc, detected
in investment casting raw wastewaters,
are present at levels below those
achievable with lime and settle and
filtration technology.
b. Aluminum Melting Furnace":,
Scrubbers: Proposed BPT limitations for
aluminum melting furnace scrubbers are
based on lime and settle technology
"with oil skimming. The proposed
limitations for suspended solids and oil
and grease and pH are derived from the
combined metals data base and the
average recycle and effluent flows at
plants with the greatest degree of
recycle for this process; that is 95 .
percent recycle. Sixty percent of these ; ; ^
plants extensively recycle at rates of at ;
least 95%. EPA estimates proposed BPT
compliance costs of lime and settle
technology of $913.8 thousand for capital
investment and $168.0 thousand for
annual operating costs. Proposed BPT
would result in the removal of 15,868 „•
kilograms per year of conventional and
nonconventional pollutants. Zinc
detected in the raw wastewaters from :
aluminum melting furnace scrubbers is :
below the treatability levels of lime and
settle :arid filter technologies. "
c. Aluminum Die Casting. EPA is
.basing proposed BPT Limitations for
aluminum die casting on the lime settle,
filter and chemical emulsion breaking
technologies at two aluminum die
casting plants, the combined industry
treatment effectiveness data and the
average recycle and effluent flows at
plants with greatest degree of recycle
and lowest effluent flows.-Mlters are
used to provide the necessary water
quality for recycle rates greater than 80
percent. Die lubricants used in this
process are chemical emulsions that
require chemical emulsion breaking as
demonstrated by several of the plants in"
addition to lime and settle technology. .
Highest recycle rates average 85 ,
percent. EPA is proposing effluent
limitations for total suspended solids, oil
arid grease, pH, lead, zinc, and phenols
(4AAP). Proposed BPT compliance costs
•are 1.84 million for capital investment
and 507.9 thousand annual operating
costs. •*":., '.'-.'
EPA estimates the removal of 30.2 •
thousand kilograms per year-of
conventional and nonconventional *-
pollutants and 425.5 kilograms per year
of toxic organic and metal pollutants.
d. Zinc Melting FurjiaceScrubbers.
Proposed BPT limitations^or zinc
melting furnace scrubbers are based on
"the combined metals data base and the
following technology: chemical emulsion
breaking, skimming, lime and settle, and
95 percent recycle. These technologies "
are demonstrated in 60 percent of the
plants in this process segment. Complete
recycle has been demonstrated by 1
plant with a zinc melting furnace
scrubber and 100 percent recycle is
considered under BAT. EPA is proposing;
effluent limitations for total suspended
solids, oil and grease, pH, zinc, and.
phenols (4AAP). EPA estimates
proposed BPT compliance costs of
$264.0 thousand capital investment and '
$ie>2.8 thousand for annual operating
cosjts. Proposed BPT would result in the
removal of 26.0 thousand kilograms per
year of conventional and , ,
noncphvehtiorial pollutants and 45,9 .
kilograms per year of toxic metal
pollutants. . ,
4|. Other BPT Options Considered. For
the; fourteen process segments for which
mei Ageincy is proposing 100 percent .
recycle .of process wastewater at BPT,
the1 Ageincy considered two less
stringent treatment alternatives. These
oplions^call for partial recycle and - :
•treatment of the wastewater not
recycled. Both discharge alternatives are
designed to be compatible with existing
injjlace treatment technologies and are ,
bassed on solids and metals removal
technologies currently used by -
foundries: lime and settle. The pptions
differ by the extent of partial recycle .
aftikrsimple settling. The wastewater
noi; recycled is treated by lime and settle
technology prior to discharge. One •
option is based on 90 percent recycle
,and the other is based on 50 percent
recycle. Oil skimming devices are
included for both options for oil
rer.jipva.1..: '' "'-,•-. . ''
BPT limitations tliat would be
established if either the 90 percent or 50 .
percent recycle option were selected as
thej basis for BPT in the final regulation
wc|uld be based upon lime and settle.
technologies, probably using treatment
" effectiveness data from the. combined
mejtals data base. The effluent •','
limitations that probably would be
established if either the 90 percent or 50
peifcenl; recycle option were selected are
.derailed in Section IX of the
Development Document. The Agency
~ did not sample the effectiveness of lime
and settle technology in plants for which
IOC) percent recycle is proposed since so
many foundries with those process
.sejjme'rits were achieving 100 percent"
recfycle. Accordingly, the only data that
indicate what lime and settle is
acjiieving in the category was derived
feqm the -process segments for which
soine discharge would be allowed at
BPT and PSES. As .was mentioned
previously, that data generally indicate
that the performance of the technology,
is ilniformly inadequate.
. 'Phe wastewaters of the process —
sejjmerits for which 100 percent recycle
; is proposed for BPT [and for PSES) is .
.similar to the wastewaters of the .
categories from which the combined
mejtals data base was compiled, and the
processes and technologies used in
these process segments are similar to
tile processes and technologies used in
-------
51520
Federal Register / Vpl. 47, No. 220 / Monday, November 15, 1982 / Proposed Rules
the categories from which the combined
data base was compiled. Where plants
have installed waste treatment
technologies but have not implemented
100 percent recycle, lime and settle
treatment technology and partial recycle
Is the most frequently selected
technology. Therefore, the Agency
believes that the combined data base
shows the treatment effectiveness that
lime and settle would achieve in the
foundry process segments for which 100
percent recycle is being proposed.
The Agency compared 100 percent
recycle with'the two discharge options
and concluded that 100 percent recycle
is preferable, based on the extent to
which 10095 recycle is practiced and on
cost and pollutant removal
considerations. However, cpmments are
solicited on these and other treatment
technologies as possible bases for BPT.
The Agency examined its data base
and found that approximately 228 (80
percent) of the 287 direct dischargers,
other than those that practice 100
percent recycle, have little or no
treatment in place or have only simple
settling and partial recycle with a
discharge. Seven percent of these
dischargers (21 plants) now have lime
and settle treatment in place with
recycle rates of 90 percent. The
remaining (thirteen percent) of these
dischargers (38 plants) have lime and
settle technology in place but
predominantly do not recycle their
treated wastewater. Those few plants .
that do recycle do so at rates of less
than 40 percent. Using this treatment in
place information, the Agency estimated
for each of the two options the capital
and annual costs to industry, the
amounts of pollutants discharged into
waterways and POTWs, the amounts of
sludge generated and the amount of
energy consumed.
For plants with little or no treatment
in place, it is substantially less costly to
install simple settling with 100 percent
recycle than it is to install lime and
settle treatment with either 90 percent or
SO percent recycle. For example, for a
medium-sized ferrous foundry with no
existing technology for treating dust
collection scrubber wastewater, simple
settling with 100 percent recycle would
require capital costs of $159,400 (1982
dollars) and annual costs of $128,600.
Technology would be a dragout tank
and recycle pumps and piping. The
comparative figures for installing and
operating equipment for the 90 percent
and 50 percent recycle options are
significantly higher. For the 90% recycle
option, capital costs would be $331,000
and annual costs would be $159,500.
Technology for treatment of the 10
percent discharge would include
chemical feed equipment, a clarifier, and
a vacuum filter. For the 50 percent
recycle option, capital costs would be
$482,400 arid annual costs would be
$187,600; technology would be the same
as for the 90 percent recycle option, but
the chemical feed equipment, clarifier
and vacuum filter would be larger. Costs
are higher for the 50 percent recycle
option because the treatment system
must be larger to treat five time as much
water.
For the alternatives with recycle of. . -
less than 100 percent, annual operating
costs increase due to greater capital and
depreciation costs, and chemical costs,
and slightly greater sludge disposal
costs because of the greater sludge
volume and sludge dewatering
equipment made necessary due to the
lime. A comparison of the options with
respect to a typical medium size foundry
with simple settling and partial recycle
in place gives similar results. The range
of cost differences between the two
options remains about the same as the
previous example.
The analysis of the two discharge
options assumed that plants would
choose the least costly method of
complying with BPT limitations. Thus,
total costs and pollutant removals were
calculated based on the fact that the
vast majority of plants subject to BPT
requirements have either no treatment in
place or only simple settling and partial
recycle and the assumption that these
plants would install simple settling and
'" 100 percent recycle in preference to
partial recycle and lime and settle
treatment of water to be dischargedf The
Agency solicits comment on this
assumption and specific details of why
plants with little or no treatment in
place may not install complete recycle.
The Agency solicits specific comments
together with technical support
documentation identifying process
material and equipment, air pollution
control devices, and site specific factors
such as sludge disposal, process water
quality, and plant layout that because of
design characteristics'or peculiarities
may not enable operation at 100 percent
recycle.
EPA estimates that BPT compliance
costs for this regulation incorporating
100 percent recycle for 14 process
segments and discharge allowances for
4 process segments are $44.6 million for
capital investment and $10.7 million per
year for annual costs of operation. The
90 percent recycle option would lower
this cost to $44.2 million for capital
^investment and $10.6 million per year for
annual,costs. For the 50 percent recycle
option, the total capital cost would be
$42.3 million, and annual costs would be
$10.4 million.
The 100 percent recycle option (which
includes allowing discharges for four,
process segments) provides greater
pollutant removals than either of the
two other options. Proposed BPT
effluent levels would result in-the
removal of an estimated 285 thousand
kilograms per year of both toxic metal
and organic pollutants and 4.5 million
kilograms per year of other pollutants,
primarily suspended solids arid oils and
greases. Those four processes with a
BPT discharge allowance would
discharge 192 kilograms per year of
toxics and 3200ikilograms per year'of
conventional'and other pollutants. If the
21 direct dischargers with existing lime
and settle treatment and 90 percent
recycle continue with their current 90
percent recycle and the 38 plants with
existing lime and settle treatment and
no recycle implement 90 percent recycle,
the discharge of toxic pollutants would
increase by an additional 19,399
kilograms per year and the discharge of
conventional and other pollutants woulcl
increase by 74,137 kilogram per year
over the discharge resulting from the 100
percent recycle option.
The Agency also estimated the
increase in waste load discharges
resulting from plants with existing lime ;
; and settle technology that install 50
percent recycle. The discharge of toxic
pollutants would increase by an
additional 4,300 kilograms per year and
the discharges of conventional and
nonconventional pollutants would
increase by 151,600 kilograms per year
above the discharge resulting from the
90 percent recycle option.
The Agency believes that these '
comparisons of 100 percent recycle with
systems that require less recycle
confirms the appropriateness of 100
percent recycle as the basis of the
proposed regulation for 14 process
segments. Not only is 100 percent
recycle practiced widely in the industry;
also it results in no discharge of
pollutants into waterways and is only
slightly more costly than, the 90 percent
recycle option. The cost difference
would not affect plant closures. The 50
percent recycle option's overall cost
would be only slightly lower than 100 or
90 percent recycle and it would result in
the discharge of substantially greater
amounts of pollutants than the. 100,
percent or 90 percent recycle options.
Details of these comparisons are
presented in Section IX of the , "
development document.
The Agency evaluated but rejected
two other types of options to 100 percent
recycle: Simple settling with no recycle
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 220 / Monday, November 15, 19ijS2 / Proposed Rules
51522
and simple settling with low recycle
rates. The Agency does not consider
them possible bases for final regulation.
-' The discharge from simple settling
systems contains large amounts of ,
conventional and toxic pollutants in the
range of 375 mg/1 to 16,000 mg/1 total
suspended solids and 0.15 mg/1 to 38
mg/1 toxic metals; phenols are also
present in the range of 0.5 mg/1 to 30;7
mg/1. The discharge of pollutants from ."
these systems cannot be justified , f
without further treatment.
Lime and settle treatment alternatives
that do 'not incorporate at least 50" "
percent recycle would result in the ,
discharge of large quantifies of
pollutants. Mass.based limitations,are
determined by the product of treatment
effectiveness concentration multiplied
by discharge flow. Lime and settle
treatment alternatives/that contained no
recycle would discharge twice,the mass
of pollutants than similar treatment with
50 percent recycle and ten tunes the
amount of pollutants than similar
treatment with 90 percent recycle. Some
reduction in pollutant discharge could
be achieved by filtration after lime and
settle. The Agency's analysis showed ,
that filtration could decrease the :
concentration of suspended solids by
about 33 percent, but this decrease is
minor compared to the pollutant
reductions achieved by recycle. Because
most plants are recycling extensively
and beqause of the great difference in
the amount of pollutants discharged
after 50 percent or greater recycle and
the amount discharged after lime and
, settle with little or no recycle, the
Agency does not consider treatment .
alternatives that include little or no
recycle as appropriate bases for BPT.
IX. Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT)
A. GeneraLCriteria and Methodology
The factors considered in'assessing
best available technology economically
" achievable (BAT) include the age of
equipment and facilities involved, the
process employed, the engineering
aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques, process
changes, the cost of achieving effluent
reduction, non~water quality
environmental impacts (including energy
requirements], and such other factors as
the Administrator deems appropriate
(Section 304(b)(2)(B)). At a minimum the
BAT technology level represents the
best economically achievable
performance of plants of various ages, .
sizes, processes, or other shared
characteristics. As with BPT, where '•-
existing performance is uniformly
inadequate, BAT limitations may be
based on technologies transferred from
a different subcategory or category. BAT
may include feasible process changes or
internal controls, even when .such
measures are not common industry
practice. ,. .. .•• • •
The required assessment of BAT
considers costs, but does not require a
balancing of costs against effluent
reduction benefits. (See Weyerhaeuser,
Company v. Costle supra.'], 11 ERG 2149,
B.C. Cir. 1978). In developing the
proposed BAT limits, however, EPA has
carefully considered the costs of BAT
treatment. The Agency has considered
the volume and nature of'discharges, the
volume and nature of discharges
expected after application of BAT, the
general environmental effects of the
-pollutants, and the costs.and economic
impacts of complying with the proposed
BAT limitations.
Despite this consideration of costs,
the primary determinant of BAT is
effluent reduction capability. As a result
;df the Glean Water Act of 1977, the
achievement of BAT has become the.
principal national means of controlling
toxic water pollution from direct
discharging plants. EPA is proposing
effluent limitations based On technology
that will control these toxic pollutants.
B. Proposed BAT Limitations'.
For 14 subcategory process segments,
the BPT level of control results in 100
percent recycle. This is .also the best'
available technology; therefore BAT is
equal to BPT for these process segments.
There are no direct dischargers in the
lead continuous strip process segment..
- Therefore, no BATJimitations are
proposed for this process segment.
The Agency has considered both
discharge and nondischarge
"technologies which might be applied at
BAT for the remaining four process
segments. These technologies were set
forth in a draft development document
made available to industry
representatives for preliminary
comment. These technologies are also
described in detail in Section X of the
Development Document and are
outlined below. No additional plant
closures or unemployment effects over
those that BPT may cause are projected
as a result of compliance with the BAT
limitations.
The 90% and 50% recycle options
considered as possible bases for BPT
and PSES were rejected for the reasons
set forth in those sections. Complete
recycle is economically achievable and
will remove substantial quantities of
toxic pollutants. A number of process
segments would discharge toxic organic
pollutants (principally phenolic -. •..
•compounds) if complete recycle were
not the basis for BAT. These pollutants
•'would appear in the range of 0.5 mg/1 to
30.7-'mg/1 in the discharges. Neither the
90% nor the 50% recycle option was -••'".
balsed upon technologies that would -
treat these toxic organic pollutants. If a
disicharge option were selected for BAT
and these pollutants required treatment,
the total cost of these options would far
exceed the cost of complete recycle.
. 1. Aluminum Investment Casting. BPT
foij this process segment is based upon
lime and settle technology.
_'.. 'the toxic metal pollutants present in
the raw wastewater of aluminum-
investment facilities casting are at the
limits of treatability of,well operated
lime and settle treatment systems and
therefore are not likely removed by this
technology. After meeting BPT
liniitattons, facilities in this process •.
segment would discharge about 280,0 kg
, per year of conventional and
nohconventional pollutants and 3,35 kg
per year of toxic metal pollutants. •
EPA has determined to exclude this
T princess segment from further regulation
at BAT because toxic organic pollutants
, were not detected or not present at
treatable levels and because the only
tojfic metals detected, copper and zinc,
ari3 present in amounts top small to be
effectively reduced by the technologies
considered.
EPA is not requiring filtration
following lime and settle treatment
because the levels.of copper and zinc
found in raw wastewaters are below the
trefatability limits of filters. The
! technology to achieve 100 percent
recycle cannot readily be transferred to
thiis process segment.
,2. Aluminum Melting Furnace ;
Scrubber. BPT for this process segment ,
is based upon lime and settle with 95
percent recycle. After meeting BPT
liBiitations, facilities in this process
sejgment would discharge about 1100.0
kg! per year of conventional and
nonconventional pollutants and 61.0 kg
pet year of toxic organic and metal
pollutants, primarily 2,4,5-
triphlofflpphenol and zinc. *
!EPA proposes to exclude this process
segment from the BAT limitations. The
to:tic pollutants present in the raw '
Wiistewaters of aluminum melting
firenace scrubbers are below .the ^
treatability limits of well operated lime •
, and settle treatment systems or other ;
teishnologies considered. The toxic ;
metal pollutants and toxic organic
pollutants are present in amounts too
small to be effectively reduced by any of
the technologies considered. Complete
reibycle is not a viable BAT option
because the technology to achieve
complete recycle has not been
-------
51522 Federal Register /' Vol. 47, No. 220 / Monday, November 15, "1982 / Proposed Rules
demonstrated by aluminum plants with
molting furnace scrubber processes and
cannot readily be transferred. EPA did
not consider filtration following lime
and settle treatment with a discharge
because the toxic metal pollutants found
in raw wastewaters are below the
trcatability limits of filters. EPA
estimates the discharge of toxic
pollutants not controlled will be 61.0
kilograms per year.
3. Aluminum Die Casting. BPT
limitations for this process segment are
based upon hydroxide precipitation-
sedimentation, filtration and chemical
emulsion breaking with 85 percent
recycle of process wastewater. EPA is
proposing BAT limitations based on the
BPT technology with recycle increased
to 95 percent.
BAT limitations would result in the
removal of 55 kilograms per year of
toxic organic and toxic metal pollutants
from the BPT discharge. The toxic
pollutants removed are: Acenaphthlene,
2,4,6-lrichloroethylene, para-
chlormctaoresol, chlorofrom, phenol,
butylbenzyl phthalate, crysene,
letrachloroethylene, phenols (4AAP), .
load, and zinc. Compliance with BAT
would require investment costs of
$26,800 and anual costs of $,360 above
BPT.
BAT limitations for solids and toxic
metal pollutants are based on the
combined metals data base for lime,
settle and filter treatment and, for the
toxic organic pollutants, from treated
cfluont data from die casting plants with
the recommended BAT technology.
Ninety-five percent recycle is based on
the plant with the highest recycle rate.
Twenty percent of the die casting plants
treat their process wastwater with
chemical emulsion breaking and filters
after lime and settle.
4. Zinc Melting Furnance Scrubber.
BPT limitations for this process segment
arc based upon chemical emulsion
breaking lime and settle and 95 percent
recycle of process wastewater. For BAT,
EPA considered two options.
Option 1. BAT option 1 would make
BAT limitations identical to BPT
limitations. Toxic metals and organics
discharged would be 665 kg annually.
Organic toxic pollutants, primarily
phenols, are present in zinc melting
furnance wastewaters at high levels; 1.3
to 15.6 mg/1. EPA estimates some
organic tqxic pollutant removals as a
result of chemical emulsion breaking but
is not able to quantity the removal
characteristics.
Option 2. BAT option requires the
same level of in-process wastewater
flow control and hydroxide precipitation
and sedimentation required for BPT with
increased recycle from 95 percent to 100
percent. This option would eliminate the
665 kg per year of toxic organic, 2, 4,' 6-
trichlorophenol, phenol and 4AAP
phenols, and zinc pollutants discharged
at BPT. All but two plants with melting
furnance scrubbers have recycle rates 95
to 100 percent. Compliance with BAT
option 2 would require investment of
$49,600 and annual costs of $10,700.
Zinc Melting Furnace Scrubber BA T
Selection
EPA has selected option 2 as the basis
for proposed BAT effluent limitations.
One hundred percent recycle has been
demonstrated and high recycle rates are
common in this process, and 100 percent
recycle will remove 665 kg per year of
toxic pollutants.
X. New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS)
The basis for new source performance
standards under Section 306 of the Act
is the best available demonstrated
technology (BDT). New plants have the
opportunity to design the best and most
efficient metal molding and casting
processes and wastewater treatment
technologies, and Congress therefore
directed EPA to consider the best
^demonstrated process changes, in-plant
controls, and end-of-pipe treatment
technologies that reduce pollution to the
maximum extent feasible.
EPA is proposing NSPS for all 19
process segments of all six '
subcategories: the 18 process segments
for which BPT and BAT limitations are
proposed plus the lead continuous strip
casting process segment, in which there
are no existing direct dischargers. For
the 15 process segments where proposed
BPT and BAT limitations are 100 percent
recycle, pollutant discharges have been
reduced to the maximum extent
possible. The Agency has selected NSPS
technology that is equivalent to BPT/
BAT technology for these 15 process
segments. BAT technology achieves no
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants and is demonstrated in the
industry.
For the remaining 4 process segments
EPA considered and selected for NSPS
the technologies discussed under BPT
and BAT. For lead continuous strip
casting EPA considered the technologies
discussed under PSES and PSNS.
Aluminum Investment Casting
EPA has selected the equivalent of
BPT as the" best demonstrated
technology fo NSPS. Complete recycle
has not been demonstrated for this
process segment and carinot readily be
transferred.
Aluminum Melting Furnace Scrubber
NSPS would be equivalent to BPT
limitations. Complete recycle has not
been demonstrated by plants with
aluminum melting furnace scrubbers.
Aluminum Die Casting
' NSPS would be equivalent to BAT
limitations. This technology and its
pollutant removal effectiveness have
been demonstrated in this process
segment.*
Lead Continuous Strip Casting
NSPS are based upon lime and settle
plus a polishing filter to improve the
removal of lead. This technology is
equivalent to that of PSES and PSNS
was selected as the basis for NSPS
because hydroxide precipitation and
sedimentation is demonstrated in the
process segment by 4 out of the 5 lead
continuous strip casting plants. TSS, oil
and grease, pH and lead are regulated
by NSPS.
XI. Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources (PSES)
- Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPA
to promulgate pretreatment standards
for existing sources (PSES). PSES are
designed to prevent the discharge of
pollutants which pass through, interfere
with, or are otherwise incompatible with
the operation of Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTW).
The legislative history of the 1977 Act •
indicates that pretreatment standards
are to be technology-based and
analogous to the best available
technology for removal of toxic
pollutants. The 'General Pretreatment
Regulations that serve as the framework
for the proposed pretreatment standards
'are in 40 CFR Part 403. (See 43 FR 27736
June 26,1978; 46 FR 9404 Jan. 28,1981; 47
FR 4518 Feb. 1,1982.)
Before proposing pretreatment
standards, the Agency examines
whether the pollutants discharged by
the industry pass through the POTW or
interfere with the POTW operations or
its chosen sludge disposalpractices. In
determining whether pollutants pass
through a POTW, the Agencyjcompares
the precentage of a pollutant removed
by a POTW with the percentage
removed by direct dischargers applying
BAT. A pollutant is deemed to pass
through the POTW when the average
f percentage removed nationwide by ,a
' well-operated POTW meeting secondary
treatment requirements is less than the
precentage removed by direct
dischargers complying with BAT
effluent limitations for that pollutant.
This approach to the definition of pass
through satisfies two competing
-------
Federal Register•/'• Vol. 47, No. 220 / Monday, November 15, 'J982/ Proposed Rules -- 51523
objectives set by Congress: that
standards for indirect "dischargers be
equivalent to standards for direct
dischargers, while, at the same time,-..
that the treatment capability and .
performance of the POTW be recognized ;
and taken into account in regulating the
discharge of pollutants from indirect
dischargers. Rather than compare the.-'!
mass or concentration'of pollutants
discharged by the POTW with the mass
or concentration discharged by a direct
discharger, the Agency compares the
percentage of the pollutants removed by
the direct discharger. The Agency takes
this approach because a comparison of
mass or concentration of pollutants in a
POTW effluent with pollutants in a
direct discharger's effluent would not
take into account the mass of pollutants
discharged to the POTW from non-
industrial sources nor the dilution of the
pollutants in the POTW effluent to
lower concentrations from the addition
of large amounts of nonindustrial
wastewater. . :
In the foundry category the Agency
has concluded that the toxic metals and.
organics that would be regulated under •_
these proposed standards pass through
the POTW. The average percentage of
these pollutants removed by POTW
nationwide ranges from 19 to .65 percent
for metals and up to 95% for organics;
whereas the percentage that can. be
removed by a direct discharger applying
BAT is expected to be above 70 percent
for metals and greater than 95 percent
for toxic organics. Accordingly, these
pollutants pass through POTW's.
In addition, since toxic metals are not
degraded in the POTW [they either pass
through or are removed hi the sludge],
their presence in the POTW sludge may
limit a POTW's chosen sludge disposal
method. . , .
The pretreatment technologies
considered are the same as those for '
BAT described in Sections IX and X of
the Development Document and as
previously described except for lead
continuous strip castings.
EPA Is proposing PSES for 15 of the 19
process segments of all six
subcategories. For the two process
segments of the" magnesium subcategory
there are no indirect dischargers; EPA is
not proposing PSES. For two process .
segments, aluminum investment casting
" and melting furnace scrubber, EPA is ..
not proposing PSES because at the
levels of total suspended solids and oil
and grease discharged from these
processes are considered compatibile
with treatment by POTWs. For the 13
process segments where proposed BAT
limitations are based on 100% recycle
the Agency has selected the equivalent
of BAT as the basis for proposed PSES.
EPA is proposing PSES equivalent to
BAT for aluminum die easting. For lead
continuous strip casting EPA is :
proposing PSES, based on the lime settle
arid filter technologies as demonstrated
by 4 of the 5 continuous strip casting
plants. Proposed PSES would remove 6.9
kg per year of lead. Compliance with
PSES would require investment costs of
$19,300 and annual costs of $9,500.
In all subcategories the equipment .
required for the selected pretreatment^
option is of reasonable size, appropriate
for installation within an urban plant-
that discharges to POTW. Urban plans
may not have the room to install settling'
ponds so clarifiers and settling tanks are
used hi the treatment models.
To comply with PSES, EPA estimates
that total capital investment would be
$48.1 million and that annual costs
would be $11.52 million, including
interest and depreciation. EPA estimates
15 potential plant closures resulting from
PSES. EPA also estimates 316 job losses
as a result of these closures. The Agency
has determined that the effluent
reduction benefits associated with
compliance with pretreatment standards
justify these costs. ,
For the 13 process segments for which
the Agency is proposing 100 percent
recyle ,of process wastewater as the
basis for PSES, the Agency considered
two less stringent treatment ' •• - :
alternatives. These are the same
alternatives as were considered as
bases for BPT and are discussed fully in
the BPT section of this preamble.'A V • •
comparison of these alternatives with
the proposed PSES standards based
upon 100 percent recycle is as follows:
The 90 percent recycle alternative
would require capital costs of $47.8
million and annual costs of $11.5 million.
If the 19 indirect dischargers with
existing lime and settle treatment and 90
percent recycle continue with their
current 90 percent recyle and plants
with existing lime and settle and no
recycle implement 90 percent recycle the
discharge of toxic pollutants would "
increase by an additional 17.4 thousand,
kilograms per year and the discharge of
conventional and other pollutants would
increase by 48.7 thousand kilograms per
year over the discharge.resulting from
the 100 percent recycle option.
The 50 percent recycle alternative
would require capital costs of $47.6
million arid annual costs of $11.5 million.
The Agency also estimated the increase
in waste load discharges resulting from
the 9 plants with existing lime and settle
technology that instaH50 percent
recycle. The discharge of toxic " •-
pollutants would increase by an'
additional 541 kilograms per year and
the discharges of conventional and
nonconventi'onal pollutants would
increase by 17,700 kilograms per year
above the discharge resulting from the
90 percent recycle option.
: The Agency is-proposing PSES based
upon 100% recycle rather than on either
of the other treatment alternatives
because 100%, recycle is achievable and
wilLresult in additional pollutant,
removals. PSES, like BAT, should
represent the best existing performance
in the industrial category or
Subcategory. As was true for BPT, for
most indirect dischargers for which 100
percent recycle forms and the basis of -^.
PSES, it will be less expensive to
implement 100 percent recycle after
simple settling than to install and
'operate technology that would achieve
lower recycle but would treat the
wastewater hot recycled. ' '•-
•'•' The proposed compliance date for
;PSES is two years after promulgation of
ithis regulation.
, Indirect dischargers with combined
wastestreams subject to-different
categoreical pretreatment standards
must use the "combined^wastestream •
formula" set forth at 40 CFR 403.6(e) in
^calculating discharge limits. The
("monthly average" figures set forth in
Regulations are to be used in making
'these calculations.' ."• -.
jXII. Pretreatment Standards for New
iSources (PSNS)
\ Section 307[c) of the Act requires EPA
ito promulgate pretreatment standards
for new sources (PSNS) at the same time
ithat it promulgates NSPS. These
'standards are intended to prevent the
'discharge of pollutants which pass
through, interfere with, or are otherwise
incompatible with a POTW. New ,,
.[indirect dischargers, like new direct
dischargers, have the opportunity to
Incorporate the best available .:,.,--
Ideriionstrated technologies including
- -process changes, in-plant control, dry air
[pollution control devices and end-of-
:pipe! treatment technologies, and to use
jplaiit site selection to ensure adequate
^treatment system installation. Therefore,
;;the Agency is considering PSNS that are
jbased upon the same considerations as
jused for NSPS. Pretreatment standards
I for existing and new sources are being
j considered because the toxic metals -
tpresent in foundry wastewaters would
ipas3 through POTWs. -".-.--...' •
: EPA is proposing PSNS for 17 of the 19
i process segments of all six
' subcategories. For the 15 process
i^segmerits where proposed NSPS
, limitations and standards are no
[discharge of process wastewater ,
'pollutants the Agency is proposing the
.equivalent of NSPS as. the basis for
-------
51524 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No.f22Q / Mondaf, No-vrember IS, 1982 / Proposed Rules
proposed PSNS. EPA is proposing PSNS
equivalent to BAT for aluminum die
casting. Foe lead continuous strip
casting EPA is proposin&PSNS
equivalent to PSESi
For the two: process segments,
aluminum, Investment coating and
melting furnace scrubber, EPA is not
proposing PSNS because at the levels of
total suspended aolida and oil and
grease discharged from these processess
these pollutants are considered
compatible with treatment, by PQTWs.
The toxic metals present in the raw
wastcwaters of these process segments
are below the treatabulty levels of lime,
settle and filter technologies.
XIII. Best Conventional Technology
(BCT) Effluent Limitations
The 1977 amendments added Section
301(b)(4)(El to the Act, establishing
"best conventional pollutant control
technology" (BCT) for discharges of
conventional pollutants from existing
industrial point sources; Conventional
pollutants are those defined in Section
304{b)(4)—biological oxygen demanding
pollutants (BOD5), total suspended-
solids (TSS), fecal coliform and pH—
and any additional pollutants defined by
the Administrator as1 "conventional." On
July 00,1979, EPA added oil and grease
to the conventional pollutant list (44 FR
44501).
BCT Is not an additional limitation but
replaces BAT for the control of
conventional pollutants. In addition to
other factors specified in section
304{b)f4J(BJ, the Act requires mat BAT
limitations be assessed in light of a two
part "cost-reasonableness'fctest (See
American PaperInslifutev. EPA, 560
F.2d 954 4lh Or. 1981.) The first test
compares me cost forprivate industry to
reduce its conventional pollutants with
the costs to POTW for similar levels of '
reduction in their discharge of these
pollutants. The second test examines the
cost-reasonableness of additional
industrial treatment beyond BPT. EPA
must find that limitations, are
"reasonable" under Both testa before
establishing them as BCT. In no case
may BCT be less stringent than BPT.
EPA published its methodology for
carrying out the BCT analy sir on August
29,1S7S (44 FR 50732). On July 28Y1981,
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
remanded certain regulations employing
the Agency's methodology for
determining^ the "best conventional
technology" and directed EPA to
conduct an additional cost test and to
correct data: errors, American Paper
Institute «. EPA,. 660 F.2i 954 (4th OIL
1981).
OQ October 29,1982, the Agency *
proposed areviaedBCT methodology.
We arevdefeiiihg. proposal ofBCT
limitations for tnia .category until we can
apply the revised methodology to the
technologies available forthe^ control of
conventional pollutants in this; category,
XIV. Regulated Pollutants'
The basisupont which the, controlled
pollutants were selected, as well as. the
general nature, ani environmental
effects of these pollutants, are set out in
Sections ¥„¥!, IX..X, XII andXHIof the
DevelopmentEbeumenL The poEutants
proposed for specific regulation, are
listed in Appendix; B to this noticfe Some
of these pollutants are. designated toxic
under Section 307(a) of the Act The
Agency has deleted the following, three
pollutants from the toxic pollutant list .
Dichlorodifluroromethane^ January 8,,
1981, (44 FR 2266k
tricrJorafmoromethanfi,. January 8; 1981,
(46 FR2266); andbia-Cchloromethyll
ether, February 4,, 1981, [46: ER10723),
A. BPT •'_.»'
The pollutants regulatedby theBPT
limitations are lead,; zinc; phenols
(4AAP), TSS, oil and grease and pH. Not
all of these pollutants are controlled hi
all subcategories and process segments;
regulation is established only where the
pollutant appears in treatable
concentrations in the raw waste. For
subcategories with allowable discharge
the discharge is controlled by maximum
daily and monthly average mass effluent
limitations stated in kilograms (kg) of
each pollutant per thousand kilogram
(kkg) of production normalizing
parameter per process.
B.BAT
The-pollutants- specifically limited by.
BAT are lead, zinc, acenaphthene, 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol, parachloro'-metacresol
chloroform, phenol, butyl benzyl
phthalatei chrysene;' tetrachloroethylene
and phenols (4AAP}> Not all of-these
pollutants are controlled in each of the-
subcategories; regulation is: established
only where' the>poliutan£ appears in
treatable concentrations to lite raw
waste;
C.NSPS •
The pollutants specifically limited by
NSPS are totaL suspended solids, oil and
grease, pH-rlead, zinc, acenaphthene,
2,4,6-rrichlorophenol, parachloro-
metacresol parachloro-metacresol
chloroform, phenol^ hutyl benzyl
phthalate, chrysene, teu-achloroethylene
and phenols (4AAP). Not all of these
pollutants- are; controlled in each1 of the
subeategories; regulation is established
only where thepollutant appears in
treatable: concentrations; in. the- raw
waste., *
D. PSES and PSNS
The pollutants regulated a PSES' and
PSNS are the same as those limited by
BAT. For lead continuous strip casting
the pollutants regulated at PSES andi
PSNS are the1 same1 as those limited By
NSPS. Not all of the pollutants- are
controlled fri all subcategories;
regulation is established only where
subcategories will beregulated and the,
pollutant appears in treatable
concentrations in the raw waste.
2rV. Pollntants. and Suhcategories Not
Regulated
The Settlement Agreement contains • '
provisions authorizing/the exchisibn
from regulation,. iniGertaurinstances, of
toxic pollutants and industry
subcategories.
Paragraph 8(a)(iii) o£ the Revised
Settiement Agreement allows1 the
Admmistrator to exclude, from
regulation toxic pollutants not
detectable by Section 304(h) analytical
methods or other staterof.-the.-art
methods.. The: toxie, pollutants, not
detected and therefore, excludeifromj
consideration for regulation are listed
also in Appendix; CLta this, notice.
Appendix D'to1 this notice lists the?
toxic pollutants; in*each subeafegory that
were detected, in the effluent in trace
amounts", at orbelow the nominal: limit
of analytical quantification and are '
therefore excluded from regulation.
Appendix E to this1 notice1 lists^for
each subcategory'the toxic pollutants
which were detected in the> effluents of
only oneplantf, are uniquely related to
only that plant; are-not treatable-using
technologies consi*dered> and are
therefore excluded from'regulation. '
Paragraph 8(a)(i) of'the Revised •
Settlement Agreement allows the
Administrator to exclude from
regulation'specific, pollutants, for which.
equally or more stringent protection is
already provided' fay regulation..The
toxic pollutants excluded from
regulation because adequate control" is
now provided by regulation. oEothec
specific,pollutants are E'stecCfbr each,
subcategory in AppendixFoEthis
notice.
Paragraph 8(a)(i) and 8tb-ltii).o£ the
Revised Settlement Agreement
authorizes the Administrator ta exclude
from regulationisubcategariesfor. which
the. amount and toxicity of pollutants in
the discharge does net justify
developing national regulations.
Some subcategories and process
segments of other, subcategories meet
tliis-:pravision.andiare; excludedifeom-
BPT,, BAT, NSPS,. PSES,- andPSNS»These
subcategories are listed in Appendix G
-------
Federal Register /'Vol. 47, No. '220.' / Monday, ^Novemb'er 15, ^1982' /' gropose^l^iles • _ - '&5Z5
of this notice. The nickel casting, tin
casting and titanium casting
subcategories are excluded because , ,
there is no process water "associated
with the casting of these metals and as a
consequence there are no pollutants in
the discharge. ;
In addition, aluminum investment . ;
casting and melting furnace scrubber
processes are excluded from BAT for
this regulation. The toxic pollutants
discharged are below treatability levels.
Lead continuous strip casting is
excluded from BPT and BAT regulation
because there are no direct discharging -_
plants. Magnesium dust collection and
grinding scrubbers are excluded from
PSES because there are no indirect
discharging plants. -
XVI. Monitoring Requirements
The monthly average limitations and
standards in this proposed regulation -
were based on the average of ten
consecutive sampling days. The ten-day
average value .was selected as the
, minimum number of consecutive .
. samples-which need to be averaged to
arrive at a stable slope on the
statistically based curve relating one-
day and 30-day average values, and it
approximates the most frequent
monitory requirement of direct
discharge permits. The monthly average
figures shown in the regulation are to be "
used by plants with combined waste
streams that use the "combined w.aste
stream formula" set forth at 40 CFR
403.6(e) and by permit writers in writing
direct discharge permits.
XVII. Costs, Effluent Reduction Benefits,
and Economic Impacts \-'"-'
A. 'Cost and Economic Impacts
The economic impact assesment for
this proposed regulation is presented in
the Economic,Impact Analysis of
Proposed EffluentStandards and
Limitations for the Foundry Industry,
EPA 440/2-082-^016. This report details
the investment and annual costs for the
industry and for each metal type ••
covered by the proposed regulation.
. Compliance costs are based on
engineering estimates of incremental
capital requirements above the water
pollution control equipment already in-
place. The report assesses the impact of
effluent control costs in terms of price
changes, production changes, plant
closures; employment effects, and
balance of trade effects. These impacts
are discussed in the report for each of
the regulatory options.
Executive Order 12291 requires EPA
and other agencies to perform regulatory
impact analyses of major rules. Major
rules impose an annual cost to the
economy of $100 million or more, cause
major price increases,to the consumer
and cause significant adverse effects ons
competition employment investment, :
productivity and the balance of trade.
The proposed regulation for the foundry
"industry is.nota major rule and
therefore does not require a formal
regulatory impact analysis. . ;,.
Regulatory Flexibility: Public Law 96-
354 requires that a Regulatory.Flexibility
Analysis (RFA) be prepared fpr
regulations that have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. An RFA for this regulation is
included as part of the economic impact
analysis. The Agency has concluded
that this regulation will not have a '
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. —
•', In addition, EPA has conducted an
analysis of the incremental removal cost
per pound equivalent.for each of the
proposed technology-based options. A
pound equivalent is calculated l>y
multiplying the number of pounds of
pollutant discharged by a weighting -
factor for that .pollutant. The weighting
factor is equal to the water quality
criterion for a standard pollutant
(copper), divided by the water quality
criterion for the pollutant being
• evaluated. The use of "pound
equivalent" gives relatively more weight
; to removal of more toxic pollutants.
Thus for a given experuliture, the cost
per pound equivalent removed would be
lower when a highly toxic pollutant is
removed then if a less toxic pollutant is
removed. This analysis, entitled "Cost
Effectiveness Analysis for the Foundry
Industry," is included in the record of
this ralemaking. EPA invites comments
on the methodology used in this
analysis. - - .
In ihe course of developing this -
proposed regulation the Agency
considered less stringent requirements
applicable to small plants than to large
plants (see below). While this proposal
does not differentiate between large and
small plants, public comment is solicited
on the issue and the final regulations
may impose less stringent requirements
•" on small plants.
The Agency predicts that in" 1984 there
will be 946-foundries (27 percent of all
plants) producing a process Wastewater
("wet plants") of which 281 plants will
, discharge into navigable waters, 315
- plants, will discharge into-publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs), and
344 plants will have eliminated their
' discharge of process wastewater> •;'-
The economic analysis projects that
total capital costs needed for existing
plants to comply, with this regulation
will be about $92.7 million in capital
costs, with annual costs of
approximately $22.2 million, including
depreciation and interest. These costs
iare expressed in 1982 dollars; As a
:result of compliance with this regulation
,25 plant closures (10 direct dischargers
and 15 indirect dischargers) with total
••unemployment of approximately 484
workers may result. These figures for
blosiires and unemployment represent
less than one percent of the total .
population of plants and ^employment
anticipated to be in the foundry industry
in 1984. These closures are expected to
occur at the BPT and PSES levels of ,
control. No additional closures are
expected as a result of compliance with
.recommended BAT technologies. Price -
increases and balance of trade effects
are not expected. ': .
: As a result of compliance with BPT
requirements; the Agency expects that
'the equivalent of 343 jobs will be
"temporarily created for the construction
land installation of the required
treatment systems;
| To measure the economic impacts it
was necessary to subcategorize •
[foundries by similar market and
'financial characteris-tics. Eight metal
ftypes were used: Gray iron, ductile iron,
malleable iron^steel, aluminum, copper
-."''based, zinc, magnesium, and lead. Each
irietal type was then divided into
^employment size groups. This was used
fas a proxy for the determination of their
/production because data necessary for
the analysis were reported in this^ .
^mariner by industry in their major trade
•journal. Model plant financial profiles
representing affected foundries in each
^economic subcategory were developed
, ;to estimate the income that could be
^generated by foundries and used to pay
1 for pollution control equipment.
: The financial profiles develpped
'represent the balance sheets .and income
i statements for a "typical" foundry in
each employment size segment and
metal type. These profiles were <.
developed exclusively from job shop '
'[ financial data, which represent the most
[ complete picture of job shop or "stand-
alone" operations available. For the
[ purpose of the analysis, captive
; operations were assumed to have the .
same financial characteristics as job
I shop operations, compliance costs -_
i estimates were based on the costs of
- additional treatment required by each
I firm to meet the proposed effluent
; limitations and standards. If compliance
J| costs exceeded the plant's ability to
; generate capital and income at a
[specific level a closure was predicted.
.Thcise plant closures were then
extrapolated from the model plant
|.results to the full population of
foundries. The compliance costs that
-------
51526 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 220. / Monday»- November 15. 1982 / Proposed Rules
wore used considered all foundry
production processes discharging
wastcwatcr in the estimated 1984
population and relflect the level of
treatment in place, which is assumed to
be proportionally similar to what
foundries had in 1976 and updated hi
1981.
BPT: BPT regulations 'are proposed for
direct dischargers In all economic'
subcategories. By 1984 the Agency
projects that there will be two hundred-
eignty-one direct dischargers and these
plants will heva to install and operate
additional equipment to comply with
BPT limitations. Investment costs for
BPT are $44,8 million; total annual costs
arc $10.7 million including interest and
depreciation. As a result of compliance
with this regulation 10 plant closures
and loss of employment for
approximately 168 workers may result.
Price increases and balance of trade
effects are not expected. -
The largest proportion of impacts
resulting from compliance with BPT
occurs in the less-than-fifty employee
category, The less-than-fifty employee
category includes 8 of the 10 predicted
plant closures. It would be possible to
eliminate these closures For small direct
dischargers by basing BPT limitations
for the aluminum, copper and iron and
steel (specifically gray iron, ductile iron
and malleable iron) subcategories upon
present discharge levels.
The Agency is seeking comment on
this issue (See Section XXIV of this
preamble}.
The Agency considered basing BPT
limitations for fourteen process
segments on 90 percent, rather than 100
percent recycle. Investment costs for
this option would be £14.3 million; total
annual costs would be $10.6 million,
including interest and depreciation.
Adoption of this option would'result in
10 plant closures with loss of
employment of approximately 168
workers. Price increases and balance of
trade effects would nor be expected.
The Agency also- considered basing
BPT limitations for fourteen-process
segments on 5Q.percent,- rather than 100
percent, recycle. Investment costs for
this option would be $13.3 million; total
annual costs would be $10.5 million,
including interest and depreciation.
Adoption of this option wouldresult in
10 plant closures anAtbe loss of
employment foe approximately 168
workers. Price iacrnases and balance of
trade effects would not be expected.
BATi BAT regulations are proposed
for direct dischargers in the same eight
economic subcategories. Six aluminum
facilities will incur, additional
investment costs of $53,600 and. annual
costs of $10,720. No further closures or
unemployment are expected to occur as
a result of compliance with, these
regulations., Na price increases or
" balance, of trade effects, are expected,
PSES: Pretreatment standards are
proposed for indkect dischargers, in all '
economic subcategories. Investment
costs, for the 315 facilities, affected in.
1984 are $48.1 inilEan. with, annual costs
of $11.5 'million including interest and
depreciation. As a result of compliance
with this regulation. 15 plant closures
and a loss of,316. jobs may be expected.
No price increases or balance of trade •
effects are expected-
The largest proportion (75%) of
impacts resulting from compliance with
PSES occurs in the less-than-fifty
employee category, The Agency
considered the option which wiH
exclude from categorical pretreatment
standards foundries in the aluminum,
copper and iron an A steel (specifically
gray iron, ductile iron, and' malleable
iron) subcategories with fewer than 50
employees. (Indirect dischargers would
remain subject to the general
pretreatpnuent regulations found at 40
CFR 403.) Adoption of this option would
reduce" PSES plant closures to
approximately 3 plants and would
control 99.8 percent of the toxic
pollutants discharged to POTW. The
Agency is seeking comments oa this
approach for providing regulatory relief
for small dischargers. -
The .Agency considered basing PSES
standards for thirteen process segments
based on 90 percent^ rather than 100 ,
percent, recycle. Investment costs for
this ontion, would, be $47.8.mHlion; total
annual coats would be $11.5 million,
including depreciation, and interest. '
Adoption of this? option, would result in.
15 plant closures and" a loss of 316. jobs.
Price increaaes= and balance of trade
effects would not be expected. , •
The Agency alsa considered basing
PSES standards for thirteen process,
segments on 50 percent, rather than 100
percent, EeGycle^nvestment costs for
this option wo.uld.be $,47.a million; total
annual costa would he $11.5,million,
including interest on, depreciation.
Adoption of this option would result in
15 plant closures and, the lasa o£
employment for approximately. 31fi
workers. Price, increases and balance of
trade effects would, not be expected.
NSPS,, PSNSi The Agency's most
recent survey of the industry indicates a
continuing trend to ward 10Q%, recycle.
New plants are using, "dry" processses
which da hat generate any effluent , •
discharge.. For the Z matali categories
with discharge, allowances, the cost for
implementing,their requirements in a
new source or major modification are
not considered sufficiently, significant to
inhibit investment in, new plants, or
• major modifications.. For those metal
categories witiz no, discharge at BAT or,
PSEE. there wiltbe naincremental costs
for NSPS or PSNSi The. Agency believes
that it ia unlikely that the incremental-
costs of NSPS or PSNS will retard
significantly,-the investment in major
modifications; or,: retrofits-, the? rate of,
entry into the foundry; industry, or its.
rate; of: growth in; a»y; siibcategpry.;
B. SBA Loans . ' ' .
The Agency is contirraing; to
entourage small foundry operations to
use Small Business Administration
(SBA) financing as needed fbr pollution
control equipment The three basic
programs are: (1) The Guaranteed
Pollution; Control Bond Program, (2) the
Section 503 Program, and (3) the Regular
Guarantee Program. All the'SBA loan
programs are, only open, to businesses
that have: (1) Net assets^ less than $6
million,, and (b.) an. average annual after-
tax income of less thaiL$2:million, and
(c) fewer than 250 employees. . -
" The guaranteed pollution control bond
is a full faith and creditanstrument with
a tax free feature, making it the; most'
favorable of the programs. Although,,all
1981 funds have already been
committed, the SBA is-trying, to get
additional funding for this program. The •
program applies to projects that cost
from-$150,000 to $2,000,000.
The Section 503;Program, as amended :
in July 1981, allows long-term loans to
small and medium-sized businesses.
These loans are maxfe by SEA approved
local development companies; For the
first time* these companies are
authorized to issue Government backed
debentures t&at areboughf By ffite
Federal Financing Bank, an arm of the
U.S. Treasury.
Thro-ugh SBA's Regular Guarantee t
Program, loans, are made available by
commercial banks, and are guaranteed
by the SBA..Tbis» program has- interest'
ratesj equivalent tot maikst rates.
For additional faformatinir on. the
Regular Guarantee arid Seetknx 503
Programs ccmfect jroar district or local
SBA Office, The coordinator .at EPA
Headquarters-is Ms. Frances Besselle
who may be reached' at (202)' 420-7874.
For further: infonnalftsr and specifics on
the Guaranteed PbffntSbir Control Bond
Program contact: U.S. Small Easiness
Administration, Office of.Pollution-
Control Financing; 4050 North Fairfax
Drive, Rbsslyn, Virginia 22203; (703) 235-
2902. -.;-."
-------
Federal Register /_yol.47. No.jgfO /^g^y^g^^^L^J^E.
XV.HI. Non-Water Quattiy Impacts of
Pollution Control ' ,
'The elimination or /reduction 'of one
form of pollution may aggravate other .'
" environmental problems. Sections 304(b)
'and306of1he ActTequireEPAto , .-..'-
consider fee -non-water quality
environmental impacts "pnclading energy
requirements) of certain regulations. In
compliance with these provisions, EPA
• has considered the effect of this ';----
regulation on air pollution, solid waste
generation, water scarcity, and energy
consumption. This proposal was
circulated to and reviewed % EPA
personnel responsible for non-water ;
quality programs. While it is always ,
difficult to balance pollution problems
against each other and against energy
utilization, EPA is proposing regulations
that it believes best serve often
competing national goals.
A detailed discussion of these impacts
is provided in Section VHI of the
Development Document Following is a
summary of the non-water quality
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed regulations:
• A. Air'PpUution—imposition of the
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, -and PSNS will, •
not create any substantial air pollution
problems. Minor very localized, air
pollution emissions currently exist in the
ferrous casting subcategory where
wastewaters are used to quench the hot
slag generated in ihe melting process. '
Alsb water vapor containing some
particulate matter is released from the
cooling tower systems used in the two
casting quench and mold cooling •
- process segments. However, none of
these conditions is currently considered
significant and lio significant future
impacts are expected as the result of ..
.this regulation. ' •-,-'"..': ;.•-.
B. Solid Waste—EPA estimates that
foundries generate a totaLof 6.1 million
kkg.(13.4 million tons] of solid wastes
per year from all operations 4Dn a dry ,
basis. EPA estimates that 9-03 million .
kkg(9.9 million tons) per year at 25%
solids will be the result of BPT ;;.
wastewater treatment. Wastewater
treatment sludges contain the toxic ;
metals chrpmiumj'copper, lead, nickel,
and zinc.. An additional 1.2 million liters
(0.32 million gallons) of waste oils and
greases (with an estimated density of 85
percent that of water) will be. generated
-as a result of BPT wastewater treatment.
EPA estimates the BAT will increase
this volume of sludge by less than 0.1
percent of BPT. ; • ,,. .
EPA estimates that 3.67 million kkg
(4.05 million ions) per year at 25 percent
^ solids will be the Jesuit of PSES ;
wastewater treatment An additional
- 1.37,million liters (0.36 million gallons)
per year of waste oils and greases will
be generated as a result of SSES
wastewater treatment. ..'..-
. The data gathered for, this proposed -.
regulation .demonstrate that in presently
installed wastewater-treatment systems,;
most of the solid wastes are already
collected and disposed. -Consequently,
the industry is now incurring costs of
solid waste disposal and locating
acceptable disposal sites. The Agency
has estimated the disposal costs of the
wastewater treatment .sludges and
waste oil and greases and included them
in the treatment model cost estimates,
presented in Section VIII of the
Development Document, for compliance.
-with the proposed regulations. The
estimated average cost of disposalof
these sludges is $5.00 per ton (on the,
basis of July 1978 dollars]. The average
cost of waste oils disposal was
determined to be 7 cents (basis, July
1978:dpEarsJ per gallon. The sludge
disposal costs agree with the median
sludge disposal cost of $4'.70 (1980 . '.
dollars) per ton determined on the basis
of the EPA phone survey conducted In
1981. .-.'.-. ".,-... /'•'
Some of these wastewater treatment
sludges may in the future be identified
as -hazardous under the regulations
implementing subtitle O of the Resource"
Conservation,and Recovery Act
(B.CRAJ. Under those regulations
generators of these wastes must test the
wastes to determine if the wastes meet
any of the characteristics of hazardous
waste (see 40 CFR 262.11,45 FR at .
12732-12733 (Feb. 26,1980}). The Agency
may also list these sludges as hazardous
pursuant to 40 CER 261.11 (45 FR at
33121 (May 19,1980)). ....
If these wastes are identified as /
hazardous, they will come within the .
scope of RCRA's "cradle to grave"
hazardous .waste management program, '
requiring regulation from the point of.
generation'to point of final disposition. •
Even if these wastes are not Identified
as hazardous, they still must be
disposed of ia compliance with the::
subtitle D open dumping [Standards, .
•implementing § 4004 of RCRA. See44'FR'
53438 (Sept. 13,1979).
EPA has assessed the chemistry of
foundry wastewater treatment sludges
to determine,which sludges may
potentially be hazardous. Currently
there are no metal casting^wastes
'specifically listedas hazardous; EPA
has compared foundry waste treatment
sludges and waste oils to wastes
specifically listed as.hazardous together
with those wastes which have .been ;
delisted. In addition-, EPA has applied,
the hazardous waste criteria!; ..•'.;.
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity and
EP toxicity to foundry wastes. EPA
B'.elieves,, that foundry waste sludges and
%aste oils are generally not ignitable,
jiorrosive or reactive. EPA's analysis of .
waste treatment sludges from lime and
siettle treatment systems indicates.that
};6xic metals present in. these sludges
pass the Extraction Procedure (EP).:
i'oxicity test. However, for those sludges
associated with, the treatment of copper
and jerrous dust collection scrubbers,
and ferrous sand washing, the toxic
jnetals present in these sludges may
exhibit toxicity as measured by the
Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity test.
,'rhese sludges would be generated from
isimple settUrig and recycle treatment
i!yst€!ms; these treatment systems do not
tee lime. However, these sludges may
loe rendered nonhazardous if they are
Jihixed with lime. Thus, the cost of " .
i3bm]3liance with RGRA is the cost of .
lime that must be added to simple
isettling systems. EPA has estimated the
cost of lime to treat these, sludges after
ieitipval from the settling tanks. EPA
estimates that'an additional cost of $3.14
per ton of sludge to treat tlie sludges.
The Foundry wastewater treatment
' sludges considered -as potentially .
hazardous are tihose associated withTh'e ,
treatment of wastewaters from copper
dust .collection scrubbers, ferrous dust
'bplleictibn scrubbers, and ferrous sand
washing.,Total cost'.to industry is $9,040
per year (first quarter 1982 dollars). This
cosi. only inckides the cost of umel :
Plants currently producing sludge from
these systems are assumed to have
fexis^dng sludge handling and holding
'equipment. , ",-_•. . „
i» C. Water Scarcity—Water loss is an
issue to be evaluated in considering .
'iigiilations for proposal. EPA estimates
that the evaporative water loss from the
tooling towers used in the recycle
, trea tment systems of the copper and
'ferrous mold cooling and casting quench
processes is less than 'one tenth of one
ipercent of the water loss in the air
[pollution control scrubbers used
extensively throughout this industry. As
discusseclin detail in Section VHI of the .
iDevelopment Document, the Agency
'concludes that the benefits derived, from
tornpliance with this proposed , •'. .
'Regulation justify only 'the mmimal water
'loss associated with the cooling towers,
'The Agency has reached this conclusion
after considering this issue on Ijofli an
'industry-wide oasis and on a water-
-------
51528 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 220 / Monday. November 15, 19132 / Proposed'Rules
Trattnwnt tavel
PPT „„.„,„„ , ,
n^T -..,-,.,..,.,. „ ,,,„„, ,
Not energy consumption
(kilowatt-hours)
60.6X10 «.
2.6X10 3.
The Agency estimates that proposed
PSES will result in a net increase in
electrical energy consumption of
approximately 29.2 million kilowatt-
hours per year.
The energy requirements for NSPS
and PSNS are estimated to be similar to
energy requirements for BAT. More
accurate estimates are difficult to make
because projections for new plant
construction are variable. It is estimated
that new plants will design, wherever
possible, production techniques and air
pollution control devices that either
require less water than current practices
or require no water such as dry air
pollution control devices.
Industry compliance with the
proposed BPT, BAT, and PSES
limitations will require 0.29 percent
increase over the 31.3 billion kilowatt-
hours used in 1978. EPA also considered
the non-water quality impacts of
pollution control on new sources. EPA
estimates that a new medium size gray
iron foundry with dust collection
scrubbers installing a complete recycle.
system would not create any substantial
air pollution problems. EPA estimates
that 13,391 kkg per year of sludge (at 25
percent solids) would be generated with
a disposal costs of $112 thousand per
year (including RCRA disposal costs).
EPA estimates energy costs of $1,120 per
year.
XIX. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Section 304(e) of the Clean Water Act
authorizes the Administrator to
prescribe "best management practices"
("BMPs"), described under Authority
and Background. EPA is not proposing
BMPs at this time.
XX. Upset and Bypass Provisions
An issue of recurrent concern has
been whether industry guidelines should
include provisions authorizing
noncompliance with effluent limitations
during periods of "upset" or "bypass."
An upset, sometimes called an
"excursion," is unintentional
noncompliance occurring for reasons
beyond the reasonable control of the
permittee. It has been argued that an
upsot provision in EPA's effluent
limitations guidelines is necessary
because such upsets will inevitably
occur due to limitations in even properly
operated control equipment. Because
technology-based limitations are based
upon what technology can achieve, it is
claimed that liability for such situations
is improper. When confronted with this
issue, courts have been divided on the
question of whether an explicit upset or
excursion exemption is necessary or
whether upset or excursion incidents
may be handled through EPA's exercise
of enforcement discretion. Compare
Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, .564 F. 2d 1253
(9th Cir. 1977) with Weyerhaeuser v.
Castle, supra arid Corn Refiners
Association, et al. v. Costle, No. 78-1069
(8th Cir., April 2,1979). See also
'American Petroleum Institute v. EPA,
540 F. 2d 1023 (10th Cir. 1976); CPC
International, Inc. v. Train, 540 E. 2d
1320 (8th Cir. 1976); FMC Corp. v. Train,
539 F. 2d 973 (4th Cir. 1976).
While an Upset is an unintentional
episode during which effluent limits are
exceeded, a bypass is an act of
intentional noncompliance during which
waste treatment facilities are
circumvented in emergency situations.
Bypass and upset provisions have, in
the past, been included in NPDES
permits.
EPA has determined that both upset
and bypass provisions should be
included in NPDES permits and these
provisions are included in the NPDES
regulations that include upset and
bypass permit provisions. (See 40 CFR
122.60). The upset provision establishes
an upset as an affirmative defense to
prosecution for violation of technology-
based.effluent limitations. The bypass
provision authorizes bypassing to
prevent loss of life, personal injury, or
severe property damage. Permittees in
the foundry industry will be entitled to
: the general upset and bypass provisions
in NPDES permits. Thus these proposed
regulations do not address these issues.
XXI. Variances and Modifications
Upon the promulgation of the final
regulation, the numerical effluent
limitations for the appropriate process -
segment must be included in all federal
and state NPDES permits thereafter
issued to foundry industry direct
dischargers; In addition, the
pretreatment standards are directly
applicable, upon promulgation, to
indirect dischargers.
For the BPT effluent limitations, the
only exception to the binding limitations
is EPA's "fundamentally different
factors" variance. See E.I. duPont
deNemours and Co. v. Train, 430 U.S.
112 (1977); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle,
supra. This variance recognizes that
there may be factors concerning a
particular discharger which are
fundamentally different from the factors
considered in this proposed rulemaking.
This variance clause was originally set
forth in EPA's 1973-1976 industry
regulations. It is now included in the
general NPDES regulations and will not
be included in the foundry or other
specific industry regulations. See thef^
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 125.30. -
The BAT limitations in this proposal
' regulation are subject to EPA's
"fundamentally different factors"
Variance. In addition, BAT limitations
fornontoxic and noncon ventional
pollutants are subject to modification
"under Section 301(c) and 301(g) of the
Act. According to Section 301(j)(l)(B),
applications for these modifications
must be filed within 270 days after
promulgation of final effluent limitations
guidelines. See 43 Fr 40859 (September
.13,1978). . - '.-
Pretreatment standards for existing
sources are subject to the
"fundamentally different factors"
variance and credits for pollutants
removed by POTWs. (See 40 CFR 403.7,
403,13; 46 FR 9404 flanuary 28,1981).
Pretreatment standards for new sources'
are subject only to the credits provision
in 40 CFR 403.7. New source
performance standards are not subject
to EPA's "fundamentally different
* factors" variance or any statutory or
" regulatory modifications. (See EJ.
duPont deNemours v. Train, supra).
XXII. Relationship to NPDES Permits
The BPT, BAT, and NSPS limitations
and standards will be applied to
individual foundries through NPDES.
permits issued by EPA or approved
States agencies under Section 402 of the
Act. The preceding section of this
preamble discussed the binding effect of
this regulation on NPDES permits,'
except to the extent that variances and
modifications are expressly authorized.
This section describes several other
aspects of the interaction of these '
regulations and NPDES permits.
One matter that has been subject to
different judicial views is the, scope of
NPDES permit proceedings in the
absence of effluent limitations;
guidelines, and standards. Under
currently applicable EPA regulations,
States and EPA Regions that issue '
NPDES permits before promulgation of
regulations must do so on a case-by-
case basis. This regulation provides a '
technical and legal basis for new
permits.
Another issue to how the regulation
affects the powers of NPDES permit-
issuing authorities. EPA has developed
the limitations and standards'in this
regulation to cover the typical facility
for this point source category. The
promulgation of this regulation does not
restrict the power of any permit-issuing
authority to act in any manner
consistent with law or these or any
-------
Federal .Register / Vol. .47, No. 220 /
other EPA regulations, 'guidelines, tjr
policy. For example, the fact that this
regulation does not control a particular
pollutant does not preclude the permit
issuer from limiting such pollutant on a
case-by-case basis, when-necessary to
carry out the purposes of the Act. In
addition, to the extent that State water
quality standards or other provisions of"
State'or Federal law require limitation
of pollutants not covered by this
regulation tor require more stringent
limitations on covered pollutants), such
limitations must be applied by the
permit-issuing authority. .
One additional topic that warrants
discussion is the operation of EPA's
NPDES enforcement program, many
aspects of which have .been considered
in developing-this regulation, The ' -
Agency wishes to emphasize that,
although the Clean Water Act is a strict
liability statute, the initiation of
enforcement proceedings iy EPA is
discretionary ^Szarra^C&i v. Train, 557
2nd. 485, 5th Circ, 1977). EPA has
exercised and intends to exercise that
discretion in-a manner that recognizes
and promotes good faith compliance
efforts, ..',.''.-.
XXIII. Summary of Public Participation
". In April i960, JEPA circulated.a draft
technical development document for the
foundry industry to a number of
interested parties, including the Cast
Metals Federation, the American
Foundrymen's Society and several
member firms. This document did-not
include recommendations for.effluent
limitations and standards, but rather
presented a draft technical report. A
meeting was held in Washington, D.C.
on July 14,1980forpublic.discussionpf
comments on This document. :
The major issues and "technical
considerations raised by the industry
after their review of the draft
development document are summarized
below. The Agency's responses to these
comments are a part of the public record
for this rulemaking. ,
A. Technical Concerns
Many of the comments received on
, the April 1980 draft development
document addressed the applicability of
100 percent recycle. Specific issues
raised by these commenlors included:
. (1) Many questionnaire respondents to
the EPA 1976 survey may have
misunderstood the questions asked and
therefore mistakenly reported that their
plant was achieving 100 percent recycle
when in fact the plant did have a
discharge; [2] Achieving zero discharge
would require the disposal of a very wet
sludge (to effect a hlowdown and the
.. removal of dissolved solids) and this
wet sludge would increase "the volume.
and. costs of sludge-disposal at a time
when sludge disposal costs are
increasing due to RCRA,requirements, -
(3) A-zero discharge limitation would
cause some plants increased production
downtime due to scaling and plugging of
equipment, pipes and pumps; and (4)
The treatment costs the Agency
estimates for zero discharge ale too low.
The technical basis and supporting . ""-*
information upon which the Agency is
proposing 100 percent recycle is ,
summarized in this preamble and is,
presented in detail in Sections m, V, XI,
and X of the Development Document
The Agency has reviewed its data
base to determine if plants that have '
achieved 100 percent recycle are doing
so through the disposal of a very wet
sludge. EPA has compared the sludge
characteristics :of no .discharge plants .;.
with plants that discharge. Many no:
discharge plants, like plants with a
discharge, de-water the waste treatment
sludge by vacuum filtration or,by
centrifuge. These plants have achieved
no discharge'through 100 percent recycle
of process wastewater including the
recycle of the water removed from the
sludge. . .
Wastewater treatment sludge data
was collected as part of the 1981 phone
survey. The survey data show a range in
the solids content of sludges from 10% (a
very wet sludge) to ;90% {a very dry
sludge). Several of the plants in the
survey had achieved 100 percent
recycle. The phone survey data shows
that the median solids, content-of the
sludges of no discharge plants is 60%, a.-..
moderately dry sludge, For all plants in
the survey the median solids ^content is
47%. The Agency concludes -that wet
sludges-are not a necessary .-...-
consequence of zero discharge treatment
systems.
The Agency has no data to indicate,
anydiscrete tmscheduled production
downtime directly attributableto zero
discharge. In addition, no data were
received that demonstrated pro duct
quality problems as a result of complete ,
recycle of process^wastewater. The
Agency, however, has attempted to
identify the effects of 100 percent and
the build up of total dissolved solids
within recycle.loops on manufacturing
processes, air pollution control
equipment, pipes, valves and pumps-
The Agency is soliciting data with
respect to practical problems associated
with 100% recycle, See Section XXIV of
this preamble. .. ;.'
B. Costs. .. . '. •
A number of comments questioned the
accuracy of EPA's estimates of the cost
c;f 100 percent recycle for existing
fi|eili-ttes. ' . ' - . •- . ' - •
f The Agency has based its cost
estimates on information furnished by
ejquipment manufacturers, vendors, :
standard costing practices and reference
. Maridbooks, and costs provided toy
sieveral plants, including plants that
liaVe achieved zero discharge. In ,
sjddition, 'the Agency has evaluated the
cjbsting methodolgy used to estimate .
foundry costs through comparisons with
sjeveral other costing methodologies.
lf%e. Agency has feurid costs generated,
liiy the methodology used in estimating
ipurwlry costs in good agreement with
\\psti provided by other sources. For
(ixample, this costing methodology was
used to estimate control costs for the
iron Hind steel category where, the
estimate control costs were greater by
:LO to 20 percent than the costs reported
Ipy the .industry. The Agency has also
compared its foundry inbdel costs with
ijhosB reported by several foundries.
This comparison is detailed in Section
'(/III of the Development Document and -
ishowrs that overaU the Agency's costs
are 36% higher than Jndustry reported
iposte. Based on these comparisons, the
Agency believes -that the estimated
foundry control costs are no_t
ijindeirestimated.
:! Tl.e Agency Teceiyed a comment .
"guestipning whether the increased
ijiandling costs of sludge are, included in
the calculationttf total costs for this ;
regulation. The costs for handling sludge
Is included in .-the annual cost
balcjjlation for Ihis regulatidn at an
average cost of $5.00 per pound. , .
•- Acommentorhas also ques'flohed the
Agency's 1984 .employment population
as being overstated. The Agency bases
its 1984 employment projection on an
• historical trend analysis of foundry
^openings and .closures taken from '
!Cen!3US and Industry data since 1972.
>pTh:is projection is further supported by
data^ obtained from the 1980 Agency
survey of the foundry industry which
looked 'at closures and openings
betvreen 1977-1980. • ;
. Solicitation of O>mmenfs "
,'[^ EP A invites anrfBncourages public
iparticipation in this notice. EPA is
• Iparticularly interested in receiving
ladditional comments and information on
ithe folio wing issues: ^
T l.The Agency is concerned about the
"Ifewplants projected to close as a result
i'pf ' a final regulation. The majority of
^projected closures are plants with.small
^numbers of employees. Reductions in -
"closures among small indirect
1 dischargers could be accomplished by
excluding, from the.categbricalPSES
-------
51530 Federal Register /Vol. 47, No. 220 / Monday, November 15,' 1982 / Proposed Rules -
standards this proposed regulation
would establish, plants in one or several
aubcategories or process segments that
employ fewer than 50 employees. For ,
direct dischargers, BPT limitations for
small plants in selected categories or
process segments could be based upon
present discharge levels.
The Agency invites data, comment
and recommendations on the impacts of
treating small plants in this manner and
on appropriate measures to distinguish
small foundries from all other foundries
if the Agency determines that such
treatment of small plants is desirable.
The Agency desires data which is
specifically related to levels of
production and employment in small
foundries. Specific information
pertaining to the level of annual sales,
revenues and capitalization are also
requested. Comments and
recommendations concerning the
financial profiles developed hi the
economic methodology for small plants
is also requested.
2. The Agency is also concerned that
specific plants may not be able to
achieve 100 percent recycle on a
continuing basis. The Agency has
received comments that for a few
specific processes and air pollution
control devices it would be exceedingly
difficult because of equipment design
peculiarities to operate this equipment
at 10Q percent recycle on a continuing
basis. The Agency has not received
technical support documentation
accompanying these comments. The
Agency has also not received reports or
case histories identifying the conditions
and likely causes of failures in achieving
zero discharge on a continuing basis.
The Agency solicits specific
comments together with the technical
support documentation identifying
process equipment, air pollution control
devices and site specific factors such as
sludge disposal, process water quality,
and plant layout, that because of design
characteristics or peculiarities may not
be able to be operated properly at 100%
recycle. In addition, the Agency solicits
plant data and information on the
circumstances and conditions in which
100% recycle has been attempted but not
routinely achieved. Engineering reports,
equipment design specifications or
configurations, and case studies are
requested.
3. The Agency also solicits long term
raw and treated effluent analytical data
from monitoring records or other sources
from plants with well operated lime and
settle treatment systems with 90 recycle
of treated process wastewater from
casting processes with proposed
limitations of no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants.
'4. The Agency also solicits specific .
comments on the comparisons between
100 percent recycle and the two -
discharge alternatives of 90 percent and
50 percent recycle for fifteen process
segments.
5. The Agency seeks comments on the
practical substitution of process
chemicals containing toxic organic
pollutions such as phenolic sand binders
and die lubricants with other non toxic
metal molding and. casting process
chemicals.
The Agency seeks data describing the
availability, applicability and cost of the
use of process chemicals which do not
contain or would not add toxic
chemicals to foundry process
wastewaters. .
6. To determine the economic impact
of this regulation, the Agency has
calculated the cost of installing BPT,
BAT, PSES, NSPS and PSNS for the
Metal Molding and Casting facilities for
which data were available. The details
of the estimated costs and other impacts
are presented in Section VIII of the
technical Development Document and in
the Economic Impact Analysis. Based on
these analyses, the Agency projects 25
plants closures and/or 484 employment
losses as a result of this regulation. The
"Agency invites comments on these
analyses and projections. We
particularly seek comments on whether
casting manufacturers, especially small
or less profitable plants, can withstand
the estimated compliance costs. The
commenters should focus not only on
the likelihood of plant closures and
employment losses, but should also
include data on the effects of the
regulation on: modernization or
expansion of production costs, the
ability to finance non-environmental
investments, product prices,
profitability, the need for additional-
employees to operate and maintain the
required-pollution control equipment,
international competitiveness, and the
availability of less costly control
technology.
XXV—OMB Review
This proposed regulation was
•submitted'to the Office of Management
and Budget for review as required by
Executive Order 12291."
List of Subjects hi 40 CFR Part 464
Iron and steel foundries, Nonferrous
foundries, Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution control.
Dated: October 29,1982.
Anne M. Gorsuch,
Administrator.
XXVI—Appendices
Appendix A—Abbreviations, Acronyms and
Other Terms Used in This Notice
Act—The Clean Water Act
^Agency—The U.S. Environmental Protection
, Agency
BAT—The best available technology
economically achievable under Section
304[b)(2) of the Act
BCT—The best conventional pollutant
/control technology, under Section 304(b)(4J
of the Act
BPT—The best practicable control technology
currently available under Section 304(b)(l)
of the Act
Clean Water Act—The Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 •
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) as amended by the
Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-
217]
Direct Discharger—A facility which
discharges or may discharge pollutants into
waters of the United States
Indirect Discharger—A facility which
introduces or may introduce pollutants into
a publicly owned treatment works
NPDES permit—A National Pollutant"
Discharge Elimination System permit •
" issued under Section 402 of the Act
POTW—Publicly owned treatment works
NSPS—New source performance standards
under Section 306 of the Act
PSES—Pretreatment standards for existing
sources of indirect discharges under
Section 307(b) of the Act
PSNS—Pretreatment standards for new
sources of indirect discharges under . •-
Section 307(bj"and (c) of the Act
RCRA—Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (PX. 94-580) of 1978,
Amendments to Solid Waste Disposal Act
as amended , ,
Appendix B—Pollutants ProposedTbr
Specific Regulation
SubpaitA—Aluminum Casting Subcategory
(1) Investment Casting Operations • '-
Oil and Grease
TSS
pH
(2) Melting Furnace Scrubber Operations
Oil and Grease
TSS
pH
(3) Casting Quench Operations
2,4,6-trichlorophendl
2,4-Dichlorophenol f
Fluoranthene . . •
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Copper ' •
Zinc '
Xylene ,
Sulfide
Oil and Grease •
TSS
pH
(4) Die Casting Operations
Acenaphthene
-------
" Federal' Register / 'Vbl."47,-tio; 22JJ' / '
November-
/ JPrced
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Parachlorometacresol , •
.Chloroform ' , ..'---
Phenol .
Butyl benzyl phthalate
! Chrysene
Tetrachloroethylene
Lead , .
- Zinc ---.-.--.
Phenols (4AAP)
Oil and Grease
TSS
pH,-•• ,"•"•- ' : •'.'
(5) Die Lube Operations . "
Benzidine *•
, Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
1,2-dichlorpethane,
- 1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethane . , ,,
2,4,6-trichlorophenol ; -
Chloroform -...',
Fluoranthene
Methylene chloride .
Naphthalene
4-nitrophenol • .
Pentachlorophenol ,
Phenol
.. bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
' Butyl benzyl phthalate
Benzo [a) anthracene
Acenaphthylene "••„'/.
Anthracene, .
Fluorene ."'-.-.
Phenanthrene ,<"""
.Pyrene , ,
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Chlordane . . , ;
Copper •
Lead " . :
Zinc
Xylene ,.."•'• •
Ammonia
Phenols (4AAP) '
Sulfide
'Oil and Grease * . .
TSS , -
PH .-/'• ; \ '. ;-
Subpart B—Copper Casting Subcategory
(1) Dust Collection Operations
Butyl benzyl phthalate •
3,4-benzofluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthanae
Pyrene
Copper
Lead
.Nickel
Zinc
Manganese
Phenols (4AAP)
Oil and Grease
TSS
pH
' (2) Mold Cooling and Casting Quench
, Operations " •
* Copper , ,
Zinc
Oil and Grease •
TSS
pH
Subpart C—Ferrous Casting Subcategory-
(1) Dust Collection Operations - ' .:
Acenaphthene ,
2,4-dichlorophenol >
2,4-dimethylphenol
Fluoranthene. .
N-nitrosod\phenylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Butyl benzyl phthalate
iBenzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
Acenaphthylene
Fluorene . ; •
Phenanthrene
'• Pyrene ,- '
Tetrachloroethylene -,
Copper , . .. .'"••.
Lead
Nickel , / .,..'. ..- ,
Zinc
Ammonia
.. Iron
Manganese
Phenols (4AAPJ
Sulfide.,- ^ :
OiLand Grease
TSS •"..'.
pH
(2) Melting Furnace Scrubber Operations
2-chlorophenol
* 2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol •-.-;-
Fluoranthene
2,4-dinitrophenol ,
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrospdiphenylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene ' ; ..
Acenaphthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene • ..
Pyrene ' • . .. '
Tetrachloroethylene
Antimony "
Arsenic . • . •
.Cadmium ~"
Chromium -
.Copper
Lead
Nickel ' , • •
Zinc "
Ammonia >; ...
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Phenols (4AAP) .
Sulfide -
Oil and Grease . , •
TSS -
pH , \"
(3) Slag Quench Operations
' 2,4-dimethylphenol
N-nitrosodiphenyiamine
Phenol
Tetrachloroethylene ~
Cadmium"
. Chromium • .
Copper
- Lead
Nickel •.,..'-.
Zinc
Ammonia '•• .
Fluoride . -
Iron
Manganese
[Phenols {4AAP1
iSulfide ; :
:iQil and Grease
•|TSS • ' '
'' '
.. . .
[4) Ca«ting Quench and Mold Cooling
,|;.,, Operations ' i
.,„ j[lfpn.'v •: "'.; . .'•_ ; '. ; . .-. -
;'O.il iind Grease '
: JTSS --. ' •-"" " :- - • ••
>['pH •..••• : . •.,.••.-
(Ji) Sand Washing Operations
;t Acenaphthene -.,-'"'",'.
..J'Phenol -•'/,..:• . .•--
[Acenaphthylene
"i Pyrene ;
[Chromium. : •• ".-.-.. ,, .... ,.
[Copper . • • .
:• | Lead... ' • ' • •
"JNickel .
" "•
Ammonia.
•j'iroii. . ••'.
•Manganese
Phenols (4AAP)
Suliide' :•_••.
Oil and Grease
TSS. •.'••.
'
. . .
fslubpart D—Lead Casting Subcategory -
(1) Continuous Strip Casting Operations f
|:Lead . • .'• ;- ; s .
'• Oil and Grease
1 TS£i -.-•---.
•|-PH '•; - ' •:;". ..-•-;.•
(2) Grid Casting Operations
t Copper •..-."' - .
'
. ''''-Zinc " "; '-' , .-; - , , :
"i Oil and Grease ; .
1 TSS •--..-.'•
f pH '--.-.•'•• . ' : :.
(J3) Molting Furnace Scrubber Operations
:i Copper .
.'1 Les.d : '.•'•.
,:j. Zinc. . , • • . . . .
;jf Oil and Grease
"'
.. .. . .. _
'Subpart E— Magnesium Casting Subcategory
ti) Gimdirig Scrubber Operations
'• '" '
. . . .
i[; Manganese
Oil and Grease
tss : '- .. '•
{2) Dnst Collection Operations
f'Phenols (4AAP)
.
! Oil and Grease "
i TSS: - • • ••
I pH/ ' ',.,-• .... ' .•:'•
'fSubpartF— Zinc Casting Subcategory
(1) Die Casting and Casting Quench
! Operations .
,| 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
• Parachlorometacresol - . - .
[•'•" Pyrene . '
-,:." Tetrachloroethylene , ,
* Lead " . .. - . ' ".' . •.- - . .
Zinc Manganese .»
Phenols [4AAP]
-------
51532
'
I Proposed Rules
Sulfldo '
Oil and Grease
TSS
pH
(2) Melting Furnace Scrubber Operations
Zinc
Phenols (4AAPJ
Oil and Grease
TSS
pH
Appendix C—Toxic Pollutants Not Detected
(a) Subport A—Aluminum Casting
Sttbcategory
002 Acrolcln
003 Acrylonitrile
003 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
009 Hcxachlorabenzcne
012 Hoxachloroethane
010 Chloroethano
017 Bis (chloromelhyl) ether
019 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
020, 2-chloronaphthaIcne
02S 1,2-dichlorobenzene
020 1,3-dichIorobenzene
027 1,4-dichlorobenzene
028 3,3'-dicblorobenzidine
029 1,1-diehloroethylene
032 1,2-dlchloropropane
•033 1,3-dlchloropropylene
035 2,4-dInIlrotoluene
037 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
WO 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
041 4-bromophcnyl phenyl ether
042 Bls(2-chlorolsopropyl) ether
043 Dls(2-chloroethoxy) methane
(MS Methyl chloride
040 Methyl bromide
049 Trichlorofluoromethane
020 Dichlorodifluoromethane
052 Hexachlorobutadiene
OS3 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
054 Isophorone
OSS Nitrobenzene
061 N-nUrosodimethylamine
002 N-nllrosodimethylamine
079 Bcnzo(g,h,i)perylene
082 Diben7.o(a,h]anthracene
083 lndeno(l,2,4-cd)pyrene
088 Vinyl chloride
113 Toxaphone
114 Antimony
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
(b) Subpart B—Copper Casting Subcategory
002 Acroleln
003 Acrylonitrile
007 Chlorobenzene
008 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
009 Hexachlorobenzene
010 1,2-dichloroethano
012 Hcxachloroethane
013 1,1-dicliloroethane
015 1,1,2,2-telrachloroethane
010 Chloroelhane
017 Bis(chloromethyl)ether
018 Bts(2 chlorocthyjjether
010 2-chloroclhyl vinyl other
020 2-chloronaphthaIone
024 2-chlorophenol *
025 1,2-dlchlorobenzene
028 1,3-dIchlorobenzcnc
027 1,4-dichlorobenzcne
028 3,3'-dIchIorobenzIdIne
028 1,1-dichloroethyIcne
030 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
031 2,4-dichlorophenol
032 1,2-dichloropropane
033 1,3-dichloropropylene
035 2,4-dinitrotoIuene
038 Ethylbenzene
040 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
041 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
042 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
043 Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
046 Methyl bromide
048 Dichlorobromomethane
049 Trichlorofluoromethane
050 Dichlorodifluoromethane
051 Chlorodibromomethane
052 Hexachlorobutadiene
053 Hexachlorooyclopentadiene
058, Nitrobenzene
061 N-nitrosbdimethylamine
062 N-nitrosodiphenylamine
063 N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
079 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
082 Dibenzo(a,h]anthracene
083 Indeno(l,2,4-dc) pyrene
088 Vinyl chloride •
094 4,4'-DDD
095 Alpha-endosulfan
096 Beta-endpsulfan
098 Endrin
114 .Antimony
130 Xylene
(cj Subpart C—Ferrous Casting Subcategory
002 Acrolein
003 Acrylonitrile
012 Hexachloroethane
013 1,1-dichloroethane
015 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
016 Chloroethane
017 Bis(chloromethyl] ether
019 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
025 1,2-dichlorobenzene
027 1,4-dichlorobenzene
028 3,3-dicholorobenzidine
029 1,1-dicholoethylene .'
032 1,2-dichoropropane
040 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
041 '4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
042 Bis{2-chloroisopropyl) ether
046 Methyl bromide
'050 Dichlorodifluoromethane "-.•-• ,
052 Hexachlorobutadiene
053 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
061 N-nitrosodimethylamine
063 N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
079 Benzo(g,h,i,)Perylene
082 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
083 Indeno(l,2,3-cd) pyrene
088 Vinyl chloride
(d) Subport D-Lead Casting Subcategory
002 Acrolein
003 Acrylonitrile
005 Benzidine
006 Carbon tetrachloride
007 Chlorobenzene
008 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
009 Hexachlorobenzene
010 1,2-dichloroethane
012 Hexachloroethane
013 1,1-dighloroethane .
014 1,1,2-trichloroethane
015 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
016 Chloroethane
017 Bis (chloromethyl) ether
018 Bis [2-chloroethyl] ether
019 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
020 2-chloronaphthalene
022 Parachlorometa cresol
025 1,2-dichlorobenzene
027 1,4-dichlorobenzene
028 3,3-dichlorobenzidine
029 1,1-dichloroethylene
030 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
.032 1,2-dichlpropropane
033 1,3-dichloropropylene
034 2,4-dimethylphenol
035 2,4-dinitrotoluene
036 2,6-dinitrotoluene
037 1,2-dipheriylhydrazine
040 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
041 4-bromophenyl phenyl ehter
042 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
043 Bis(2-chloroethpxy) methane
045 Methyl cholride
046 Methyl bromide '
047 Bromoform
049 Trichlorofluoromethane
050 Dichlorodifluoromethane
\ 052 Hexachlorobutadiene
053 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
054 Isophorone
056 Nitrobenzene
057 2-nitrophenol
058 4-nitrophenol .
059 2,4-dinitrophenol
060 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
061 N-nitrosodimethylamine
062 N-nitrosodiphenyJamine
063 ,N- nitrosodi-n-propylamine j?
064 Peritachlorophenol *"
070 Diethyl phthalate
071 Dimethyl pyhthalate
077 Acenaphthylene
079 Benzo(G,h,i)perylene
082 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
083 Indeno(l,2,-cd) pyrene
085 Tetrachloroethylene
088 Aldrin
' 090 Dieldrin
091, Chlordane
092 4,4'-DDT
093 4,4'-DDE
094 4,4'-DDD
095 Alpha-endosulfan
096 Beta-endosulfan
097 Endosulfan sulfate
098 Endrin
099 Endrin aldehyde
100 Heptachalor
102 Alpha-BHC
103 Beta-BHC
104 Gamma-BHC
105 Delta-BHC
106 PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
107 PCB-1254 {Arochlor 1254) '
108 PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
109 PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
110 PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
111 PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
112 PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
113 Toxaphene
130 Xylene
(e) Subpart E—Magnesium Casting
Subcategory
002 Acrolein
003 Acrylonitrile
005 Benzidine.
006 Carbon tetraohloride "
007 Chlorobenzene
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 47, No. 220 / Monday, November 15. lgJ82 / Proposed^Rules
'008 1,2,4-trichlorobehzene ,
009 Hexachlorobenzene .
'010 1,2-dichlproethane .'-"•,-••
Oil '1,1,1-trichloroethane _
012 Hexachloroethane ' . ,
013 1,1-dichloroethane. - . : ';
014 1,1,2-trichloroethane .. ,
015 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
016 Chloroethane
017 Bis (chloromethyl) ether
018 Bis (2-chloroethy) ether
019 2-ohloroethyl vinyl ether
022 Parachlorpmeta cresol
025 2,2-dichlorobenzene
028 3,3'-dichlprobenzidine
029' 1,1-dichloroethylene
030 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
031 2,4-dichlorophenyl
032 '1,2-dichloropropane
033 .1,3-dichlbrppropylene
035 2,4-dinitrotoluene
036 2,6-dinitrotoluerie
037 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
038 Ethylbenzene '•
040 4-chlorophenyl pheriyl ether
041 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
042 Bis(2-chloroisoprppyl) ether
043 Bis(2-chk>roethoxy) methane
045 Methyl chloride ,
046 Methyl bromide
047 Bromoform . .
049 Trichlorofluorpmethane
050 Dichlorodifluoromethane ••-..:-
\051 Chlorodibromomethane , -.-.-•
,052 Hexachlorpbutadiene ' ,
053 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
054 Isophorone
056 Nitrobenzene
058 4-nitrophenol : •
059 2,4-dinitrophenol
060 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol ,
061 -N-nitrosodimethylamine
062 N-nitrosodiphenylamine
063 N-nitrpspdi-n-propylamine
069 Di-n-octyl phthalate ' .
074 3,4-Benzofluoranthehe , ;
079 Benzd(g,h,i)perylene vi
082 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene .
083 Indeno[l,2,3-cd) pyrene ,, ' - ;. ,'
087 Trichloroethyiene
. 088 Vinyl chloride "-..-.
089 Aldrin •
091 Chlordane
093 4,4'-DDE
096 Beta-endosulfan '
097 Endosulfan sulfafe
098 Enddrin - • •
100 Heptachlor
103 Beta-BHC
- 105 Delta-BHC
113 Toxaphene _ .
114. Antinomy , .
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium ,
124 Nickel
• '
(f) Subpart F—Zinc Casting Subcaiegory
002 Acrolein -".-,'
003 Acrylonitrile
005 Benzidine ~
009 Hexachlorobenzene
010 1,2-dichloroethane .
012 He.xachloroethane ;
013 1,1-dichloroethane a
014 1,1,2-trichloroethahe -
016 Chloroethane .."... '
017 Bis(chloromethyl) ether ,
018 Bis[2-chloroethyl) ether ;
019 2-chloroethyrvinyl ether
020 2-chioronaphthalene •/;
026 1,3-dichlorobenzene : .
.027- i,4-dichlorobenzene ••;' . '
028, 3,3Vdichlorobenzidme
029 l,i-dichloroethylene '•','•• ,:.-
032 1,2-dichloropropahe .
033 1,3-dichloropropylene
040 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
041 4-broniophenyl phenyl ether -...;..
042 Bis(2Tchloroisopropyl) ether
043 Bis(2-chloroethoxy] methane ;
045 Methyl chloride
046 Methyl bromide
047 Bromofornl
048 Dichlorobromomethane .
049 Trichlorofluoromethahe , ,;
050 Dichlorodifluordmethang.. , ; -
051 Chlorodibromomethane .
052 Hexachlorobutadiene -";-.:
053 Hexachlorqcyclopentadiene ^
057 2-nitrophenol .-,- ,
060 4,6rdinitro-o-cresol '
061 N-nitrosodimethylamine
062 N-nitrosodiphenylamirie '
063 N-nitrosddi-n-propylamine-"
073 Benzo(a)pyrene
074 ;3i4-Benzofluoranthene • ;•
075 Benzo(k)flupranthene ;•...••'
079 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ,
082 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
083 Indeno(l,2,3-cd) pyrene
088 Vinyl chloride ;- • ,
090 Dielddrin -'."
105 Delta-BHC • :
113; Toxaphene , ' '. ' ]
114 Antimony .
117 Beryllium; -
118 Cadmium . ' : -.- ',
Appendix D—Toxic Pollutants Detected
Belotv the Nominal Quantification Limit
' (a) Subpart A—Aluminum Casting "
Suboategory . , -'-':•';•'•i': .-/
V 014 1,1,2-trichloroethane ' . ,"
030 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene , :
036. 2,6-dinitrotoluene . '•'..'.'.•'-
, 047 Bromoform -.'•'.--
051 Chlorodibrpmomethane .
069 Di-n-octyl phthalate ; '
074 3,4-Benzoiluoranthene
075 Benzo(k)flupranthene
090 Dieldrin .- "'".;
_094 4,4'-ODD " "•;....
095 Alpha-endosulfan
096 Beta-endosulfan ,
097 Endosulfan sulfate; ,
098 Endrin
099 Endrin aldehyde
100 Heptachlor
125 Selenium - .. • ' , •
126 Silver ' ,
127> Thallium •;,": , ^ \ •
(b) Subpart B—Copper Casting Suboategory
004 Benzene , . , , ,
005 Benzidine ."-.'. •: . . •
-021 2,4,6-trichlorophenpl ...,>:'
022 Parachlorometa cresol
037 1,2-diphenylhydrazine ; ' .
039 Fluoranthene, ;
. 047 Bromofprm
055 Naphthalene /
057 2-nitrpphenpl
059 2,4-dinitrophenol
Ofib 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol ,
069 Di-n-octyl phthalate
Oflb. Fluprene
086 Toluene
08^ ^. Aldrin/
090, .'Dieldrin
OS! Chlordane . :-•'-"
092 !4;
j, .... ._
0^7 Endosulfan Sulfate '.'•..
OS^i Endrin aldehyde . '
ICJO \Heptachlor -: : .
ICjl Heptachlbr eppxide
1(|2 Alpha-BHC .
1C[3 Beta-BHC ;..' ^
1(14 Gamma-BHC
1(15 Delta-BHC
1(16 .PCB-1242 (JArpchlpr 1242)
1(17 PCB-1254 CArpchlor 1254)
1(18 PCB-1221 (Arpchlpr 1221) _
1(19 PCB-1232 (Arpchlpr 1232)
110 PCB-1248 (Arochlpr 1248) ,
ill F'CB-lzeOtAroehlbr 1260) .
112 PCB-10J6 (Aroehlor 1016)
113 Toxaphene
117 Berylium ". . " ; .,. . .. '•• .
119 Chromium : •
'125 Eieleniuin "; -' ...
iiJ6 Eiilver --...'• •:•-'• . • '.'.
127 Thallium . : :
(a) 'Subpart C— Ferrous Casting Subcategory
Op5 Benzidine
Op7 (^hlorobenzene
039 Hexachlorobenzene
."dip 4,2-dichloroetjiane
of4-. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
020 2-chioronaphthalerie
026. 1,3-dichlorobenzene. .
035 2,4-dinitrdtoluene '_•''•. .•'•-."..;
036 2,6;dinitrot61uene . • :
037 1,2-diphenylhydrazlne
038- Ethylbenzene
Opp , Dichlorobromomethane
073^ !3enzo(a)pyrene .' ; .
: • - '" '
. . ._.
089 Aldrin' • : ":
q;9fl ' Dieldrin ; '- . -' ' ., ''-.'_ ' ", '
091 Chlordane . ......
C92' 4,4'-DDT '
• C|34,4'-DDE ;'".,. *' -.-•'.' .""-
CiJ 4i4'-DDD ••. ,•-.'•-..
CI95 . ..fldpha-endosulfan
C|§6 Beta-endosulfan ; ;
(fel7 Endosulfan sulfate ..-•:••'.'
CJS8 ;Endrin . _,;. ,• •'..-". .'''
iljjb Heptachlor ..."":. -.,''..
. ibl Heptachlor' eppxide '
f02 Alpha-BHC '.'"-'.
1*04 /Gamma-BHC ; ; .
jibs Delta-BHC '-'"--',
1106 PGB:1242.(Arochlorl242) •
;ib7 "PCB-i254(ArOchlofl254) .'-
108 PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
!tb9 PCB-1232 (Arochlpr 1232)
iilO PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
111 PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
."'il2 .EX"-' '•:- '.-''-.'••.-'', •
113 )PCB-l6l6 (Arochlor 1016) ; ,
;[l3 Toxaphene : .
fd) Subpart D— Lead Casting Subcaiegory
JDpl Acenaphthene
j|)04 Benzene
-------
51534 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 220 / Monday, November 15, 1982 / Proposed Rules
021 2,4,6-trichloroplicnol
024 2-chlorophenol
020 1,3-dichlorobenzene
031 2,4-dichlorophenol
038 Ethylbenzene
033 Fluoranthene
044 Melhylene chloride
048 Dichlorobromomcthane
031 Chlorodibromomethane
005 Phenol
072 Benzo(a)anthracene
073 Benzojajpyreno
074 3,4-Bcnzofluoranthene
075 Benzo(k)fluoranthene
076 Chrysene
080 Fluorene
068 Toluene
087 Trichloroethylene
101 I Icptachlor epoxide
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide, Total
1323 Mercury
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
120 Silver
127 Thallium
(e) Subpart E—Magnesium Casting
Stibcatcgoiy
020 2-chloronaphthalene
021 2,4,0-Irichlorophenol
024 2-chlorophonol
020 1,3-dlchlorobenzene
027 1,4-dlchlorobenzene
039 Fluoranthene
048 Dichlorobromomethane
055 Naphthalene
037 2-nilrophenol
072 Benzo(a)anthracene
OT3 Benzofajpyrene
075 Benasojkjfluoranthene
080 Fluorene
085 Tetrachloroethylene
090 Dloldrin
092 4,4'-DDT
094 4,4'-DDD
095 Alpha-endosulfan
099 Endrin aldehyde
101 Heptachlor epoxide
102 Alpha-BHC
104 Gammn-DHC
108 PCB-1242[Arochlorl242]
107 PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
108 PCB-1221(Arochlorl22l)
109 PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
110 PCB-1248 [Arochlor 1248)
111 PCB-1200tArochlorl260)
112 PCB-1018(Arochlflrl016)
115 Arsenic
123 Mercury
125 Selenium
126 Stiver
127 Thallium
130 Xylone
(f) Subpart F—Zinc Casting Subcategory
007 Chlorobenzene
015 1,1,2,2-totrachloroethane
025 1,2-dlchlorobenzene
037 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
054 Isophrone
004 Pentachlorophenol
078 Anthracene
081 Phenanthrene
089 Aldrin
091 Chlordane
092 4,4'-DDT
093 4,4'-DDE
094 4,4'DD
095 Alpha-endosulfan
098 Beta-endosulfan
097 Endosulfan sulfate ,
098 Endrin
099 Endrin aldehyde
100 Heptachlor
101 Heptachlor epoxide
102 Alpha-BHC
103 Beta-BHC
104 Gamma-BHC
108 PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
107 PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
108 PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
109 PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
110 PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
111 PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
112 , PCB-1216 (Arochlor 1016)
115 Arsenic
119 Chromium
125 Selenium '
128 Silver
127 Thallium
Appendix E—Toxic Pollutants Not Treatable
by End-of-Pipe Technologies Considered
(a) Subpart A—Aluminum Casting '
Subcategory
004 Benzene
015 1,1,2,2,-tetrachloroethane '
018 bis(2-chloroethyl) ether,
024 2-chlorophenol
034 2,4-dimethylphenol
038 Ethylbenzene
048 Dichlorobromomethane
057 2-nitrophenol
059 2,4-dinitrophenol
060 4,6-diriitro-o-cresol
068 D-n-butyl phthalate
070 Diethyl phthalate
071 Dimethyl phthalate
086 Toluene .
089 Aldrin
092 4,4'-DDT
093 4,4'-DDE -..'.'•
101 Heptachlor epoxide
102 Alpha-BHC
103 Beta-BHC
104 Gamma-BHC
105 Delta-BHC
108 PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
107 PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
108 PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221) •
109 PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232>
110 PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
111 PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1280)
112 PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
115 Arsenic
119 Chromium ' '
121 Cyanide
123 Mercury
124 Nickel
(bj Subpart B—Copper Casting Subcategory
001 Acenaphthene
006 Carbon tetrachloride
Oil 1,1,1-trichloroethane
014 1,1,2-trichloroethane
023 Chloroform
034 2,4-dimethylphenol
036 2,6-dinitrotoluene
044 Methylene chloride
045 Methyl chloride '
054 Isophorone
058 4-nitrophenol
064 Pentachlorophenol '
065 Phenol ' ' ' ;
066 bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
068 Di-n-butyl phthalate
070 Diethyl phthalate
071 Dimethyl phthalate
072 Benzo (a) anthracene ,
073 Benzo (a) pyrene"
076 Chrysene '
077 Acenaphthylene -.-
078 Anthracene
081 Phenanthrene
. 085 Tetrachloroethylene '
087 Trichloroethylene ''.•','
115 Arsenic
118 Cadmium
121 Cyanide
123 Mercury
(a) Subpart C—Ferrous Casting Subcategory
004' Benzene
,006 Carbon tetrachloride
008 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Oil 1,1,1-trichloroethane
018 bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
021 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
022 Parachlorometalcresol
023 Chloroform
030 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
033 1,3-dichloroprophylene
043 bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
044 Methylene chloride . , '
045 Methyl chloride,
047 Bromoform . -
049 Trichloroflupromethane
051 Chlorodibromomethane
054 Isophorone
055 Naphthalene
056 Nitrobenzene
057 2-nitrophenol -
058 4-nitrophenol ,-
066 Bis(2-ethyUiexyl) phthalate
068 Di-n-butyl phthalate !
069 Di-n-octyl phthalate
070 Diethyl phthalate '
071 Dimethyl phthalate -.'-'.
074 3,4-Benzofluoranthene
075 Benzo (k) fluoranthene •
086 Toluene . . .
087 "Trichloroethylene
099 Endrin aldehyde
103 Beta-BHC
117 Beryllium " -
121 Cyanide
123 Mercury .
125 Selenium
126- Silver
127 Thallium
130 Xylene
. fdj Subpart D—Lead Casting Subcategory
Oil 1,1,1-trichloroethane
023 .Chloroform .
055 Naphthalene
066 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
067. Butyl benzyl phthalate
068 Di-n-butyl phthalate
069 Di-n-octyl phthalate
078 Anthracene
081 Phenanthrene .- - •
084 Pyrene '
114 Antimony *..-••
118 Cadmium ,.
-------
Federal jgegister / VbL 47. Mo. 220 / ^^^•^f^mber i5' ^jj_
(e) Subpart E—Magnesium Casting
Subcategory ..:.-..
001 Acenaphthene
004 Benzene •''--..
023 Chloroform -
034 2,4-dimethylphenol ' -•''
044 JMethylene chloride , ,
064 Eentachlotophenol
065 Phenol .'.'.- , •
066 bis{2-ethyftexyl)phthalate N
. 067 Butyl benzyl phthalate . /
068 ,Di-n-butyl phthalate
:070 Diethyl phthalate . -'".-•
071 Dimethyl phthalate. . ,,.:
076 Chrysene. . ".
077 . Acenaphthylene
078 Anthracene ... V. / . ^ .
081 Phenanthrene
084. Pyrene . -. '
085 Tetrachloroethylene '•','.' • .
120 .Copper / ;
121 Cyanide " ;
122 Lead ,
Cf) Subpart F—Zinc Casting-Subcategory .,
001 Acenaphthene
•004 .Benzene.
006 -Carbon tetrachloride • ,
008 I,2j4-trichlorobenzene
Oil 1,1,1-trichlorpethane -.-'..
023 Chlorpfprm
024 2-chlprophenol
030. '1,2-trans-dichloroethylene , V
035 2,4--dmitrotoluene ... .•_•••
036 2,6-dinitfotoiuene .
038 Ethylbenzene . :
039 Flucrranthene . ' ^.
044 Methylene chloride
056 Nitrobenzene .
058 4-nitrophenol
059 2,4-diniirpphenol .
066 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
068 Di-n-butyl phthalate
069 Di-n-octyl phthalate -^ , •,..
070 Diethyl pTithalate
071 Dimethyl phthalate
072 Benzo(a)anthracene. • ....
076 Chrysene . •>-•-. :
077 Acenaphthylene ,
080, Fluorene
086 Toluene . - , . ;
087 Trichloroethylene --..,-.-
120 Copper ,
121 Cyanide" . . . , • '
123 Mercury .- . . •
124 Nickel
130 Xylene " ,
Appendix T—Toxic Pollutants Controlled But
Not.Specifically Regulated ..
Subpart A—Aluminum Casting Sabcategory
063 N-nitrpsodi-n-propylamine '
073 BenzoCa)pyTen:e .
'Subpart B—CopperCasting Subcategory
The proposed limitations and standards for
the process.segments Jit this,subcategory are
no discharge of process wastewater -
pollutants to navigable waters or POTWs,
Subpart C—-Ferrous .Casting Sabcategory
The proposed limitations mid standards for '
- the process segments in this subcategory are
no discharge of process wastewater ..-
pollutants to navigable waters or PDTWs.
SubpaftS—-lead Casting Subccitegory.
The. proposediimitatiflnB and standaids 'for
two of ihe process segments-on this *
subcategory are no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to navigable waters or
-POTWs. : '" .... -"-/:"""-." . ..
Subpaet E—rMagnesium Casting Subcategory •
The proposed lirritta-tions and'standards for
• 'theprocess segments in this subcategory are
no discharge of process wastewater .
pollutants to navigable waters or POTWs.,
Subpai-tF—ZSncCastiTig.Sujbccttegory ''•_ ' '
031' '2,4-dichlprpphenol
034 2,4-dlm^thylphenoJ ... , -/
_055 Naphthalene '.-.."..'. --,"•
065 Phenol , • . ... , _
067 Batyl benzyl phthalate "---'• '•-
Appendix t3—SnbcategDries -andTrocess
Segments Not Segulated ;
Subpart A—Aluminum Casting
Investment Casting—BAT, PSES..PSNS.
Melting Furnace £crnbher-rBAI, JPSEB, £SNS
SubpartD—"Lead Casting- '. . '
Continuous Strip Casting—BPT, BAT
.Subpart E—Magnesium Casting : . , .,
Grinding^Scrubber'.OperalJDns—;PSES
Dust Collection Operations—PSES .
SubpartG—MckeJ Casting—BPT, SAT, BCT,
NSf>S,PSE3rPSNS . : " . ., ,
Subpart H—Tin Casting—BPT, SAT'SCT, ','.
s,PSES,PSNS ' •-- -
. .- -.- .,. .,. •
SeiU; "- , ... . . - •• ' ,-.-.-,... ":.... '
-'. 4Sae'"'applicatiqn of-thelestpracticable .
ii^oittrol technblogy currently available. ,
46.4|122 :jEffluent limitations .representing the
:* degree of effluent reduction aUainable by
' -^the application of the best available.
'-'• '. jaiechnotagy economically achievable. -,
46ii2,3. New s0urce-j.erformance standards. .
:464i24 Pretrfiatmentstandards for existing .
' ' ' ' ' • • '' • " '
46425.
'"'- ^sources. ; -. :,',.,]' . '....,
'[Reseryed] , : ..
artC—Ferrous Casting Subcategory
464730 . Applicability; description of. the .
. L ferrous castirig'subcategD'ry.. \ •• ..
46.431 Effluent limitatiqns.represeriting the ;
1 degree of effluent reductions attainable
- tnby.the application -of the best practicable .
':v "icontrol technology currently available. ,.
464.32 Effluent limitations representing the
','. degree of fiffluentireduction attainable by
:|- the application of ihe best available , ^
• ;L technology economically achievable.
46^.33 New source performance standards. ...
-.. 46^1.34 'Pretreatmentstajndards.for existing
-. v-sour.ces. '
4&1".35
' tj'. sources.
Subpart I—XitaniLLm Casting—SPT,£AT, .,'
BCT,:NSPS, PSES, PSNS ^
EPA proposes to ,estaBlish a new Part
464 to Jea'd as follows: .-.;-.;
PART 464—METAL MOLDING AND
CASTING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
• General Provisions . '-..'•'.'.
Sec.. ..-.'' • : ".' . . ' - . • •
'464.01 Applicability. '. . ,
464.02 General definitions.
464.03 -Monitoring.Tequirements. •
'464.04 Compliance dateforTSES.
Sufapart A—Aluminum Casting
464.10 Applicability; description of the .'..;
- aluminum casting subcategory- -
464.11 Effluent limitations representing the
' degree of effluent,reducti6n attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
464.12 Effluent limitatipns'representmg the -
degree -of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
464.13 JMew source performance standards.
464.14 PreWeatmerit standards for existing ;
'.sources. ' -• . . . .
464.15 Prelreatmentstandards'fprnew . ' "
sources •'. . """.'-..
464.16 [Reserved] -
Subpart B—Copper Casting Subcategory
464.20 Applicability, Description of the
copper casting subcategory.
464.21 Effluent limitations .representing the
degree of jeffluentTeduction attainable by
SiibpaJt3>T-:L-ead Casting Sabcategory
4^|M' Applicabflity.; descriptipn of the lead
T; ca«ting subcategory. -j, ":. . .
46141 • .Effluent ^^limttations representing the
• .„. de; jree nf Effluent Tedaction attainable by
" the: application' of the bestpractjcable
' 3 . .x;«3.trol .technology currently available,
464.42., Effluent .limitations ^presenting .the
,'L', de,gree QififHiientjeducaonattainable.by'
. , the; application of the best available
'! tetihnblqgy economically achieveable, "\
46i4.43 New source performance standards. ..
' 4€J4,44 ; jPretreatmerit standards for existing
'
sources:
. . . . .
tment standards for new. .(
--,j; :spurces. ,•.' ' .' •• '--.,-' "•• ;.' •-•-•-
4|J4.46!''[Reserved] r ' '-'-'•• -,'.'-' '
Sjlibpart E—MagnesaimrCasfihg
Sifibcategory . ,
4_(i4;50 Applicability; description of the
'I,,; magnesium easting" subcategory- .
4(i4.51' .Effluent limitations representing the
;• degree of effluent reduction attainable by
'! the application of the best practicable.
•'!." ccntrpl technology currently available.
4(54.52 Effluent limitations ^presenting the
"f1'dtigree of Effluentjeduction attainable.by
i'fcr.jhe applicFation of the best available ••
;,'.;; technology economically achisvable. .
4!34!s3 Newsp.urce'performance standards. .
464.54 Pretreatment standards for ji'ew
';?*- 'scrtirces' •',.'''." .. .,.'"'
4S4.5S, IReservedJ .... ,- '' .'
slufepiirt F^ZSnc .Casting Subcategory "
464.60 Applicabili^r; description pf the-zinc . .
, r casting.subcategory. . ;. • '••
464.61 'Effluent limitations'representing the
:'!•'-"• degree of effluent reduction attainable by
-' • tlie application»fifhe best practicable ..
•;:• control technplqgy currently javailable. _
Effluent limitations J^presenting the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
-------
51536 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 220 / Monday. November 15, 1982 /' Proposed Rules
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
404.03 New source performance standards,
404.64 Pretrcatment standards for existing
sources.
404.65 [Reserved!
Authority: Sees. 301, 304(b), (c), (e), and (g),
300(b) ond (c), 307, and 501, Clean Water Act
(Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, as amended by Clean
Water Act of 1877) (the "Act"); 33 United
States C. 1311,1314(b), (c), (e), and (g),
1316{b) and (c), 1317(b) and (c), and 1361; 86
Stat. 816, Pub. L. 92-500; 91 Stat. 1567; Pub. L.
95-217,
General Provisions
§ 464.01 Applicability.
The provisions of this regulation apply
lo discharges and to the introduction of
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works resulting from
production hi the Metal Molding and
Casting Point Source Category.
§464.02 General definitions.
In addition to the definitions set forth
in 40 CFR Part 401, the following
definitions apply to this part:
(a) Aluminum Casting. The remelting
of aluminum or an aluminum alloy to
form a cast intermediate or final product
by pouring or forcing the molten metal
into a mold, except for ingots, pigs, or
other cast shapes related to primary
metal smelting.
(b) Copper Casting. The remelting of
copper or a copper alloy to form a cast
intermediate or final product by pouring
or forcing the molten metal into a mold,
except for ingots, pigs, or other cast
shapes related to primary metal
smelting.
(c) Ferrous Casting. The remelting of
ferrous metals to form a cast
intermediate or finished product by
pouring the molten metal into a mold.
(d) Lead Casting. The remelting of
lead to form a cast intermediate or final
product by pouring or forcing the molten
metal into a mold, except for ingots,
pigs, or other cast shapes related to
primary metal smelting.
(e) Magnesium Casting. The remelting
of magnesium to form a cast
intermediate or final product by pouring
or forcing the molten metal into a mold,
except for ingots, pigs, or other cast
shapes related to primary metal
smelting.
(£) Zinc Casting. The remelting of zinc
to form a cast intermediate or final
product by pouring or forcing the molten
metal into a mold, except for ingots,
pigs, or other cast shapes related to
primary metal smelting.
§ 464.03 Monitoring requirements.
The "monthly average" regulatory
values shall be the basis for the monthly
average discharge in direct discharge
permits and for pretreatment standards.
Compliance with the monthly discharge
limit is required regardless of the
number of samples analyzed and
averaged.
§ 464.04 Compliance date for PSES.
Two years after promulgation of the
regulation.
Subpart A—Aluminum Casting
Subcategory
§ 464.10 Applicability; description of the
aluminum casting subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges and to the
introduction of pollutants into publicly
owned treatment works resulting from
aluminum casting operations.
§ 464.11 , Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
Except as. provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
(a) Investment Casting Operations.
SUBPARTA
Pollutant or pollutant property
BPT effluent limitations
Maximum
for any 1 '
day
Maximum
for monthly
average
Kg/kkg (pounds per 1,000,
Ib) of metal poured
TSS
Oil and grease...
pH
1.103
.538
(1
0.538
.323
O
'Within the range of 7.5 to 10.
(b) Melting Furnace Scrubber
Operations. •
SUBPART A
Pollutant or pollutant property
BPT effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Maximum for
monthly
average
TSS_
Oil and Grease
pH
Kg/kkg (pounds per 1,000
Ib) of metal poured
0.0166
.00809
' o
0.00809
.00486
O
'Within the range of 7.5 to 10.
(c) Casting Quench Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable "waters.
(d) Die Casting Operations.
SUBPART A
Pollutant or pollutant property
BPT effluent limitations .'
Maximum for
any 1 day
Maximum for
monthly
average
Kg/kkg (pounds per 1,000
Ib) of metal poured
TSS
Lead "
Zinc , „ .
Phenols (4AAP)
pH
00109
0000726
000322
0"
'Within the range of 7.5 to 10.
(e) Die Lube Operations. No discharge
of process wastewater pollutants to
navigable waters.
§ 464.12 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
folio whig effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best available technology
economically achievable.
(a) Casting Quench Operations. No
dicharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
(b) Die Casting operations.
SUBPARTA
Pollutant or pollutant property
BAT effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Maximum for
monthly
average
2,4,6-trichlorophenbl
Paraohlorometacresol
Chloroform t
Phenol..........
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chrysene ,
Tetrachloroetylene
Zinc
ghenols (4AAP) ;
Kg/kkg (pour
Ib) of me
0.0000092
.0000305
.0000281
. .0000668
.0000063
.000104
.0000019
.0000261
.0000242
.000247
.000107
ds per.1,000
al poured
0.0000046
.0000152
.0000140
.0000334
.0000031
.0000518
.0000010
.0000131
.0000218
.000102
.0000537
, (c) Die Lobe Operations. No discharge
of process wastewater pollutants to
navigable waters.
§464.13 New source performance
standards.
The discharge of wastewater
pollutants from any new source subject
to this subpart shall not exceed the
values set forth below.
(a) Investment Casting Operations.
-------
Federal Megisier / Veil. 47. Mo. .220 / Monday;
SlIBRKBirA
Pollutant or pollutant property-
" . ' - . MSPS
Maximum
for any :1
day
Maxlmun for
monthly
average
TSS . ' !
nH '
,Kg/.kkg ((pounds per 1,000.
«lp) of .metal poured
-i:io3:
O
- ...323
> Wjthin She range ijf X5 to 10.. -.
[b] Melting Furnace Scrubber
Operations. ' '_ j"~
S0BPABT-A
\ .
Pollutanttor .pollutantproper^ ;
NSPS
SMffiSmum^or
•any l.day .
;Maximum for
monthly
average
l1 ¥tey •
^Maximum for '
unorfthly
-.average
kg^kkg (pounds par "1,000
Jp) o1irneta!,poured
Parach!orometaccesor_ — : — ;
Phenol . ; ••••••
Butyl beniyljjhthalate — _ _
Teiraohlofosthylene ................
Phenols (4AAP) '.
O.D000092
.0000305-
^000028-1 -
.0000668
.U000063 '
. .jOOO.1.04
.0000019
.DOTJ0261 •'.
,0000242 ;
..000247
S00107 ..'
0.0000046
.0000152
.0000140
,0000334
.W00031
.0000518
.0000010
.0000131
.0000218
,000102
.0000537
(c) Die Lube Operations. No discharge
of process wastewater .pollutants ID a
POTW. •'"'-"'.
§ 464.15 Pretreatment standards lor new
sources.
Except as provided in 40 GFR 403.7, *
any new source .subject to this subpart
which introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and
achieve the following pretreatment
standards forriewsources.,
(a) Casting Quench Operations. No
discharjB «f process "wastewater
pollutants'to a POTW.
(b).Die Casting Operations.
SUBPART A . --. .
Pollutant .or .pollutant property
PSMS :
Maximum
for any 1
day
Maximum for
monthly
•average
-Kg/kkg (pounds per 1,000
Ib) of-metal poured ..
Acenaprithen , .
2,4,6-trichlorophenq! ., — ..........'.....
Parachlorometacresol «
Butyl benzyl ,phthaiate .. —
Tetraohloroethylene „. _.~-
Leacj _ ^
Zinc ' ' -
Phenols (4AAPJ — _..._ -_.
O.OD00092
.0000305
• 10000281.
:0000668
-OODOQ83
.000104
.OU00019
10000281 ,
.0000242
.OOQ247
JD001D7
.0.0000046
.0000152
,0000140
.0000334
,.<0000031
.0000518
.0000010
..0000131
.0000218
.000102
. ,.0000537
' .fti) Gie Lube Operation's. No discharge
of process wastewater pollutants to a
POTW. -'-;.-.•
§464.16 JReserved]
Subpart B—Copper Casting
Subcategory
' • - •- • ;
§ 464.20 Applicability; description of the
copper casting subcategory.
The provisions of this smbpart are; ^
applicable to discharges and to the
_ introduction of pollutants into p'ublicly "
o wnad liseatmeiit works Tesulting Srorn
copper casting operations.
§4Jj>f.21 Efflaentjimitatlons representing
iheidegree of effluent reduction attainable
by "the application of tee best practicable
caritrol technology currently available.
Except as prpyidedinffl) CFRTL25.30-
12fi;32, aa,y existing point gourde subject
. to ifris irabpartmust achieve tiie
fol'fowiog BfflBehtliTmtalions
rejIesEnting-ffae degree.of effluent
retluctfon;attainable by Hb& application
of 'tlieTipestpiaciic^ble control •
technology ;CTnrently available v . .
(ja) Dust Collection Operations. No :
. disjchaige of process wastewater
pollutants to navlga*hle waters.
|[b) Mold Cooling .and .Casting Quench
. Operations. N(> discharge of ^process
wastewater -pollutants to jnavigable
wefters, ".'.;-
§ 464.22! Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
jfexcept as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
'•"•123732, any existing point source subject
'to this subpart rnustechieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree .of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of [the best available technology
edSnoinically achievable.
|a) LJust Collection Operations. No ,
discharge of process wastewater
pcjllatants to navigable wafers.
fa}Mald Cooling and Casting Quench
Operations. No discharge of process
wiistewater pollutants to navigable
"wiaterEi'. •"• V ""•.-' " '."-• .-
2(64:2
§fl64;23 New source performance
standards. '•"•".''_''. - . "-.- '•" '
pChe,discharge of wastewater
pollutants from.anyjiew .source subject
tojthis subpart^hall not.exceed^the
vjilues set forth :bfilow.
' j(a) Dust Collection Operations. JSI6
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
jj(bj Mold Cooling and Casting Quench
Operations. No discharge of process
wiastewater jpollutants to navigable
waters. ' • •
§464:24 Pretreatraent standards for
existing sources. ''•"-'.-
;|fe)cceptsas provided in 40GFR403.7
aJid 4()3.*13, any Bxisting source subject
tct.thisi subpart which introduces.
pibliutantsJntosa publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
CFR Part 403 and achieve the following
pretefiateent standards for-esastrng
.sources. -.'.. ' ^ . ..• "
}$&} Dust Collection/Operations. No
discharge ;of process iftrastewater
ppllutants to a POTW..
-------
51538
federal Register /Vol. 47. No. 220 /Monday,November 15, 1982 / Proposed Rules-
(b) Mold Cooling and Casting Quench
Operations. No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to a POTW.
§ 464.25 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, -
any new source subject to this subpart
which introduces pollutants in to a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for new sources.
(a) Dust Collection Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to a POTW.
(b) Mold Cooling and Casting Quench
Operations. No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to a POTW.
§484.23 [Reserved]
Subpart C—Ferrous Casting
Subcategory
§464.30 Applicability; description of the .
ferrous casting subcategory."
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges and to the
introduction of pollutants into publicly
owned treatment works resulting from
ferrous casting operations.
§ 464.31 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available,
(a) Dust Collection Operations, No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
(b) Melting Furnace Scrubber
Operations. No discharge of process
waatewater pollutants to navigable
waters.
(c) Slag Quench Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
(d) Casting Quench and Mold Cooling
Operations. No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters.
(e) Sand Washing Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
§ 464.32 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best available technology
'' economically achievable.
[a) Dust Collection Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
(b) Melting Furnace Scrubber
Operations. No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters. - •
(c) Slag Quench Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
td) Casting Quench and Mold Cooling
Operations. No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters. ,_ ,
(e) Sand Washing Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
§ 464.33 New source performance
standards.
The discharge of wastewater
pollutants from any new source subject
to this subpart shall not exceed the
values set forth below.
(a) Dust Collection Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters:
[b] Melting Furnace Scrubber
Operations. No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters.
(c} Slug Quench Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
(d) Casting Quench and Mold Cooling
Operations. No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters.
[e) Sand Washing Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
§ 464.34 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Except as provided in 40 CFR .403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart which introduces
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
CFR Part 403 and achieve the following
pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
(a) Dust Collection Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to a POTW.
(b) Melting Furnace Scrubber
Operations. No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to a POTW.
(c] Slag Quench Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to a POTW.
(d) Casting Quench and Mold Cooling
Operations. No discharge of process"
wastewater pollutants to a POTW.
[e\Sand Washing Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to a POTW.
§ 464.35 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,
any new source subject to this subpart
which introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for new sources. .
(a) Dust Collection Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater "
pollutants to a POTW.
(b) Melting Furnace Scrubber
Operations. No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to a POTW.
(c] Slat Quench Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to a POTW.
(d) Casting Quench and Mold Cooling
Operations. No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to a POTW.
(e) Sand Washing Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
• pollutants to a POTW.
§464.36 [Reserved]
Subpart D—Lead Casting Subcategory
§ 464,40 Applicability; description of the
lead casting subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges and to the
introduction of pollutants into publicly ,
owned treatment works resulting from
lead casting operations.
§ 464.41 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
Except as provided in 40 GFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
(a) Grid Casting Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
(b] Melting Furnace Scrubber
Operations. No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters.
§ 464.42 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the desree of effluent
-------
--. .-
ral Kegfefeif l'Vo\.:&, No. 220' 7 Monday!'November 15.' 19^7jftftpfrgefl •R^s,
reduction attainable by the application
of the best available-technology
economically achievable..
(a) Grid Casting Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants, to navigable waters.'
(b) MeltingFurnace-Scrubber
Operations. No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters. ••••..
§ 464.43 New source performance
standards. . .
The discharge of wastewater
pollutants from any new source subject
to this subpart shall not exceed the
. values set forth below. .
(a] Continuous Strip Casting
Operations.
. SUBPARTD •
§ 464.45 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403<7,
any new source subject to this subpart
which introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for new-sources.
(a) Continuous Strip Casting
Operations. / , .
SUBPARTD
Pollutant of pollutant property
• , NSPS.
Maximum for
any 1 day
Maximum for
monthly
. average .
Kg/kkg (pounds per 1,000
Ib) of metal poured
TOO
Lead •
Ou - 7.
0.00340
0.00227 '
0.0000227
(!)
' 0.00250
0.00227
0.0000204
(')
1 Within the range of 7.5 to 10. .':' • ,• . • -
(b) Grid Casting Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
(c) Melting Furnace Scrubber
Operations, No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters.
§ 464.44 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.07
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart which introduces
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment workers must comply with 40,
CFR Part 403 and achieve the following
pretreatment standards for existing
' sources. :
(a) Continuous Strip Casting
Operations. . •
SUBPARTD
•\
Pollutant or pollutant property
PSES >
Maximum for
any 1 day
Maximum for
monthly
average
Kg/kkg (pounds per 1,000
Ib) of metal poured
Lead..
0.0000227
(b) Grid Casting Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to a POTW.
(c) Melting Furnace Scrubber
Operations. No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to a POTW.
PSNS'
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Maximum for
mofrthly
average
Kg/kkg (pounds per 1,000 '
Ib) of metal poured
Lead - •- 0.0000227
0.0000204
0.0000204
(b) Grid Casting Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to a POTW.
~(d) Melting Furnace Scrubber
.Operations. No,discharge of process v
wastewater pollutants to a POTW.
§ 464.46 [Reserved]
Subpart E—Magnesium Casting
Subcategory ^
§ 464.50 Applicability; description of the
magnesium casting-subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges and to the
introduction of pollutants into publicly
owned-treatment works resulting from
magnesium casting operations.
§ 464.51 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
Except as provided in 40 GFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations •
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
(a) Grinding Scrubber Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
(b) Dust Collection Operations. No
discharge of pro'cess wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
§464.52 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of tljie best •available-technology
economically achievable.
: (si} Grinding Scrubber Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
polijutajdts to navigable waters.
(jj>) Dust Collection Operations. No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
§ 46J&53 New source performance
standards. :
ijhe discharge of wastewater
-pollutants from any new source subject
to \bis subpart shall not exceed the
values wet forth below. . ,
fa] Grinding Scrubber Operations.-No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable'svaters.
/ (b] Dust Collection Operations. No
dis^haf ge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
Pretreatment standards for new
§ 4154-54
sources.. -. V ; .. , ,
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.07,
any new source subject to this subpart
wKich introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 4Q CFR Part 403 and .
acSieve the following pretreatment
stEindartis for new sources.
[a] Grinding Scrubber Operations. No
diibhairge of process wastewater
pollutants to a POTW.
i[b) Dust Collection Operations. No
dii;cha:rge of process wastewater
pollutants to a POTW. '
§4^4.515 [Reserved]
Subpart F—Zinc Casting Subcategory
§ 464.60 Applicability; description of the
zinc casting subcategory. • ,
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges and to the
iritroductipn of pollutants into publicly
oivned treatment works resulting from
ziiiic casting operations.
§ 464.61 Effluent limitations representing
> this degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
TExcept as provided in 40 CFR 125,30-
i;!5.32, any existing point source subject
tcf this, subpart must achieve the
fcillowing effluent limitations ':
reipresienting the degree.of effluent
reduction aittainable by the application
o:f the best practicable control techology
ciiirrently available.
•^fa] Die Casting and Casting Quench .
Operations. No discharge of process
vtfasteiwater pollutants to navigable
waters.' '"',.'• ' ,;• • " v •-
| (b) Melting Furnance Scrubber
Operations.
rk /''•*'.'.- '. .*•„'" , . -
-------
,47' No" 22° I. Monday-' November 15, 1982 / Proposed Rules
SUBPART F
Potem) or pofctaot property
BPT ellbont limilatkins
Maximum for
»ny 1 day
MaxkrHOTi for
monthly
average
Kfl/kkg (Pounds per 1.000
to) ol metal poured
W.'Jwi m» lingo of 7.5 to 10.
§464.62 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best available technology
economically achievable.
(a) Die Casting and Casting Quench
Operations, No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters.
(b) Melting Furnance Scrubber
Operations. No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters. "
§464.63 New source performance
standards.
The discharge of wastewater
pollutants from any new source subject
to this subpart shall not exceed the
values set fourth below.
(a) Die Casting and Casting Quench
Operations. No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters.
(b) Melting Furnace Scrubber •
Operations. No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters.
§464.64 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.07
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart which introduces
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
CFR Part 403 and achieve the following
pretreatment standards for existing
sources. '
(a) Die Casting and Casting Quench
Operations. No 'discharge of process
wastew.ater pollutants to a POTW.
(b) Melting Furnace Scrubber
Operations. No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to a POTW.
t • '
§464;65 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.07,
any new source subject to this subpart
which introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for new sources.
[a) Die Casting and Casting Quench
Operations. No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to a POTW.
Qo) Melting Furnace Scrubber
Operations. No discharge of process
wastewater'pollutants to a POTW.
§ 464.66 [Reserved] :
[FR Doo. 82-30313 Filed 11-12-82; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6S60-50-M
-------
f"
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington DC 20460
WH 552
Official Business
Penally for Private Use $300
------- |