United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Technology
Division
WH-552
Washington, DC 20460
June 1985
EFtt
Guide for the
Application of Effluent
Limitations
for the
Petroleum Refining Industry
-------
GUIDE FOR THE APPLICATION
OF
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
FOR THE
PETROLEUM REFINING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Industrial Technology Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
June 1935
-------
FOREWARD
The purpose of this document is to provide a consolidated
source for current effluent limitation guidelines (ELG) for
the petroleum refining industry as of June 1985 and to explain
the present status and applicability of the Best Available
Technology (BAT) and Best Conventional Technology (BCT).levels
of control for direct discharging petroleum refineries.} Its
use will hopefully provide for uniform application of"The
petroleum refining ELG's in the manner intended and supported
by the record.
The final BAT and BCT regulations that were promulgated
in June 1985 are dependent upon a series of rulemaking
processes that commenced with the promulgation of Best
Practicable Technology (BPT) in 1974. The procedures for
applying the petroleum refining regulations for calculation
of water discharge permit limitations is somewhat involved
compared to the ELG's for other industries. The procedure
has become more intricate with the final promulgation of BCT,
revised BAT, and effluent limitations for storm water runoff
in June 1985.
This document is structured to guide the permit writer
and permit applicant through the procedure to identify infor-
mation needs (e.g., production data, refining processes,
physical plant layout, precipitation data) and perform the
appropriate calculations to determine permit effluent
limitations (e.g., process wastewater, storm water runoff,
ballast water, non-contact cooling water).
The main body of the document is of a "cookbook" format
for applying the ELG and, as such, does not present information
pertaining to the development or underlying basis for the
final regulations. Should the user require such information,
the appendices of this document contain a copy of each petroleum
regulation preamble for referencing background material. If
more detailed background or supporting material (e.g., plant
data, treatability information, process information) is
required, the user may contact the Industrial Technology
Division for technical assistance and access to the official
rulemaking records.
Because the complete set of currently applicable regula-
tions were issued in a piecemeal fashion, a comprehensive
listing does not appear in the Federal Register. The annual
edition of the Code of Federal Regulati ons, beginning
with the July 1986 edition, will contain such a listing for
petroleum refining codified at 40 CFR Part 419. For convenience
to the user, an unofficial version of the listing is included
in Section 2 of this document.
11
-------
In addition to the rulemaking records, there are two
technical development documents supporting the regulations:
Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards for the Petroleum
Refining Point Source Category. EPA 440/1-74-014-a,
April 1974.(BAT, NSPS)
Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines,
New Source Performance Standards, and Pretreatment
Ttandards for the Petroleum Refining Point Source Category,
EPA 440/1-82-014, October 1982. ("BAT)
ill
-------
CONTENTS
Section
FOREWORD .........
CONTENTS
NPDES PERMIT WRITERS WORKSHOP MATERIAL .
Petroleum Refining Industry.
Prior Regulations and Court Activity
Example Permit Calculations for Process
Wastewater. ......
Process Groupings Included in 1974 Flow
Model ........
Process Groupings Included in 1979 Flow
Model ........
Example Permit Calculations for Ballast
and Once-Through Cooling Water.
Storm Water Runoff Limitations .
AMENDED REGULATIONS, 40 CFR PART'419.
Authority
Subpar-t A -
419.10
419.11
419.12
419.13
419.14
419.15
419.16
419.17
Subpart B -
419.20
419.21
419.22
419.23
419.24
419.25
419.26
419.27
Subpart C -
419.30
419.31
419.32
419.33
419.34
419.35
419.36
419.37
Topping Subcategory.
Applicability
Specialized definitions.
DC I. m » • • • •
D A X • • • • • •
PSES • • • • •
NSPS .....
PSNS .....
Cracking Subcategory
Applicability
Specialized definitions.
£3 A X • • • • • •
D\HI> X • • • • • •
PSES • • • • •
NSPS .....
PSNS .....
Petrochemical Subcategory
Applicability
Specialized definitions.
D IT X • • • • • •
0 A X • • • • • •
D^B* X • • • • • •
PSES • • • • •
NSPS .....
PSNS .....
2
3
19
20
21
22
43
43
44
44
44
44
48
53
57
58
60
62
62
62
62
65
69
72
73
74
76
76
76
76
79
83
86
87
88
iv
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Section
2
AMENDED REGULATIONS, 40 CFR PART 419 (contd.)
Appendix
A
Subpart D
419.40
419.41
419.42
419.43
419.44
419.45
419.46
419.47
Lube Subcategory
Applicability
Specialized definitions.
BPT......
DnA. . . . . .
Dki» >L . . . . . .
PSES .....
NSPS
PSNS
Subpart E - Integrated Subcategory .
419.50 Applicability
419.51 Specialized definitions.
419.52 BPT
419.53 BAT
419.54 BCT
419.55 PSES
419.56 NSPS
419.57 PSNS
Regulation Appendix A - Processes
Included in the Determination of
BAT Effluent Limitations for
Total Chromium, Hexavalent
Chromium, and Phenolic Compounds
(4AAP)
90
90
90
90
94
99
101
102
104
106
106
106
106
109
113
116
117
118
120
121
PRODUCTION-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Memorandum from J. William Jordan,
Chief, NPDES Technical Support
Branch, U.S. EPA to Regional Permits
Branch Chiefs, Re: Calculation of
Production-Based Effluent Limits,
December 18, 1984 122
40 CFR 122.45(b) 126
B
EXAMPLE NPDES PERMIT LIMITATIONS FOR
HYPOTHETICAL LUBE OIL REFINERY .
127
v
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Appendix
C FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES
30 FR 16560, May 9, 1974, Final BPT.
40 FR 21939, May 20, 1975, BPT Amendments
44 FR 75926, December 21, 1979,
Proposed BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS. . 164
47 FR 46434, October 18, 1982, Final
BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS .... 189
49 FR 34152, August 28, 1984, Proposed BAT
Amendments, BCT, Storm Water Runoff
Limitations ...... 214
50 FR 28516, July 12, 1985, Final BAT
Amendments, BCT, Storm Water Runoff
Limitations ...... 226
VI
-------
SECTION 1
NPDES PERMIT WRITERS WORKSHOP MATERIAL
In an effort to provide guidance on the application of the recent
amendments to the BAT/BCT effluent limitations guidelines for the
petroleum refining point source category, the Agency's Industrial
Technology Division participated in the EPA NPDES Permit Writers
Workshops held in San Francisco/ California and Dallas, Texas
during November and December 1984. Representatives from EPA
regional offices, state offices, and local regulatory authorities
were presented with the material that follows in this section.
-------
PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
t SIC Code 2911
• 220 Operating Refineries in 1984
t Crude Capacities Range From 400 to 525,000 Barrels Per Day
• Industry Uses About 150 Unique Processes
• 5 Subcategories:
A - Topping
B - Cracking
C - Petrochemical
D - Lube
E - Integrated
• Texas, California and Louisiana Are Highest Producing States
-------
PRIOR REGULATIONS & COURT ACTIVITY
• May 9, 1974 Promulgation
- BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS
t May 20, 1975
- Amendments to BPT Published
• August 11, 1976 Court Decision
- BPT and NSPS Upheld (Except
Storm Water Runoff Remanded)
- BAT Remanded in Entirety
• March 23, 1977 Promulgation
- Interim Final PSES
-------
PRIOR REGULATIONS & COURT ACTIVITY
(Continued)
• October 18, 1982 Promulgation
- BAT, PSES, PSNS
• January 27, 1983 Court Suit by NRDC
- BAT
t April 17, 1984 Settlement Agreement
- EPA, NRDC, API, 7 Oil Companies
- More Stringent BAT
- BCT
- Storm Water Runoff
• August 28, 1984 Proposal
- Settlement Agreement Terms
-------
REGULATION COVERAGE
Process Wostewoter
BAT
Pollutant
Ammonia
COD
Suffide
Phenolics
Tot Chrom.
Hex. Chrom.
Technology Basis
Biological Treatment
Ol4kl«MMtfMl T«ULJltnn_KM4
Bioiogicai ireauneni
Biological Treatment
Flow Red., Bio. Trrnt
Row Red., Bio. Trrnt
Row Red., Bio. Trrnt
Permit Calculations
1974 Row Model
1974 Row Model
1974 Row Model
1979 Row Model
1979 Row Model
1979 Row Model
BCT
Pollutant
BODS
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH
Technology Basis
Biological Treatment
Bio. Trmt, Polishing
Bib. Trmt, Polishing
Neutralization
Permit Calculations
1974 Row Model
1974 Row Model
1974 Row Model
-------
REGULATION COVERAGE
Ballast Water
BAT
Pollutant
Technology Basis
Permit Calculations
COD
Heat, Settle, Fitter
and/or Bleed to Proc.
Waste Water Trmt Sys
Row x Concentration
BCT
Pollutant
BODS
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH
Technology Basis
Same
As
For
BAT
Permit Calculations
Row x Concentration
Row x Concentration
Row x Concentration
-------
REGULATION COVERAGE
Once-Through Cooling Water
Pollutant
Total
Organic
Carbon
Pollutant
BAT
Technology Basis
No Leakage, etc.
Into
Cooling Water System
Permit Calculations
Concentration (Net)
BCT
Technology Basis Permit Calculations
No Limitations
-------
REGULATION COVERAGE
Contaminated Storm Water Runoff
BAT
Pollutant
COO
Phenolics
Tot Chrom.
Hex. Chrom.
Technology Basis
Treat with Proc. W.W.
Treat with Proc. W.W.
Treat with Proc. W.W.
Treat with Proc. W.W.
Permit Calculations
Flow x Concentration
Flow x Concentration
Flow x Concentration
Flow x Concentration
BCT
Pollutant
Technology Basis
Permit Calculations
BODS
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH
Treat with Proc. W.W.
Treat with Proc. W.W.
Treat with Proc. W.W.
Neutralization
Row x Concentration
Row x Concentration
Row x Concentration
8
-------
EXAMPLE PERMIT CALCULATIONS
BAT/BCT LIMITS FOR PROCESS WASTEWATER
• For All BCT Parameters
LIMIT = EFFLUENT LIMITATION FACTOR
X SIZE FACTOR
X PROCESS FACTOR
X REFINERY FEEDSTOCK RATE
• For the BAT Parameters:
Ammonia, Sulfide and COD
LIMIT - EFFLUENT LIMITATION FACTOR
X SIZE FACTOR
X PROCESS FACTOR
X REFINERY FEEDSTOCK RATE
-------
EXAMPLE PERMIT CALCULATIONS
BAT/BCT LIMITS FOR PROCESS WASTEWATER
• For The BAT Parameters:
Phenolic Compounds, Tot. Chromium and Hex. Chromium
LIMIT = CRUDE PROCESS ALLOCATION
+ CRACKING AND COKING PROCESS ALLOCATION
+ ASPHALT PROCESS ALLOCATION
+ LUBE PROCESS ALLOCATION
+ REFORMING AND ALKYLAT10N PROCESS ALLOCATION
t EACH PROCESS CATEGORY ALLOCATION IS BASED ON THE TOTAL
FEEDSTOCK RATE FOR THE PROCESSES UTILIZED TIMES A PROCESS
SPECIFIC EFFLUENT LIMITATION FACTOR
10
-------
EXAMPLE PERMIT CALCULATIONS
HYPOTHETICAL LUBE OIL REFINERY
Processes
Utilized
CRUDE:
Atm. Dist
Vcc. Dist.
Desalting
CRACKING
and COKING:
FCC
Hydrocracking
LUBE:
Lube Hydrofining
Furfural Exir.
Phenol Extrac.
ASPHALT:
Asphalt Prod.
Process Feedstock Rate *
(1000 Bbls/Day)
125
60
125
41
20
5.3
4.0
4.9
4.0
USE SUM
TO
• \&
DETERMINE
HIGH YEAfl
USE SAME
YEAR'S DATA
AS ABOVE
CALCULATED AS PER 40 CFR 12Z45(b)(2)
THIS SINGLE VALUE TO BE USED FOR BOTH DAILY MAXIMUM AND
30-DAY AVERAGE CALCULATIONS
-------
EXAMPLE PERMIT CALCULATIONS
PROCESS WASTEWATER
HYPOTHETICAL LUBE OIL REFINERY
STEP 1: DETERMINE SIZE FACTOR
THE SEE FACTOR IS BASED ON THE REFINERY FEEDSTOCK RATE THE
REFINERY FEEDSTOCK RATE IS THE LARGEST OF ANY OF THE CRUDE
PROCESS FEEDSTOCK RATES. FOR THE EXAMPl£, THE REFINERY FEED-
STOCK RATE (IN 1000 BBLS/DAY) IS 125.
FROM THE SIZE FACTOR TABLE:
1000 BBL OF FEEDSTOCK
100.0 to 124.9
125.0 to 149.9
150.0 to 174.9
SIZE FACTOR
0.88
0.97
1.05
THE VALUE 0.97 IS OBTAINED.
12
-------
EXAMPLE PERMIT CALCULATIONS
PROCESS WASTEWATER
HYPOTHETICAL LUBE OIL REFINERY
STEP 2i DETERMINE PROCESS FACTOR
THE PROCESS FACTOR IS BASED ON THE PROCESS CONFIGURATION. THIS VALUE IS
CALCULATED AS FOLLOWS!
PROCESS
CRUDE;
Atm. Diet.
Vao. Diet.
Desalting
TOTAL
CRACKING:
FCC
Hydrooraoklng
TOTAL
LUBE:
Lube Hydro.
Furfural Extr
Phenol Extr.
TOTAL
ASPHALTi
Asphalt Prod.
TOTAL
TOTAL REFINERY
PROCESS
FEEDSTOCK
RATE
12B.O
60.O
125.O
41.0
20.0
5.3
4.O
4.8
4.0
PROCESS FEEDSTOCK RATE
RELATIVE TO
REFINERY FEEDSTOCK RATE
1.O
O.48
1.O
2.48
O.326
O.16O
O.4B8
O.O42
O.O32
0.038
O.I 13
O.O32
O.O32
WEIGHT
FACTOR
X 1
x e
X 13
X 12
PROCESS
CONFIGURATION
~ 2.48
•=> 2.93
= 1.47
~ 0.38
- 7.26
-------
EXAMPLE PERMIT CALCULATIONS
HYPOTHETICAL LUBE OIL REFINERY
STEP 2: DETERMINE PROCESS FACTOR (CONTINUED)
FROM THE PROCESS FACTOR TABLE:
PROCESS CONFIGURATION
PROCESS
FACTOR
Less than 6.49
6.50 to 7.49
7.50 to 7.99
8.00 to 8.49
0.81
0.88
1.00
1.09
THE VALUE 0.88 IS OBTAINED.
14
-------
01
EXAMPLE PERMIT CALCULATIONS
PROCESS WASTEWATER
HYPOTHETICAL LUBE OIL REFINERY
STEP 3: CALCULATE EFFLUENT LIMITS
BASED ON THE PRECEDING RESULTS. MAXIMUM DAILY BCT LIMITS
AND BAT LIMITS (FOR AMMONIA. SULFIDE AND COD ONLY) WOULD BE
CALCULATED AS FOLLOWS:
POLLUTANT
PARAMETER
BCT:
BOD-5
TSS
0 & G
BAT:
Ammonia
Sulfide
COD
EFFLUENT
LIMITATION
FACTOR
(Lb/10OObbl)
17.9
12.5
5.7
8.3
O.I 18
127.0
SIZE
FACTOR
0.97
O.97
0.97
O.97
O.97
O.97
PROCESS
FACTOR
0.88
O.88
O.88
O.88
0.88
O.88
REFINERY
FEEDSTOCK
RATE
(1OOO bbl/day)
125.O
125.O
125.0
125.0
125.O
125.0
EFFLUENT
LIMIT
(Lb/day)
19OO.
133O.
6O8.
886.
12.6
136OO.
-------
EXAMPLE PERMIT CALCULATIONS
PROCESS WASTEWATER
HYPOTHETICAL LUBE OIL REFINERY
STEP 4: CALCUUTE AMENDED BAT LIMITS
BAT UMTCS FOR PHENOUC COMPOUNDS, TOTAL CHROMIUM AND HEXAYALENT CHROMIUM
ARE BASED ON A REVISED (1979 FLOW MODEL) PROCEDURE. THESE LIMNS ARE
CALCULATED ON THE BASS OF TOTAL PROCESS FEEDSTOCK RATE FDR FIVE DISTINCT
PROCESS CATEGORIES AS FOLLOWS:
PROCESS
CATEGORY
CRUDE
TOTAL
CRACKING &
COKING
TOTAL
LUBE
TOTAL
ASPHALT
TOTAL
REFORMING &
ALKYLAT10N
PROCESSES
UTILIZED
ATM. DISTILLATION
VAC. DISTILLATION
DESALTING
FCC
HYDROCRACKING
LUBE HYDROF1NING
FURFURAL EXTRACT.
PHENOL EXTRACT.
ASPHALT PROD.
NONE
PROCESS FEEDSTOCK
RATE (1000BBLS)
125
60
125
310
41
20
61
5-5
4.0
4.9
14.2
4.0
4.0
0.0
USE SUM
TO
DETERMINE
HIGH YEAR
USE SAME
YEAR'S DATA
AS ABOVE
16
-------
EXAMPLE PERMIT CALCULATIONS
PROCESS WASTEWATER
HYPOTHETICAL LUBE OIL REFINERY
DAILY MAXIMUM BAT LIMITS FOR PHENOUC COMPOUNDS. TOTAL CHROMIUM
AND HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM USING 1979 FLOW MODEL
POLLUTANT
Phenolic
Compounds
Total
Chromium
Hexavalent
Chromium
CRUDE
PROCESS
LIMIT
Ob/day)
310 x 0.013
= 4.03
310x0.011
= 3.41
310 x 0.0007
= 0.217
CRACKING
AND
COKING
PROCESS
LIMIT
Ob/day)
61 x 0.147
= 8.97
61 x 0.119
= 7.26
61 x 0.0076
= 0.464
ASPHALT
PROCESS
UMIT
(Ib/doy)
4 x 0.079
= 0.32
4 x 0.064
= 0.26
4 x 0.0041
= 0.016
LUBE
PROCESS
UMIT
(!b/doy)
14.2 x 0.369
= 5.24
14.2 x 0.299
= 4.25
14.2 x 0.0192
= 0.273
REFORMING
AND
ALKYLATION
PROCESS
LIMIT
(Ib/doy)
0.0 x 0.132
= 0.0
0.0 x 0.107
= 0.0
0.0 x 0.0069
= 0.0
TOTAL
REFINERY
UMIT
Ob/day)
18.56
15.18
0.97
Note: For 30-Day Average Limits, Use Same Production Data
As For Daily Maximum Calculations
17
-------
EXAMPLE PERMIT CALCULATIONS
PROCESS WASTEWATER
HYPOTHETICAL LUBE OIL REFINERY
STEP 5: COMPARE AMENDED BAT LIMITS FOR PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS,
TOTAL CHROMIUM AND HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM WITH BPT LIMITS
FOR THE EXAMPLE REFINERY:
PHENOLIC
COMPOUNDS
TOTAL
CHROMIUM
HEXAVALENT
CHROMIUM
DAILY MAXIMUM 30-DAY AVERAGE
(IB/DAY) (LB/DAY)
BPT BAT BPT BAT
14.19
1856
6.94 4.48
29.13 15.18 17.07 5.31
156
0.97
1.17 0.43
SET DAILY MAXIMUM LJMIT TO BPT (I.L, 14.19 IB/DAY) FOR PHENOLIC
COMPOUNDS, BECAUSE BAT CANNOT BE LESS STRINGENT THAN BPT.
18
-------
PROCESS GROUPINGS INCLUDED IN 1974 FLOW MODEL
USE 10 CALCULATE ALL BPT/BCT POLLUTANT UMfTS AND BAT LJMIT5 FOR
AMMONIA, SULflOE AND COD ONLY
PROCESS
CATEGORY
CRUDE
CRACKING
AND
COKING
LUBE
ASPHALT
PROCESSES INCLUDED
ATMOSPHERIC DISTILLATION
VACUUM DISTILLATION
DESALTING
FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING
VIS BREAKING
THERMAL CRACKING
MOVING BED CATALYTIC CRACKING
HYDROCRACKING
FLUID COKING.DELAYED COKING
LUBE HYDROF1NING
WHITE OIL MANUFACTURING
PROPANE-DEWAXING, DEASPHALT1NG
DUO SOL. SOLVENT DEWAXING
VACUUM TOWER, WAX FRACT10NATTON
CENTRIRJGING AND CHILUNG
MEK DEWAXING. DEOIUNG(WAX)
•NAPHTHENIC LUBES
S02 EXTRACTION
WAX PRESSING, WAX SWEATING
WAX PLANT(WITH NEUTRAL SEPARATION)
FURFURAL EXTRACTION
CLAY CONTACTING-PERCOLATION
ACID TREATING
PHENOL EXTRACTION
PRODUCTION
OXIDATION
EMULSIFYING
WEIGHTING
FACTOR
1
6
13
12
19
-------
PROCESS GROUPINGS INCLUDED IN 1979 FLOW MODEL
USE TO CAtCUATE MENDED BAT LJflS
FOR PtENOUC COyPOUNDS, TOT. CHROMA! AND HEX CHROMA! ONUT
PROCESS CATEGORY
PROCESSES INCLUDED
CRUDE
ATMOSPHERIC DETIUATON
DESALTING
VACUUM DISTILLATION
CRACKING
AND
COKING
YE BREAKING
THERMAL CRACKING
FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING
MOVING BED CATALYTIC CRACKING
HYDROCRACMNG
DELAYED COKING
FLUID COKING
HYDROTREATOG
LUBE
HYDR()HNINGJfrDROFlNISHINGaiJBE HYDROF1NING
(WHflE OIL MANUFACTURE
PROPANE DEWAXING^ROPANE DEASPHAU1NGJ>ROPANE RACTURINGJ'ROPANE DERES1NING
DUO SOLSOLVENT TREATING30LVENT EXTRACTIOrUJUOTREATING^OLVENT DEHAXING.SOI^ENT DEASPHAOTNG
LUK VACUUM TOWEROL FRACHONATIOIiBATCH SIILL(NAPHTHA STR1P)^]GHT STOCK TREATING
CENTRIFUGE AND CHUJNG
MEX DEWAXINGJ
-------
EXAMPLE PERMIT CALCULATIONS
BAT/BCT LIMITS FOR
BALLAST AND ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER
• Daily Maximum Limits for Ballast Water
(50,000 gal/day Flow Basis)
FACTOR X FLOW = LJMfT
BOD-5 0.40 X 50 = 20. Ib/day
TSS 0.26 X 50 = 13. Ib/day
COD 3.9 X 50 = 195. Ib/day
0 & 6 0.126 X 50 = 6.3 Ib/day
• Once Through Cooling Water
- 5 mg/l Total Organic Carbon as Concentration Limitation
(Not to Exceed)
- May be Net Basis if Requested by Permittee
21
-------
STORM WATER RUNOFF LIMITATIONS
DEFINITIONS
t RUNOF
- Precipitation
- Contact with Petroleum Refinery Property
- Either Contaminated or Uncontaminated
t CONTAMINATED RUNOFF
- Runoff
- Direct Contact With Any:
Raw Material
Intermediate Product
Rnished Product
By-Product, or
Waste Product
• UNCONTAMINATED RUNOF
- Any Other Runoff
22
-------
STORM WATER RUNOFF LIMITATIONS
OVERVIEW OF REGULATIONS
POLLUTANTS BPT BAT BCT
PHENOUC COMPOUNDS « *
TOTAL CHROMIUM • *
HEXAYALENT CHROMIUM * *
COD/TOC * *
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND * *
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS * *
OIL * GREASE * *
pH * •
CASE DISPOSITION
COLLfCTED SEPARATELY - NO BPT UMITS IF 04G<15 mg/l AND TOC<110 mg/l
AND DISCHARGED - NO BCT UMITS IF 04G<15 mg/l
- NO BAT UMITS IF TOC<110 mg/l
- OTHERWISE, TECHNOLOGY BASIS FOR
PROCESS WASTOfATCR APPLIES
COMMINGLED WITH PROCESS - EFFLUENT UMITS BASED ON SAME
WASTEWATER TECHNOLOGY AS FOR PROCESS W.W.
23
-------
STORM WATER RUNOFF LIMITATIONS
PERMIT CALCULATION PROCEDURE
BAT/BCT LIMITS FOR CONTAMINATED STORM WATER RUNOFF
• DETERMINE REFINERY CONTAMINATED STORM WATEB VOLUME
• CALCULATE MASS BASED EFFLUENT LIMIT
(Volume X Effluent Limitation Guideline Concentration)
• INCORPORATE INTO PERMIT
24
-------
STORM WATER RUNOFF LIMITATIONS
DETERMINATION OF CONTAMINATED STORM WATER VOLUME
• FLEXIBILITY TO PERMIT WRITERS
(Case-by-Case Basis)
• APPROPRIATE METHODS TO CONSIDER
- Difference in Wet/Dry Weather Flow to Treatment
- Area Runoff Calculations Based on:
Recurrent Precipitation Data
Local Weather Service Data
25
-------
DIL REFINERY LAYOUT
DOO
TANK FARM
r\>
at
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
CODLING
WATER /
STORAGES
POND
HOLDING
PDND
REFINERY
PARKING AREA
OFFICE
TRUCK LOADING AREA
WASTE
MATERIALS
STORAGE
0°
0°
0°
Xo
0°
uo
-------
STORM WATER RUNOFF LIMITATIONS
DETERMINATION OF AREA-RUNOFF VOLUME
(NOTE: STORMWATER SEGREGATION IS NOT REQUIRED BY REG.)
CONTAMINATED AREAS UNCONTAMINATED AREAS
Processing Areas Parking Lots
Product Storage Areas Office Areas
Raw Material Storage Areas Roads, Access Ways
Tank Farms
Material Loading/Transfer Areas
Waste Product Storage Areas
Wastewater Treatment Areas
Runoff Holding Ponds
27
-------
STORM WATER RUNOFF UMITATIONS
MASS BASED UMITS
CONTAMINATED RUNOF EFFLUENT LIMITATION
X
VOLUME
CONCENTRATION
MASS
LJMIT
1000 CU M
DAT
X
KILOGRAMS
1000 CU M
KILOGRAMS
DAY
1000 GALS
DAY
X
POUNDS
1000 GALS
POUNDS
DAY
28
-------
STORM WATER RUNOFF LIMITATIONS
BAT/BCT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any 1 Day
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
Phenolic Compounds (4AAP)
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
COD
Kilograms per 1000 cubic meters
of flow (Pounds per 1000 gallons)
0.35 (0.0029)
0.60 (0.005)
0.062 (0.00052)
360.0 (3.0)
0.17 (0.0014)
0.21 (0.0018)
0.028 (0.00023)
180.0 (1.5)
BOD-5
TSS
Oil & Grease
pH
48.0 (0.40)
33.0 (0.28)
15.0 (0.13)
26.0 (0.22)
21.0 (0.18)
8.0 (0.067)
Within the range 6.0 to 9.0
NO ADDITIONAL CREDIT FOR AMMONIA OR SULF1DE
29
-------
STORM WATER RUNOF LIMITATIONS
METHODS TO INCORPORATE MASS BASED UMITS INTO PERMIT
• PROCESS WASTEWATER AND CONTAMINATED RUNOF TREATED TOGETHER
1. Continuous Allocation
2. Variable Allocation
3. Wet/Dry Weather Allocations
• SELECTION BY PERMIT WRITER
- Site Specific Factors
Local Precipitation Patterns,
Design of Runoff Holding Facilities
- Determines Method Used to Calculate
Contaminated Runoff Volume
30
-------
STORM WATER RUNOFF LIMITATIONS
CONTINUOUS ALLOCATION METHOD
1. CONTINUOUS ALLOCATION
• One Set of Effluent Limits Which is the Sum of
Process Wastewater and Contaminated Runoff Limits
• Problem - Allocation When No Runoff is Present
• Appropriate -
- Where Precipitation Patterns Relatively Constant
- When Holding Facilities Used to Bleed Runoff to
Treatment During Most or All of the Year
31
-------
STORM WATER RUNOF LIMITATIONS
VARIABLE ALLOCATION METHOD
2. VARIABLE ALLOCATION
• One Set of Effluent Limits for Process Wastewater Only
t An Additional Prorated Allocation for Each 1000 Gal.
of Contaminated Runoff, Specific to Each Precipitation Event
t Most Ideal
t Based on Measurement or Calculation of Actual Contaminated
Runoff (for the Specific Precipitation Period)
t Similar to Variable Batch Discharge Allocation
t Compliance Measurement and Enforcement Complexities
32
-------
STORM WATER RUNOF LIMITATIONS
WET/DRY WEATHER ALLOCATION METHOD
3. WET/DRY WEATHER ALLOCATION
t One Set of Effluent Limits for Process Wostewoter Only
- Dry Weather limits
• One Set of Mass Limits Based on the Sum of Process and
Contaminated Runoff Allocations
- Wet Weather Limits
- Contaminated Runoff Portion is a Fixed Mass
Allocation, Based on Historic Precipitation Data
• Triggered by Either
- Time of Year
- Precipitation Events, or
- Actual Contaminated Runoff Volume
• Used When:
- Precipitation Amount and Frequency Varies
Significantly During the Year
- Significant Precipitation Events Occur Infrequently
33
-------
STORM WATER RUNOF LIMITATIONS
EXAMPLE PERMIT CALCULATIONS
A. DIVERT CONTAMINATED RUNOF TO SURGE POND/TANK. AND
BlfED BACK TO PROCESS WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
1. Wet/Dry Weather Allocation (Bleed Rate Intermittent)
2. Continuous Allocation (Bleed Rate Continuous)
B. DIRECT CONTAMINATED RUNOF DIRECTLY TO PROCESS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
1. Variable Allocation
34
-------
EXAMPLE A
.000
TANK FARM
CONTAMINATE!
-STQRMUATER
UASTEUATER
TREATMENT
WASTE
MATERIALS
STORAGE
CDDLING
WATER /
QOO
ooO
STORAGES
POND
HOLDING
PDND
OIL
REFINERY
AREA
PARKING AREA
OFFICE
TRUCK LOADING AREA
-------
STORM WATER RUNOF LIMITATIONS
EXAMPLE PERMIT CALCULATIONS
EXAMPLE A - DETERMINATION OF CONTAMINATED RUNOF VOLUME
ANNUAL PRECIPITATION = 60 IN/TR
Source Area
Process Units
Storage
Tank Farm
Truck Loading
Holding Pond
Waste Storage
WWTArea
Areal Extent
(acres)
5.0 x
2.0 x
15.0 x
3.0 x
1.0 x
1.0 x
3.0 x
Permeability
Factors
1.0 x
0.6 x
0.4 x
1.0 x
1.0 x
0.8 x
1.0 x
Sq. Ft
Acre
43,560 =
43,560 =
43,560 =
43,560 =
43,560 =
43,560 =
43,560 =
Runoff Area
(Sq. R)
217,800
52,300
261,400
174,200
43,600
34,800
130,700
TOTAL AREA 914,800
ANNUAL RUNOF = 914,800 Sq.Fl x 60
- 34,210,000 GalAr
AVER. DAILY RUNOF = 34,210,000/365 = 94,000 Gal/Day
x 1/12 Ft/In x 7.48 Gal/CuR
36
-------
STORM WATER RUNOF LIMITATIONS
EXAMPLE PERMIT CALCULATIONS
EXAMPLE A.1 - RUNOF BLEED RATE = 120,000 GAL/DAY
o WET WEATHER UMRS = DRY WEATHER (c.g, PROCESS WASTEWATER) UMCTS
PLUS STORM WATER ALLOCATION
o FOR PRECEDING LUBE REFINERY EXAMPLE AND 120,000 GAL/DAY STORMWAIER:
POLLJJ1WT
BOD-5
TSS
OftG
STORUVKIER
FUN
(1000G/MKQ
120
120
120
CMLYklAX.
BOOR
(LBS/10QOGAU
040
028
0.13
30-OAY
R«CTOR
(LBS/1000G^
022
0.18
QJOS7
ONLY MAX.-
LttflT
gss/iw)
4&00
53fO
15.60
30-OAYAVS.
IMF
(IBS/CAY)
26.40
21.60
BD4
EIC.
o ADDmON OF ABOVE VALUES TO DRY 'WEATHER LIMITS RESULTS
IN WET WEATHER UMfTS ON FOLLOWING PAGE
37
-------
EXAMPLE A.I WET/DRY WEATHER LIMITS
(INTERMITTENT BLEED RATE = 120,000 GAL/DAY)
DRY WEATHER LIMITS
PARAMETER
DAILY MAXIMUM
(LBS/DAY)
30-DAY AVERAGE *
(LBS/DAY)
BQD-5 1900.00
TSS 1330.00
OIL & GREASE 608.00
AMMONIA 886.00
SULFIDE 12.60
COD 13600.00
PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS 18..56
TOTAL CHROMIUM 15.18
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM 0.97
970.97
853.60
320.10
405.46
5.66
7042.20
4,
5.
48
31
0.43
WET WEATHER LIMITS (FOR DAYS WHEN BLEEDING TO PROCESS TREATMENT SYSTEM OCCURS)
PARAMETER
DAILY MAXIMUM
(LBS/DAY)
30-DAY AVERAGE **
(LBS/DAY)
BOD-5 1948,00
TSS 1363.60
OIL 4 GREASE 623.60
AMMONIA 886.00
SULFIDE 12.60
COD 13960.00
PHENOLIC-COMPOUNDS 18.91
TOTAL CHROMIUM 15.78
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM 1.03
997.37
875.20
328.14
405.46
5.66
7222.20
4.65
5.52
0.46
« 30-DAY AVERAGE COMPLIANCE BASED ON AVERAGE OF ALL ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR DRY
WEATHER SAMPLES.
»* 30-DAY AVERAGE COMPLIANCE BASED ON AVERAGE OF ALL ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR WET
WEATHER SAMPLES, PROVIDING MORE THAN ONE SAMPLE WAS TAKEN DURING 30 DAY PERIOD,
OTHERWISE, 30-DAY AVERAGE NOT APPLICABLE.
38
-------
STORM WATER RUNOF UMITATIONS
EXAMPLE PERMIT CALCULATIONS
EXAMPLE A£ - RUNOF BLEED RATE = 94,000 GAL/DAY
o WET WEATHER LIMITS = DRY WEATHER (e.g.f PROCESS WASTEWATER) LJMITS
PLUS STORM WATER ALLOCATION
o FOR PRECEDING LUBE REF1NEKT EXAMPLE AND 94,000 GAl/DAY STORMWATER
STORMWIEK QMLYyAX. 30-DAY ONLY NX. 30-OWAVB.
FLOW FACTOR FACTOR UMT IMF
POUUTAKT (1000G^yDW) (LBS/1000GALO (133/1000(^0 (IBS/DAY) (IBS/DAT)
BOD-5
1SS
046
94
94
94
O40
028
013
022
018
0.067
37.60 2068
gg^g 16J2
12^2 c *jn
EIC.
o ADDmON OF ABOVE VALUES TO DRY WEATHER UMfTS RESULTS
IN WET WEATHER LIMITS ON FOLLOWING PAGE
39
-------
EXAMPLE A.2 CONTINUOUS RUNOFF ALLOCATION
(CONTINUOUS BLEED RATE = 94,000 GAL/DAY)
EFFLUENT LIMITS (THE FOLLOWING VALUES ARE APPLICABLE AT ALL TIMES)
DAILY MAXIMUM 30-DAY AVERAGE
PARAMETER (LBS/DAY) (LBS/DAY)
BOD-5 1937.60 991.65
TSS 1336.32 870.52
OIL & GREASE 620.22 326.40
AMMONIA 886.00 405,46
SULFIDE 12.60 5.66
COD 13882.00 7183.20
PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS 18.83 4.61
TOTAL CHROMIUM 15.65 5.48
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM 1.02 0.45
40
-------
EXAMPLE B
OOO
TANK FARM
CDNTAMINATE
UASTEUATER
UASTE
MATERIALS
STORAGE
T-QRMLJATER
TREATMENT
CDDLIMG
WATER /
STORAGES
POND
OIL
REFINERY
AREA
PARKING AREA
OFFICE
TRUCK LOADING AREA
-------
EXAMPLE B.I VARIABLE ALLOCATION
(RUNOFF DIRECTLY TO PROCESS TREATMENT SYSTEM)
DRY WEATHER LIMITS
PARAMETER
DAILY MAXIMUM
(IBS/DAY)
30-DAY AVERAGE
(IBS/DAY)
BOD-5
TSS
OIL ic
GREASE
AMMONIA
SULFIDE
COD
PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS
TOTAL CHROMIUM
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
1,900.00
1,330.00
608.00
886.00
12.60
13,600.00
18.56
15.18
0.97
970.97
853.60
320.10
405.46
5.66
7042.20
4.
5.
48
31
0.43
MET WEATHER LIMITS
(ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION FOR EVERY 1000 GALLONS OF CONTAMINATED
RUNOFF BASED ON CONTINUOUS FLOW MONITORING LESS NORMAL DRY
WEATHER FLOW)
PARAMETER
DAILY MAXIMUM
(LBS/1000GAL/DAY)
30-DAY AVERAGE
BOD-5
TSS
OIL &
GREASE
AMMONIA
SULFIDE
COD
PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS
TOTAL CHROMIUM
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
0.40
0.28
0.13
0.00
0.00
3.00
.00
0.01
.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30-DAY AVERAGE COMPLIANCE BASED ON AVERAGE OF ALL ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR DRY
WEATHER SAMPLES.
42
-------
SECTION 2
AMENDED REGULATIONS
40 CFR PART 419
The following is a complete set of the amended regulations that
will appear in the upcoming edition of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 40, Chapter I, Part 419, Petroleum Refining
Point Source Category:
Authority: Sees. 301, 304(b), (c), (e), and (g), 306(b) and (c),
307(b) and (c), and 501, Federal Water Pollution Control Act as
amended (the Act); 33 (J.S.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.
43
-------
Subpart A - Topping Subcategory
419.10 Applicability; description of the topping subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart apply to discharges from any faci-
lity that produces petroleum products by the use of topping and
catalytic reforming, whether or not the facility includes any
other process in addition to topping and catalytic reforming.
The provisions of this subpart do not apply to facilities that
include thermal processes (coking, visbreaking, etc.) or cataly-
tic cracking.
419.11 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) Except as provided below, the general definitions, abbre-
viations, and methods of analysis set forth in Part 401 of this
chapter shall apply to this subpart.
(b) The term "runoff" shall mean the flow of storm water
resulting from precipitation coming into contact with petroleum
refinery property.
(c) The term "ballast" shall mean the flow of waters, from a
ship, that is treated along with refinery wastewaters in the main
treatment system.
(d) The term "feedstock" shall mean the crude oil and natural
gas liquids fed to the topping units.
(e) The term "once-through cooling water" shall mean those
waters discharged that are used for the purpose of heat removal
and that do not come into direct contact with any raw material,
intermediate, or finished product.
(f) The following abbreviations shall be used: (1) Mgal means
one thousand gallons; (2) Mbbl means one thousand barrels (one
barrel is equivalent to 42 gallons).
(g) The term "contaminated runoff" shall mean runoff which comes
into contact with any raw material, intermediate product,
finished product, by-product or waste product located on petro-
leum refinery property.
419.12 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduc-
tion attainable by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT):
44
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
BPT effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1 /OOO cubic meters
of feedstock)
TSS
COD ( 1 )
Sulf ide
PH
22.7
158
117.
6.9
0 1 68
2 81
0. 1 49
0.345
0.028
(2)
12.0
10.1
60.3
3.7
0 076
1 27
0.068
0.20
0.012
(2)
English units (pounds per
1,000 bbl of feedstock)
TSS
COD { 1 )
Phenolic compounds
Ammonia as N
Sulf ide
PH
8.0
5.6
41.2
2. 5
0.060
0.99
0.053
0.122
0.01
(2)
4.25
3.6
21.3
1 .3
0.027
0.45
0.024
0.071
0.0044
(2)
1 See footnote following Table in 419.13(d).
2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph (a) of this section are to
be multiplied by the following factors to calculate the maximum
for any one day and maximum average of daily values for thirty
consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1,000 bbl of feedstock per stream day
Less than 24.9
25.0 to 49.9
50.0 to 74.9
75.0 to 99.9
100 to 124.9
Size
factor
1 02
1 .06
1 1 6
1 26
1 .38
45
-------
125.0 to 149.9...
150.0 or greater,
1.50
1 .57
(2) Process factor.
Process configuration
Process
factor
Less than 2.49.
2.5 to 3.49....
3.5 to 4.49
4.5 to 5.49..'..
5.5 to 5.99
6.0 to 6.49
6.5 to 6.99
7.0 to 7.49
7.5 to 7.99
8.0 to 8.49
8.5 to 8.99
9.0 to 9.49....
9.5 to 9.99
10.0 to 10.49..
10.5 to 10.99..
11 .0 to 11.49..
11.5 to 11 .99..
12.0 to 12.49..
12.5 to 12.99..
13.0 to 13.49..
13.5 to 13.99..
14.0 or greater
0.62
0.67
0.80
0.95
1 .07
1 .17
1.27
1 .39
1.51
1 .64
1 .79
1 .95
2.12
2.31
2.51
2.73
2.98
3.24
3.53
3.84
4.18
4.36
(3) See the comprehensive example in Subpart D, 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The following allocations constitute the quantity and
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to ballast, which may be discharged
after the application of best practicable control technology
currently available, by a point source subject to this subpart,
in addition to the discharge allowed by paragraph (b) of this
section. The allocation allowed for ballast water flow, as
kg/cu m (Ib/M gal), shall be based on those ballast waters
treated at the refinery.
46
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
BPT~effluent limitations
for ballast water
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
cubic meter of flow)
TSS
COD (1)
PH
U • U **O
0 033
0 47
0 015
_ <2)
u • u e.u
0021
0 24
0 008
(2)
BODS ,
TSS
COD ( 1 } ,
Oil and grease,
PH
English units (pounds per
1,000 gal of flow)
0.40
0.26
3.9
0.126
(2)
0.21
0.17
2.0
0.067
(2)
1 See footnote following Table in 419.13(d).
2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
(d) The quantity and quality of pollutants or pollutant proper-
ties controlled by this paragraph, attributable to once-through
cooling water, are excluded from the discharge allowed by
paragraph (b) of this section. Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon concentration not to exceed
5 mg/1.
(e) Effluent Limitations for Contaminated Runoff
The following effluent limitations constitute the quantity and
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to contaminated runoff, which may be
discharged after the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available by a point source subject to this
subpart.
(1) If wastewater consists solely of contaminated runoff and is
not commingled or treated with process wastewater, it may be
discharged if it does not exceed 15 mg/1 oil and grease and 110
mg/1 total organic carbon (TOC) based upon an analysis of any
single grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is commingled or treated with process
wastewater, or if wastewater consisting solely of contaminated
runoff which exceeds 15 mg/1 oil and grease or 110 mg/1 TOC is
not commingled or treated with any other type of wastewater, the
47
-------
quantity of pollutants discharged shall not exceed the quantity
determined by multiplying the flow of contaminated runoff as
determined by the permit writer times the concentrations listed
in the following table:
BPT effluent Limitations
for contaminated runoff
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters of flow)
BODS
TSS
COD (1)
Oil and grease
Phenolic compounds (4AAP)
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium
PH
48.
33.
360.
15.
0.35
0.73
0.062
(2)
26.
21 .
180.
8.
0.17
0.43
0.028
(2)
English units (pounds per
• 1 ,000 gal of flow)
BOD5
TSS
COD (1)
Oil and grease
Phenolic compounds (4AAP)
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium
PH
0.40
0.28
3.0
0.13
0.0029
0.0060
0.00052
(2)
0.22
0.18
1 .5
0.067
0.0014
0.0035
0.00023
(2)
1 See footnote following table in 419.13(d).
2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
419.13 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of best
available technology economically achievable (BAT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduc-
tion attainable by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT):
48
-------
_BAT effluent limitations
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
COD (1)
Ammonia as N
Sulfide
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
117.
2.81
0.149
60.3
1.27
0.068
as N
41 5
0 99
L 0.053
71 1
£• 1 m J
fl 45
0.024
English units (pounds per
1,000 bbl of feedstock)
COD {1)
Ammonia
Sulfide
1 See footnote following Table in 419.13(d).
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph (a) of this section are to
be multiplied by the following factors to calculate the maximum
for any one day and maximum average of daily values for thirty
consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1,000 bbl of feedstock per stream day
25.0 to 49.9
50.0 to 74.9
75.0 to 99.9
100 to 124.9
125.0 to 149.9
Size
factor
i 02
1 fifi
1 1 £
1 9fi
i Tfl
1 50
1 R7
(2) Process factor.
Process
2.5 to 3.49
3.5 to 4.49
4.5 to 5.49
5.5 to 5.99
6.0 to 6.49
configuration
Process
factor
Oe.')
. O f.
Ofi7
Ofln
OQ5
1 07
1.17
49
-------
6.5 to 6.99
7.0 to 7.49
7.5 to 7.99
8.0 to 8. 49
8.5 to 8.99
9.0 to 9.49
9.5 to 9.99
10.0 to 10.49
10.5 to 10.99
11.0 to 11.49
11.5 to 11.99
12.0 to 12.49
12.5 to 12.99
13.0 to 13.49
13.5 to 13.99
1 27
1 39
1 51
1 64
1 79
1 95
212
2 31
2 51
2 73
2 98
3 24
3 53
3 84
4 IB
4. 36
(3) See the comprehensive example in Subpart D, 419.42(b)(3).
(c)(1) In addition to the provisions contained above pertaining
to COD, ammonia and sulfide/ 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 (BAT):
For each of the regulated pollutant parameters listed below, the
effluent limitation for a given refinery is the sum of the pro-
ducts of each effluent limitation factor times the applicable
refinery process feedstock rate, calculated as provided in 40 CFR
122.45(b). Applicable production processes are presented in
Appendix A, by process type. The process identification numbers
presented in this Appendix A are for the convenience of the
reader. They can be cross-referenced in the Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines, New Source Performance
Standards, and Pretreatment Standards for the Petroleum Refining
Point Source Category (EPA 440/1-82/014), Table 111-7, pp. 49-54.
50
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
and process type
BAT effluent limitation
factor
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Phenolic compounds (4AAP):
Crude
Cracking and coking
Asphalt
Lube
Reforming and alkylation.
Total chromium:
Crude
Cracking and coking
Asphalt
Lube
Reforming and alkylation.
Hexavalent chromium:
Crude
Cracking and coking
Asphalt
Lube
Reforming and alkylation.
Phenolic compounds (4AAP):
Crude
Cracking and coking
Asphalt
Lube
Reforming and alkylation.
Total chromium:
Crude
Cracking and coking
Asphalt
Lube
Reforming and alkylation.
Hexavalent chromium:
Crude
Cracking and coking
Asphalt
Lube
Reforming and alkylation.
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
0.037
0.419
0.226
1.055
0.377
0.030
0.340
0.183
0.855
0.305
0.0019
0.0218
0.01 17
0.0549
0.0196
0.009
0.102
0.055
0.257
0.092
0.01 1
0.118
0.064
0.297
0.106
0.0009
0.0098
0.0053
0.0248
0.0088
English units (pounds per
1,000 bbl of feedstock)
0.013
0.147
0.079
0.369
0.132
0.01 1
0.119
0.064
0.299
0.107
0.0007
0.0076
0.0041
0.0192
0.0069
0.003
0.036
0.019
0.090
0.032
0.004
0.041
0.022
0.104
0.037
0.0003
0.0034
0.0019
0.0087
0.0031
(2) See the comprehensive example in Subpart D, 419.43(c)(2)
51
-------
(d) The following allocations constitute the quantity and
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph, attributable to ballast/ which may be discharged after
the application of best available technology economically
achievable by a point source subject to the provisions of this
subpart. These allocations are in addition to the discharge
allowed by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. The alloca-
tion allowed for ballast water flow, as kg/cu m (Ib/M gal), shall
be based on- those ballast waters treated at the refinery.
BAT effluent limitations
for ballast water
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
cubic meter of flow)
COD (1)
COD (1)
0.47
0.24
English units (pounds per
1 ,000 gal of flow)
3.9
2.0
1 In any case in which the applicant can demonstrate that the
chloride ion concentration in the effluent exceeds 1,000
mg/1 (1,000 ppm), the permitting authority may substitute
TOC as a parameter in lieu of COD. A TOC effluent limita-
tion shall be based on effluent data from the particular
refinery which correlates TOC to BODS. If in the judgment
of the permitting authority, adequate correlation data are
not available, the effluent limitations for TOC shall be
established at a ratio of 2.2 to 1 to the applicable
effluent limitations on BODS.
(e) The quantity and quality of pollutants or pollutant proper-
ties controlled by this paragraph, attributable to once-through
cooling water, are excluded from the discharge allowed by
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. Once-through cooling
water may be discharged with a total organic carbon concentration
not to exceed 5 mg/1.
(f) Effluent Limitations for Contaminated Runoff
The following effluent limitations constitute the quantity and
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to contaminated runoff, which may be
discharged after the application of the best available technology
economically achievable by a point source subject to this sub-
part.
52
-------
(1) If wastewater consists solely of contaminated runoff and is
not commingled or treated with process wastewater/ it may be
discharged if it does not exceed 110 mg/1 total organic carbon
(TOG) based upon an analysis of any single grab or composite
sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is commingled or treated with process
wastewater, or if wastewater consisting solely of contaminated
runoff which exceeds 110 mg/1 TOG is not commingled or treated
with any other type of wastewater/ the quantity of pollutants
discharged shall not exceed the quantity determined by
multiplying the flow of contaminated runoff as determined by the
permit writer times the concentrations listed in the following
table:
BAT effluent limitations
for contaminated runoff
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters of flow)
Phenolic compounds (4AAP)
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium
COD (1)
0.35
0.60
0.062
360.
0.17
0.21
0.028
180.
English units (pounds per
1 ,000 gal of flow)
Phenolic compounds (
Hexavalent chromium.
COD1
4AAP )
0.0029
0 0050
0.00052
3.0
0.001 4
0 0018
0.00023
1 .5
1 See footnote following table in 419.13(d).
419.14 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction available by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
(a) 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 conventional pollutant control technology (BCT):
53
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
BCT effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1 ,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
TSS
PH
£.*. • /
1 5 a
6 Q
(1)
1 £. . U
1 n i
•a -i
(1)
English units (pounds per
1,000 bbl of feedstock)
BOD5
TSS
Oil and grease
PH
o Q
5 6
2 5
(D
4oc
^ fi
1 ^
(D
1 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph (a) of this section are to
be multiplied by the following factors to calculate the maximum
for any one day and maximum average of daily values for thirty
consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1,000 bbl of
25.0 to 49.9
50.0 to 74.9
75.0 to 99.9
100 to 124.9
125.0 to 149.9...
150.0 or greater.
feedstock per stream day
-
Size
factor
1.02
1 .06
1 .16
1 .26
1 .38
1 .50
1 .57
(2) Process factor
Process
Less than 2.49. ..
2.5 to 3.49
3.5 to 4.49
4.5 to 5.49
configuration
Process
factor
0.62
0.67
0.80
0.95
54
-------
5.5 to 5.99
6.5 to 6.99
7.0 to 7.49
7.5 to 7.99
8.0 to 8.49
8.5 to 8.99
9.0 to 9.49
9.5 to 9.99
10.0 to 10.49
10.5 to 10.99
11.0 to 11.49
11.5 to 11.99
12.0 to 12.49
12.5 to 12.99
13.0 to 13.49
13.5 to 13.99
1 07
1.17
1 27
1 39
1.51
1 64
1 .79
1 95
2.12
2.31
2.51
2 73
2.98
3 24
3 53
3.84
4.18
4 36
(3) See the comprehensive example in Subpart D, 419 .42(b)(3).
(c) The following allocations constitute the quantity and
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to ballast, which may be discharged
after the application of best conventional pollutant control
technology by a point source subject to this subpart, in addition
to the discharge allowed by paragraph (b) of this section. The
allocation allowed for ballast water flow, as kg/cu m (Ib/M
gal), shall be based on those ballast waters treated at the refi-
nery.
BCT effluent limitations
for ballast water
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
cubic meter of flow)
BOD 5
TSS
PH
0 048
0 033
0 015
(D
0 09fi
0 02 1
0 008
(D
55
-------
English units (pounds per
1,000 gal of flow)
Oil and
PH
0.40
0.26
0. 1 26
(1)
0.21
0.17
0 067
(D
1 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
(d) The quantity and quality of pollutants or pollutant proper-
ties controlled by this paragraph, attributable to once-through
cooling water, are excluded from the discharge allowed by
paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) Effluent Limitations for Contaminated Runoff
The following effluent limitations constitute the quantity and
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to contaminated runoff which may be
discharged after the application of the best conventional pollu-
tant control technology by a point source subject to this sub-
part.
(1) If wastewater consists solely of contaminated runoff and is
not commingled or treated with process wastewater, it may be
discharged if it does not exceed 15 mg/1 oil and grease based
upon an analysis of any single grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is commingled or treated with process
wastewater, or if wastewater consisting solely of contaminated
runoff which exceeds 15 mg/1 oil and grease is not commingled or
treated with any other type of wastewater, the quantity of pollu-
tants discharged shall not exceed the quantity determined by
multiplying the flow of contaminated runoff as determined by the
permit writer times the concentrations listed in the following
table:
BCT effluent limitations
for contaminated runoff
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters of flow)
BOD5
TSS
Oil and grease
PH
48
33 .
15.
(D
26
21 .
8.
(D
56
-------
English units (pounds per
1,000 gal of flow)
Oil and
pH
0 40
0.28
0.13
(D
0 22
0.18
0.067
(D
1 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
419.15 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13 any existing source
subject to this subpart which introduced pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR Part 403
and achieve the following pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES). The following standards apply to the total refi-
nery flow contribution to the POTW:
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment
standards
for existing
sources -
maximum for
any 1 day
(Milligrams
per liter
(mg/1))
Oil and grease..
Ammonia as N (1)
100
100
1 Where the discharge to the POTW consists solely of sour
waters, the owner or operator has the option of complying
with this limit or the daily maximum mass limitation for
ammonia set forth in 419.13(a) and (b).
57
-------
419.16 Standards of performance for new sources (NSPS).
(a) Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following new source performance standards (NSPS):
NSPS effluent limitations
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
cubic meter of flow)
COD ( 1 )
Sulf ide
Hexavalent chromium
DH
11.8
8. 3
61 .0
3.6
0.088
2.8
0 078
0.18
0 015
f 21
6 .3
4 .9
32 .0
1 9
0 043
i 3
0 035
0.105
0 0068
(2)
effluent limitations
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 39
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
English units (pounds
per 1,000 gal of flow)
BODS ,
TSS
COD (1)
Oil and grease ,
Phenolic compounds.,
Ammonia as N ,
Sulf ide ,
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium,
PH
4.2
3.0
21 .7
1 .3
0.031
1.0
0.027
0.064
0.0052
(2)
2.2
1 .9
11 .2
0.70
0.016
0.45
0.012
0.037
0.0025
(2)
1 See footnote following Table in 419.13(d).
2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph (a) of this section are to
be multiplied by the following factors to calculate the maximum
58
-------
for any one day and maximum average of daily values for thirty
consecutive days.
( 1) Size factor.
IrOOO bbl of feedstock per stream day
Size
factor
Less than 24.9..
25.0 to 49.9....
50.0 to 74.9
75.0 to 99.9
100 to 124.9
125.0 to 149.9..,
150.0 or greater,
1.02
1.06
1 .16
1 .26
1.38
1.50
1 .57
(2) Process factor
Process configuration
Process
factor
Less than 2.49
2.5 to 3.49
3.5 to 4.49
4.5 to 5.49
5.5 to 5.99
6.0 to 6.49
6,5 to 6.99
7.0 to 7.49
7.5 to 7.99
8.0 to 8.49
8.5 to 8.99
9.0 to 9.49
9.5 to 9.99
10.0 to 10.49
10.5 to 10.99
11.0 to 11.49
11.5 to 11 .99
12.0 to 12.49
12.5 to 12.99
13.0 to 13.49
13.5 to 13.99
14.0 or greater
0.62
0.67
0.80
0.95
,07
,17
27
39
51
64
1.79
1 .95
2.12
2.31
2.51
2.73
2.98
3.24
3^84
4.18
4.36
(3) See the comprehensive example in Subpart D, 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The following allocations constitute the quantity and
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to ballast, which may be discharged
by a new source subject to this subpart, in addition to the
discharge allowed by paragraph (b) of this section. The alloca-
tion allowed for ballast water flow, as kg/cu m (Ib/Mgal), shall
be based on those ballast waters treated at the refinery.
59
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
NSPS effluent limitations
for ballast water
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
cubic meter of flow)
BODS •
TSS
COD ( 1) ,
Oil and grease.
PH
0.048
0.033
0.47
0.015
(2)
0.026
0.021
0.24
0.008
(2)
English units (pounds per
1,000 gal of flow)
TSS
COD ( 1 )
PH
0.40
0.27
3.9
0 1 26
(2)
0.21
0.17
2.0
0.067
(2)
1 See footnote following table in 419.13(d.
2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
(d) The quantity and quality of pollutants or pollutant proper-
ties controlled by this paragraph, attributable to once-through
cooling water, are excluded from the discharge allowed by
paragraph (b) of this section. Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon concentration not to exceed
5 mg/1.
(e) Effluent Limitations for Runoff - (Reserved)
419.17 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS)
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 (PSNS).
(a) The following standards apply to the total refinery flow
contribution to the POTW:
60
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment
standards
for existing
sources -
maximum for
any 1 day
(Milligrams
per liter
(mg/1))
Oil and grease..
Ammonia as N (1)
100
100
1 Where the discharge to the POTW consists solely of sour
waters, the owner or operator has the option of complying
with this limit or the daily maximum mass limitation for
ammonia set forth in 419.16(a) and (b).
(b) The following standard is applied to the cooling tower
discharge part of the total refinery flow to the POTW by
multiplying: (1) The standard; (2) by the total refinery flow to
the POTW; and (3) by the ratio of the cooling tower discharge
flow to the total refinery flow.
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment
standards
for existing
sources -
maximum for
any 1 day
Total chromium.
(Milligrams
per liter
(mg/1))
•L 1
61
-------
Subpart B - Cracking Subcategory
419.20 Applicability; description of the cracking subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to all discharges
from any facility that produces petroleum products by the use of
topping and cracking, whether or not the facility includes any
process in addition to topping and cracking. The provisions of
this subpart are not applicable, however, to facilities that
include the processes specified in Subparts C, D, or E of this
part.
419.21 Specialized definitions.
The general definitions, abbreviations.and methods of analysis
set forth in Part 401 of this chapter and the specialized defini-
tions set forth in 419.11 shall apply to this subpart.
419.22 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduc-
tion attainable by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT):
Pollutant or pollutant property
BPT effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
BODS ,
TSS ,
COD ( 1 ) ,
Oil and grease ,
Phenolic compounds.,
Ammonia as N ,
Sulf ide ,
Total chromium ,
Hexavalent chromium,
PH
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
28.2
19.5
210.
8.4
0.21
18.8
0.18
0.43
0.035
(2)
15.6
12.6
109.
4.5
0.10
8.5
0.082
0.25
0.016
(2)
62
-------
English units (pounds per
1,000 bbl of feedstock)
TSS
COD (13
Oil and grease
Phenol ic compounds
Ammonia as N
Sulf ide
PH
7 • 7
6 9
74 n
3 0
0 074
6 6
Q 065
01 c
0019
(2^
3 . J
4 A
•so A
JO • 1
1 fi
n o ifi
3n
• u
n 09Q
Onflfl
Onn sfi
f 21
1 See footnote following table in 419.13(d).
2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph (a) of this section are to
be multiplied by the following factors to calculate the maximum
for any one day and maximum average of daily values for thirty
consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1,000 bbl of feedstock per stream day
25.0 to 49.9
50.0 to 74.9
75.0 to 99.9
100 to 124.9
125.0 to 149.9
(2) Process factor.
Process configuration
2.5 to 3.49
3.5 to 4.49
4.5 to 5.49
5.5 to 5.99
6.0 to 6.49
6.5 to 6.99
7.0 to 7.49
7.5 to 7.99
8.0 to 8.49
8.5 to 8.99
9.0 to 9.49
Size
factor
o Q i
o Q *5
1 04
i i 3
1 7 ^
1 1 5
1 . J J
1 41
Process
factor
OCQ
. JO
Of. "I
• O J
074
n an
1 nn
i na
1 1 Q
1 9Q
1 41
1 ^7
i . j j
1 &~l
1 fl ")
1 RQ
i . o y
63
-------
(3) See the comprehensive example in Subpart 0, 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The provisions of 419.12(c) apply to discharges of process
wastewater pollutants attributable to ballast water by a point
source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of pollutants or pollutant proper-
ties controlled by this paragraph, attributable to once-through
cooling water, are excluded from the discharge allowed by
paragraph (b) of this section. Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon concentration not to
exceed 5 mg/1.
(e) Effluent Limitations for Contaminated Runoff
The following effluent limitations constitute the quantity and
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to contaminated runoff which may be
discharged after the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available by a point source subject to this
subpart.
(1) If wastewater consists solely of contaminated runoff and is
not commingled or treated with process wastewater, it may be
discharged if it does not exceed 15 mg/1 oil and grease and 110
mg/1 total organic carbon (TOC) based upon an analysis of any
single grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is commingled or treated with process
wastewater, or if wastewater consisting solely of contaminated
runoff which exceeds 15 mg/1 oil and grease or 110 mg/1 TOC is
not commingled or treated with any other type of wastewater, the
quantity of pollutants discharged shall not exceed the quantity
determined by multiplying the flow of contaminated runoff as
determined by the permit writer times the concentrations listed
in the following table:
64
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
BPT effluent limitations
for contaminated runoff
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters of flow)
BODS
TSS
COD ( 1 ) '
Oil and grease
Phenolic compounds (4AAP)
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium
PH
48.
33.
360.
15.
0.35
0.73
0.062
(2)
26.
21 .
180.
8.
0.17
0.43
0.028
(2)
English units (pounds per
1 ,000 gal of flow)
BODS
TSS
COD ( 1 )
Oil and grease
Phenolic compounds (4AAP)
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium
PH
0.40
0.28
3.0
0.13
0.0029
0.0060
0.00052
(2)
0.22
0.18
1 .5
0.067
0.0014
0.0035
0.00023
(2)
1 See footnote following table in 419.13(d).
2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
419.23 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduc-
tion attainable by the application of the best available tech-
nology economically achievable (BAT):
65
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
BAT effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1 ,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
COD M ) .
Ammonia
Sulfide.
as N
21 0 .
18.8
0.18
109 .
8.5
0.082
as N
74.0
6.6
0.065
38 .4
3.0
0.029
English units (pounds per
1,000 bbl of feedstock)
COD (1) ~~
Ammonia
Sulfide
1 See footnote following Table in 419.13(d).
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph (a) of this section are to
be multiplied by the following factors to calculate the maximum
for any one day and maximum average of daily values for thirty
consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1,000 bbl of feedstock per stream day
Less than 24.9
25.0 to 49.9
50.0 to 74.9
75.0 to 99. 9
100 to 124.9
125.0 to 149.9
Size
factor
0 91
095
1 .04
1.13
1 .23
1 .35
1 4 1
(2) Process factor
Process configuration
Less than 2 . 49
2.5 to 3.49
3.5 to 4.49
4.5 to 5.49
5.5 to 5.99
6.0 to 6.49
Process
factor
0.58
0.63
0.74
0.88
1 .00
1 .09
66
-------
6.
7,
7,
8 .
a.
q.
q,
5
o
«>
o
s
0
s
to
to
to
to
to
to
or
6
7
7
8
8
q
q
r
99
49
99
49
99
49
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
1 Q
5Q
• &7
41
1
c •>
• JO
67
82
89
(3) See the comprehensive example in Subpart D, 419.42(b)(3).
(c)(1) In addition to the provisions contained above pertaining
to COD, ammonia and sulfide, 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 (BAT):
Fo.r each of the regulated pollutant parameters listed below, the
effluent limitation for a given refinery is the sum of the pro-
ducts of each effluent limitation factory times the applicable
refinery process feedstock rate, calculated as provided in 40 CFR
122.45(b). Applicable production processes are presented in
Appendix A, by process type. The process identification numbers
presented in this Appendix A are for the convenience of the
reader. They can be cross-referenced in the Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines, New Source Performance
Standards, and Pretreatment Standards for the Petroleum Refining
^^^^^^^"^^^"•"""1™—""T*s^"^^j
Point Source Category (EPA 440/1-627014), Table III-7.
PP.
Pollutant or pollutant property
and process type
BAT effluent limitation
factor
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1/000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
Phenolic compounds (4AAP):
Reforming and alkylation
Total chromium:
Reforming and alkylation
On "?7
. U J /
04 1 Q
Oooc
» 6&O
1 ncm
1 . U JJ
n ^77
Omn
. U JU
o 14D
01 O T
• 1 O J
ORS5
0.305
OnnQ
. uuy
01 n ")
. I U £,
Once
.USD
0-j c -j
• £.3 1
Onqo
. U y £
Ofl 1 1
. U I 1
01 1 Q
. l 1 O
One A
. Uo4
OTQ -I
. £7 /
n. 1 n«
67
-------
Hexavalent chromium:
Crude
Cracking and coking
Asphalt
Lube
Reforming and alkylation,
0.0019
0.0218
0.01 17
0.0549
0.0196
0.0009
0.0098
0.0053
0.0248
0.0088
English units (pounds per
1 ,000 bbl of feedstock)
Phenolic compounds (4AAP):
Total chromium:
Asphal t
Reforming and alkylation
Hexavalent chromium:
Lube
Reforming and alkylation
0.013
0. 1 47
0.079
0.369
0 1 32
0.011
0 119
0 064
0.299
0.107
0 0007
0.0076
0 0041
0.0192
0.0069
0 003
0 036
0 019
0.090
0 032
0 004
0 04 1
0 022
0.104
0 .037
0 0003
0.0034
0 0019
0 .0087
•0.0031
(2) See the comprehensive example in Subpart D, 419.43(c)(2).
(d) The provisions of 419.13(d) apply to discharges of process
wastewater pollutants attributable to ballast water by a point
source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
(e) The quantity and quality of pollutants or pollutant proper-
ties controlled by this paragraph, attributable to once-through
cooling water, are excluded from the discharge allowed by
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. Once-through cooling
water may be discharged with a total organic carbon concentration
not to exceed 5 mg/1.
(f) Effluent Limitations for Contaminated Runoff
The following effluent limitations constitute the quantity and
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to contaminated runoff, which may be
discharged after the application of the best available technology
economically achievable by a point source subject to this sub-
part.
(1) If wastewater consists solely of contaminated runoff and is
not commingled or treated with process wastewater, it may be
discharged if it does not exceed 110 mg/1 total organic carbon
(TOC) based upon an analysis of any single grab or composite
sample.
68
-------
(2) If contaminated runoff is commingled or treated with process
wastewater, or if wastewater consisting solely of contaminated
runoff which exceeds 110 mg/1 TOG is not commingled or treated
with any other type of wastewater, the quantity of pollutants
discharged shall not exceed the quantity determined by
multiplying the flow of contaminated runoff as determined by the
permit writer times the concentrations listed in the following
table:
BAT effluent limitations
for contaminated runoff
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters of flow)
Phenolic compounds (4AAP)
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium
COD 1
0.35
0.60
0.062
360.
0.17
0.21
0.028
180.
English units (pounds per
1 ,000 gal of flow)
Phenolic compounds (
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium.
COD 1
4AAP )
0.0029
0.0050
0.00052
3.0
0.001 4
0.0018
0.00023
1 .5
1 See footnote following table in 419.13(d).
419.24 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction available by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
(a) 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 conventional pollutant control technology (BCT):
69
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
BCT effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
BODS
TSS
PH
28 2
19.5
8 .4
(D
15 6
12.6
4.5
(D
English units (pounds per
1,000 bbl of feedstock)
BOD5
TSS
PH
9 .9
6 .9
3 .0
(D
5. 5
4 4
1 6
(D
1 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph (a) of this section are to
be multiplied by the following factors to calculate the maximum
for any one day and maximum average of daily values for thirty
consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1,000 bbl of feedstock per stream day
Less than 24.9
25.0 to 49.9
50.0 to 74.9
75.0 to 99.9
100 to 124.9
125.0 to 149.9
150.0 or greater
Size
factor
0 91
OQS
1 04
1 1 3
1 57
1 15
1 41
(2) Process factor.
Process configuration
Process
factor
Less than 2.49
2.5 to 3.49...
3.5 to 4.49. ..
4.5 to 5.49...
0.58
0.63
0.74
0.88
70
-------
5.
6.
6.
7.
7.
8.
a
q.
9.
5
o
5
o
5
n
5
o
5
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
or
5
6
6
7
7
8
g
9
q
y
r
99
49
99
49
99
49
99
49
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
i
1
00
09
19
29
41
53
67
82
89
(3) See the comprehensive example in Subpart D, 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The provisions of 419.14(c) apply to discharges of process
wastewater pollutants attributable to ballast water by a point
source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of pollutants or pollutant proper-
ties controlled by this paragraph, attributable to once-through
cooling water, are excluded from the discharge allowed by
paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) Effluent Limitations for Contaminated Runoff
The following effluent limitations constitute the quantity and
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to contaminated runoff which may be
discharged a'fter the application of the best conventional pollu-.
tant .control technology currently available by a point source
subject to this subpart.
(1) If wastewater consists solely of contaminated runoff and is
not commingled or treated with process wastewater, it may be
discharged if it does not exceed 15 mg/1 oil and grease based
upon an analysis of any single grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is commingled or treated with process
wastewater, or if wastewater consisting solely of contaminated
runoff which exceeds 15 mg/1 oil and grease is not commingled or
treated with any other type of wastewater, the quantity of pollu-
tants discharged shall not exceed the quantity determined by
multiplying the flow of contaminated runoff as determined by the
permit writer times the concentrations listed in the following
table:
71
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
BCT effluent limitations
for contaminated runoff
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters of flow)
BOD 5
PH
48 .
33 .
1 5
_' (D
26 .
21 .
a
(D
English units (pounds per
1 ,000 gal of flow)
BOD 5
TSS
Oil and grease
PH
0.40
0 28
0.13
(D
0.22
0 1 8
0 067
(D
1 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
419.25 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
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 (PSES). The following standards apply to the total refi-
nery flow contribution to the POTW:
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment
standards
for existing
sources -
maximum for
anyl day
(Milligrams
per liter
(mg/1))
Oil and grease..
Ammonia as N (1)
100
100
1 Where the discharge to the POTW consists solely of sour
waters, the owner or operator has the option of complying
with this limit or the daily maximum mass limitation for
ammonia set forth in 419.23(a) and (b).
72
-------
419.26 Standards of performance for new sources (NSPS).
(a) Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following new source performance standards (NSPS):
NSPS effluent limitations
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
BODS
TSS
COD ( 1 ) ,
Oil and grease ,
Phenolic compounds.,
Ammonia as N ,
Sulf ide -
Total chromium ,
Hexavalent chromium,
16.3
11 .3
118.
4.8
0.119
18.8
0.105
0.24
0.020
_ (2)
8.7
7.2
61 .0
2.6
0.058
8.6
0.048
0.14
0.0088
(2)
English units
1 ,000 bbl of
(pounds per
feedstock)
BOD5 ,
TSS
COD ( 1 ) ,
Oil and grease ,
Phenolic compounds.,
Ammonia as N ,
Sulf ide ,
Total chromium ,
Hexavalent chromium,
PH
5.8
4.0
41 .5
1 .7
0.042
6.6
0.037
0.084
0.0072
(2)
3.1
2.5
21.0
0.93
0.020
3.0
0.017
0.049
0.0032
(2)
1 See footnote following Table in 419.13(d).
2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph (a) of this section are to
be multiplied by the following factors to calculate the maximum
for any one day and maximum average of daily values for thirty
consecutive days.
73
-------
(1) Size factor.
1,000 bbl of feedstock per stream day
Size
factor
Less than 24.9...
25.0 to 49.9
50.0 to 74.9
75.0 to 99.9
100 to 124.9
125.0 to 149.9..
150.0 or greater,
0.91
0.95
1 .04
1 .13
1 .23
1 .35
1 .41
(2) Process factor.
Process configuration
Process
factor
Less than 2.49.
2.5 to 3.49
3.5 to 4.49
4.5 to 5.49. ...
5.5 to 5.99
6.0 to 6.49
6.5 to 6.99...
7.0 to 7.49
7.5 to 7.99
8.0 to 8.49
8.5 to 8.99
9.0 to 9.49
9.5 or greater,
0.58
0.63
0.74
0.88
1 .00
1 .09
1 .19
1 .29
1 .41
1 .53
1 .67
1 .82
1 .89
(3) See the comprehensive example in Subpart D, 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The provisions of 419.16(c) apply to discharges of process
wastewater pollutants attributable to ballast water by a point
source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of pollutants or pollutant proper-
ties controlled by this paragraph, attributable to once-through
cooling water, are excluded from the discharge allowed by
paragraph (b) of this section. Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon concentration not to
exceed 5 mg/1.
(e) Effluent Limitations for Runoff-(Reserved)
419.27 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS)
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 (PSNS).
74
-------
(a) The following standards apply to the total refinery flow
contribution to the POTW:
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment
standards
for new
sources -
maximum for
any 1 day
(Milligrams
per liter
(mg/1))
Oil and Grease..
Ammonia as N (1)
100
100
1 Where the discharge to the POTW consists solely of sour
waters, the owner or operator has the option of complying
with this limit or the daily maximum mass limitation for
ammonia set forth in 419.26(a) and (b).
(b) The following standard is applied to the cooling tower
discharge part of the total refinery flow to the POTW by
multiplying: (1) The standard; (2) by the total refinery flow to
the POTW; and (3) by the ratio of the cooling tower discharge
flow to the total refinery flow.
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment
standards
for new
sources -
maximum for
any' 1 day
Total chromium,
(Milligrams
per liter
(mg/1))
.
75
-------
Subpart C - Petrochemical Subcategory
419.30 Applicability; description of the petrochemical sub-
category.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to all discharges
from any facility that produces petroleum products by the use of
topping/ cracking, and petrochemical operations whether or not
the facility includes any process in addition to topping,
cracking, and petrochemical operations. The provisions of this
subpart shall not be applicable, however, to facilities that
include the processes specified in Subparts D or E of this part.
419.31 Specialized definitions.
For purposes of this subpart:
(a) The general definitions, abbreviations and methods of analy-
sis set forth in Part 401 of this chapter and the specialized
definitions set forth in 419.11 shall apply.
(b) The term "petrochemical operations" shall mean the produc-
tion of second-generation petrochemicals (i.e., alcohols, keto-
nes, cumene, styrene, etc.) or first generation petrochemicals
and isomerization products (i.e. BTX, olefins, cyclohexane, etc.)
when 15 percent or more of refinery production is as first-
generation petrochemicals and isomerization products.
419.32 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduc-
tion attainable by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT):
76
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
BPT effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
BODS ,
TSS ,
COD ( 1 ) ,
Oil and grease ,
Phenolic compounds.,
Ammonia as N ,
Sulf ide ,
Total chromium ,
Hexavalent chromium,
PH
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
34.6
23.4
210.0
11 .1
0.25
23.4
0.22
0.52
0.046
(2)
18.4
14.8
109.0
5.9
0.120
10.6
0.099
0.30
0.020
(2)
English units (pounds per
1,000 bbl of feedstock)
BOD5
TSS.
COD (1)
Oil and grease
Phenolic compounds..
Ammonia as N
Sulfide
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium.
PH
12.1
8.3
74.0
3.9
0.088
8.25
0.078
0.183
0.016
(2)
6.5
5.25
38.4
2.1
0.0425
3.8
0.035
0.107
0.0072
(2)
1 See footnote following table in 419.13(d).
2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph (a) of this section are to
be multiplied by the following factors to calculate the maximum
for any one day and maximum average of daily values for thirty
consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1/000 bbl of feedstock per stream day
Size
factor
Less than 24.9
25.0 to 49.9..
50.0 to 74.9. .
75.0 to 99.9..
100 to 124.9..
0.73
0.76
0.83
0.91
0.99
77
-------
125.0 to 149.9..
150.0 or greater
1.08
1.13
(2)
Less
4.5
5.5
6 Q
6.5
7 .0
7 5
8n
8.5
9 0
9 .5
Process factor.
Process configuration
to 5.49
to 5.99
to 6.99
to 9.49
Process
factor
0.73
0.80
0.91
0.99
1 .08
1.17
1 .28
1 .39
1.51
1 .65
1 .72
(3) See the comprehensive example in Subpart 0, 419.42(b)(3) .
(c) The provisions of 419.12(c) apply to discharges of process
wastewater pollutants attributable to ballast water by a point
source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of pollutants or pollutant proper-
ties controlled by this paragraph, attributable to once-through
cooling water/ are excluded from the discharge allowed by
paragraph (b) of this section. Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon concentration not to
exceed 5 mg/1 .
(e) Effluent Limitations for Contaminated Runoff
The following effluent limitations constitute the quantity and
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to contaminated runoff, which may be
discharged after the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available by a point source subject to this
subpart.
(1) If wastewater consists solely of contaminated runoff and is
not commingled or treated with process wastewater, it may be
discharged if it does not exceed 15 mg/1 oil and grease and 110
mg/1 total organic carbon (TOG) based upon an analysis of any
single grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is commingled or treated with process
wastewater, or if wastewater consisting solely of contaminated
runoff which exceeds 15 mg/1 oil and grease or 110 mg/1 TOG is
not commingled or treated with any other type of wastewater, the
quantity of pollutants discharged shall not exceed the quantity
determined by multiplying the flow of contaminated runoff as
78
-------
determined by the permit writer times the concentrations listed
in the following table:
BPT effluent limitations
for contaminated runoff
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters of flow)
BODS
TSS
COD (1)
Oil and grease
Phenolic compounds (4AAP)
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium
PH
48.
33.
360.
15.
0.35
0.73
0.062
(2)
26.
21.
180.
8.
0. 17
0.43
0.028
(2)
English units (pounds per
1,000 gal of flow)
BODS
TSS
COD {1)
Oil and grease
Phenolic compounds (4AAP)
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium
0.40
0.28
3.0
0.13
0.0029
0.0060
0.00052
(2)
0.22
0.18
1 .5
0.067
0.0014
0.0035
0.00023
(2)
1 See footnote following table in 419.13(d).
2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
419.33 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduc-
tion attainable by the application of the best available tech-
nology economically achievable (BAT):
79
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
BAT effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
COD (1) ,
Ammonia as N.
Sulf ide
210.
23.4
0.22
109.
10.6
0.099
74 .0
8.25
0.078
38 .4
3.8
0.035
English units (pounds per
1,000 bbl of feedstock)
COD (1) ~
Ammonia
Sulfide
1 See footnote following Table in 419.13(d).
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph (a)-of this section are to
be multiplied by the following* factors to calculate the maximum
for any one day and maximum average of daily values for thirty
consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1,000 bbl of feedstock per stream day
25.0 to 49. 9
50.0 to 74.9
75.0 to 99.9
100 to 124.9
125.0 to 149.9
Size
factor
0 73
0.76
0.83
0.91
0.99
1 .08
1 1 3
(2) Process factor.
Process configuration
Process
factor
Less than 4.49
4.5 to 5.49...
5.5 to 5.99...
6.0 to 6.49. ..
6.5 to 6.99. ..
7.0 to 7.49. ..
0.73
0.80
0.91
0.99
1.08
1.17
80
-------
7.5
8.0
8.5
9 0
9 .5
to
to
to
to
or
7.99
8.49
8 .99
9. 49
1 28
1 .39
1 .51
1 .65
1 .72
(3) See the comprehensive example in Subpart D, 419.42(b)(3).
(c)(1) In addition to the provisions contained above pertaining
to COD, ammonia and sulfide, 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 (BAT):
For each of the regulated pollutant parameters listed below, the
effluent limitation for a given refinery is the sum of the pro-
ducts of each effluent limitation factory times the applicable
refinery process feedstock rate, calculated as provided in 40 CFR
122.45(b). Applicable production processes are presented in
Appendix A, by process type. The process identification numbers
presented in this Appendix A are for the convenience of the
reader. They can be cross-referenced in the Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines, New Source Performance
Standards, and Pretreatment Standards for the Petroleum Refining
Point Source Category (EPA 440/1-82/014), Table III-7, pp. 49-54.
BAT effluent limitation
factor
Po.llutant or pollutant property
and process type
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
Phenolic compounds (4AAP):
Crude
Cracking and coking
Asphalt
Total chromium:
Cracking and coking
Lube
Reforming and alkvlation
0 037
0.419
0 226
1 055
0 377
0 010
0 340
n 1ST
0 855
0.505
0 009
0 1 02
0 055
0 257
0 092
0 0 1 1
0 118
Of\CA
Q 297
0.106
81
-------
Hexavalent chromium:
Reforming and alkylation
0.001 9
0 0218
0.01 17
0.0549
0.0196
n nnoq
OnoQfl
0.0053
0 0248
0.0088
English units (pounds per
1 ,000 bbl of feedstock)
Phenolic compounds (4AAP):
Crude
Cracking and coking
Asphalt
Lube
Reforming and alkylation.
Total chromium:
Crude
Cracking and coking
Asphalt
Lube
Reforming and alkylation.
Hexavalent chromium:
Crude
Cracking and coking
Asphalt
Lube
Reforming and alkylation.
0.013
0.147
0.079
0.369
0.132
0.011
0.119
0.064
0.299
0.107
0.0007
0.0076
0.0041
0.0192
0.0069
0.003
0.036
0.019
0.090
0.032
0.004
0.041
0.022
0.104
0.037
0.0003
0.0034
0.0019
0.0087
0.0031
(2) See the comprehensive example in Subpart D, 419.43(c)(2).
(d) The provisions of 419.13(d) apply to discharges of process
wastewater pollutants attributable to ballast water by a point
source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
(e) The quantity and quality of pollutants or pollutant proper-
ties controlled by this paragraph, attributable to once-through
cooling water, are excluded from the discharge allowed by
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. Once-through cooling
water may be discharged with a total organic carbon concentration
not to exceed 5 mg/1.
(f) Effluent Limitations for Contaminated Runoff
The following effluent limitations constitute the quantity and
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to contaminated runoff, which may be
discharged after the application of the best available technology
economically achievable by a point source subject to this sub-
part.
(1) If wastewater consists solely of contaminated runoff and is
not commingled or treated with process wastewater, it may be
discharged if it does not exceed 110 mg/1 total organic carbon
(TOC) based upon an analysis of any single grab or composite
sample.
82
-------
(2) If contaminated runoff is commingled or treated with process
wastewater, or if wastewater consisting solely of contaminated
runoff which exceeds 110 mg/1 TOG is not commingled or treated
with any other type of wastewater/ the quantity of pollutants
discharged shall not exceed the quantity determined by
multiplying the flow of contaminated runoff as determined by the
permit writer times the concentrations listed in the following
table:
BAT effluent limitations
for contaminated runoff
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters of flow)
Phenolic compounds (4AAP)
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium
COD (1)
0.35
0.60
0.062
360.
0.17
0.21
0.028
180.
English units (pounds per
1,000 gal of flow)
Phenolic compounds ( 4AAP)
COD ( 1 )
0.0029
0.0050
0.00052
3.0
0.001 4
0.0018
0.00023
1.5
1 See footnote following table in 419.13(d).
419.34 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction available by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
(a) 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 conventional pollutant control technology (BCT):
83
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
BCT effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
TSS
PH
34.6
23.4
11.1
(D
18.4
14.8
5.9
(D
English units (pounds per
1 ,000 bbl of feedstock)
BOD5
TSS
PH
1 2 1
8.3
3.9
(D
6 5
5 25
2 1
(D
1 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph (a) of this section are to
be multiplied by the following factors to calculate the maximum
for any one day and maximum average of daily values for thirty
consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1,000 bbl of feedstock per stream day
Less than 24.9
25.0 to 49.9
50.0 to 74.9
75.0 to 99.9
100 to 124.9
125.0 to 149.9
150.0 or greater
Size
factor
0 73
0 76
0.83
0 91
0.99
1 08
1 1 3
(2) Process factor.
Process configuration
Process
factor
Less than 4.49
4.5 to 5.49...
5.5 to 5.99...
6.0 to 6.49. . .
0.73
0.80
0.91
0.99
84
-------
6.
7
7.
8.
Q.
9.
5
n
5
o
5
n
5
to
to
to
to
to
to
or
6
7
7
8
8
9
n
3
f
99
49
99
49
99
49
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
08
17
28
39
51
65
72
(3) See the comprehensive example in Subpart D, 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The provisions of 419.14(c) apply to discharges of process
wastewater pollutants attributable to ballast water by a point
source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of pollutants or pollutant proper-
ties controlled by this paragraph, attributable to once-through
cooling water, are excluded from the discharge allowed by
paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) Effluent Limitations for Contaminated Runoff
The following effluent limitations constitute the quantity and
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to contaminated runoff which may be
discharged after the application of the best conventional pollu-
tant control technology by a point source subject to this sub-
part.
(1) If wastewater consists solely of contaminated runoff and is
not commingled or treated with process wastewater, it may be
discharged if it does not exceed 15 mg/1 oil and grease based
upon an analysis of any single grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is commingled or treated with process
wastewater, or if wastewater consisting solely of contaminated
runoff which exceeds 15 mg/1 oil and grease is not commingled or
treated with any other type of wastewater, the quantity of pollu-
tants discharged shall not exceed the quantity determined by
multiplying the flow of contaminated runoff as determined by the
permit writer times the concentrations listed in the following
table:
85
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
BCT effluent limitations
for contaminated runoff
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters of flow)
BOD5
TSS
PH
48
33 .
15.
_ (D
26
21 .
(D
English units (pounds per
1,000 gal of flow)
BOD5
TSS
Oil and grease
DH
0 40
0 28
0.13
f 1 }
0 22
0 18
0.067
( 1 )
1 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
419.35 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSCS).
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 (PSES). The following standards apply to the total refi-
nery flow contribution to the POTW:
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment
standards
for existing
sources -
maximum for
any 1 day
(Milligrams
per liter
(mg/l)}
Oil and Grease..
Ammonia as N (1)
100
100
1 Where the discharge to the POTW consists solely of sour
waters, the owner or operator has the option of complying
with this limit or the daily maximum mass limitation for
ammonia set forth in 419.33{a) and (b).
86
-------
419.36 Standards of performance for new sources (NSPS).
(a) Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following new source performance standards (NSPS):
Pollutant or pollutant property
NSPS effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
TSS
COD (1 )
Oil and grease
Sulf ide
Hexavalent chromium
PH
t. 1 • O
1 4 9
1 33
6 6
Q 1 58
23 .4
0. 1 40
0 32
0 .025
(2)
1 1 . O
Q S
p. a ft
•a c
o 077
1 0 7
0 063
n 1 Q
0 012
(2)
English units (pounds per
1 ,000 bbl of feedstock)
BODS
TSS
COD { 1 )
Oil and grease
Ammonia as N
Sulf ide.
Hexavalent chromium
PH..
7 7
5 2
47 .n
2 4
0 056
8 3
0. 050
0 116
0 0096
(2)
4 1
•J •*
24 0
1 1
o 027
1 8
n 022
n fifift
Onn 44
(2)
1 See footnote following Table in 419.13(d).
2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph (a) of this section are to
be multiplied by the following factors to calculate the maximum
for any one day and maximum average of daily values for thirty
consecutive days.
87
-------
(1) Size factor.
1,000 bbl of feedstock per stream day
Size
factor
Less than 24.9 ..
25.0 to 49.9
50.0 to 74.9
75.0 to 99.9
100 to 124.9.
125.0 to 149.9..
150.0 or greater
0.73
0.76
0.83
0.91
0.99
1.08
1.13
(2) Process factor.
Process configuration
Process
factor
Less than 4.49
4.5
5.5
to 5
to 5
49
99
6.0
6.5
,0 to 7
to 7
7,
7.5
to 6.49
to 6.99
49
99
8.0 to 8.49
8.5 to 8.99
9.0 to 9.49
9.5 or greater,
0.73
0.80
0.91
0.99
1.08
1.17
1 .28
1.39
1 .51
1 .65
1 .72
(3) See the comprehensive example in Subpart D, 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The provisions of 419.16(c) apply to discharges of process
wastewater pollutants attributable to ballast water by a point
source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of pollutants or pollutant proper-
ties controlled by this paragraph, attributable to once-through
cooling water, are excluded from the discharge allowed by
paragraph (b) of this section. Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon concentration not to
exceed 5 mg/1.
(e) Effluent Limitations for Runoff - (Reserved)
419.37 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS)
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 (PSNS).
(a) The following standards apply to the total refinery flow
contribution to the POTW:
88
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment
standards
for new
sources -
maximum for
any 1 day
(Milligrams
per liter
(mg/1))
Oil and grease..
Ammonia as N (1)
100
100
1 Where the discharge to the POTW consists solely of sour
waters, the owner or operator has the option of complying
with this limit or the daily maximum mass limitation for
ammonia set forth in 419.36(a) and (b).
(b) The following standard is applied to the cooling tower
discharge part of the total refinery flow to the POTW by
multiplying: (1) The standard; (2) by the total refinery flow to
the POTW; and (3) by the ratio of the cooling tower discharge
flow to the total refinery flow.
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment
standards
for new
sources -
maximum for
any 1 day
(Milligrams
per liter
(mg/1))
Total chromium j_~
1
89
-------
Subpart D - Lube Subcategory
419.40 Applicability; description of the lube subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to all discharges
from any facility that produces petroleum products by the use of
topping/ cracking, and lube oil manufacturing processes, whether
or not the facility includes any process in addition to topping,
cracking, and lube oil manufacturing processes. The provisions
of this subpart are not applicable, however, to facilities that
include the processes specified in Subparts C and E of this part.
419.41 Specialized definitions.
The general definitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis
set forth in Part 401 of this chapter and the specialized defini-
tions set forth in 419.11 shall apply to this subpart.
419.42 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduc-
tion attainable by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT):
Pollutant or pollutant property
effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
BODS ,
TSS
COD ( 1 ) ,
Oil and grease ,
Phenolic compounds.
Ammonia as N ,
Sulfide ,
Total chromium ,
Hexavalent chromium,
PH
Metric units (kilograms per
1 ,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
50.6
35.6
360.
16.2
0.38
23.4
0.33
0.77
0.068
(2)
25.8
22.7
187.
8.5
0.184
10.6
0.150
0.45
0-.030
(2)
90
-------
English units (pounds per
1,000 bbl of feedstock)
Sulf ide
PH
17.9
12.5
127 .
5.7
0.133
8.3
0.118
0.273
0.024
(2)
9. 1
8.0
66.0
3.0
0 065
3.8
0.053
0. 160
0.011
(2)
1 See footnote following table in 419.13(d).
2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph (a) of this section are to
be multiplied by the following factors to calculate the maximum
for any one day and maximum average of daily values for thirty
consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1,000 bbl of feedstock per stream day
50.0 to 74.9
75.0 to 99.9
100.0 to 124.9
125 0 to 149. 9
150.0 to 174.9
175.0 to 199.9
Size
factor
0.71
0.74
0 81
0.88
0 97
1 05
1 1 4
1.19
(2) Process factor.
Process configuration
6.5 to 7.49
7.5 to 7.99
8.0 to 8.49
8.5 to 8.99
9.0 to 9.49
9.5 to 9.99
10.0 to 10.49
10.5 to 10.99
11.0 to 11.49
11.5 to 11.99
12.0 to 12.49
12.5 to 12.99
Process
factor
0 8 1
0.88
1 .00
1 .09
1.19
1 .29
1.41
1 53
1 .67
1 82
i 93
2.15
2.34
2 44
91
-------
(3) Example of the application of the above factors
Lube refinery 125/000 bbl per stream day throughput.
CALCULATION OF THE PROCESS
CONFIGURATION
Example -
Process category
Process included
Weighting
factor
Crude
Cracking and coking
Lube
Asphalt,
A tin crude distillation....
Vacuum crude distillation
Desalting
Fluid cat. cracking '..
Visbreaking
Thermal cracking
Moving bed cat. cracking..
Hydrocracking
Fluid coking •.
Delayed coking
Further defined in the de-
velopment document.
Asphalt production
Asphalt oxidation
Asphalt emulsifying
1
13
12
Process
Crude:
Atm
Desalting. . . .
Total
Cracking:
FCC
Hydro-
cracking
Total
Asphalt :
Total
Capacity
( 1 ,000 bbl
per stream
day)
125.0
60.0
125.0
41.0
20.0
5.3
4.0
4.9
4.0
Capacity
relative to
through-
put
1.0
0.48
1.0
2.48
0.328
0.160
0.488
0.042
0.032
0.039
0.1 13
0.032
0.032
Refinery proces
Weight-
ing
Factor
X1
X6
X13
X12
s configura
Process
configu-
ration
= 2.48
= 2.93
= 1 .47
= 0.38
tion=7. 26
92
-------
Notes:
See Table 419.42(b)(2) for process factor. Process factor = 0.88,
See Table 419.42(b)(1) for size factor for 125,000 bbl per stream
day lube refinery. Size factor = 0.97.
To calculate the limits for each parameter, multiply the limit
given in 419.42(a) by both the process factor and size factor.
BODS limit (maximum for any 1 day) = 17.9 x 0.88 x 0.97 = 15.3 Ib,
per 1,000 bbl of feedstock.
(c) The provisions of 419.12(c) apply to discharges of process
wastewater pollutants attributable to ballast water by a point
source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of pollutants or pollutant proper-
ties controlled by this paragraph, attributable to once-through
cooling water, are excluded from the discharge allowed by
paragraph (b) of this section. Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon concentration not to
exceed 5 mg/1.
(e) Effluent Limitations for Contaminated Runoff
The following effluent limitations constitute the quantity and
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to contaminated runoff which may be
discharged after the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available by a point source subject to this
subpart.
(1) If wastewater consists solely of contaminated runoff and is
not commingled or treated with process wastewater, it may be
discharged if it does not exceed 15 mg/1 oil and grease and 110
mg/1 total organic carbon (TOG) based upon an analysis of any
single grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is commingled or treated with process
wastewater, or if wastewater consisting solely of contaminated
runoff which exceeds 15 mg/1 oil and grease or 110 mg/1 TOC is
not commingled or treated with any other type of wastewater, the
quantity of pollutants discharged shall not exceed the quantity
determined by multiplying the flow of contaminated runoff as
determined by the permit writer times the concentrations listed
in the following table:
93
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
BPT effluent limitations
for contaminated runoff
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters of flow)
BODS
TSS
COD (1)
Oil and grease
Phenolic compounds (4AAP)
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium
PH
48.
33.
360.
15.
0.35
0.73
0.062
_ (2)
26.
21 .
180.
8.
0.17
0.43
0.028
(2)
English units (pounds per
1 ,000 gal of flow)
BOD5
TSS
COD ( 1 ) -
Oil and Grease
PH
0 40
0.28
3.0
0. 13
0 0029
0 0060
0.00052
(2)
0 22
0.18
1 .5
0.067
0 0014
0 0035
0.00023
(2)
1 See footnote following table in 419.13(d).
2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
419.43 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-.32/ any existing point
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduc-
tion attainable by the application of the best available tech-
nology economically achievable (BAT):
94
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
BAT effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1 ,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
COD (1)
Ammonia as N
Sulfide
360.
23.4
0.33
187.
10.6
0.150
as N
1 27 .
8.3
0.118
66.0
3.8
0.053
English units (pounds per
1,000 bbl of feedstock)
COD (1)
Ammonia
Sulfide
1 See footnote following Table in 419.13(d).
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph (a) of this section are to
be multiplied by the following factors to calculate the maximum
for any one day and maximum average of daily values for thirty
consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1 ,000 bbl of feedstock per stream day
50.0 to 74.9
75.0 to 99.9
100 to 124.9
125.0 to 149.9
150.0 to 174.9
175.0 to 199.9
200.0 or greater
Size
factor
0 .71
0.74
0.81
0.88
0.97
1 .05
1.14
1.19
(2) Process factor.
Process configuration
Process
factor
Less than 6.49
6.5 to 7.49...
7.5 to 7.99...
8.0 to 8.49.. .
8.5 to 8.99.. .
0.81
0.88
1 .00
09
1 .19
95
-------
9.0 to 9.49
9.5 to 9.99
10 0 to 10.49
10 5 to 10.99
11.5 to 11.99
12.5 to 12.99
1 29
1.41
1 53
1 .67
1 .82
1 .98
2.15
2.34
2.44
(3) See the comprehensive example in Subpart D, 419.42(b)(3).
(c)(1) In addition to the provisions contained above pertaining
to COD, ammonia and sulfide, 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 (BAT):
For each of the regulated pollutant parameters listed below, the
effluent limitation for a given refinery is the sum of the pro-
ducts of each effluent limitation factory times the applicable
refinery process feedstock rate, calculated as provided in 40 CFR
122.45(b). Applicable production processes are presented in
Appendix A, by process type. The process identification numbers
presented in this Appendix A are for the convenience of the
reader. They can be cross-referenced in the Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines, New Source Performance
Standards, and Pretreatment Standards for the Petroleum Refining^
Point Source Category (EPA 440/1-82/014), Table III-7, pp. 49-54.
BAT effluent limitation
factor
Pollutant or pollutant property
and process type
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
Phenolic compounds (4AAP):
Crude
Cracking and coking
Asphal t
Lube
0 037
0.419
0.226
1 055
0.377
0 009
0.102
0 055
0 257
0.092
96
-------
Total chromium:
Hexavalent chromium:
Reforming and alkylation
0.030
0 340
0.183
0.855
0 305
0.0019
0.0218
0.0117
0.0549
0.0196
0 011
0 118'
0.064
0.297
0.106
0.0009
0.0098
0.0053
0.0248
0.0088
English units (pounds per
1 ,000 bbl of feedstock)
Phenolic compounds (4AAP):
Total chromium:
Crude
Asphalt
Hexavalent chromium:
Crude
0.013
O.i 47
0.079
0. 369
0.132
0.011
0.119
0.064
0.299
0.107
0.0007
0 0076
0 0041
0 0192
0.0069
0.003
0 036
0.019
0.090
0.032
0.004
0 041
0.022
0.104
0 037
0.0003
0 0034
0 0019
0.0087
0.0031
(2) Example Application of Effluent Limitations Guidelines as
Applicable to Phenolic Compounds, Hexavalent Chromium, and Total
Chromium.
The following example presents the derivation of a BAT phenolic
compounds (4AAP) effluent limitation (30 day average) for a
petroleum refinery permit. This methodology is also applicable
to hexavalent chromium and total chromium.
97
-------
Process Feedstock Rate
Refinery Process < 1 ,000. bbl/day)
1. Atmospheric Crude Distillation 100
2. Crude Desalting 50
3. Vacuum Crude Distillation 75
Total Crude Processes (C) 225
6. Fluid Catalytic Cracking 25
10. Hydrocracking 20
Total Cracking and Coking Processes (K"J 45
18. Asphalt Production 5
Total Asphalt Processes (A) 5
21. Hydrofining 3
Total Lube Processes (L) 3
8. Catalytic Reforming 10
•Total Reforming and Alkylation
Processes (R) ; Kl
Note: 30 day average effluent limitation for phenolic compounds
(4AAP), Ib/day = (0.003)(225) + (0.036)(45) + (0.019}(5) +
(0.090)(3) + (0.032)(10) = 2.98 Ib/day.
(d) The provisions of 419.13(d) apply to discharges of process
wastewater pollutants attributable to ballast water by a point
source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
(e) The quantity and quality of pollutants or pollutant proper-
ties controlled by this paragraph, attributable to once-through
cooling water, are excluded from the discharge allowed by
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. Once-through cooling
water may be discharged with a total organic carbon concentration
not to exceed 5 mg/1.
(f) Effluent Limitations for Contaminated Runoff
The following effluent limitations constitute the quantity and
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to contaminated runoff, which may be
discharged after the application of the best available technology
economically achievable by a point source subject to this sub-
part.
(1) If wastewater consists solely of contaminated runoff and is
not commingled or treated with process wastewater, it may be
discharged if it does not exceed 110 mg/1 total organic carbon
(TOC) based upon an analysis of any single grab or composite
sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is commingled or treated with process
wastewater, or if wastewater consisting solely of contaminated
runoff which exceeds 110 mg/1 TOC is not commingled or treated
with any other type of wastewater, the quantity of pollutants
discharged shall not exceed the quantity determined by
multiplying the flow of contaminated runoff as determined by the
permit writer times the concentrations listed in the following
98
-------
table:
Pollutant or pollutant property
BAT effluent limitations
for contaminated runoff
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters of flow)
Phenolic compounds (4AAP)
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium
COD1
0.35
0.60
0.062
360.
0.17
0.21
0.028
180.
English units (pounds per
1 ,000 gal of flow)
Phenolic compounds (
Hexavalent chromium.
COD ( 1 )
4AAP)
0.0029
0.0050
0.00052
3.0
0.0014
0.0018
0.00023
1.5
1 See footnote following table in 419.13(d).
419.44 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction available by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
(a) 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 conventional pollutant control technology (BCT):
Pollutant or pollutant property
BCT effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
BODS
TSS
Oil and grease
PH
50 6
35 6
16.2
(D
25 a
22 7
8.5
(D
99
-------
English units (pounds per
1,000 bbl of feedstock)
BOD5
TSS
PH
17 9
125
5 7
(D
91
8n
3n
• u
(1)
1 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph (a) of this section are to
be multiplied by the following factors to calculate the maximum
for any one day and maximum average of daily values for thirty
consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1 ,000 bbl of feedstock per stream day
50.0 to 74.9
75.0 to 99.9
100.0- to 124.9
125.0 to 149.9
150.0 to 174.9
175.0 to 199.9
(2) Process factor.
Process configuration
6.5 to 7.49
7.5 to 7.99
8.0 to 8.49
8.5 to 8.99.....
9.0 to 9.49
9.5 to 9.99
10.0 to 10.49
10.5 to 10.99
11.0 to 11.49
11.5 to 11.99
12.0 to 12.49
12.5 to 12.99
Size
factor
n 71
074
Oft 1
088
n Q7
i ns
1 14
1 1 Q
Process
factor
08 1
n AR
i on
1 OQ
1 10
I . 1 7
1 7Q
1 . £7
1 41
1 ^7
1 fi7
1 89
1 QQ
9 1 ^
9 "34,
9 44
(c) The provisions of 419.14(c) apply to discharges of process
wastewater pollutants attributable to ballast water by a point
source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of pollutants or pollutant proper-
ties controlled by this paragraph, attributable to once-through
100
-------
cooling water, are excluded from the discharge allowed by
paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) Effluent Limitations for Contaminated Runoff
The following effluent limitations constitute the quantity and
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to contaminated runoff which may be
discharged after the application of the best conventional pollu-
tant control technology by a point source subject to this sub-
part.
(1) If wastewater consists solely of contaminated runoff and is
not commingled or treated with process wastewater, it may be
discharged if it does not exceed 15 mg/1 oil and grease based
upon an analysis of any single grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is commingled or treated with process
wastewater, or if wastewater consisting solely of contaminated
runoff which exceeds 15 mg/1 oil and grease is not commingled or
treated with any other type of wastewater, the quantity of pollu-
tants discharged shall not exceed the quantity determined by
multiplying the flow of contaminated runoff as determined by the
permit writer times the concentrations listed in the following
table:
BCT effluent limitations
for contaminated runoff
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 39
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters of flow)
BOD5
TSS
PH
48
33.
i 5
(D
26
21 .
a
(D
English units (pounds per
1 ,000 gal of flow)
TSS
Oil and grease
PH
u . t\j
0.28
0 1 3
M>
U . f. &
0 1 8
0 067
(D
1 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
419.45 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13 any existing source
subject to this subpart which introduces pollutants into a
101
-------
publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR Part 403
and achieve the following pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES). The following standards apply to the total refi-
nery flow contribution to the POTW:
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment
standards
for existing
sources -
maximum for
any 1 day
(Milligrams
per liter
(rag/1))
Oil and Grease..
Ammonia as N (1)
100
100
1 Where the discharge to the POTW consists solely of sour
waters, the owner or operator has the option of complying
with this limit or the daily maximum mass limitation for
ammonia set forth in 419.43(a) and (b).
419.46 Standards of performance for new sources (NSPS).
(a) Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following new source performance standards (NSPS) :
NSPS effluent limitations
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
BODS
TSS
COD (1)
Oil and grease
Phenolic compounds..
Ammonia as N
Sulfide
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium,
PH
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
34.6
23.4
245.
10.5
0.25
23.4
0.220
0.52
0.046
(2)
18.4
14.9
126.
5.6
0.12
10.7
0.10
0.31
0.021
(2)
102
-------
English units (pounds per
1,000 bbl of feedstock)
BODS
TSS
COD ( 1) ,
Oil and grease
Phenolic compounds..
Ammonia as N
Sulfide
Total chromium ,
Hexavalent chromium.
pH ,
12.2
8.3
87.0
3.8
0.088
8.3
0.078
0.180
0.022
(2)
6.5
5.3
45.0
2.0
0.043
3.8
0.035
0.105
0.0072
(2)
1 See footnote following table in 419.13(d).
2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph (a) of this section are to
be multiplied by the following factors to calculate the maximum
for any one day and maximum average of daily values for thirty
consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1/000 bbl of feedstock per stream day
Less than 49.9
50.0 to 74.9 ;...
75.0 to 99.9
100 to 124.9
125.0 to 149.9
150.0 to 174.9
175.0 to 199.9
Size
factor
071
074
0 81
0 88
0.97
1 .05
1.14
1 19
(2) Process factor.
Process configuration
6.5 to 7.49
7.5 to 7.99
8.0 to 8.49
8.5 to 8.99
9.0 to 9.49
9.5 to 9.99
10.0 to 10.49
10.5 to 10.99
11.0 to 11.49
11.5 to 11.99
12.0 to 12.49
12.5 to 12.99
13.0 or greater
Process
factor
OR 1
0 88
1 00
1 09
1 1 9
1 29
1 41
1 53
1 .67
1 82
1 98
2 1 5
2 14
2 44
103
-------
(3) See the comprehensive example in Subpart D, 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The provisions of 419.16(c) apply to discharges of process
wastewater pollutants attributable to ballast water by a point
source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of pollutants or pollutant proper-
ties controlled by this paragraph, attributable to once-through
cooling water, are excluded from the discharge allowed by
paragraph (b) of this section. Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon concentration not to
exceed 5 mg/1.
(e) Effluent Limitations for Runoff - (Reserved).
419.47 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS)
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 (PSNS).
(a) The following standards apply to the total refinery flow
contribution to the POTW:
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment
standards
for new
sources -
maximum for
any 1 day
(Milligrams
per liter
(mg/1))
Oil and grease. .
Ammonia as N (1)
100
100
1 Where the discharge to the POTW consists solely of sour
waters, the owner or operator has the option of complying
with this limit or the daily maximum mass limitation for
ammonia set forth in 419.46(a) and (b).
(b.) The following standard is applied to the cooling tower
discharge part of the total refinery flow to the POTW by
multiplying: (1) The standard; (2) by the total refinery flow to
the POTW; and (3) by the ratio of the cooling tower discharge
flow to the total refinery flow.
104
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment
standards
for new
sources -
maximum for
any 1 day
Total chromium.
•L
(Milligrams
per liter
(mg/1))
i
105
-------
Subpart E - Integrated Subcategory
419.50 Applicability; description of the integrated subcategory,
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to all discharges
from any facility that produces petroleum products by the use of
topping, cracking, lube oil manufacturing processes, and
petrochemical operations, whether or not the facility includes
any process- in addition to topping, cracking, lube oil manufac-
turing processes, and petrochemical operations.
419.51 Specialized definitions.
The general definitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis
set forth in Part 401 of this chapter and the specialized defini-
tions set forth in 419.31 shall apply to this subpart.
419.52 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduc-
tion attainable by the application of the best practicable
control_technology currently available (BPT):
Pollutant or pollutant property
BPT effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1 ,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
BODS
TSS
COD (1)
Oil and grease
Phenolic compounds.,
Ammonia as N
Sulfide
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium.
PH
54.4
37.3
388.
17.1
0.40
23.4
0.35
0.82
0.068
_ (2)
28.9
23.7
198.
9.1
0.192
10.6
0.158
0.48
0.032
(2)
106
-------
English units (pounds per
1,000 bbl of feedstock)
BODS ,
TSS
COD ( 1 )
Oil and grease
Phenolic compounds..
Ammonia as N ,
Sulfide ,
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium.
pH
19.2
13.2
136.
6.0
0.14
8.3
0.124
0.29
0.025
(2)
10.2
8.4
70.0
3.2
0.068
3.8
0.056
0.17
0.011
(2)
1 See footnote following table in 419.13(d).
2 Within the range of 6..0 to 9.0
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph (a) of this section are to
be multiplied by the following factors to calculate the maximum
for any one day and maximum average of daily values for thirty
consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1,000 bbl of feedstock per stream day
Size
factor
Less than 124.9
125.0 to 149.9.
150.0 to 174.9.
175.0 to 199.9.
200.0 to 224.9.
225 or greater.
0:73
0.76
0.83
0.91
0.99
1 .04
(2) Process factor.
Process configuration
6.5 to 7.49
7.5 to 7. 99
8.0 to 8.49
8.5 to 8.99
9.0 to 9.49
9.5 to 9.99
10.0 to 10.49
10.5 to 10.99
11.0 to 11.49
11.5 to 11.99
12.0 to 12.49
12.5 to 12.99
Process
factor
0 75
0 .82
0 92
1 .00
1 1 0
1 .20
1 3Q
1 .42
1 .54
1 68
1 .83
1 .99
2 1 7
2 26
107
-------
(3) See the comprehensive example in Subpart D, 419.42(b)(3) .
(c) The provisions of 419.12(c) apply to discharges of process
wastewater pollutants attributable to ballast water by a point
source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of pollutants or pollutant proper-
ties controlled by this paragraph, attributable to once-through
cooling water, are excluded from the discharge allowed by
paragraph (b) of this section. Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon concentration not to
exceed 5 mg/1.
(e) Effluent Limitations for Contaminated Runoff
The following effluent limitations constitute the quantity and
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to contaminated runoff which may be
discharged after the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available by a point source subject to this
subpart.
(1) If wastewater consists solely of contaminated runoff and is
not commingled or treated with process wastewater, it may be
discharged if it does not exceed 15 mg/1 oil and grease and 110
mg/1 total organic carbon (TOG) based upon an analysis of any
single grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is commingled or treated with process
wastewater, or if wastewater consisting solely of contaminated
runoff which exceeds 15 mg/1 oil and grease or 110 mg/1 TOG is
not commingled or treated with any other type of wastewater, the
quantity of pollutants discharged shall not exceed the quantity
determined by multiplying the flow of contaminated runoff as
determined by the permit writer times the concentrations listed
in the following table:
108
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
BPT effluent limitations
for contaminated runoff
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1 ,000 cubic meters of flow)
BODS
TSS
090 ( 1 )
Oil and grease
Phenolic compounds (4AAP)
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium
48.
33.
360.
15.
0.35
0.73
0.062
(2)
26.
21 .
180.
8.
0.17
0.43
0.028
(2)
English units (pounds per
1 ,000 gal of flow)
BODS
TSS
COD ( 1 )
Oil and grease
Phenolic compounds (4AAP)
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium
PH
0.40
0.28
3.0
0.13
0.0029
0.0060
0.00052
(2)
0.22
0.18
1 .5
0.067
0.0014
0.0035
0.00023
(2)
1 See footnote following table in 419.13(d).
2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
419.53 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduc-
tion attainable by the application of the best available tech-
nology economically achievable (BAT):
109
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
BAT effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily, values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
COD (1 ) .
Ammonia
Sulfide.
388 .
23.4
0.35
198.
10.6
0.158
English units (pounds per
1,000 bbl of feedstock)
COD { 1 ) .
Ammonia
Sulfide,
as N
136.
8.3
0.124
70 .0
3.8
0.056
1 See footnote following Table in 419.13(d).
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph (a) of this section are to
be multiplied by the following factors to calculate the maximum
for any one day and maximum average of daily values for thirty
consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1 ,000 bbl of feedstock per stream day
125.0 to 149.9
150.0 to 174.9
175.0 to 199.9
200.0 to 224.9
225 or greater
Size
factor
0.73
0.76
0.83
0.91
0.99
1 .04
(2) Process factor.
Process configuration
Process
factor
Less than 6.49
6.5 to 7.49...
7.5 to 7.99...
8.0 to 8.49...
8.5 to 8.99.. .
9.0 to 9.49...
9.5 to 9.99...
0.75
0.82
0.92
1.00
1 .10
1 .20
1 .30
no
-------
10
10
1 1
1 1
12
12
13
0
5
n
5
o
5
n
to
to
to
to
to
to
or
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
o
1
1
2
2
TT
49
99
49 ; . .
99
49
99
1
1
i
i
1
2
2
42
54
68
83
99
17
26
(3) See the comprehensive example in Subpart D, 419.42(b)(3).
(c)(1) In addition to the provisions contained above pertaining
to COD, ammonia and sulfide, 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 (BAT):
For each of the regulated pollutant parameters listed below, the
effluent limitation for a given refinery is the sum of the pro-
ducts of each effluent limitation factory times the applicable
refinery process feedstock rate, calculated as provided in 40 CFR
122.45(b). Applicable production processes are presented in
Appendix A, by process type. The process identification numbers
presented in this Appendix A are for the convenience of the
reader. They can be cross-referenced in the Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines, New Source Performance
Standards, and Pretreatment Standards for the Petroleum Refining
Point Source Category (EPA 440/1-82/014), Table JII-7, pp. 49-54.
BAT effluent limitation
factor
Pollutant or pollutant property
and process type
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1 ,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
Phenolic compounds (4AAP):
Crude
Cracking and coking
Asphal t
Lube
Reforming and alkylation
Total chromium:
Crude
Asphalt
Lube
0 037
0 419
0 226
1 055
0. 377
0 030
0 340
0181
0 855
0.305
0 009
0 102
0 055
0 257
0 092
On 1 1
0118
0 Ofi4
0 297
0.106
m
-------
Hexavalent chromium:
Reforming and alkylation
0.0019
0.0218
0.0117
0.0549
0.0196
0.0009
0 0098
0.0053
0.0248
0.0088
English units (pounds per
1,000 bbl of feedstock)
Phenolic compounds (4AAP):
Total chromium:
Hexavalent chromium:
Asphalt
0.013
0 1 47
0.079
0.369
0.132
0.011
0.119
0.064
0.299
0. 1 07
0 0007
0.0076
0.0041
0.0192
0.0069
0.003
0 036
0.019
0.090
0.032
0.004
0.041
0.022
0.104
0.037
0 0003
0.0034
0 0019
0.0087
0.0031
(2) See the comprehensive example in Subpart D, 419.43(c)(2).
(d) The provisions of 419.13(d) apply to discharges of process
wastewater pollutants attributable to ballast water by a point
source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
(e) The quantity and quality of pollutants or pollutant proper-
ties controlled by this paragraph, attributable to once-through
cooling water, are excluded from the discharge allowed by
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. Once-through cooling
water may be discharged with a total organic carbon concentration
not to exceed 5 mg/1.
(f) Effluent Limitations for Contaminated Runoff
The following effluent limitations constitute the quantity and
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to contaminated runoff, which may be
discharged after the application of the best available technology
economically achievable by a point source subject to this sub-
part.
(1) If wastewater consists solely of contaminated runoff and is
not commingled or treated with process wastewater, it may be
discharged if it does not exceed 110 mg/1 total organic carbon
(TOG) based upon an analysis of any single grab or composite
sample.
112
-------
(2) If contaminated runoff is commingled or treated with process
wastewater/ or if wastewater consisting solely of contaminated
runoff which exceeds 110 mg/1 TOC is not commingled or treated
with any other type of wastewater, the quantity of pollutants
discharged shall not exceed the quantity determined by
multiplying the flow of contaminated runoff as determined by the
permit writer times the concentrations listed in the following
table:
BAT effluent limitations
for contaminated runoff
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters of flow)
Phenolic compounds (4AAP)
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium
COD (1)
0.35
0.60
0.062
360.
0.17
0.21
0.028
180.
English units (pounds per
1 ,000 gal of flow)
Phenolic compounds (
Hexavalent chromium.
COD ( 1 )
4AAP)
0.0029
0 .0050
0.00052
3.0
0.0014
0 0018
0.00023
1 .5
1 See footnote following table in 419.13(d).
419.54 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction available by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
(a) 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 conventional pollutant control technology (BCT):
113
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
BCT effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
pH .-
54.4
37.3
17. 1
L (D
28 .9
23.7
9. 1
(D
English units (pounds per
1,000 bbl of feedstock)
BOD5
TSS
PH
19.2
13.2
6 0
(D
10.2
8.4
3.2
(D
1 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph (a) of this section are to
be multiplied by the following factors to calculate the maximum
for any one day and maximum average of daily values for thirty
consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1,000 bbl of feedstock per stream day
Less than 124.9
125.0 to 149. 9
150.0 to 174.9
175.0 to 199.9
200.0 to 224.9
Size
factor
0.73
0 76
0.83
0.91
0.99
1 .04
(2) Process factor.
Process configuration
Process
factor
Less than 6.49
6.5 to 7.49...
7.5 to 7.99...
8.0 to 8.49...
8.5 to 8.99...
0.75
0.82
0.92
1 .00
1 .10
114
-------
9.5 to 9 .99
10.0 to 10.49.-.
11.5 to 11.99
12.5 to 12.99
1 .20
1 .30
1 .42
1 .54
1 .68
1 .83
1 .99
2.17
2.26
(3) See the comprehensive example in Subpart D, 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The provisions of 419.14(c) apply to discharges of process
wastewater pollutants attributable to ballast water by a point
source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of pollutants or pollutant proper-
ties controlled by this paragraph, attributable to once-through
cooling water, are excluded from the discharge allowed by
paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) Effluent Limitations for Contaminated Runoff
The following effluent limitations constitute the quantity and
quality of pollutants or pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to contaminated runoff which may be
discharged after the application oJE the best conventional pollu-
tant control technology by a point source subject to this sub-
part.
(1) If wastewater consists solely of contaminated runoff and is
not commingled or treated with process wastewater, it may be
discharged if it does not exceed 15 mg/1 oil and grease based
upon an analysis of any single grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is commingled or treated with process
wastewater, or if wastewater consisting solely of contaminated
runoff which exceeds 15 mg/1 oil and grease is not commingled or
treated with any other type of wastewater, the quantity of pollu-
tants discharged shall not exceed the quantity determined by
multiplying the flow of contaminated runoff as determined by the
permit writer times the concentrations listed in the following
table:
115
-------
Pollutant or pollutant property
BCT effluent limitations
for contaminated runoff
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters of flow)
BOD 5
PH
48 .
33.
15.
(D
26.
21 .
8.
(D
English units (pounds per
1 ,000 gal of flow)
BOD 5
PH
0.40
0.28
0.13
(D
0.22
0.18
0.067
(D
1 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
419.55 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
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 (PSES). The following standards apply to the total refi-
nery flow contribution to the POTW:
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment
standards
for existing
sources -
maximum for
any 1 day
(Milligrams
per liter
(mg/1))
Oil and Grease..
Ammonia as N (1)
100
100
1 Where- the discharge to the POTW consists solely of sour
waters, the owner or operator has the option of complying
with this limit or the daily maximum mass limitation for
ammonia set forth in 419.53(a) and (b).
116
-------
419.56 Standards of performance for new sources (NSPS).
(a) Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following new source performance standards (NSPS):
Pollutant or pollutant property
NSPS effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average .of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric units .(kilograms per
1,000 cubic meters
of feedstock)
BOD5
TSS
COD ( 1 )
Oil and grease
Phenol ic compounds
Sulf ide
Total chromium
PH
41 6
28 1
2Q5
126
0 30
23 4
0 26
0 64
0 052
(2)
")") 1
17 9
155
6 7
0 1 4
1 0 7
0 1 2
0 37
0 024
(2)
English units (pounds per
1 ,000 bbl of feedstock)
BODS
TSS
COD ( 1 )
Oil and grease
Sulf ide
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium
PH
14 7
9 9
1 04
4 5
0 105
8-s
0 093
0 220
On i Q
( 2\
7 a
6-t
54 n
7 4
0 051
7 fl
0 045
01 ^
OfifiPd
f 1\
1 See footnote following table in 419.13(d).
2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph (a) of this section are to
be multiplied by the following factors to calculate the maximum
for any one day and maximum average of daily values for thirty
consecutive days.
117
-------
(1) Size factor.
1,000 bbl of feedstock per stream day
Size
factor
Less than 124.9
125.0 to 149.9.
150.0 to 174.9.
175.0 to 199.9.
200.0 to 224.9.
225 or greater.
0.73
0.76
0.83
0.91
0.99
1 .04
(2) Process factor.
Process configuration
6 5 to 7.49
7.5 to 7.99
8. 0 to 8.49
8.5 to 8. 99
9.0 to 9.49
9.5 to 9.99
10.0 to 10.49
10.5 to 10.99
11.0 to 11.49
11.5 to 11.99
12.0 to 12.49
12.5 to 12.99
Process
factor
0.75
0.82
0.92
1 00
1 1 0
1 20
1 .30
1 .42
1 .54
1 .68
1 .83
1 99
2.17
2.26
(3) See the comprehensive example in Subpart D, 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The provisions of 419.16(c) apply to discharges of process
wastewater pollutants attributable to ballast water by a point
source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of pollutants or pollutant proper-
ties controlled by this paragraph, attributable to once-through
cooling water, are excluded from the discharge allowed by
paragraph (b) of this section. Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon concentration not to
exceed 5 mg/1.
(e) Effluent Limitations for Runoff - (Reserved).
419.57 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS)
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 (PSNS).
118
-------
(a) The following standards apply to the total refinery flow
contribution to the POTW:
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment
standards
for new
sources -
maximum for
any 1 day
(Milligrams
per liter
(mg/1))
Oil and grease..
Ammonia as N (1)
100
100
1 Where the discharge to the POTW -consists solely of sour
waters, the owner or operator has the option of complying
with this limit or the daily maximum mass limitation for
ammonia set forth in 419.56(a) and (b).
(b) The following standard is applied to the cooling tower
discharge part of the total refinery flow to the POTW by
multiplying: (1) The standard; (2) by the total refinery flow to
the POTW; and (3) by the ratio of the cooling tower discharge
flow to the total refinery flow.
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment
standards
for new
sources -
maximum for
any 1 day
(Milligrams
per liter
(mg/1))
Total chromium \~
1
119
-------
REGULATION APPENDIX A
PROCESSES INCLUDED IN THE
DETERMINATION OF BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR
TOTAL CHROMIUM, HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM,
AND PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS f4AAP)
Crude Processes:
1. Atmospheric Crude Distillation
2. Crude Desalting
3. Vacuum Crude Distillation
Cracking and Coking Processes:
4. Visbreaking
5. Thermal Cracking
6. Fluid Catalytic Cracking
7. Moving Bed Catalytic Cracking
1Q. Hydrocracking
15. Delayed Coking
16. Fluid Coking
54. Hydrotreating
Asphalt Processes:
18. Asphalt Production
32. 200"F Softening Point Unfluxed Asphalt
43. Asphalt Oxidizing
39. Asphalt Emulsifying
Lube Processes:
21. Hydrofining, Hydrofinishing, Lube Hydrofining
22. White Oil Manufacture
23. Propane Dewaxing, Propane Deasphalting, Propane Fractioning,
Propane Deresining
24. Duo Sol, Solvent Treating, Solvent Extraction, Duotreacing,
Solvent Dewaxing, Solvent Deasphalting
25. Lube Vac Twr, Oil Fractionation, Batch Still (Naptha Strip),
Bright Stock Treating
26. Centrifuge & Chilling
27. MEK Dewaxing, Ketone Dewaxing, MEK-Toluene Dewaxing
28. Deoiling (wax)
29. Naphthenic Lubes Production
30. SO2 Extraction
34. Wax Pressing
35. Wax Plant (with Neutral Separation)
36. Furfural Extraction
37. Clay Contacting - Percolation
38. Wax Sweating
$9. Acid Treating
40. Phenol Extraction
Reforming and Alkylation Processes:
8. H2S04 Alkylation
12. Catalytic Reforming
120
-------
APPENDIX A
PRODUCTION-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Memorandum from J. William Jordan, Chief, NPDES Technical
Support Branch, U.S. EPA to Regional Permits Branch
Chiefs, re: Calculation of Production-Based Effluent
Limits, December 13, 1984.
40 CFR 122.45 (b)
121
-------
UNITED STATcS ENVIRONMENTAL.PROTECT!^ AGENCY
'ASHINGTON. D.C.
OEC 18 1984
*
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OPFICH OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Calculation of Production-Based Effluent Limits
FROM: J. William Jordan, Chief &//&&& '&-&^~
NPDES Technical Support Branch (EN-33S)
TO: Regional Permits Branch Chiefs
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the procedure
for calculating production-based effluent limitations and to pro-
vide guidance on the use of alternate limitations. Many effluent
guidelines are expressed in terms of allowable pollutant dis-
charge rate per unit of production. To determine permit limits,
these standards are multiplied by an estimate of the facility's
actual average production.
Section 122.45(b) of the NPDES permit program regulations
sets forth the requirements for calculating production-based
effluent limitations. The central feature of this section is the
requirement that limitations be based upon a "reasonable measure
of the actual production of the facility", rather than upon design
capacity. Interpretation of this requirement has proven confusing
in the past. This memorandum provides recommendations for devel-
oping production-based limitations and alternate limitations. The
Agency is also planning to revise this portion of the regulations,
and has revised Part III of Application Form 2C, in order to clarify
language which might lead to the use of inappropriate production-
based limitations.
Background
The proper application of production-based effluent limita-'
tion guidelines is dependent upon the methodology that is used to
develop the guidelines. When most guidelines are developed, a
single long term average daily production value and its relation-
ship to flow are determined. This is combined with effluent
concentration data collected from plants to form the basis of
the guideline standards. Variability factors are developed on
concentration data obtained from samples taken during periods
of varying production. The variability factors and performance
data are then used to derive the guideline standards.
Calculation of Limitations
To apply these guidelines, permit writers should determine
122
-------
a single estimate of the expected production over the life of
the permit using the long term average production from the plant's
historical records. Usually, a five year production history
would be used to derive this'value. This single production value
is then multiplied by both the daily maximum and monthly average
guidelines limitations to obtain permit limits. In determining
this single estimate, the permit writer should take into account
the distribution of production by analyzing data taken as fre-
quently as possible. For most cases, monthly data compiled from
daily data would be sufficient.
The permit writer should avoid the use of a limited amount
of production data in estimating the production for a specific
facility. For example, the data from a particular month may
be unusually high and thus lead to the derivation of effluent
limitations which are not actually reflective of normal plant
operations. As previously explained, effluent limitations
guidelines already account for some of the variations which
occur within long term production rates, therefore, the use of
too short a time frame in the calculation of production based
limitations for a specific industrial facility may lead to
•double accounting" of the variability factors.
In some cases, the historical data may show large random
or cyclic fluctuations in production rates, of either a short
or long term nature. In those situations, it may be appropriate
to have alternate limits which are applicable at some increased
production rate (see discussion of Alternate Limits) or setting
the limit based upon a level of production higher than the
average (e.g. 10-20 percent or higher).
However, the primary objective is to determine a production
estimate -for a facility which approximates the long term aver-
age production rate (in terms of mass of product per day) which
can reasonably be expected to prevail during the next term of
the permit. The following example illustrates the proper appli-
cation of guidelines:
Example; Company A has produced 331,500 tons, 292,000
tons, 304,000 tons, 284,000 tons, and 312,OOn tons per year
for the previous five years. The use of the highest year of
production (331,500 tons per year) might be an appropriate
and reasonable measure of expected production. "One check
on this could be to determine if maximum yearly values are
within a certain percent of the average, such as 20 percent.
'One of several methods may be appropriate to convert
from the annual production rate to average daily production.
One method takes the annual production rate and divides it
by the number of production days per year. To determine the
number of production days, the total number of normally sche-
duled non-production days are subtracted from the total days
in a year.
This method is appropriate in cases where the plant
123
-------
discharges intermittently as a direct result of production
flows. In cases where the plant discharges continuously,
even on days when there are no production activities , other
methods may be appropriate.
If Company A normally has 255 production days per year ,
which are approximately equal to the number of discharge days,
the annual production rate of 331,500 tons per year would
yield an average daily rate of 1,300- tons per day. if pollu-
tant X has an effluent limitation guideline of 0.10 Ibs./lOOO
Ibs. for the monthly average and O'.IS Ibs./lOOO Ibs. for the
maximum daily average, the effluent limitations would be
calculated as follows:
Monthly Average Limit (Pollutant X)
1,300 tons x 2000 Ibs. x 0.10 Ibs. = 260 Ibs ./day
day ton 1000 iss.
Daily Maximum Limit (Pollutant X)
1,300 tons x 2000 Ibs. x 0.15 Ibs. = 390 Ibs ./day
day ton 1000 Ibs.
In the example above, the production during the highest
year of the last five years was used as the estimate of pro-
duction. This estimate is appropriate when production is not
expected to change significantly during the. permit term. How-
ever, if historical trends, market forces, or company plans
indicate that a different level of production will prevail dur-
ing the permit term, a different basis for estimating produc-
tion should be used.
Alternate Limits
If production rates are expected to change significantly
during the life of the permit, the permit can include alternate
limits. These alternate limits would become effective when
production exceeds a threshold value, such as during seasonal
production variations. Definitive guidance is hot available
with respect to the threshold value which should "trigger"
alternate limits. However, it is generally agreed that a 10
to 20 percent fluctuation in production is within the range
of normal variability, while changes in production substantially
higher than this range (such as 50 percent) could warrant con-
sideration of alternate limitations. The major characteristics
of alternate limits are best described by illustration and example:
Example; Plant B has produced 486,000 tons, 260,400 tons,
220,000 tons, 240,800 tons, and 206,500 tons per year for
the previous five years. The high year is significantly
higher than the rest and the permittee has made 3 plausible
argument that production is expected to return to that level
The guideline for pollutant X is 0.8 lbs/1000 Ibs for the
monthly average and 0.14 lbs/1000 Ibs for the daily maxi-
124
-------
mum. The alternate
as follows:
Primary Limits:
effluent limitations could be calculated
o Basis of calculation: 260,400 tons/yr. = 1,050 tons/day
(248 production days per year)
o Applicable level of production: less than 1 ,050 tons
per day average production rate for the month
Monthly Average Limit
1 ,050 tons x 2000 Ibs. x 0.08 Ibs. = 168 Ibs ./day
day ton 1000 Ibs.
Daily Maximum Limit
1,050 tons x 2000 Ibs. x 0.14 Ibs. = 294 Ibs ./day
day ton 1000 IDS.
Alternate Limits:
o Applicable threshold level of production = more than 1,260
tons/day average production rate for the month (20 percen-
above normal-production levels)
o Basis of calculation: 486,000 tons/yr. = 1,350 tons/day
(based upon historical data and to be applicable beyond
a 20 percent increase in production)
Monthly Average Limit = 216 Ibs./day
Daily Maximum Limit = 378 Ibs ./day
Alternate limits should be used only after careful consider-
ation and only when a substantial increase or decrease in produc-
tion is likely to occur. In the'example above, the primary limics
would be in effect when production was at normal levels. During
periods of significantly higher production, the.alternate limits
would be in effect. When production reverted to normal levels, the
primary limits would have to be met. The thresholds, measures of
production, and special reporting requirements must be detailed in
the permit.
If you have any questions concerning the calculation of pro-
duction-based limitations or the use of alternate limitations,
please call me or have your staff contact James Taft at (202/FTS-
426-7010) .
125
-------
40 CFR Part 122 - EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Subpart C - Permit Conditions
§ 122.45 Calculating NPOES permit
conditions (applicable to State NPDES
programs, see § 123.25).
(a) Outfalls and discharge points. All
permit effluent limitations, standards
and prohibitions shall be established for
each outfall or discharge point cf the
permitted facility, except as otherwise
provided under § 122.44(j](2:]'{BMPs
where limitations are infeasibln) and
paragraph (i) of this section (limitations
on internal waste streams}.
(b) Production-bcssd limitations. (1)
In the case of POTWs, permit
limitations, standards, or prohibitions
shall be calculated based on design
flow.
(I22.45(b)(2) revised by 49 FR 38046,
September 26. 1984]
(2)(i) Except in the case of POTWs or
as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of th.»
section, calculation of any permit limita-
tions, standards, or prohibitions which are
based on production (or other measure of
operation) shall be based not upon the
designed production capacity but rather
upon a reasonable measure of actual pro-
duction of the facility. For new sources or
new dischargers, actual production shall
be estimated using projected production.
The time period of the measure of produc-
tion shall correspond to the time period of
the calculated permit limitations; for ex-
ample, monthly production shall be used
to calculate average monthly discharge
limitations.
(ii)(A)(/) The Director may include a
condition establishing alternate permit
limitations, standards, or prohibitions
based upon anticipated increase (not to
exceed maximum production capability)
or decreased production levels.
(2) For the automotive manufacturing
industry only, the Regional Administrator
shall, and the State Director nay establish
a condition under paragraph
(b)(2)(ii)(A)(/) of this section if the ap-
plicant satisfactorily demonstrates to the
Director at the time the application is
submitted that its actual production, as
indicated in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this
section, is substantially below maximum
production capability and that there is a
reasonable potential for an increase above
actual production during the duration of
the permit.
(B) If the Director establishes permit
conditions under paragraph (b)(2](::!(A]
of this section:
(1) The permit shall require the
permittee to notify the Director at least
two business days prior to a month in
which the permittee exprcts to operate
at a level higher than the lowest
production level identified in the permit.
The notice shall specify t.te anticipated
level and the period during which the
permittee expecta to operate at the
alternate level. If the notice covers more
than one month, the notice shall specify
the reasons for the anticipated
production level mrre-a&c. New notice of
discharge nt alternate levels is required
to cover a period or production ievtl not
covered by prior notice or. if during two
consecutive months otherwise covered
by a notice, the production level at the
permitted facility does not in fact meet
the higher level designated in the notice.
[2] The permittee shell comply witti
the limitations, standards, or
prohibitions that correspond to the
lowest level of production specified in
the permit, unless the permittee has
notified Ihe Director under paragraph
(b)(2)(n)(B)(7) of this section, in which
case the permittee shall comply with the
lower of the actual level of production
during each month or the level specified
in the notice.
[3] The permittee shall submit with
the DMR the level of production that
actually occurred during each month
and the limitations, standards, or
prohibitions applicable to that level of
production.
[122.45(c) revised by 49 FR 38046, Sep-
tember 26, 1984]
126
-------
APPENDIX B
EXAMPLE NPDES PERMIT LIMITATIONS
FOR
HYPOTHETICAL LUBE OIL REFINERY
127
-------
ro
oo
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning effective date and lasting through expiration date,
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s)serialnumber(s) 001, refinery wastewater treatment facility effluent
Such dut-hugcs shall be limited and monitored by the permittee- as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic Discharge limitations
kg/day (Ibs/day) Oilier t
BOD5
TSS
Oil and Grease
Amnonia as N
Sulfide
COD
Phenolic Compounds
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Flow - m3/day (MGD)
Daily Avg
441
388
145
184
2.6
971
854
320
405
5.7
3,200 (7,040)
2.04 (4.48)
2.41 (5.31)
0.20 (0.43)
NA
Dally Max
867
606
276
402
5.7
6,150
6.44
689
0.44
1 ,900)
1.330)
608)
886)
12.6)
13,600)
14.19)
15.18)
0.97)
NA
Duily Avg
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Monitoring Requirement*
Daily Max
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Measurement
Frequency
3/week
3/week
3/week
3/week
3/week
3/week
3/week
3/week
3/week
Continuous
Sample
Type
24 hr. composite
24 hr composite
Grab
24 hr. composite
24 hr. composite
24 hr. composite
24 hr. composite
24 hr. composite
24 hr. composite
Measurement
The |>l I shall not be leu than 6.0 ilaiidanl uniU not greater than 9 • 9 lUntlurtl unili and shall be monitored
continuously and recorded.
There shall be no discharge uf floating solids or visible foam In other than trace amounts.
Samples taken In compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following locallon(s):
At Outfall 001.
i
D)
t>
Jl
0)
-------
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
ro
10
During the period beginning effective date »nd luting Ihiough expiration date,
the(Mrmiuccliauiltorizedloduch»n«fiomouUall(0urialnumlMi(i) 001, refinery wastewater treatment facility effluent.
Such diM-hafgcs diall be limited and monitored by the permittee u t|tccUicd below:
Monitoring RequiremenU
Elflncni ChutftcUiUtic Pbchaiyo Ltmltationi
kg/day (Ifo/day)Mitt UnlU (Specify)
kg/1000 m3 (lbs/1000 gal) Measurement
Dally Avg Dally Mai Dully Avg Daily Max Frequency •
of storm water flow
Sample
Type
During wet weather conditions, the following waste load allocations are authorized for contaminated storm water
runoff passing through the wastewater treatment facility in addition to the dry weather effluent limitations
and monitoring requirements for Outfall 001 shown on Page 1:
BOD5
TSS
Oil and Grease
COD
Phenolic Compounds
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MA
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
48
33
15
360
0.35
0.60
0.062
0.40)
0.28)
0.13)
3.0)
0.0029)
0.005)
0.00052)
NA
MA
NA
NA
MA
NA
NA
!IA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ull slittll not be leu lhan 6-0 standard uniU nor greaU-r than 9.0 standard unlli and thull be monitored
continuously and recorded.
Tlieic shall be no discharge of nulling tolidi or visible foam in other lhan trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with Ilia monitoring reipiiremenU specified above kliall be taken at the following locnllon(s):
At Outfall 001.
The storm water flow through the wastewater treatment facility is that portion of flow greater than the 5
m 2.
x
Ol *.
•o
r an
dry weather f ow. The dry weather flow Is considered to be the average flow through the wastewater
ility for the last three consecutive zero precipitation days, excluding any previously
of.
treatment facil.„., .„. k,.s ,u.
collected storm water runoff.
-------
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
IWliii; the period beginning effective date and lasting through expiration date,
the permittee I* authorixed lo discharge fiom outfall(s) serial number(i) 002, once-through, non-contact coo ling water.
Such diM.har|>ca shall be limited anil monitored by the permittee as specified b«low;
Effluent Characteristic
DUchan{« Limitations Monitoring Requirement*
kg/day (Ibs/dayi Other UnlU (Specify)
Measurement Sample
Daily Avg Daily Max Dully Avg Daily Max Frequency • Type
CJ
o
Total Organic Carbon
Flow - m3/day (MGO)
NA
HA
NA
MA
NA 5 mg/1 (net)
NA ,NA
3/week 24 hr. composite
I/day Estimate
There shall be no dlK-haiye uf floating solids or visible foam In other than If ace amounts.
Samples tahcn in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following localion(i):
At Outfall 002.
x
tu
JJ
0)
-------
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORiNG REQUIREMENTS
During the iwriod beginning effective date and luting through expiration date,
lite permittee ii authorized lo duiharge from ouifall(a) serial number(i) 003, storm water runoff from tank farm.
Such
be limited and monitored by the permittee u i|Ncclfied below;
Effluent diiuaclerlatlc DUchange Limitation*
Monitoring RequlremcnU
kg/day (lb*/day)
Total Organic Carbon
011 and' Grease
Flow - m3/day (MGD)
Dally Avf
NA
NA
NA
Daily MM
NA
flA
NA
Oilier UnlU (Specify)
Dully Avg
NA
NA
NA
Daily Max
110 mg/1
35 mg/1
NA
Measurement
Frequency •
I/day *
I/day *
I/day *
Sample
Type
Grab
Grab
Estimate
* When flowing. A grab sample shall be collected immediately following the start of
discharge and analyzed. Discharge shall be nonUored once each day for the
duration of flow.
'Hie pll shull not be leu than 6-0 standard uniU nor greater than 9.0 •lomliird unlla and thull be monitored
I/day when flowing.
'lltere shall l>e no discharge of floating solids or visible foam In other than trace amount*.
.Sant|)lfS taken in compliance with Ilic monitoring rei|ulremenU specified above khall be taken at tike following loi:alion(s):
At Outfall 003.
I
f. *•
x =.
o>
3 -P>
T3
n>
-------
APPENDIX C
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES
30 PR 16560, May 9, 1974, Final BPT
40 FR 21939, May 20, 1975, BPT Amendments
44 FR 75926, December 21, 1979, Proposed BAT, NSPS,
PSES', PSNS
47 FR 46434, October 18, 1982, Final BAT, BSPS,
PSES, PSNS
49 FR 34152, August 28, 1984, Proposed BAT Amendments,
BCT, Storm Water Runoff Limitations
50 FR 28516, July 12, 1985, Final BAT Amendments,
BCT, Storm Water Runoff Limitations
132
-------
THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1974
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Volunw 39 • Number 91
PART II
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
PETROLEUM REFINING
POINT SOURCE
CATEGORY
Effluent Guidelines and Standards
Ho. 91—Pt.
133
-------
Tide 4O Protection of the Environment
CHAPTER I— ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
PART 419—PETROLEUM REFINING
POINTSOURCE CATEGORY
On December 14. 1973 notice was pub-
lished la the FIDSHAL RXGISTM (38 r»
34343 ». that the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. as amended, (the
Act) : 33 CT.S.C. 1291. 1311. 1314 (b) and
(O. 1316 (b) and (c) and I317(c) : 86
Stat. 818 et seq.: Pub. L. 92-300. Regula-
tions regarding cooling water Intake
structures for all categories of point
source! under section 316Cb) of the Act
will be promulgated In 40 CFR Part 402.
In addition, the EPA la simultaneously
proposing a separata provision, which
appears In the proposed rules section of
the FtnniAi RXOISTMU stating the appli-
cation of the limitations and standards
set forth below to users of publicly owned
treatment works which are subject to
pretreatment standards under section
307(b) of the Act. The basis of that pro-
posed regulation Is set forth in the asso-
ciated notice of proposed rulemaking.
The lemU basis, methodology and fac-
tual conclusions which support promul-
gation of this regulation were set forth
in substantial detail In the notice of
public review procedures published
August 6. 1973 (38 PR 21202) and In
the notice of proposed rulemaking
for the topping subcategory. cracking
subcategory. petrochemical subcategory.
lube subcategory. and Integrated sub-
category. In addition, the regulations as
proposed were supported by two other
documents: (1) The document entitled
"Development Document for Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards for the
Petroleum Refining Segment of the
Petroleum Refining Point Source Cate-
gory" (December 1973) and (2) the doc-
ument entitled "Economic Analysis of
Proposed Effluent Guidelines. Petroleum
Refining Industry" (September 1973).
Both of these documents were made
available to the public and circulated to
interested persons at approximately the
RULES AND REGULATIONS
time of publication of the notice of pro-
posed rulemaking.
Interested persons were invited to par-
ticipate in the rulemaking by submitting
written comments within 30 days from
the date of publication. Prior public par-
ticipation In the form of solicited com-
ments and responses from the States.
Federal agencies, and other interested
parties were descnbed In the preamble
to the proposed regulation. The EPA has
considered carefully all of the comments
received and a discussion of these com-
ments with the Agency's response thereto
follows. The regulation as promulgated
contains some significant departures
from the proposed regulation. The fol-
lowing discussion outlines the reasons
why these changes were made and why
other suggested changes) wen not made.
(a) Summary of major comments. The
following responded to the request for
comments which was made In the pre-
amble to the proposed regulation: Inter-
state Sanitation Commission: Shell OU
Company: Phillips Petroleum Company:
Getty Oil Company: Onion Oil Company
of California: Exxon Company. USA:
Larry D. fCUUon: American Petroleum
Industry: Standard Oil Company of
Ohio: 0OP Process Division: Gulf Oil:
City of Buffalo: Mobil OU Corporation:
Macario Independent Refinery: Texaco
Incorporated: Standard OU Company of
Indiana: National Wildlife Federation:
State of California; County of Erie. £T7:
State of Alaska: Los Angeles County:
Buffalo (N.Y.) Area Chamber of Com-
merce: State of Colorado: State of
Michigan: QJ3. Water Resources Coun-
cil: Sun OU Company: Department of
the Interior: The Honorable Henry P.
Smith, m: State of North Carolina,
go*h of the comments received was
carefully reviewed and analyzed. The
following Is a summary of the significant
comments and EPA's response to those
comments.
(1) Clean rainfall limits should be set
at the same level as treatment plant ef-
fluent to avoid having to treat marginally
contaminated runoff.
The handling of storm runoff was re-
evaluated and the run-off from a refinery
was broken down further to consider
tankfleld runoff, process area runoff and
other noncontaminated runoff. This re-
evaluation also considered the treatment
of marginally contaminated runoff. (See
"Development Document," Section VTD.
As a result of this evaluation a limit of
39 mg/1 TOO and IS mg/1 oU and grease
(both maxlmums) was set for both tank-
field runoff and other uncontaminated
runoff. (This Is changed from 19 mg/1 of
TOC and no visible sheen). The limits for
contaminated runoff (process area run-
off treated along with other process
wastes) should remain the same.
(2) The definition of feedstocks should
Include Imported catalytic cracker feed.
reformer feed and petrochemical feeds.
Since these feeds do not receive full
processing at the refinery and are free
of some contaminants (removed during
prior processing). no allocation based on
throughput should be given. The addi-
tional waste loads caused by the proc-
essing required Is taken Into account by
the higher process factor the refinery
will receive. (See "Development Docu-
ment." Section IX).
(3) Once-through cooling water should
not be Included in a production based al-
location. The reasons for th'« statement
and alternate approaches given are as
follows:
(a) The March 7. 1973 guidance ex-
cluded once-through water from con-
sideration: (b) the low concentrations
contained have no environmental Im-
pact: (c) analytical techniques do not
aUow for accurate results at low concen-
trations: and (d) a separate limit of 9
mg/1 of TOC (net) should be used.
An evaluation of water flow data from
over one hundred refineries, both with
recycle and once-through cooling water
systems, showed that only 29 percent of
the total flow from recycle refineries re-
sults from cooling tower blowdown. In
addition, the once-through refineries
showed higher process wast-! flows than
the recycle refineries. Therefore, once-
through cooling water Is being excluded
from the production based allotment and
a separate limit of 9 mg/1 of TOC Is being
set to prevent gross contamination of
these waters. (See "Development Docu-
ment": section IX: Supplement B. "Re-
finery Water Use")
(4) Limits should be based on a
monthly average rather than 30 day
running average. (Running average—any
thirty consecutive days).
The limits are see In terms of a run-
ning average to prevent slackening off
at the end of any fixed period and there-
Tore guarantee optimum performance at
aU times.
(9) There Isn't enough variability al-
lowed between the daily and monthly
limits. Arguments given to justify higher
values were as follows:
(a) Data were not random or normally
distributed: (b) variability not being met
by some refineries using BPCTCA end-
of-pipe: and (e) high analytical errors.
The variability factors can not be com-
pared as a ratio of daily and monthly
(30 day average) values. Both the dally
and 30 day average variabilities were
based on the annual average. The daily
variability predicts the maximum day
over a period of a year and the 30 day
average variability predicts the maxi-
mum 30 day average In any year.
These variabilities were computed from
data taken from several plants (one
year's or more data In each cose). The
variability factors therefore) Include all
of the errors (resulting variability) that
result from sampling and analytical tech-
nique and accuracy.
The date from tha plants analyzed
were found to be either normally or log
normally distributed.
The fact that certain refineries, which
already have the end-of-plp« treatment
as defined by BPCTCA. ore showing-
higher variabilities than those of the ex-
emplary plants only points out that
BPCTCA as defined should include fac-
tors other than end-of-plpe treatment
(Le. good water use practices, good
housekeeping, etc.). (See "Development
ROOM UGISTDI. VOL 39, NO. 91—THU8SOAY, MAT 9. 1974
134
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
irc.ni
Document," section 3X "Statistical Varii
ability of a Properly Designed and Oper-
ated Waste Treatment Float"; Supple-
ment 8. -Variability").
The daily maximum variability was In-
creased to reflect a 99 percent probability
of occurrence. Thla was done to reduce
t>i* number of technical violations.
TOG limit should be eliminated
and set later as Its raUo to BOD5 Is de-
termined at each refinery.
The limits set for TOC are necessary
because of the many Instances when
BOOS COO. or both an not practical
limits (as a remit of analytical errors.
time limitations, etc.}. (See "Develop-
ment Document.1* section EC: "Procedure
for Development of BPCTCA Effluent
Limitations'').
The rado of TOC/BOD. proposed at 1.8
was raised to 3 J.
(7) A rabeategortzatlon should be
made based on the age of the refinery
because of non-segregated sewers and
the Inequitable flnam-iai burden.
Those refineries with non-segregated
sewwa win probably have to either seg-
regate their once-through cooling water
or go to recycle cooling. This has al-
ready been done by many older refineries
and was considered as part of the eco-
nomic evaluation.
(8) The American Petroleum Insti-
tute has proposed a method to further
jubcaXevortze the petroleum Industry.
This approach Is based on a mathemati-
cal analysis of the 1973 EPA/API Raw
Waste Load Surrey Data. This analysis
(not yet completed) proposes to deter-
mine the relative effect of various process
typee on the total refinery flow.
Aa intensive Investigation of this ap-
proach baa been carried out. As a re-
sult. It was found that both size (feed-
stock throughput) and process configu-
ration weigh heavily In determining the
final flows. Tables have been included in
the regulation to allow variation within
each subcategory based on both size and
process configuration. (See "Develop-
ment Document,'* section 17: Supple-
ment 8. "Refiner? Configuration Anal-
ysis") .
The size and process- factors deter-
mined from the above Investigation were
used to further subcategorlze the petro-
leum Industry.
(9) Special consideration should be
given for refineries charging California
erodes because of the high nitrogen, sul-
fur and naphthenic add content.
The heavy (10-20 AFX zravlty) nature
of the California crudes requires more in-
tensive processing (cracking, etc.) than
lighter grades of crude. Tram the data
available, the process factor (based on
severity of operations) adequately ac-
counts for tbe higher raw waste loads
seen In refineries running California
crudes. (Sea "Development Document."
Section IV; Supplement B, "California
Crudes".)
(10) Then is no allowance given m the
guidelines for the contaminants present
In the Intake water (net vs. gross). which
an said to be especially «
-------
16562
RULES AND REGULATIONS
The guideline limit (BPCTCA) la
based on neither bio-treatment nor acti-
vated carbon, but on a polishing step
after bio-treatment (in,, p«n«*»<«g p*?*i'lfl,
alters, etc.) (Sea "Development Docu-
ment." sections VH and BE) .
(19) Consideration should bo given
to refineries In northern pllmaa* be-
cause of the effect of temperature on bio-
logical treatment systems*
Of the many refineries currently meet-
Ing SPA's guidelines for BODS, several
are located In northern dlmittM (e.g.
Montana; Alma*
(See supplement B. refinery data) .
(20) The • Economic Impact Analysis
state*. "It Is not expected that any alg-
nlflcant economic Impact would result
from imposing the 1077 and 1983 effluent
limitations." Thin Is not true, especially
In the light of the current and future un-
stable situation of crude oil supply.
An economic Impact analyala of pollu-
tion control* on the refinery Industry
completed February. 1974 states "As a
result of recent world developments
then la a substantial differential be-
tween world cartel prices and U.3. do-
mestic oil prices. If this continues, then
Is reason to suggest that a number of
the projected small refinery closures
might not occur. Certainly the ability to
atfract long-term •""•"«•<"? for pollution
abatement Is greatly enhanced by the
price differential that exists." (See sup-
plement B. "Impact on Refineries of
Pollution Control Regulations". Febru-
ary. 1974).
(21) Oil and crease limits should be
based on a ttif 7T*rfT|iTti effluent concentra-
tion of 1 mg/1 and should be limited by
concentration and not on pounds-pro-
duction values.
There Is neither a demonstrated treat-
ment technology to guarantee 1 mg/1 of
oil and grease effluent concentration, nor
aa accepted analytical procedure to
measure It.
(23) Effluent limits should be set as
Lbs/1000 gala of waste water flow based
on a specified end-of-plpe treatment and
a documented flow for each Individual
refinery.
This approach does not adequately
consider the Importance of the In-plane
requirements of BPCTCA (good water
use. housekeeping, etc.) (See "Develop-
ment Document", sections vn and D£) .
(33) •*"""""'* levels based on 80 per-
cent removal from the median raw
waste load (API separator effluent) and
the BPCTCA removal step for ammonia
Is in-plant la the form of a stripper.
Even though the primary removal of
.nmi««i«. IB a refinery should be done
during sour water stripping many refin-
eries have not optimized toward am-
monia removal (units designed for sul-
flde removal) . The optimization of strii^
ping (or '"""""'» removal or the In-
stallation of two stage strippers Is con-
sidered BPCTCA. In addition, ammonia
will be removed In the treatment plant
as It la needed to provide nutrient nitro-
gen for the biological system. (See "De-
velopment Document", section VTD .
(34) The economic Impact tor the re-
moval of *iM«HMihiMt attH **•*»*"*"»**!•>.'
These limits are set at those same maxi-
mum concentrations expected If the run-
off wen passed through the treatment
plant.
(3) A further subeategorlzatlon of the
Industry was made based on process con-
figuration and size.
(4) y^**g was eliminated as a parameter
to be limited Industry wide, further eval-
uation of the API/EPA Raw Waste Load
Survey showed only a small percentage
of the Industry over the zinc limits set.
(9) The ammonia limits wen changed
baaed on the changes In the subcategori-
zation.
(6) The ratio of TOC/BODS was
changed from l.B to 2.2.
(7) Once-through cooling water was
excluded from the production based allo-
cation and a ma^nmiifii concentration of.
5 mg/1 of TOC was set.
(8> The daily maximum values were
Increased to reflect a 99 percent prob-
ability of occurrence. This was done to
Unit the number of technical violations
of the permit.
(9) Section 304(b)(l)(B) of the Act
provides for "guidelines" to Implement
the uniform national standards of section
301(b) (1) (A). Thus Congress recognized
that some flexibility was necessary In
order to take Into account the com-
plexity of the Industrial world with re-
spect to the practicability of pollution
control technology. In conformity with
the Congressional Intent and In recogni-
tion of the possible failure of these regu-
lations to account (or all factors bearing
on the practicability of control technol-
ogy. It was concluded that some provision
was needed to authorize flexibility In the
strict application of the limitations con-
tained In the regulation where required
by special circumstances applicable to In-
dividual dischargers. Accordingly, a pro-
vision allowing flexibility in the appli-
cation of the limitations representing
best practicable control technology cur-
rently available has been added to each
subpart.- to account for special circum-
stances that may not have been ade-
quately accounted for when these regula-
tions wen developed.
(c) Seanomic impact. The changes
that were made to the proposed regula-
tions for the petroleum refining cate-
gory do not substantially affect she initial
economic analysis. The changes detailed
above reflects a Revaluation of the effi-
ciency of various treatment systems and
further subcategorizatiou of the Indus-
try to men equitably distribute the eco-
nomic burden. These nvtsions, however.
do not effect the conclusions of the eco-
nomic Impact study.
(d) Coat-benefit analysis. The detri-
mental effects of the constituents of
waste waters now discharged by point
sources within the Petroleum Refining
point source category are discussed in
Section VI of UM report entitled "Devel-
opment Document for Effluent Limita-
tions Guidelines (or the Petroleum Re-
fining Point Source Category"
It la not feasible to quantify in eco-
nomic terms, particularly on a national
basis, the costs resulting from the dis-
charge of these pollutants to our Nation's
waterways. Nevertheless, as Indicated In
Section VT. the pollutants discharged
have substantial and damaging Impacts
rtOOAl KWUTU, VOL 39, NO. 91—THUISOAY, MAT V. 1974
136
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
on the quality of water and therefore on.
Ita capacity to support healthy popula-
Uons of wildlife, fish and other aquatic
wildlife and on its sultabllty for Indus-
trial, recreational and drinking water
supply uses.
The total cost of Implementing the
effluent limitations guidelines Includes
the direct capital and operating costs of
•the pollution control technology em-
ployed to achieve compliance and the In-
direct economic and environmental costs
Identified In Section vm and to the sup-
plementary report entitled "Economic
Anaiy.i. Q/ proposed Effluent Guidelines
Petroleum Refining Industry" (December
1973). Implementing the effluent limita-
tions guidelines will substantially reduce
the environmental harm which would
otherwise be attributable to the con-
tinued discharge of polluted waste waters
from «»<«n*y and newly constructed
plants IB the* pefroleum refining Indus-
try. The Agency believes that the bene-
fits of thus reducing the pollutants dis-
charged Justify the associated costs
which, though substantial in absolute
terms, represent a relatively small per-
centage of the total capital investment in
the industry.
(a) Solid waste control. Solid waste
control must be considered. The water-
borne wastes from the petroleum refin-
ing Industry may contain a considerable
volume of metals In various forms as a
part of the suspended solids pollutant.
Best practicable control technology and
best available control technology as they
are known today require disposal of the
pollutants removed from waste waters
In this industry in the form of solid
wastes and liquid concentrates. In some
cases these are nonhsoardous substances
requiring only minimal custodial care.
However, some constituents may be ha>-
ardous and may require special consid-
eration. In order to ensure lone term
protection of the environment from
these hazardous or harmful constituents,
special consideration of disposal sites
must be made. All '""<"" sites where
5uch hazardous wastes are disposed
should be selected so as to prevent hori-
zontal and vertical migration of these
contaminants to ground or surface
waters. In cases where geologic condi-
tions may not reasonably ensure this,
adequate precautions (e-g- impervious
liners) should be taken to ensure long
term protection to the environment from
hazardous ni*.*^Tl**ffi Where appropriate
the location of solid hazardous materials
disposal sites should be permanently re*
corded In the appropriate office of the
legal jurisdiction in which the site la
located.
(f) Publication of Information on
processes, procedures, or operating
methods which results In the elimina-
tion or reduction of the discharge of
pollutants.
In conf ormance with the requirements
of section 304 of the Act. a manual
entitled. •Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards for the
Petroleum Refining Point Source Cate-
gory." Is being published and will be
available for purchase from the Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
20401 for a nominal fee.
(g) Final mlemaJeaig. In considera-
tion of the foregoing. 40 CFR Ch. X. Sub-
chapter N Is hereby amended by adding'
a new Part 419, Petroleum Refining
Point Source Category, to read as set
forth below. An order of the Federal Dis-
trict Court for the District of Columbia
entered In "NRDC v. Train" (Civ. No.
1609-73) on November 28. 1973, re-
quired that the Administrator sign
final effluent limitations guidelines for
this, industry category by March IS. 1974.
That order was subsequently modified
on March IS. 1974. and the date for sign-
Ing extended until April 15. 1974. On the
same date the District Court ordered
that the effective date for effluent limita-
tions guidelines established by its No-
vember 28 order remain applicable and
not be affected by the extension In the
publication date. The effective date for
effluent limitations guidelines for this
Industry established by the Court's
November 28 order Is May 12. 1974. Ac-
cordingly, good cause Is found for the
final regulation promulgated as set forth
below to be effective on May 12. 1974.
Dated: April30.1974.
Subpart J
Acting Administrator.
-reaping Suttcategory
See.
410.10
410.11
4M.13
419.13
419.14
410.18
419.16
Applicability; description of the top-
ping tubeatagory.
Specialized dennitlanj.
Effluent limitations guidelines rep-
resenting the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the appli-
cation at the best practicable con-
trol technology currently available.
Effluent Limitations guidelines rep-
resenting tao degree of effluent re-
duction attainable by tne, applica-
tion of tne best available tech-
nology economically achievable.
(Reserved)
Standards of performance, (or new
ao ureas.
Pretreatment standards (or new
Subpsrt B—Cncklnc Su
419.20 Applicability: description of the
cracking subcategory.
419 Jl Specialized definitions.
41923 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-
sentlBg tbsi degree of effluent
radueaoa attainable by the appli-
cation of toe> best practicable con-
trol technology currently available.
419.23 Effluent Umltaaaas guidelines repre-
senting the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by a* appli-
cation of the beet available tech-
nology economically achievable*
419J4 (Ream-red)
419.30. Standards of performance (or new
419.38 Pretrsacnsnt -.tandards (or new
touress.
Suoewrl C •'•tiuiJMmicsl SuacsUfory
419.30 Applicability: description of trie
petrochemical subeategory.
419.S1 Specialized definitions.
419.33 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-
resenting the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by tne appli-
cation of the best practicable con-
trol technology currently available.
Sec.
41933 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-
resenting the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best avaUable tech-
nology economically achievable.
41934 (Reserved |
419.35 Standards of performance (or new
sources.
419.38 Preereatment standards (or nsw
41941
41942
41943
41944
419 48
Subpert O Lube Subcstegwy
419.40 Applicability: description of the lube
lubeategory.
Specialized definitions.
Effluent limitations guideline* rep-
resenting the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best practicable con-
trol technology currently avail-
able.
Effluent limitations guidelines rep-
resenting the degree of effluent re-
duction attainable by the tppllca-
tlon of the best avaUable tech-
nology economically achievable.
(Reserved)
Standards of performance (or new
sources.
419.44 Pretreatment standards (or new
Subvert E—Integrated Su
step
ths
419.60 Applicability: description
Integrated subcategory.
Specialized definitions.
Effluent limitations guidelines rep-
reseating the degree of effluent re-
duction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
Zffluent limitations guidelines repre-
senting tho degree of iffluent re-
duction attainable by the applica-
tion of the beet avaUable tech-
nology economically achievable.
(Reserved |
Standards of performance- for new
419.41
419 S3
419.53
41994
419 S3
41986 Pretreatment standards (or new
AnrBoarrr: Sees. 301. 304 (b) and let.
3M (U) and (el and 307(c| of the Federal
Water Pollution Concrol Act. as amended (the
Act): S3 U.SC. 1381. 1311. 1314 (b) and (c).
1318 (At and (c, and 1317
-------
16564
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(d) The term "feedstock" shall mean
the crude oil and natural gas liquids fed
to the topping units.
(e) The term "once-through cooling
water" shall mean those waters dis-
charged that are used for the purpose
of heat removal and that do not come
into direct, contact with any raw mate-
rial. Intermediate or finished product.
9 0
100 to 149-9... ____
ISO or gm.cn.. _-.
(2) Process factor
Proetu eon/t jura«U»n
1.0 to 3.M.
4.0 to «.M
T.O to 9.88..
10.0 CO 13.89
13.0 to 1S.O or
(3) See the comprehensive example
Sutapart D 5 419.43(b) (3).
(c) The following allocations consti-
tute the quantity and quality of pollut-
ants or pollutant properties controlled
by this paragraph and attributable to
runoff and ballast, which may be dis-
charged after the application of best
practicable control technology currently
available, by a point source subject to
the provisions of this subpart. In addition
to the discharge allowed by paragraph
(b) of this section:
(1) Runoff. The allocation allowed for
storm runoff now. M kg/cu m (Ib/m gal) ,
shall be based solely on that storm now
(process area runoff) which Is treated
In the main treatment system. AH addi-
tional storm runoff (from tank fields
and non-process areas), that has been
segregated from the main waste stream
for discharge, shall not exceed a concen-
tration of U mg/1 of TOG or IS mg/1
of oil and grease when discharged.
EOtatel
any I day amman dayi
- •' *aund—
•OF I day
nluat tat la
oorueman dayi
snail not ucatd—
aCiMa ealt* taionmi par i,aaom<
atSSaoa)
a.a
It
Ml
1.7
an
1.27
BOD*-
T98
COD'...
OUind
pH
BOW..
TS8.
COD*..,
OU«—
pH
anlti (Uacnnu per cubio
nacar of flow)
0.0480.028
.028 017
37 .18
ou an
WltbJa UU now 4.0 to 9.0.
onlti (poondi par
talo/oow)
1.000
0.40 0.21
24 14
11 U6
128 . 087
Within uu mm 4.0 to 9 a.
(2) BaOatt. The allocation allowed
for ballast water flow, as kg/eu m Ob/
Mgal). shaU be based on those ballast
waters treated at the refinery.
EffluMt Umftaoon*
KOhunC
cbancuruao
tar I day
Annev a( dally
Taiaat torn
oauaraan dayi
inaUaote
Metru onlt* Oolotranu par cnbto
muar ol How)
a 048 a 028
029 017
.17 24
OtS 008
.. Within tn* rant* 8 0 U 9 0.
XnflUa amu (poondi par 1.000
iaio( flow)
BOD« a. to 0.21
TSS 24 14
COD* 19 10
Oil and treat* 1J8 087
pH within in* rant* 8 0 to a a
(d) The quantity and quality of pol-
lutants or pollutant properties con-
trolled by this paragraph, attributable
to once-through cooling water, are ex-
cluded from the discharge allowed by
paragraph (b) of this section. Once-
through cooling water may be dis-
charged with a total organic carbon
concentration not to exceed 9 mg/1.
§ 419.13 Effluent limitations guideline!
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of ihe beat aradable technology
economically achievable.
(a) The following limitations estab-
lish the quantity or quality of pollut-
max. *UBasuacau TOO. j»j». pawMieur. lar luo?
OX. COOf Bfflu«nt limitation* tor TOG inaU
be baced on affluent data, from tno plant cor-
relating TOO to BODS.
IT In tne Judgment at the Regional Ad-
mlnlatrator. adequate correlation data are
not available, tne effluent limitation* for
TOO anall be wtaaUabed at a ratio or 3.3
to 1 to tne applicable effluent limitation* oa
BOO5.
rtOOAl UCISTEI. VOL 39, NO. 91—THUHOAT. MAT 9, 1974
138
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
16563
ants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this paragraph, which may ba dis-
charged by a point source subject to the
provisions of this subpart alter appli-
cation of the best available technology
economically achievable:
CAiwnt
(process area runoff) which la treated In
tha main treatment system. Ail addi-
tional a term runoff (from tanJcnelds and
non-process areas), that haa been segre-
gated from the main waste stream lor
discharge, shall not exceed a concentra-
tion of 39 mg/1 of TOC or 15 mg/1 of
oil and grease when discharged.
j 419.IS Standard* of performance for
(a) The following standards of per-
formance establish the quantity or qual-
ity of pollutants or pollutant properties.
controlled by this paragraph, which may
be discharged by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
KIT 1 d«»
TljQM fhT 30
Efflooat UfflltoOoni
E (Burnt
eoo.it
TflUI
Hatrakai
ennauum.^:.
BOO*
UtMannlti (ktlamatt par U»mi
•fkndaagc)
to
to
1.0
.a
.ou
.us
.0017
Anricooldulr
• nlUM tarU
tor I dar «nwenUT« d»y
Vffloint Umltadnm
KOhwnC
(bancuitnla
Kuttmmtor
•or idor
TnJan lur Si
BOD*.
TSL.
.002)
o«u (noaadi act I.MO bbl
Urim* tniti (kllocnaa per
coatoauuTotaowi
amm anon
.010 aau
i (US «Q2l
; within UM rum «J> la 9.0.
Encttib anIU (poaadi par
__ O.OSS 1071
.OM .on
.24 W
.01S 014
, wtitla Uu rente M to • a
<3) BoBait. Tie allocation allowed for
ballast water now. as kg/cu m (Ib/Mgal),
shall ba baaed on those ballast waters
treated at toe refinery.
MMHa aait3 (kUomou pw l.nio
ROM.
BOD*.
TSS ------
COD'_ .........
OUud(rau>._
Pbnolla too*
BulAdo ...._
Toul cfiromlunl -
Huanlnt
OhP^MilMPIt^
pB
11.8
.078
.19
.OB7
10
XI
1.9
.ua
1.1
.ins
.IUA
.QUIT
within UM r»n»» 6 0 to 3 0.
(poandi p>r l.Dul)
iewliuuk)
bbl o( iewliuuk)
BOD<_
TSS
COD'
(b) The UmlU set forth In paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied
by the following factors to calculate the
TT^Irniir" for "*y one da>y and •»«»»* ""i""
average of dally values for thirty consec
11
It
n.r
LI
.Ml
.
.arr
.OM
.0014
12
1.4
11.1
.70
.mo
U
.11.:
.017
Wiialn UM nog* 101010.
Udrfa nattii (kllomnu per nMa
r at Howl
utlve days.
(1) aiz« faetar
ijmo tarn U of /fcditocJt per
i Mam day
0 to 40 ff .«L •••••...
80 to MA
160 o? grtafcar . .....
(2) Process factor
1.0 to 3J9Q _ _
7.0 Vt 9.P4.. ..................
10.0 to 13.BB... „
13.0 to 1S.O or (nvtor... .......
(3) Sem tha enmnreheiul
SIM /actor
. i.oa
1.31
1 4A
. . — -- 1. 47
.._._. 0.00
1 0
, 1. Ut
3.77
........ * °9
«• *vamnlik
BOD* 0.0105 fcnm
TBS.... _.... -«• ""•*
COD*. .on Oki
OH Aod flvMi • • QQUO nni7
pH .._..._. WllhloUw nncr «.0 lot a
EiiclUi artu (poandi per 1.00
tat of Haw)
BOD* 0. OH OL07I
TSS. .^»~....». '** AM
covff. » j»
Oil oad (Too 3IS Oil
pg __... ALJUaibormufclOwia
ifn »til n in Dlleoni an dnuo mi*
toutai cblando laa ooacuimaoa la tho t fflneac iiextu
1.000 mc/l (1.000 pnn). tho R«(ion>l Adnunutruor mor
lOHainio TOC M*pu«m«>r India of COI> Effiumi
Unuuilonj (or TOC ihtU bo bowd an ifflinut dau Irani
1.000
per itreom day
o to f.
(d) The quantity and quality of pol-
lutant* or pollutant properties controlled
by this paragrapa. attributable to once-
through cooling water, are excluded from
the discharge allowed by paragraph (b)
of this section. Once-through cooling
water may be discharged with a total
organic carbon concentration not to ex-
ceed 3 mg/1.
9 419.14 (Rcwrredl
(b) The limits set forth In paragraph
(a) of thia section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
mavimum for any one day and maximum
average of dally values for thirty con-
secutive days.
(1) Size factor
Si:c
i. oa
.._.. 1.31
1. 44
__ .... I IT
Prartu
configuration /actor
1.0 to SM ----------------- ......... 0. 00
4 0 to 889 ------------------------- 1.00
TOM 999 ------------------------- i se
1O.O to 13.M __________________ ... 7. 77
13.0 to 18.0 or cmur ---------------- 4. 00
(3) See the comprehensive example
Subpan O I 4I9.<2(o> (3).
(c) The following allocations consti-
tute the quantity and quality of pol-
lutants or pollutant properties controlled
by this paragraph, attributable to runoff
and ballast, which may be discharged by
a new source subject to the provisions of
this subpart. These allocations are In ad-
dition to the discharge allowed by para-
graph (b) of this section:
nauu IECISTU. VOL 39. NO. «i_rHu«OAT. MAT 9. 1974
139
-------
16568
(1) Runoff. Iba allocation allowed for
itorm ranoff flow. •* kg/cum
«t.«j IM based solely on that storm flow
(procMS area runoff) which Is Seated to
the mala tteatment system. All addition-
al storm runoff dram tankflelds and
non-procesi areas). that bu been seg-
regated Cram the main waste stream tar
discharge, snail not exceed a concentra-
tion at 3Smg/l of TOC or IS mg/1 of oil
and grease when discharged.
(2) BaOatt. The allocation allowed for
ballast water flow, a* kg/cu m Ib/MgaJ).
shall be based on those ballast waters
treated at the refinery.
lOtant Hmiuaoni
IIBwai
ilMncmniU Muimom Jar mom tot 30
•ay I oar ' '
that* mm (Uocnau p«r
autargfdaw)
eubta
QLMS &02B
02B OIT
«T 24
HIS OOS
Within UM raao 4.0 to > a
par 1.000 ol
a. to 0121
M 14
1* 1.0
125 OR
Wludn UM rantt 8.0 to 9 a
i !• «BT no la which UM topllcut uo draeutnu
that Mi rnlnfld« Ion aanetoumuoa la uu«Ujh«d u a noa of 13
!• I to •UM ipgilailili
of this section. Once-carough cooling wa-
ter may be discharged with a total or-
ganic carbon concentration not to ex-
ceed 3 mg/L
§ 419.16 Pretrexmenl standard* for new
The pretreatment standards under
section 307 (c) of the Act for a source
within the topping subcategory. which Is
a user of a publicly owned treatment
worts (and which would be a new source
subject to section 300 of the Act. If it
were to discharge pollutants to the navi-
gable waters), shall be the standard set
forth In Parr 128 of this chapter, except
that, for the purpose of thi* section.
I 128.133 of this chapter shall be amended
to read ai follows: -In addition to the
prohibitions set forth In 1128.131 of tola
chapter, the pretreatment standard for
Incompatible pollutants Introduced Into
a publicly owned treatment works shall
be the standard of performance for new
sources specified In 1419.13; Provided.
That. If the publicly owned treatment
works which, receives the pollutants Is
committed. In 1U NPDES permit, to re-
move a specified percentage of any In-
compatible pollutant, the pretreatment
standard applicable to users of such
treatment works shall be correspondingly
reduced In stringency for that pollutant."
Subpart B—Cracking Subcatagory
S 419JO Applicability: deaeriptioa of
the cracking tubealecory. •
The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to all discharges from any fa-
cility which produces petroleum products
by the use of topping and cracking.
whether or not the facility Includes any
process In addition to topping and crack-
ing. The provisions of this subpart are
not applicable however, to faculties
which Include the processes specified In
Subparts C. O. or E of this part.
g 419.21 Specialized definition*.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) Except as provided below, the gen-
eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-
ods of analysis set forth in Part 401 of
this chapter shall apply to this subpart.
(b) The term "runoff" shall mean the
flow of storm water.
(c) The term "ballast- shall mean
the flow of waters, from a ship, which Is
to be treated at the refinery.
(d) The term "feedstock" shall mean
the crude oil and natural gas liquids fed
to the topping units.
(e) The term "once-through cooling
water" shall mean those waters dis-
charged that are used for the purpose of
heat removal and that do not come Into •
direct contact with any raw material. In-
termediate or finished product.
(f) The following abbreviations shall
mean: (1) Mgal means one thousand
gallons: (2) Mbbl """m» one thousand
barrels (one barrel is equivalent to 42
gallons).
g 419.22 Effluent limitation* guideline)
representing the degra of effluent
reduction attainable br the applica-
tion of the beat practicable control
leehnologj currently available.
In establishing the limitations set
forth In this section. EPA took Into ac-
count all information it was able to col-
lect, develop and solicit with respect to
factors (such as age and size of plant.
raw materials, manufacturing processes.
products produced, treatment technol-
ogy available, energy requirement* and
costs) which can affect the Industry sub-
categoiization and effluent levels estab-
lished. It Is. however, possible that data
which would affect these limitations
have not been available and. as a result.
these limitations should be adjusted for
certain plants In this Industry. An In-
dividual discharger or other Interested
person may submit evidence to the Re-
gional Administrator (or to the State. If
the State has the authority to Issue
NPDES permits) that factors relating to
the equipment or facilities Involved, the
process applied, or other such factors
related to such discharger are funda-
mentally different from the factors con-
sidered in the establishment of the guide-
lines. On the basis of such evidence or
other available Information, the Re-
gional Administrator (or the State) will
make a written finding that such factors
are or are not fundamentally different for
that facility compared to those specified
In the Development Document. If such
fundamentally different factors are
found to exist, the Regional Administra-
tor or the State shall establish for the
discharger effluent limitations in the
NPDES permit either more or less, strut-
gent than the limitations established
herein to the extent dictated by such
fundamentally different factors. Such
limitations must be approved by the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. The Administrator may
approve or disapprove such limitations.
specify other limitations, or Initiate pro-
ceedings to revise these regulations.
(a) The following limitations estab-
lish the quantity or quality of pollutants
or pollutant properties, controlled by
this paragraph, which may be discharged
by a point source subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart after application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available:
tfGISTM. VOL 39, NO. 91—THUISDAY, MAT 9. 1*74
140
-------
BULES AND REGULATIONS
16557
the discharge allowed by paragraph (b)
of ***** sectlaiL Once-through cooilns
vatcr may be discharged a local organic
cartoon coDce&ttatlon not to exceed A
rng/1- 3
(3) Proceai factor
Ckttocmn p* l.m a* .1 badnnk)
i Ta UT CM In whUh 101 topdnnt can dnaoarmu
LOOBnc^ (l.~ ww—.* .«- -~^-~ s.-^-^—«~
nbanguTOCiiapanawurlaUMialCOO. Z
Onllauaai a* TOC sfitu tw Bawl oa (Oaaal data BOB
laa plaal eamlaUo* TOC to BO O*.
U la th* iodfamaai tl ta* OecMaal UmlaJjMar.
•deanu nrrrudan dwa tra eat •mfUel*. i5> •Ohuat
UaUtanaai (af TUC Haul Iw MaalUted u • t*Ua at
U la 1 (a iba •opUcabte «oaau llmir»iioni aa BOO*.
(b) The limits set forth la paragraph
(a) of tbls section are to be multiplied by
the following futon to calculate the
maximum for any one day and i
average of dally values for thirty <
uUvedays.
(1) Slav factor
IJHtO bomb at S'MJtoek atr
stream-Jay
0 ta 34.9.
30 CO 74JJ-.
y& to 109.0..-
110 CO 149.9.
100 01
(3) Process factor
an
.11
.au
.1*
Within UM rum 6.0 to « a
1JXB MX of toOROCXI
199
•t
LI
aw
i «
o»
a
1.3
niT
0013 001
WltMn th* nnfi 6 0 u> U.
con/tffuralton
7.S to 1.40...
3.10 to a.ta—
5.10 to T.49
7.60 to 9.49
9JO to UUO or fraattr.
(3) See the eontprebeastre
Subpart D 14i9.43(b> (3).
(c) The provUlans of lilBJJ(e) (1)
•Y*»J (2j grjpty to discharge! of proccsa
wasta water pollutants Utrttutaolo- to
storm water runefl aad ballast water by
a point source subject to the prorudons
of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of pollut-
anta or pollutant properties controlled by
this paragraph, attributable to once-
through cooling water, an excluded from
1 la toy CM la vttfea Uu tppdeant can dnnumii
that Ult rftiiaid« laa oannnBaaaa In UM •Ohunt rt-
nvdi I.OBJ B(/t (1.000 jmm). UM RMieml jtdialni»
tnur BH moatai* TOC • • pmauur Ln u>u o(
COD. EOntnc Umludou Ibr TOC iball IX bM4d on
•ffitiml data (m tlu puni mnladng TOC
U la IB* fodiBcm at Om Sffimal 4d
•dmiuu aontutiaa datatn not tnUabl*.
Ujuuaoai tar TOC ihall b« eitaBUahad u • rulo ol
U la 1 u taa ijalloala •ffliuni omiuUam aa BOOL
he applica-
tion of the beat available teehnologr
eeonomiealljr acfairrable.
(a) The following limitations establish
tba onanuty or quality of pollutanta or
poUutant properties, controlled by this
paragraph, which may be discharged by a
point source subject to the provisions- of
tola aubnart after application of tb«
best available technology economically
achievable:
ZflrtMot Bmiudaai
tmffiuattm
1 ft to S.40 ---- _.
to. 1.48 __ _ ___
t» Tta
•»» to 940 -----------
9.W to 10JO or gmcer.
fro«M factor
__.. 0.88
a. at
— 1.13
1. «
__- 1.37
<3) See the comprehenslTe example
Subpart D f 419.42(6) <3) .
(e) The provisions of 1419.13(0 (1)
aad (?) apply to discharges of process
waste water pollutanta attributable to
Atorm water runoff and ballast water by
a point source subject to the provisions
of this jubpan.
(d) The quantity and quality of pollu-
tants or pollutant properties controlled
by this paragraph, attributable to onca-
thrauga aooUar water, are excluded tnm
the discharge allowed by paragraph (b)
of this section. Once- through cooUng
water may be discharged with a total
organic carbon concentration not to «-
ceed9mg/l.
§ 419.24
5 419.25 Staavdanfe ot performance for
(a) Toe following standards of per-
formance establish the quantity or qual-
ity of pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by tbls paragraph, which- may
be discharged by a new aourcs subject
to the prorldons of this subpart:
ZAuat BmlUflons
SShml
ctiiRcutufla
Mulmnm tar nliui lot M
•air 1 day muneadn 4m
3UU not ii
BOO*.
taiN,
9uin 1 o.
aiuu fpouivl* pi
I DM bbl ol re«burk>
11
1 I
41 J
1.7
t a
IO7
I t
: o
U
no
Wllbta uw nivf* i 0 u v u.
1 tn UTT a« hi vbktt U5« ippllauit ran dmani«rou
thw CM ehlofldi laa aaatmimlaa k& ui« mflDini *ir>tpwuMurlnU*aa(COO Effln.ni
UBUIUIOIK far TOC iauk b* bwvd on idluent 4au
trom lh« ptenl eomtaUni TOC u BOD/
If in tlu Judrraunt ol itti Drftoul AdralnJstruor,
idtqnw* mmUuan dM> m not anUttoU. itt* tffltunc
URUOUaiu for TOC ilull »• oubUiliwi ti t rmto o<
U u l u ta* *»»UnbU imuiai Ualutioui ou Uou«.
HO. 91—Pt.
KCIITU, VOL 39, NO. ft—THUnOAT, MAT », 1974
141
-------
16568
(b) The limits set forth In paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied
by the following factors to calculate the
m—i~>,,*n for any one day and mMJminn
average of daily values for thirty con-
secutive days.
(1) Size factor
J BorrelJ at fetdatocM Sl*»
par rtrtam day /actor
0 CO 34i9. !•••• .•• . •• ••• . • • • .-••••- 0, 88
3S to 14,9 J-00
75 to 109:9 * 1.1«
110 to 149.9 . *»»l
100 or timtwr L. 41
(3) Process factor
U to 3.49..
SJO to 8.49..
UO to T.49..
TJO to 9.49
lOJO or gnater.
Proecu
taator
_ O.S8
._ .81
.. L13
_ 1.00
.. LS7
(3) See the comprehensive example
Subpart O I 419.42(b)(3>.
(c) The provisions of I 419.13(c> (1)
and (2) apply to discharges of process
waste water pollutants attributable to
storm water runoff and ballast water by
a point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart.
The Quantity and quality of pol-
lutants or pollutant properties controlled
by this paragraph, attributable to once-
through cooling water, are excluded from
the discharge allowed by paragraph (b>
of **'«• section. Once-through cooling
water may be discharged with a total
organic carbon concentration not to ex-
ceed 3 mg/1.
9419.26 PrMiwalment alandard* for new
The pretreatment standards under sec-
tion 307(c> of the Act for a source within
the cracking subcategory. which is a user
of a publicly owned treatment works (and
which would be a new source subject to
section 306 of the Act. If it were to dis-
charge pollutants to the navigable
waters). shall be the ttandard set .'orth
In Part 128 of this chapter, except that.
for the purpose of this section, I 128.133
of this chapter shall be amended to read
as follows: "In addition to the prohibi-
tions set forth In I 128.131 of this chap-
ter, the pretreatment standard for In-
compatible pollutants introduced Into a
publicly owned treatment works shall be
the standard of performance for new
sources specified In i 419.29: Provided.
That. If the publicly owned treatment
work* which receives the pollutants Is
committed. In Its NPOES permit, to re-
move a specified percentage of any in-
compatible pollutant. t**«» pretTeatment
itandard applicable to users of such
treatment works shall be correspond-
ingly reduced In stringency for that
pollutant."
Subpmt C PeHochemlcel Subcategory
3419.30 Applicability I description of
the petrochemical aubealegory.
The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to all discharges from any facility
which produces petroleum products by
the use of topping, cracking and petro-
RULES AND REGULATIONS
chemical operations, whether or not the
facility Includes any process In addition
to topping, cracking and petrochemical
operations. The provisions of this sub-
part shall not be applicable however, to
facilities which Include the processes
specified in Subparts O or E of this part.
g 419.31 Specialised definition*
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) Except as provided below, the gen-
eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-
ods of analysis set forth In Part 401 of
this rharrfflr *h°'1 apply to ***** subpart.
(b) The term "runoff* shall mean the
flow of storm water.
(O The term "ballast" shall mean the
flow of waters', from a ship, which Is to
be treated at the refinery.
(d) The term feedstock'* shall mean
the crude oil and natural gas liquids
fed to the topping units.
The term "once-through eoolmg
water" shall mean those waters dis-
charged that are used for the purpose
of heat removal and that do not come
into direct contact with any raw ma-
terial. Intermediate or finished product.
(f) The term ••petrochemical opera-
tions" shall mean the production of sec-
ond generation petrochemicals (Le. alco-
hols, ketones. cumene. styrene. etc.) or
first generation petrochemicals and Iso-
mertsation products (Le. BTX oleflna,
eyciohexane. etc.) when 13 percent or
more of refinery production is as first
generation petrochemicals and Isomerl-
zatlon products.
The following abbreviations shall
mean: (1) Mgal means one thnuwnrt gal-
lons: (2) Mbbt means one thousand bar-
rels (one barrel Is equivalent to 42
gallons).
S 419-32 Effluent limitation* guideline*
representing the degree* of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
lion of lhe> best practicable control
technology eurrenliy available.
In establishing the limitations set
forth In this section. EPA took Into ac-
count all Information It was able to col-
lect, develop and solicit with respect to
factors (such as age and size of plant.
raw mne»ri«j« manufacturing processes.
products produced, treatment technology
available, energy requirements and
costs) which can affect the Industry sub-
categorization and effluent levels estab-
lished. It Is. however, possible that data
which would affect these limitations have
not been available and. as a result, these
limitations should be adjusted for cer-
tain plants In fc*1** industry. An individ-
ual discharger or pther interested person
may submit evidence to the Regional
Administrator (or to the State, if the
State has the authority to Issue NPDE3
permits) that factors , relating to the
equipment or facilities Involved, the
process applied, or other such (actors re-
lated to such discharger are fundamen-
tally different from the factors consid-
ered In the establishment of the guide-
lines. On the basis of such evidence or
other available information, the Re-
gional Administrator (or the State) will
make a written finding that such fac-
tors are or are not fundamentally dif-
ferent; for that facility compared to those
specified In the Development Document.
If such ftiTi****"*"*-^1? different factors
are found to exist. :he Regional Adminis-
trator or the State shall establish for
the discharger effluent limitations In the
NPDES permit either more or less strin-
gent than the limitations established
herein, to the extent dictated by such
fundamentally different factors. Such
limitations must be approved by the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency. The Administrator
may approve or disapprove such llmlfa-
tions. specify other limitations, or Initi-
ate proceedings to revise these regula-
tions.
(a) The following nmi*nM 1 to UM appllcabU •Oiunt Umltailona on BOO<.
(b) The limits set forth In paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied
by the following factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and maximum
average of dally values for thirty consec-
utive days.
(1) Size factor
1.000 OoiTt-fj of luditoclt
per ittom da* SU* /actor
0 CO 499 0.73
SO loM 9 .B7
10O CO 1499.. . . 1.04
140 or gnatar..... ...__. .... 1.13
HOIIAl tIGimi, VOL 3*. NO. 91 IXUSSOAY, MAT », 197*
142
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1G5G9
(2> Process (actor
conltgvmtio* froettg /actor
3.39 to i-Tl !• 11 a.eT
4.79 to a.T*--..—... . -II
S73 to 8.74 „— - 1.37
B.79 to \OM or gm-ur .....— 1. M
(3) See the comprehensive example
SubpartO I 419.42CW (3).
(«> The provisions of i 419.13CO (!)
and (3) apply to discharges at process
waste water pollutants attributable to
storm water runoff aad ballast water by
a point source subject la tha provisions
of thlssubpart.
(d) Tha quantity and quality of pollut-
ants or pollutant properties controlled
by tola paragraph, attributable to once-
through cooling water, are excluded
from the discharge allowed by paragraph
(b) ox this section. Once-through cooling
water may be discharged with a total
organic carbon concentration not to ex-
ceed S mg/1.
9 419-33 Effluent llmitttlotu guideline!
repreaenlina; the degree ol effluent
reduction «tlain«ble by the appliea-
tioa of the bat nouUble technology
eeenomieaJlv §ehie»«hle.
(a) TTl« following limitations estab-
lish the quantity or quality at pollutants
or pollutant properties, controlled by
this paragraph, which may be discharged
by a point source subject to tha provi-
sions of this subpart after application of
the best available technology economi-
cally achievable:
Ittuni llmfwioni
1C Shunt
i tor
u\r ida»
Annctofdtilr
nium tor JO
loaUaMuawd—
Uttna onlt» fkHntnmi ear 1.000
oi>of Cnonack)
........
Oil aitdirran _____
riwinbc com-
pound* ........
AnimnuaatN.. ,
9ulfldo ........... .
Tntal chromium..
4.4
3
90
14
on
22
pliroinfuni. .
nil
IT
.77
ou
1.2
0031
EoiUih oalii (pound! par 1.000 bbi
nnoj
CUD'
nil ind imat
noundj
Ammonia aiN
.«nuidi
Tgul eH
arianlrnt
ctifDnuofl. ••
pK ...... _
L7 L4
M i?
a .28
O3TI 0OI
10 LJ
OB 009
oair ani
, •llblo Uu ru«» 4.0 u «JL
0 pom). iaa lUttoul AdalniitrMar
TOC M • paruniur la U*a ol COO.
oiu for TOC Mall b* band oa lOuai
1 In inr can la TtU«b Hit ippUeaat eaa d«moiutrmt«
Uiti iBicnlandiloaooaeauraaonln Ui«fflatni Mnadi
1.0JO m«/l (1000
mar nenirau T
Emsmi Umiuuoiu for TO
data (rom Uw plant comlatloi TOC u BO Of.
It In CBI ludfiniot of taa Rational Adnuslimtor
KiMiaau comlaoon data tn on mitebla. tft> «fflntnt
llmitauons lor TOC 'ball bo otabltaaod u • ratio o(
U to I u Uw tppUcmel* • 73
SO tO °° 9 •.••• r -J J- • 87
100 to 1*9.9 La&L. <-»•
100 or gnaw .... .... l.13
<2> Process factor
Process
aUB to 4.i«
4.7S to S.T*_.
S.7S 10 9.H
S.71 to 1.0J6 or
, C3> See toe comprehensive example
Subpart D I 419.43(b) (3).
(c) The provisions of 1419.13(0 <1)
and (2) apply to discharges of process
waste water pollutants attributable to
storm water runoff and ballast water by
a point source subject to the provision
of thlssubpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of pol-
lutants or pollutant properties controlled
by this paragraph, attributable to once-
through cooling water, are excluded from
the discharge allowed by paragraph (b)
of this section. Once-through cooling
water may be discharged with a total
organic carbon concentration not to ex-
ceed S mg/L
§419.34 [ Reserved]
| 419.35 Slandarda of performance for
(a) Tha following standards of per-
formance establish the quantity or qual-
ity of pollutants or pollutant properties.
controlled by this paragraph, which may
be discharged by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart!
KStaoat limitation
Ztniuni AnncaofUiUy
eoancMnula Mailmnm tor >aluai lor JO
Mail 0011
Koaia anlti rkllacnini por i.OOJ
mi of ftiditoct)
BOOI_
TBfl .
coo"::::::::":".
OH *nd inaH......
Plwaolleoom-
pouodj. .........
Ammonia a>M....
g.jHttfa „„
Total enrorelua...
HocavalMit
ctuonaum.
pB _
71 S 11 .S
13.1 : 7
ua w
t.9 U
1U 077
a 4 10 ;
140 OBI
J3 Ul
ooos ooai
WIUilo too raon U ta 0 a
CttftfUi «o«* (poondf par I,«M
bbl al tnauanl
SOM_
TS8
COO1 -
Oil and man
?tunoUaooa-
IWQnflA ft mm
Ammonia aiN
Soladt
Total caromlum....
HtiaralMii
enramium —
pH
i r «.i
< a J.j
41 51
J.I 1.1
CM tOl
as lg
nso oa
II* OM
• (1)
and (2) apply to discharges of process
waste water pollutants attributable to
storm water runoff and ballast water by
a point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of pol-
lutants or pollutant properties controlled
by this paragraph, attributable to once-
through cooling water, are excluded from
the discharge allowed by paragraph (b)
of this section. Once-through cooling wa-
ter may be discharged with a total or-
ganic carbon concentration not to exceed
Jmg/L
§ 419.36 Pr«trealmenl standard* for new
Tile oretreatment standards under sec-
tion 307(c> of the Act for a source within
the petrochemical subcategory. which Is a
user of a publicly owned treatment works
(and which would be a new source subject
to section 306 of the Act. If It were to dis-
charge pollutants to the navigable wa-
ters), shall be the standard set forth In
Part 128 of this cnapter. except that, for
Che purpose of this section. J 128.133 of
this chapter shall be amended to read as
follows: "In addition to the prohibitions
set forth In 4 128.131 of this chapter, the
pretreatment standard for Incompatible
pollutants introduced Into a publicly
owned treatment works shall be the
standard of performance (or new sources
specified In 1419.35- Provided. That, if
the publicly owned treatment works
wnich receives the pollutants Is com-
mitted, la Its NPDE3 permit, to remove
a specified percentage of any Incom-
patible pollutant, the pretreaunent
standard applicable to users of such
treatment works shall be correspondingly
reduced In stringency for that pollutant."
Subpart D—Lube Subcalegory •
§419.40 Applicability; description of
the lube •ubcalcgory.-
The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to all discharges from any facil-
ity which produces petroleum products
by the use of topping, cracking and. lube
oil manufacturing processes, whether or
not the facility Includes any process in
addition to topping, cracking and lube oil
manufacturing processes. The provisions
HDOAl IfCJSTn. VOL 39, NO. 91—TMUMDAY, M*r 9, 1974
143
-------
16370
RULES AND IICULAT1ONS
of this subpart we not applicable how-
ever. to facilities which Include the
ji i ii i in n apecifled IB Subparts C and S
of this part.
9 419.41 Sprcialufd definition*.
For tha purpoaa at this subpart:
(a) Except aa provided below, the gen-
eral dffl"!'1*?"^ • abbreviation and
analysis set forth la part 401
C2upter Thall apply to this
subpart.
(b) Tile term "runoff*" shall mean the
flow of storm water.
"tta term ••ballast" snail mean the
flow of water*, tram a ship, which. Is to
b* Una toil at the refinery.
(d) Tho term "feedstock'* shall mean
the erode oil and natural gas liquids fed
to the topnl&ff units.
(•) Tha term "onee-through cooling
water* shalT mean those waters dis-
charged that an used for the purpose
of heat removal and that do not come
into direct contact with any raw mate-
rial. Intermediate or finished product.
(D The following abbreviations shall
mean: (1) ItgsU means one thousand
fallens:. (2) Ubtl means one thousand
barrels (ana barrel is equivalent to 49
1419.42 Emanu limitation.
by (ha •ppllca-
Horn of m« bert pn^icmbie coocn.1
- _L_ . I _ ^_ -1 ^__ • » |
forth 'to this section. EPA took Into se-
coant aa Information It was able to
collect, develop and solicit with respect
to factors (such as an and size of plant.
raw materials, manufacturing processes.
jniifiif TJ produced, treataient tfirhnftlogy
available, eoenr requirements aad
costal which can affect the Industry sub-
rstimnrlMMnQ and effluent levels es-
tablished. Zt is. however, possible that
data which would affect these limita-
tions) have not been available and. as a
result, tbesa Limitations should be ad-
justed for certain plants In this Industry.
An Individual discharger or other in-
terested person may submit evidence to
tha Brgjonil Administrator (or to tha
State. If tha State has the authority to
issue TrfFDES permits) that factors re-
lating to tha equipment or facilities In-
volved, the process applied, or other such
factors related to such discharger an
fimrlaitiimrally different from the factors
in tha establishment of tha
may approve or disapprove such limita-
tions, specify other limits tirmi or inl-
tiata proceedings to revise these regula-
tions.
(a) The following limitations estab-
lish the quantity or quality of pollu-
tants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this paragraph, which may be dis-
charged by a point source subject to tha
provisions of this subpvt after applica-
tion of the best practicable control tech-
nology currently available:
(b) Tha limits set forth In paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied
by the following factors to calculate tha
"•*LW< ••""•' for any one day and maximum
average of dally values for thirty con-
secutive days.
(1) aze factor
1.090 oomlt of
glitrtnilnns, On tba basis of nich evidence
or other available information, tha
Eaajnnel Administrator (or the State)
will make a written ""'""a •*«» nich
factors are or an not fiitiH»jm»tjity
different for that facility compared to
those specified In the Development Docu-
ment. If Mich fundamentally different
factors an found to exist, the Regional
Administrator or tha State shall es-
tablish for the discharger effluent Limita-
tions la tha NPDEB permit either man
or less stringent than the limitations
established herein, to the extent dictated
by such fundamentally different factors.
Such limitations must be approved by
tha Administrator of the T&vtronmental
Protection Agency. The Administrator
<3) fiuunple of the sppllcatlon of the
above factors.
> la lot am la wWek tfM ipodouit «B t
lttm» ta« cflldrtd« lea UUIUMIU too* B u» «atmi« intuit
1.000 mtfl nteaaamt. IO» O^aatl idmlnntnw
dau TOG M • nramiur la n«a at COO. .„._
nmudau te TOO riMU b* l~*l oa tOaat ""»
If In ite
at to* Mooal AdBilalimior,
badeu. cncklnf.
Fluid orttti?*
Dclmd ooiuw.
ranter teOotd la UM iw
THIU t d
JUptuil prada
IS
II
_______
oat tntlmtt*. a»
.
IBliManc tm TOO flutt b» •i«hllih«rl a * naa al
U la I H ita inrtlmhb iiTliMic ••—••-" --- *nm
a jot bM pw r»l»UT. ia
nnun d*T) ituauf bput
oaaAfuniluo
.M
Brt
Total
FCO.
its x
kS
4.0
4,*
«.*
.Ill X
•.OB X
4 -
IS -
13 -
tu
las
LIT
.a
NOTXS
8« labta 1 4I« UtbXD tar praoM talv. PraoM tator-4iSS.
»» ubto 1 419 «&> M«a> tar Ul I JOB 6M pw imu> » UB» 1 411 43(«) br bMS it» 9 ..... • feMaf tad du
BODt llaui (nmlmnni tar WT 1
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
16571
(d) The quantity and quality of pollut-
ant! or pollutant properties controlled
by this paragraph, attributable to once-
toroiigh ooollng water, an excluded from
the discharge allowed by paragraph (b)
of this Motion, Once-through cooling
water may be discharged with a total
organic carbon concentration not to ex-
ceed 9 mg/L
9419.43 Effluent limitation* guideline*
repraratina; the degree of effluent
redaction attainable by the applica-
tion of the beat available technology
aeoBonkally achievable.
(ai Th»> following limitations eatab-
Uab, the quantl^ or quality at pollutants
or pollutant propertie*, controlled by this
paragraph, which may be discharged by
a point source subject to the provision*
of tola subpart after application of the
best available t**<^"**j-pgy economically
achievable:
•ofdailr
107 I OUT ooMMOdw dan
•AaUaotand—
•MrM oani ftUocnau par 1.000
BOW—
cooT'I"!
ou
T.4 «J
40 S9
I 4 I.I
ON .QM
it 4.3
.10 10
.as .at
.oon JOB*
,.. wuah»taomn»4.0ta at
pal0/. Wlthlaibaraat»*-0to«0,
> la any eaai la walcn tao appUeaat can damoannu
that Uu ealorldt Ion eoaeinirauon In ta* iffinul «iendi
1.000 me/1 (l.OOOpom). U. Rational IdmlBUiraior mar
•ttnltau TOC •• a paraawtar la U«o of COO. Xfflnuc
Umluoonjior TOC ittall ba biaid on aOroaat data from
UM plaat oornlaoiK TOC ta BOOJ.
If In too Indcrawat of ino Baatenal AdmJaumur.
idaaoau oomlaOoa data aro not trailaala, taa pmn fotaailinid ai a ratio ol U
la I to Uw appUeaBU •Olntni Umltatlona on SOD<.
(b) The limits set forth In paragraph
(«,) of this section are to be multiplied
by the following factors to calculate the
maTtmnm for any one **"-y and maximum
average of daily values for thirty con-
secutive days.
(1) Size factor
1400 oorrete of fetdttoele
per iteorn day
30 to aB.g
TO to 1009.
110 to 140.0.,
130 to 190.0
300 or
(2) Process factor
Proeat* conitouratfon
«.0 or loan to 7.08
10 to 9.00..
10.0 to 11.99
13.0 or
(3) See the comprehensive example
Subpart D I 419.42(b) (3).
(e) The provisions of I 419.13(c) (1)
and (3) apply to discharges of process
waste water pollutants attributable to
storm water runoff and ballast water by
a point source subject to the provision of
this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of pol-
lutants or pollutant properties controlled
by this paragraph, attributable to once-
through cooling water, are excluded from
the discharge allowed by paragraph 'b>
of this section. Once-through cooling
water may be discharged wtth a total
organic carbon concentration not to ex-
ceed 9 mg/1.
§ 419.46 Prctrcilmenl tUndardi Tor new
The pretreatment standards under
section 307(c) of the Act for a source
within the lube subcategory. which is a
user of a publicly owned treatment
works (and which would be a new source
subject to section 308 of the Act, If it
were to discharge pollutants to the nav-
igable waters). shall be the standard set
forth In Part 128 of this chapter, except
that, for the purpose of this section.
i 128.133 of this chapter shall be
amended to read as follows: "In addition
to the prohibitions set forth In } 128.131
of this chapter, the pretreatment stand-
ard for Incompatible pollutants Intro-
duced Into a publicly owned treatment
works shall be the standard of perform-
ance for new sources specified In ] 419 43:
Provided, That. If the publicly owned
treatment works which receives the pol-
lutants Is committed. In Its NPOES per-
mit, to remove a specified percentage of
any Incompatible pollutant, the pre-
treatment standard applicable to users of
such treatment works shall be corre-
spondingly reduced In stringency for that
pollutant."
Subpart E—Integrated Subcategory
§ 419.30 Applicability; description at
the integrated nib-category.
The provisions of H"T subpart are ap-
plicable to all discharges resulting from
any facility which produces petroleum
products by the use of topping, cracking.
lube oil manufacturing processes, and
petrochemical operations, whether or not
IfCISTII. VOL 39. NO. 91—rNUUOAr. MAT 9, 1974
145
-------
16S72
RULES AND REGULATIONS
the facility Include* any process in addi-
tion to looping, cracking, lube oil manu-
facturing processes and petrochemical
operation*,
| 419.51 Spedolkea definition*.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) Except as provided below, the gen-
eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-
ods of analysis set forth in Part 401 of
tola chapter shall apply to this subpart.
(b) The term "runoff" shall mean the
flow of storm water.
(c) The term "ballast" shall mesa the
flow of waters, from a ship, which la to
be treated at the refinery.
Tne term feedstock'* shall mean
the crude oil and natural gas liquids fed
to the topping units.
(•) Tne term "once-through cooHng
water" shall mean thcae waters dis-
charged that an used for the purpose
of beat femoral aad that do not come
into direct contact wtth any raw mate-
rial, intermediate or "«'*t"^t product.
(f) Tne term 'petrochemical opera-
tions' shall mesa the production of sec-
ond generation petrnBhrtntrahi The following abbreviation* shall
mean? (1)
gailonss (2) Tfirfri 9*m*nm tflim thousand
barrels (one barrel is equivalent to 42
0 419.52 Efflaent UmiUootu (uideiinea
rnpriamllm taw Jtajua at affluent
redaction •aaauoU fcr tb« applica-
tion of tfco hea* practicable eoacrai
In establishing the limitations set forth
la this section. EPA took into account aO
information it was able to collect, devel-
op and solicit with respect to factors
(such as age and size of plant, raw mate-
rials, manufacturing processes, products
produced, treatment technology avail-
able, energy requirement* and costs)
which can affect the Industry subcate-
gorhtatton and effluent levels established.
It la. however, possible that data which
would affect these omitations nave not
been available and, as a result, these
limitations should be adjusted for cer-
tain plants la tins industry. An individ-
ual discharger or other interested per-
son may submit evidence to the Regional
Administrator (or to the State, tf the
State has the authority to Issue NFDE3
permits) that factors relating to the
equipment or facilities involved, the
iuuceas applied, or other such factors
related to such discharger are fun-
damentally different from tfr* fac-
tors considered In the establishment of
the guidelines. On the basis of such evi-
dence or other available Information.
the Regional Administrator (or the
State) will make a written finding that
such factors are or are not fundamen-
tally different for that facility compared
to those specified In the Development
Document, If such fundamentally dif-
ferent factors are found to exist, the Re-
gional Administrator or the State shall
establish for the discharger effluent lim-
itations In the NPDES permit either
more or less stringent than- the limita-
tions established herein, to the extent
dictated by such fiin*1?'*i**l>nny different
factors. Such limitations must be ap-
proved by the Administrator of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency. The Ad-
ministrator may approve or disapprove
such limitations, specify other limita-
tions, or Initiate proceedings to revise
these regulations.
(a) Tne following limitations fstab~
lisa the quantity or quality of pollut-
ants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this paragraph, which may be dis-
charged by a point source subject to the
provisions of this snbpart after applica-
tion of the best practicable control tech-
nology currently available:
BODC-
Taa__
Mi
0.1
1T.1
.M
a.4
.11
Si*
NL3
US
11
.10
tie
.us
: .air .an
, WHaanaai«ttgi4.0tBtA
.UnrndiperlAObaT
BOD*_
Tsa,.
IL*
IM
4.*
14
1,1
10,3
II
TO
12
IS
.09S
.17
, WUUa UM net* 44 ta 1.0.
i [a aar eaai la
Ja» laaehkwMe
OMOI 1.000 nwri 11409 pcxa)
mar ailMlima TOO at •
— - - - Jem tar TO
)Ua< aamlaaat TOG ta BO
. la UM •Oout u>
pen), UM Btelaeal Admioueniar
• la in rf COD.
XOant oaiuilm Icr TOC iteU b« bMd oa
(c) The provisions of I 419.12(c) (1)
and (3) apply to discharges of process
waste water pollutants attributable to
storm water runoff and ballast water by
a point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart.
(d) Tne quantity and quality of pollut-
ants or pollutant properties controlled
by this paragraph, attributable to once-
through cooling water, are excluded from
the discharge allowed by paragraph (b>
of this section. Once-through cooling
water may be discharged with a total
organic concentration not to exceed
5 mg/L
9419.53 Efflaent limitation* gauMinc*
Iii|iimuling UM dccraa of effluent
redaction attainable by UM applica-
tion 04* UM bod available technology
nrnnnmirally schlayaala.
(a) Tn* following limitations estab-
lish the quantity or quality of pollutants
or pollutant properties, controlled by this
paragraph, which may be discharged by
a point source subject to the provisions
of this snbpart after application of the
beat available *»->
achievable:
ota oatti (UlaevH par
IfCO Of Of f» (3).
i ta aay CBM la wMah UM topUxat aa damaiuow*
lau UM ealorld* lea aoooiainaoa la UM •ffloaat n-
tftiM 1.000 mtfl a.OWppm). UM Bminnil A.aauni*-
trmtar mar lonattBta TOG ai * panoMiar ta U« o<
COO. loaan UautaOaai tar TOO uuU ba bunt oo
IAMBI daia Bum UM alaat eomlailnf TOO ta BO lit.
LT In UM rQdnmiat at UM Ranaeal Admiolicncar.
irtaqaaia aanvlaooa data an OM anilabM. UM «ffln«n«
llramnnna tar TOC laaU ba •uaoated •* > raUa at
U ta I u UM appltoabM ifflaaat uaiuuoai oa BOM.
(b) The limits set forth In paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied
by the following factors to calculate the
fpja^tniTTtt fop any one day and ^ia**^"^
average of dally values for thirty con-
secutive days.
(1) Size factor
fin
/actor
__ 0.49
_— .09
___ i.03
UNO Barrel* of
p*r itrtam day
70 to 1449
14S Co 318.9—
330 or (niter...
HDIIAl aOISTII. VOL 19. NO. 91—THUIJOAr. MAT 9. 1974
146
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
16373
<3> Proeesa factor
Pronn Procuf
eonflyvrattm factor
8.0 or lew to 7.49 -------------------- 0 78
74 to 8J9.. ------------------------ 1.00
9.0 to lOJ or gr«*Mr ----------------- 1-30
(3) See the comprehensive example
Subpart O I 419.43 (b) (3) .
(o) The provisions of I 419.13(c> (1)
•ad (2) apply to discharges at process
waste water pollutants atttrlbutable to
storm water runoff and ballast water by
a point source subject to the provisions
of tola subpart:
Tie quantity and quality of pollu-
tants or pollutant properties controlled
'by this paragraph, attributable to once-
through «««iiinf water, are excluded from
to* discharge allowed by paragraph (b)
of this section. Once-through cooling
water may be discharged with a total or-
ganic carbon concentration not to exceed
9 mg/L
8 419.54
g 419.53
Standard* of performance for
(a) Tna> following standards of per-
formance establish the quantity or qual-
ity of pollutants or pollutant properties.
controlled by this paragraph, which may
b» discharged by a new source subject to
the proTialona of this subpart:
Hmlti**ima
u>7 l .u
004T 0001
Within la* no** to la • A
I to IBT em la woloa the •optteeat eta danaamu
IBM tbi cblandi loo eoooianaaa la tn> (aaaat eiBiili
1JJOO win (1.800 ppm). ttu Rxloiul Adnlaumiar mmr
•b«MUU TOG M • piAOUtar la Ueu of COO. Bfflomt
ttmiuaoni tar TOO «n«fl be evod oa tffliuat d>u (ram
tte pl*at eamUOoi TOC to BODJ.
U la to* ladcsuat el tn« lUtioail Adounlnnier.
tdtqnmu eomlulaa data in not >ml*Ai*. in* ifflumt
"—'—•—- let TOC tn»ll be enaolUIMd «t • nuo of 2.3
la i to to* kppuaale .
(e) The provision of I 419.13(c> (1)
and (2) apply to discharges of process
waste water pollutants attributable to
storm water runoff and ballast water by
a point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of pol-
lutants or pollutant properties con-
trolled by this paragraph, attributable to
once-through cooling water, are excluded
from the discharge allowed by paragraph
(b) of this section. Once-through cooling
water may be discharged with a total
organic carbon concentration not to ex-
ceed 5 mg/1.
3 419.56 Pretmlmenl •undardi for new
The pretreatment standards under sec-
tion 30T(c) of the Act for a source within
the Integrated subcatcgory. which Is a
user of a publicly owned treatment works
(and which would be a new source sub-
ject to section 306 of the Act. If It were
to discharge pollutants to the navigable
waters). shall be the standard set forth
In Part 128 of this chapter, except that.
for the purpose of this section. ] 128.133
of this chapter shall be amended to read
aa follows: "In addition to the prohibi-
tions set forth In i 128.131 of this chap-
ter, the pretreatment standard for In-
compatible pollutants Introduced Into a
publicly owned treatment works shall be
the standard of performance for new
sources specified In 1419.55: Provided.
That. If the publicly owned treatment
works which receives the pollutants la
committed, In Its NPDE3 permit, to re-
move a specified percentage of any In-
compatible pollutant, the pretreatment
standard applicable to users of such
treatment works shall be correspondingly
reduced hi stringency for that pollutant."
(FB Doe74-10448 FUtd 1-8-74:8:41 un|
F*OfftAl U«I$TH. VOt J9, NO. ft—THUISDAr. "HAT 9, 1974
147
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
21'
TWe) 40 PiutBCUun of th« Environment
CHAPTER I — ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
N— cmuENT GUIDELINES AND
STANDARDS
PART 419— PETROLEUM REFINING
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
EffliMnt Limitations. Guidefirws end
PnrtrmtriMnt Standards; Amendments
On Mar 9. 1974. effluent limitations.
guidelines, and standards of performance
and pretreatment standards for new
sources were published applicable to the
topping subcategory. cracking subcate-
gory. petrochemical subcategory. lube
subcategory. and Integrated subcategory
of the petroleum refining category of
point sources. Public participation pro-
cedures (or those regulations were de-
scribed in the preamble thereto, and are
further discussed below.
Petitions for review of the regulations
wen filed by the American Petroleum In-
stitute and others on August 28. 1974.
After the regulations were published.
comments were received criticizing cer-
tain aspects of the regulations. As a re-
sulk of these comments, the Agency con-
cluded that the ranges used in preparing
the size and process (acton were too
bromd. Accordingly, a notice was pub-
lished In the Ft D MAI. Riaarn (Thurs-
day. October 17. 1974. 39 PR 37069) of the
Agency's Intention to reduce the range
sizes.
In response to the October 17 notice, a
variety of detailed comments were re-
ceived concerning all aspects of the reg-
ulations. The commenters sought major
modifications of the regulations as
promulgated.
The Environmental Protection Agency
baa carefully evaluated all comments
which were received. The data base and
methodology have been reexamined. and.
in some cases, new data have been gath-
ered and reviewed.
Most commenters favored the changes
outlined In the modifications proposed
on October 17th. However, many more
substantial changes were sought by com-
menters. The Agency has concluded that
promulgation of the proposed modifica-
tions la appropriate. However, the record
does not warrant, except In two In-
stances. the additional modifications
sought. The bases for the Agency's con-
clusions an set forth in detaL below.
with responses to ail major comments re-
ceived.
Bzaroir or TH* RZCTTLAIXOMS
Background. With the enactment of
the 1972 Amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) .
the Effluent Guidelines Division of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
assumed responsibility for the prepara-
tion of effluent guidelines and limitations
under sections 301 and 304 of the Act.
The Petroleum Refining Industry In
the United States and Its territories Is
made up of 253 refineries. These re-
fineries produce a wide range of petro-
leum and petrochemical products and
Intermediates from crude oil and natural
gas liquids.
The size and ttrpe of hydrocarbon mole-
cules and impurities contained In crude
oils from around the world vary greatly.
as do the products produced at each re-
finery. The configuration of a refinery Is
therefore a function of the type of feed-
stock used (crude oil and natural gas
liquids) and the products which are to
be produced. There are several hundred
different processes used In this Industry
because of these variations In feedstocks
and products. The general categories of
processes used are: (1) Distillation.
which separates hydrocarbon molecules
by differences In their physical prop-
erties (boiling points) : (2) cracking.
which Is the breaking down of high mo-
lecular weight hydrocarbons to lower
weight hydrocarbons: (3) polymeriza-
tion and alkylation. which rebuild the
hydrocarbon molecules: (4) Isomeriza-
Uon and reforming, which rearrange
molecular structures: (5) solvent refin-
ing. which Is the separation of different
hydrocarbon molecules by differences In
solubility in other compounds: (6) de-
salting and hydntreatlag. which remove
Impurities occurring in the feedstock : (7)
the removal of Impurities from finished
products by various treating and finish-
ing operations: and (8) other processes.
Several yean ago. the industry began
classifying refineries Into five categories :
A. B. C. D. and EL Each category was de- -
fined as follows:
A— Rennenea ualng distillation and any other
proce-aes except cracking.
B— Rennenn ualng distillation, cracking. and
any other preceia. but with no petrocheml-
cal or lute oil manufacturing.
C—Category a. wltn tne addition of p*oo-
chemleala.
O—Category B. with the addition of tub* olU.
E— Category a. with the addition of both
petrochemical* and lutw oils.
Petrochemicals as used by the Industry
meant any amount of production In a
groun of compounds historically defined
as "petrochemicals". These compounds
Included some produced through proc-
esses normally associated with refineries.
such as Isomerlzation or distillation, and
will be referred to as first generation
petrochemicals. The second groun of
comnounds considered petrochemical)
were those produced through more com-
plex chemical reactions. These com-
pounds wi'l be referred to as second gen-
eration petrochemicals.
The Agency was riven the task of es-
tablishing effluent limitations for this
diverse group of refineries. The flnt step
needed was a breakdown of the Induitrr
Into .'mailer groups of refineries, slrce
the flow per unit of production within
the industry was too diverse to be fit by
a single set of limitations. Refineries
were subcategorized based upon process
configurations. I.e.. the process used on
the f eed'tock.
Once the Industry wan subcategorlred.
It was necessary to determine how the
effluent limitations would be derived and
what limitations would be established
for each subcategory. Since refinery per-
formance data (effluent concentrations)
seemed to be independent of subcater
EPA concluded that a single
-------
a wo
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Guidance for the Petroleum Refining In-
dustry, was retained to prepare a Draft
Development Document for Effluent Una-
i^iooa Guidelines and New Source Per-
formance Standards for the Petroleum
Refining Point Source Category. After an
additional six-month study of the Indus-
try. Weston submitted a draft report In
June. 1973. which proposed a somewhat
different subcategorlzation approach
than had been used previously. These
modifications In pibeategorization wen
In recognition of the wide range of In-
dustry complexities found within the
original five subcategoria and consti-
tuted dlrlslon of the B subcategory (Into
B-t and 3-2) based on Che amount of
cracking, ••••j ***(
met with EPA on several occasions In
January. February, and March, 1974. At
these meetings API presented a new sub-
categorization technique which had been
developed by one of its subcommittees.
Additional meetings were held with API
through April for further discussion of
the API proposed subcategorization tech-
nique and of EPA's response to their
proposal.
API proposed a method of predicting
raw waste loads (or each refinery based
on a regression analysis (best fit) per-
formed on the data for various waste
parameters drawn from the 1973 refinery
survey carried out Jointly by AFX and
EPA. This approach would predict ex-
pected flows and raw waste load levels for
such parameters aa BOD. COD. etc. API
proposed guidelines that were to be de-
rived from the raw waste loads by assum-
ing a removal efficiency for each
parameter.
There were several major problems
with the specific approach recommended
by API: (1) After Initially running their
regressions. API discarded 20 percent of
the data points In order to Improve the
correlation. Uuch of the discarded data
pertained to large rrtlnirlw. Thus, the
validity of the analysis, particularly as
applied to those refineries, la open to se-
rious questions. (3) API adjusted the
results of the mathematical analysis by
making "engineering judgments.** The
Agency could find no defensible basis
for these Judgments. (3) The results of
the regression on raw waste load showed
little hope for a further subcategoriza-
tion because of the poor correlations
found. This might. In part, be explained
by the fact that the regression data base
Included only a single day's sample for
each refinery for each of the raw waste
load parameters (BOD. COD. etc.).
A major drawback to APTs proposal
that EPA use these analyses was that a
separate regression and «et of criteria
(achievable removal efficiency) would be
required for each parameter (BOD. COD,
suspended solids, oil and grease, phenol-
lea, ammonia, sulfides. and chromium).
Based on API's Initial work, this ap-
proach did not appear to be workable.
API expected to complete, by September
1974. a report embodying their recom-
mended approach: this report has never
been submitted to the Agency.
Nevertheless, it appeared that the re-
gression analysis proposed by API might
work well In predicting differences In
flow volumes from refineries based on
the configuration of each refinery, be-
cause the dry weather flows from refin-
eries are relativley constant and the
one day's data (taken during dry
weather) gathered In the API/EPA sur-
vey would therefore be representative. A
procedure for predicting flows based on
refinery characteristics would also be
usable In connection with the approach
used In the proposed regulations, since
the limitations were based on achievable
concentrations for each parameter mul-
tiplied by a flow for each snbcategory.
After several months of work. EPA
arrived at a technique, utilizing regres-
sion analysis, for predicting flows. The
promulgated regulations are baaed upon
this technique. It was found that size as
weU as complexity (type of processing
carried on In each refinery) bad an
effect on the expected flow volume. Using
the results of a regression analysis would
then allow the limits to vary up or down
for each, refinery based on the actual
characteristics of the Individual refinery.
SPA compared the median flows used
In the proposed regulations and the flows
predicted by the regression, to the actual
refinery flows given In the API/EPA
survey. It was found that the regression
predicted flows for the Individual re-
fineries more accurately than did the
mrrtlan for the appropriate subcategory.
In the final regulations. EPA's regres-
sion analysis was used to develop factors
by which the median flows are adjusted
up or down, depending upon the com-
plexity and size of the refinery. For ex-
ample, a complex, very large refinery
would be predicted to have a higher flow
per unit of production than a simple, less
complex refinery.
3. Sources ot data. One of the diffi-
culties encountered In developing these
regulations has been, except for. the data
supplied by the API lor flows, obtaining
usable data. Pew refineries either kept
data on their effluent or reported It if
kept. The data used and relied upon by
EPA represents a significant fraction of
all the pertinent data extant.
The draft contractor's report utilized,
for Its flow data. Information from 94
of the refineries, of the 1973 API/EPA
Raw Waste Load Survey. The achievable
concentrations In the report for Best
Practicable Technology (BPT) (1977)
were based upon data from 13 refineries.
upon reference materials, and upon pilot
plants. These 13 refineries, misnamed
"exemplary" refineries, were selected be-
cause they had treatment in place and
data available: they did not necessarily
represent the best or even the better re-
fineries. The achievable concentrations
In the contractor's report for Best Avail-
able Technology (BAT) (1983) were
based upon pilot plant and reference ma-
terials. The variabilities used In the re-
port were denved from those of the 13
"exemplary" refineries for which long-
term data were available.
The proposed regulations were issued
using the same data as that In the con-
tractor's report.
The flow basis of the fl al regulations
was the same as that of the contractor's
report. The BPT achlevaole concentra-
tions used In the final regulations were
the same as those in the contractor's re-
port, except that three additional re-
fineries were used to calculate the chemi-
cal oxidation demand (COD) concentra-
tions. The BAT achievable co-Genera-
tions for those regulations were the same
as the contractor's. For variabilities, data
from five additional Rflneries were
added to those used In the contractor's
report.
For EPA's reconsideration of the reg-
ulations, leading to promulgation of the
amendments to the effluent limitations
guidelines, the flow basis did not change
from that utilized l-i the contractor's re-
port. In reexaminlng the BPT achievable
concentrations, however, additional re-
finery data were used, as well as the data
from the above-cited 13 refineries used
for the final regulations. In reexamining
the BAT achievable concentrations, ad-
ditional references and pilot pla-t data
were used. Long-term data for 7 addi-
tional refineries were used In the recon-
sideration of the variabilities.
3. flow oasis. In the draft contractor's
report the flows from the refineries were
broken down Into three categories: 1)
process water. 2) storm runoff, and 3)
once-chrough cooling water. The process
waters Included: waters which come into
direct contact with a product. Interme-
diate, or raw material: contaminated
storm runoff: and cooling tower blow-
down. Process waters were considered to
require treatment, and were to be segre-
gated and discharged separately from
clean storm runoff and once-through
cooling water which were presumed to be
unconlaminated. If the clean storm run-
off and once-through cooling water were
contaminated, however, no additional al-
locations were made.
The process flows appropriate to each
subcategory were derived from the 1973
nootAi racism, VOL *o, NO. »s—TUISOAY, MAT 20, ivrs
149
-------
RULES #4° REGULATIONS
21941
API/EPA surrey. This surrey rave total
flow data (process water plus once-
through cooling water) for 138 refineries.
Since Weston's proposed allocation was
to be based on process flow. It was ap-
propriate to restrict this data base to the
94 refineries having less than 3 percent
removal of heat by once-through cooling
•water. Of the 94 refineries. 75 had no
once-through coollnc water.
EPA continued to use the 94-reflnery
data base, because It was believed that
the Inclusion of the 19 refineries with 1-3
percent of heat removal by once-through
cooling would only cause a slight over-
estimate at the process water flows and
that the disadvantage of the resultant
over-allocation of process flow would be
more than offset by the advantage of
using a larger data base.
The proposed regulation differed from
the contractor's report In several re-
spects. The definition of process water
remained the same, except that an added
allocation was given for ballast water
and contaminated storm water, over and
above the basic allocation. In addition.
concentration limits were set for both
clean storm runoff and once-through
cooling water. These changes meant that
the basic pollutant allocation was now
actually based on process water flows.
and the contaminated storm runoff, bal-
last, clean storm runoff and once-
through cooling water each received sep-
arate allocations.
In the'promulgated regulation, the sub-
category definitions were changed. This
change altered the number of refineries
in each subcategory. and consequently
altered the median flows for each sub-
category. However, these flows continued
to be based upon the same 94 refineries.
and the previous definitions of different
&pes of waste streams (process water.
ballast water, etc.) were retained. EPA
has not modified the contractor's orig-
inal approach to Identifying flows used
In the calculation of the BAT limitations.
BAT flow Is the average of the flows for
those refineries in each subcategory hav-
ing less flow than the BPT median flows.
These flow values have changed as the
subcategory definitions have changed.
4. Achievable concentrations. The ef-
fluent concentrations used to calculate
the pound allocations (BPT and new
source) were the same for both the con-
tractor's draft report and the proposed
regulations. The achievable concentra-
tions were recommended by the con-
tractor and were based upon actual per-
formance within this and other Indus-
tries, and In pilot plants.
When the effluent regulations wen pro-
mulgated the achievable concentrations
for chemical oxygen demand (COO) and
ammonia were changed. The COD limita-
tions were Increased (for the cracking.
petrochemical, lube, and Integrated sub-
categories) to account for differences In
treatabtllty of raw waste associated with
various feedstocks (speeiflcaJly heavy
crudes). The changes In the ammonia
limitations were a consequence of the
changes In subcategorizatlon.
During the past several months EPA
has obtained additional data. Including
•data on refineries in cold cllmatm. Analy-
sis of these data shows that the pol-
lutant parameter concentrations estab-
lished for BPT an In fact practicably
attainable. In fact, a number of refineries
are achieving all of the regulations con-
centrations. As expected, refineries proc-
essing light crudes generally discharge
COD concentrations 20-30 percent lower
than the concentrations on which the
*"•! regulations an based. Only the
ammonia limitations are occasionally be-
ing exceeded by a few of the refineries
examined. However, most of these re-
fineries an currently designing or in-
stalling additional stripping capacity or
a second stage of sour water stripping
which will allow them to achieve the am-
monia limitations.
S. Variability factor. The flow basis
and achievable concentrations discussed
to this point an based on the limits re-
fineries an designed to attain and ex-
pected to achieve over a long period of
time (generally considered to be one
year) For enforcement purposes, shorter
term limits wen set to allow determina-
tion to be made more quickly whether or
not a given refinery Is In compliance
with its permit limitations.
In order to derive short-term limita-
tions from long-term data, the disper-
sion of short-term values about a long-
term mean must be taken Into account.
Some dally values will be higher than
the mean, some will be lower. The dally
variability Is the magnitude of this dis-
persion of daily values about the long-
term mean. The monthly averages will
also show variability about the long-
term mean, but to a lesser extent
Variability occurs In both flow and
concentration. Some of the factors which
cause variability an listed below:
L Flow volume vanauoi
A. Storm runoff la addition to dry weainer
flow
B. Tn* varying tarougnpot of the n-
anery. sine* It wut not alwiy* opera:* at ita
rated capacity
C. Variations la pump opacity and pra-
fun lea** tarouga the rennery
O. Variation* la Slowdown volume from
tne cooling tower* Necauae of tna •vapora-
tlon rat* from UM towers
E. Otaer*
XX. Variation In treatment lysum effi-
ciency (effluent concentration) —
A. now variations result la varying reten-
tion umee (line* tne biological treatment
fyetem for a given rennery ire axed la ilz*.
la* retention time will vmry wita tow-volume
and the removal efficiency varies witu reten-
tion tlm*l
3. 3yitem upsets
C. Saw watte Twlatlona
O. Amount of equalization, whlca con-
trol* ta* Impact of sy»tera upset* or raw
wan* variations
E. Slugging of itorm runoff
P. Start-up and *aut down*
O. Spill*
B. Eiuuu* or nmuual weataar condition*
X. Temperature effects
m. Factor* affecttag bota flow aad con-
A. Sampling technique*
B. Measurement error and variability
Many of the factors listed above can
be minimized through proper design and
operation of a given facility. Some tech-
niques used to minimi*, variability an as
follows:
1. Storm-runoff. Storm water holding
facilities should be used. Their design
capacity should be based on the rainfall
history and ana being drained at each
refinery. They allow the runoff to be
drawn off at a constant rate to the treat-
ment system.
2. Flow variations, system upsets and
raw waste variations. The solution to
these problems Is similar to that for
storm runoff: leveling off the peaks
through equalization. Equalization Is
simply a retention of the wastes In a
holding system to average out the In-
fluent to the treatment system.
3. Spills. Spills which will cause a
heavy loading on the system for a short
period of time, can bo most damaging. A
spill may .not only cause high effluent
levels as it goes through the system, but
may also kill or damage a biological
treatment system and therefore have
longer term effects. Equalization helps to
lessen the effects of spills. However.
long-term, reliable control can only be
attained by an aggressive spill preven-
tion and maintenance program Including
canful training of operating personnel.
4. Start-up and shut-down. These
should be reduced to a minimum and
their effect dampened through equaliza-
tion or retention, as with storm runoff
S. Temperature. The design operatic-
and choice of type of biological tret
ment system should In part be based
the temperature range encountered a.
the refinery location so that this effect
can be minimized. The data base utilized
by the Agency Includes refinery data
from cold climates and very large sum-
mer-winter temperature differences.
8. Sampling techniques and analytical
error. These can be minimized through
utilization of trained personnel and can-
ful proceduns.
Pram the beginning it was realized that
the causes of variability could not be
quantified individually The variability
(variation from average) must therefore
be calculated from actual refinery data.
npresentlng the combined effect of all
causes. The Information sought from the
data were the maximum daily and
monthly average limits, which should not
be exceeded it the refinery Is meeting the
prescribed long-term averages.
The contractor analyzed data from
several refineries. To determine the daily
variability (variations of single values
from the avenge) he arranged the data
from each refinery for each parameter
In ascending order. The data point that
was exceeded only 3 percent of the time.
and the median point (SO percent above.
SO percent below) were Identified. The
ratio of these values (95 percent prob-
ablllty/30 percent probability) was
called the daily variability. For the
monthly variability, the dally values for
each month's data were averaged and
these monthly averages were analyzed as
above. The resulting daily and month'"
variabilities for each parameter w
averaged with the variabilities for
same parameter for all of the nflnen.
RDIIAl UOISTIX. YOl. 40. NO. 98—TUESOAr. MAT 20. 197]
150
-------
2IJM2
RULES AND REGULATIONS
te yield the daily and monthly variabili-
ties (or the entire Industry These In-
dustry variabilities were then multiplied
by Jin long-term average limits to ob-
tain the maximum daily and maximum
monthly average limits.
I'or the proposed regulation, all of the
variabilities were recalculated. The ap-
t-roach used by the contractor was re-
e:ted because It was inappropriate ex-
vent tar extremely large quantiUc.-. of
data, and It made no attempt to differ-
entiate betwcer preventable and un-
preventable variability. EPA selected
from the contractor's data those tenods
ceiieved to represent proper operation.
The data used by the contractor for some
refineries contained unexplained periods
of high values. Attempts were made to
determine the causes of these values. In
one case, one month of extreme.? high
values occurred after a major hurricane
hil the refinery in 1971. Not until a
month later was the treatment system
back In normal operation. In another
case the treatment system operated with
relatively low variability for over one
year and then showed an unexplained
lira* increase In variability the follow-
ing yeir. Since the data for the first
year of operation demonstrated that
lower variability could be achieved over
a long period of time, that year w.is se-
lected for analysis.
The contractor determined daily var-
iability by dividing the 99th percentlle
point by the SOth percentlle point. EPA
modified this approich by selecting the
predicted 99th percentlle divided by the
mean. The change from 95th to 99th
percentlle wan Intended to minimize the
chance thnt a refinery would be found In
violation on the bnsis of random sam-
ples exceedlni the limitations Similarly.
EPA selected the 98th percentlle for use
In determining the maximum monthly
average.
The upper percentllea were derived
based on the assumption that the data
were distributed according to a normal
or bell shaped distribution. An average
variability for each parameter was then
calculated and that average multiplied
by the long-term average to set the
daily maximum and maximum monthly
averages.
Between proposal and promulgation.
data were given to EPA by the American
Petroleum Institute for five addltlonnl
refineries, which were said to have BPT
end-of-pipe treatment or Its equivalent.
EPA did not know the names or loca-
tions of these refineries and therefore
could not check potential causes of vari-
ability. The BODS data from these re-
finertes were studied, and the data base
us*d to calculate the proposed BODS
limits was reexamlned. It was found that
for most refineries the data more nearly
approximate a log-normal (where the
logarithm of the data Is normally dis-
tributed) rather than a normal distribu-
tion. The variabilities were then re-
calculated assuming either a normal or
log-normal distribution, whichever was
the better fit. This analysis yielded an
average daily variability for BOOS of 3.1.
_ Instead of the proposed value of 2.1. The
'Anal regulations were based on the re-
calculated BOO5 value of 3.1. The
monthly average variabilities were not
changed. For other parameters, the vari-
abilities In the proposed regulations were
rauHlplicd by the ratio of the recalcu-
lated BOOS variability (3.1/2.3=1.33).
The d lly maximum to the median DOO5
variability assuming normal distribution
limits were determned by multiplying the
Ions-term avenge by the recalculated
variability
On reexamlnation following promul-
gation of the regulations. EPA has re-
viewed 1974 data from seven refineries
on ail panmieten. With the exception
of suspended sollcK the variability fac-
tors derived from th-se data confirm the
variability factors originally established.
ThM additional data on suspended solids
Indicated thit the dally variability of 2 9
and the monthly variability of 1.7 origi-
nally calculated may be too low. Accord-
ingly, a dally variability of 3.3 and a
monthly variability of 2.1 have been es-
tabllsh-d. based on the addition of this
new data.
No exir.ting plant employs the treat-
ment technology (biological treatment
followed by activated carbon) .ipscifled
for 1983. The variability used for 1983
was. however, based upon the lowest
vambillty achieved by any plant for
each parameter. The Agency believes
that this low variability represents the
best prediction that can be made nt the
present time of variabilities which will
be achieved by 1983. These should be
much lower than the average variabil-
ities presently being attained for the
fi'llnwlnc reosonv 1) the additional step
of treatment should tend to dampen
peak" In the dnta: 2) most of the effluent
data were not from systems with a filter
or p-jll^hlng stpp after biological treat-
ment and this should help dampen
peuks: 3) the activated carbon Is un-
an>cted by several of the factors causing
variability In biological systems: and 4>
the industry will have 10-11 years of ad-
ditional experience In the area of treat-
ment plant operation and control from
the time when data was taken.
SUMMARY or MAJOR COMMXNTS
The following responded to the re-
quest for comments which was made In
the preamble to the proposed amend-
ment: Shell Oil Company. The Ameri-
can Petroleum Institute, and Texaco
Inc.
Each of the comments received was
crrefully reviewed and analyzed. The
following Is a summary of the significant
comments and EPA's response to those
comments.
(1) One commentpr stated that the
regulations and the Development Docu-
ment fall to disclose or explain the cri-
teria employed by the engineering con-
tractor or EPA for selecting the thirty
candidate refineries for "exemplary
plant treatment." and that EPA had not
explained or justified why and how the
thirty candidate refineries were nar-
rowed down to only twelve "exemplary"
refineries.
The sources of Information available
to the contractor for the development
of the subcategorlzatlon and the choice
of well-operated refineries (in terms of
pollution abatement) were as follows:
1. 1973 EPA/API Raw Wa«t« Load Surrey
a. Corps or Engineer* (Rariua Act) Permit
Application*
X Self-reporting discharge data from
Texas. Illinois, and Waanlngcon
4. Monitoring dau from »cac« acencles
and/or regional EPA offices for individual
reanenea.
A preliminary analysis of these data
Indicated an obvious need for additional
Information. Although 136 refineries
were surveyed during the 1972 EPA/API
Raw Waste Load Survey, the survey
did not Include any effluent data.
Refuse Act Permit Application data
were llmltsd to Identification of the
treatment systems used, and reporting of
final concentrations (which were diluted
with cooling waters In many cases).
consequently, operating performance
could not be established.
Self-reporting data was available
from Texas. Illinois, and Washington.
These reports show only the final effluent
concentrations and in only some cases
Identify the treatment system In use:
rarely is there production information
available which would permit the esttb-
llshment of unit waste loads.
Addition'1 data in the following area*
were required: (1) Currently practiced
or pctential In-proceM waste control
techniques: (2> Identity and effective-
ness of end-of-pipe wiste control tech-
niques. and ni line-term rfan to e-tnh-
Msh the variability of iicn'or-nnnc1.- of the
end-of-pipe waste con'rol technique
The best source of inf iiri-
formatlon was obtained frcm direct In-
terviews and in.-recttpn wits to pe-
troleum refinery facilities. Verification
of data relative to loner-term perform-
ance of waste control technliu^ rn
obt tned by the use of standard EP\
reference samples to determine the re-
liability of data submitted by th~ pe-
troleum refineries, and by comrau on
with monitoring data from the «tatc
agrncies and/or reslon'l EPA c flier*
The selection of petroleum reflneric-
as candidates to be visited was guided
by the trial categorization, which -vn*
based on the 1972 EPA/API Raw Waste
Load Survey. The flnrl selection was de-
veloped from identifying tnfcrmitton
available In the 1972 EPA/\PI Rsw
Waste Load Survey. Cnrps of Engineers
Permit Applications. State self-report-
ing discharge data, and ronfcu within
regional EPA offices and the industry.
Every effort was made to choose facili-
ties where meaningful Information on
both treatment facilities and mpnufac-
turing processes could be obtained.
After development of a probability
plot for the respective raw waste loads
from the tentative refinery categoriza-
tion, the tentative categorization was
presented to API and EPA for review
and comment. Three refineries in each
category were then tentatively desig-
nated as "exemplary" refineries based
FBXIAL UGISTC1. VOL 40. NO. 99— TUESDAY. MAY 20. 197S
151
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
on low raw waate loads determined by
the API/EPA surrey. Simultaneous.
tentative lists at additional refineries
wen collected from each of the Re-
gional EPA offices. Several lists were
than prepared ind submitted to EPA.
From the approximately 30 refineries on
these Usta. the refineries (or further
study were then selected.
During this screening process, ar-
rangement* were made to either visit the
refineries or collect additional Informa-
tion relative to plant operations. In
some cases, refineries declined to partici-
pate la the program. Aa a result of the
screening program, twenty-three (33)
refineries were then Involved In plant
visits, mesa refineries an listed In
T»We L
Tlie purpose of the refinery visits was
to collect «i*i'-iMit data, la the areas of
waatewater plant operations to define
raw waste loads, effluent treatment
schematics* operating ftin**'**"***» sad
effluent analyse*. At a result of these
plant visits, data from only twelve (13)
refineries (designated by stars In Table
1) wen found to b* available for a suffi-
ciently long-term period (one year or
more) to provide an adequate data basis
for further definitive projections. Con-
sequently, operating data inm these
twelve (13) refineries wire then used as
one of the major data sources In devel-
opment of the regulations.
vmn COHTMCT no.
Camp mar:
Coaotai SUM •
CaanpUa '._„_-_
•Xtotal Uonard •.
(Talon OU i..
laontooa *
OKCHMBlag ..... _
Tnaeo '..„„ ____ ..
pbllUp* '....-...._
DA OU * JMaiag '-
3»«U« ----- ..... —
DP _____________ ,
Onir.
locotioa
Li moot. m.
Waiting, lad.
Torktown. Va.
Corpus Cartnl. Tra.
BiMiimnnt Tex.
Buon Boug*. La.
Tnu Cltv. Tix.
Owr PKk. Tie.
OkmulgM. OUm.
Loetport.ru.
Bwanwy. Tn.
Taoama. Waaa.
Martlnm. Calif.
P&lladtlpbJa. Pa.
O».
fort BMdtng. HJ.
Philadelphia. Pk.
Pan Arthur. To.
Ltkaton Brtnuy—
.Okl*.
LakavM*. lad.
1 caoan u "art mpiarr- r«an«n«.
At can be seen from the above, the
selection of these twelve refineries was la
large part dictated by the limited avail-
ability of InformaUon.
•Core complete or more recent data
thaw acme of the original trelve re-
fineries to be less than "exemplary." See
Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Petro-
leum Beflnlag Point Source Category, pp.
13-14: -Draft Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Ouidellnes <""<
Standards of Performance, Petroleum
Beflnlag Industry." pp. m-3-4.
(2) One commenter objected to the
calculation of 1977 flow rales from only
94 reflnerles. 40 percent of the Industry.
Of a total of 253 petroleum refineries.
EPA holds permit applications for sur-
face water discharge for 190-200 refin-
eries. TJie remaining 50-60 refineries we
either "zero discharge" operations or are
currently discharging to municipal waste
treatment ystems. EPA Is aware of a
number of zero discharge refineries In
and or semi-arid areas of Texas. New
Mexico and Southern California, and
several refineries in Los Angeles County
are currently discharging to municipal
waste treatment. Since none of these
plants have direct surface discharge, they
are excluded as potential sources of data.
Of the remaining 190-300 discharg-
ing refineries, 138 were Included la the
1973 API/EPA survey, which Is the only
available comprehensive source of data
on refinery water use. Since the survey
does not show process water use as a
separate discharge, but instead lists total
flow volume, this limited the number of
refineries for which data could be used
to those for which process flow consti-
tuted most or all of the total waste-water
discharged. Data from refineries remov-
ing more than 3 percent of heat by
means of once-through cooling were not
used, since cooling water would cause
any estimate of process flow based on
total plant flow to be greatly overstated
for those refineries. Thus. EPA could use
data from only 94 refineries. Since the
API/EPA raw waste load survey was
designed to be representative of the total
industry, and since EPA used all of the
refineries la the survey with 3 percent
or less heat removal by once-through
cooling water, the flows used are actually
higher than the process water flows
achieved by the Industry. (See "Flow
Basis" portion of the History of Guide-
lines Development in this Document).
(3) One commenter stated that, of the
twelve "exemplary reflnerles only one
actually compiles with the prescribed
1077 levels for every pollutant param-
eter.
EPA baaed the regulations not upon
the overall performance of the so-called
"exemplary" refineries, but on the efflu-
ent concentrations achieved by the
emplary" refineries and plants In other
industries, the variabilities achieved by
the "exemplary" reflnerles. and flows
achieved by the industry as a whole. EPA
did not expect that these reflnerles would
uniformly comply with all limitations.
since they did not have all the recom-
mended technology in place. For ex-
ample, few of the "exemplary* refineries
wen expected to meet the degree of
ammonia removal specified, since few
were practicing adequate ammonia
stripping.
EPA has obtained effluent data cover-
ing a fun year for six of the twelve re-
flnerles. Four of these had no violations
of the 1977 limitations, while another
had only five data points, out of several
hundred data points, above the limits.
In addition. EPA now has data on 10
additional refineries In the United States
which had no violations of the regula-
tion limits In 1974. and four others that
only exceed the ammonia limits.
Included la this group of 18 refineries
(14 with no violations and 4 exceeding.
the ammonia limits) are "sour" crude
users and refineries that an not located
la areas with water shortages. It should
be noted that these 18 refineries do not
necessarily represent ail of the refineries
la the country currently meeting the
regulations. The available data cover
only 12 of 33 States which have refineries.
EPA has requested the American Petro-
leum Institute to supply additional efflu-
ent data.
M) One commenter stated tai
failed to base the standards o
average of the best existing performances
by plants currently In place.
EPA has based its limitations upon the
best existing performance of plants cur-
rently providing treatment except where
the industry la uniformly providing in-
adequate treatment. In every case, the
limitations for the Petroleum Refining
Point Source Category reflect actual per-
formance of plants cu-rently in place.
The following table summarizes the
approach followed by the Agency in de-
veloping the regulations.
EPA set the BPT. BAT and New
Source Umita as follows:
Lml
Concentration
VarlalilUtjr
BPT
Flo* Mnf m«l by S9
at UM Btona la '
lam tar
^mSS ? tto ll™ * Bto"!> **
mica, dau w«* MulaUU.
vtui inainmt la DIM 'or
wtiirh k>ni-una dau wvn
*
Band oa
Anran
•aib
pilot nlanu .......... n »«nn iri tnew
iu,
•Alan loot-urm data wen
•reliable.
(See Sections IV. V. EC. X. 33 of the
Development Document for Effluent Lim-
itations Guidelines and New Source Per-
formance Standards for the Petroleum
Refining Point Source Category, and
Supplement B—"Probability Plots", re-
finery data and analysis flies, "Variabil-
ity Analysis.")
(9) One commenter objected to the
Agency's reliance upon refineries in
Texas and California, arguing that
SPA's sample should be representative
of Uu geographical distribution of the
industry. The commenter noted that
subcategorles "C". "D". and "E" are rep-
resented solely by refineries In the
coastal areas of Texas and California.
A- BRva Oow data b*i« lacluda refineries
[rum all MM at to* country.
B. Of eh* four raflnenea aelecwd br tao>
contractor m tH» -A- urt "S" «ubc*.Mgon««.
aoJy an* na lociud in Taui or California.
C. Tier* ta only no* "B" r»flnery
-------
21944
RULES AND REGULATIONS
O. The da» b*M tor "O" reflniirlea hu bma
Broadened-by adding a refinery in HUooU.
• E. Of Ute 17 ~C~ nOnerlei in tbe country.
t an Ja Tmi. California, or in a coastal km.
Tb« agency ha* broadened. |U data bae» to
include a "C~ nosery in miaou.
(8) Several cemmenters stated Chat
!3»A baa Ignored the effect of crude oil
feedstock characteristics on the treat-
ability of refinery effluent. They claim
that feedstocks containing heavy crudes.
In particular crudes from California.
have a substantial impact on effluent
quality.
Subsequent to publication of the pro-
posed, regulations, the Shell Oil Com-
pany and the Phillips Petroleum Com-
pany submitted data for three refineries
processing California crudes: Shell at
Martinez. California: Shell at Wilming-
ton. California: and Phillips at Avon.
California. These date Indicated that
these refineries appeared to have expe-
rienced higher pollutant raw waste
loads (the quantities of pollutants In the
waste stream before treatment) than the
median refineries of their subeategorles.
EPA considered this additional Informa-
tion In mini iimm whether an additional
pollutant allocation should be allowed
those refineries processing heavy crudes.
EPA was Interested in determining
whether the above-median raw waste
loads of the three refineries could be
dearly attributed to th-lr California
crude feedstocks, or whether their high
waste loads reflected the complexities of
their refinery processes. Each of the,
three refineries Is well above-average In
complexity for its subcategory.
The eommenters provided raw waste
loads for five parameters (BOOS. COO.
TOC. phenols and wnnH"1'*1 from each
of the three refineries. Of these raw
waste loads. 13 out of the IS Instances
were above the applicable subcategory
median. This Is shown by the following
table:
RirmHT RAB *ura LOAI» M Poenirr A«I*P im
MsauM raa n» Arrumun SnauTinnn
PMUtra
vtlminf •aniiMt
BOIM.
cow
TOC . .
AmoMMa..
FltafioU. . .
39
7
Tt
X
'JIT
111
KM
•a
1M
kXM
a
ou
in
-4T
tat
n
173
M
«
However, if refinery complexity Is taken
Into account, by dividing each refinery's
reported raw waste loads by that re-
finery's process factor, the resulting
"complexity adjusted" raw waste loads
exceed the appropriate subcategory me-
dian In only 7 of the IS Instances. This
Is demonstrated by the following table:
RirT»»r RAW WUTI LAID Pi»reto IT ma Rm-
nx«»T Puien ficro« ut I'MCIMT AIOTC nil
MEMUI foa IM AmonuTt SumtnnoiT
aiwii eh«u i
Ann wilmlnf. Manilla i
BO 04
COI> ... .
TOC
AlBRMM*..
Pbrau....
-4
ts
-4
Ol
-II
2
-II
U
MB
-13
90
-n
a*
-10
2B
-1
-11
«M
The above Cable shows that the In-
creased refinery complexity associated
•with those refineries processing Califor-
nia crudes might well be a cause of their
higher raw waste loads. Since the proc-
ess factor Is a component of the allowed
effluent limitations, it adequately com-
pensates (with the possible exception of
phenols) for the larger raw waste loads
of those refineries. Existing treatment
facilities have demonstrated that the
phenol limits are achievable, even when
raw waste loads are greatly In excess
of the median*
Even If It were possible unequivocally
to attribute aa Increased raw waste load
to a feedstock type, this -rould not In
Itself Justify an increased effluent limita-
tion for refineries processing that feed-
stock. The Ions-term average quantity of
a pollutant In a refinery effluent depends
more upon the design and operation of
the treatment system than upon the
average raw waste load Input to the sys-
tem.
To determine whether there exists In
practice a relationship between average
effluent quality and raw waste load. EPA
compared, for 14 refineries with both
raw waste load and effluent data availa-
ble, the average amount of pollutant In
tas effluent with the raw waste load of
the pollutant. No meaningful correlation
between average effluent and raw waste
load was observed for the pollutants
BOO5. T33. oil and grease, phenols, and
ammonia.
Thus, for these pollutants, differences
In effluent quality between refineries are
associated more with other factors (e.g..
differences In treatment systems or la-
plant controls) than with differences In
ra-v waste load. However. EPA did ftnd
a significant correlation between the
quantity of COO In the effluent of each
of the refineries and the refineries' raw
waste loads.
This finding merely support.* EPA's ac-
tion, when It promulgated Che regula-
tions. In Increasing the COO limitations
to avoid any possible Inequity to proces-
sors of heavy crudes. (See "History of the
Regulations". Fart 4. "achievable con-
centrations".)
In addition. EPA examined data from
one refinery which processed a mixture of
crude types. In partlclular. tt was claimed
that the effluent quality for BODS, phe-
nols, and ammonia decreased as the per-
centage of Arabian crude In the feed-
stock; Increased. The Agency could find
no significant correlation between ef-
fluent quality and the percent of Ara-
bian crude used.
(7) One commenter itated Hint op-
erating experience with the full-scale
carbon adsorption system at HP's Marcus
Hook refinery has been leu than satbf ac •
lory, that Gulf Oil Company has found
that carbon treatment Is not feasible for
their Port Arthur refinery wastewater.
and that Texaco has apparently reached
the same conclusion with regard Co Its
Eagle Point refinery.
The best available technology econom-
ically achievable specified for the petro-
leum refining Industry Is the applica-
tion of carbon adsorption to the effluent
from a well operated biological/physical
treatment plant of Che cype required to
meet the 1977 limitations. In each case
specified by the commenter. activated
carbon treatment was appllid to waste-
waters of considerably poorer quality
than Is required for 1977. *ince activated
carbon was being used in lieu of biological
treatment.
(8) Comments were received which
auert that special unproven teehniaues.
such as biological nitrification—denitrl-
flcatlon for ammonia removal, and some
unspecified technology for phenols.
would be required to meet the ammonia
and phenol Limitations.
The achievable ammonia limits are
based on In-plant sour water stripping
techniques which are currently In use
In the refining Industry. A number of
plants In this Industry are meeting the
ammonia limits using this technology.
(See "Development Document for Efflu-
ent Limitations Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards for the
Petroleum Refining Point Source Cate-
gory", pp. 95-07: 40 CFR Part 419. 39
PR 16962(23) May 9.1974.)
The achievable phenol limits are based
on the refinery effluent data and refer-
ences cited In Tables 28 and 27 of the
Development Document. In addition.
EPA has recently acquired phraol efflu-
ent data from 11 refineries not cited in
the Development Document, which data
show an average phenol effluent concen-
tration of 0 098 mg/1 <0.10 mg/l was used
as the achievable concentration In set-
tin? tile BPT limits >.
<9> Some eommenters stated that
neither the regulation nor the Develop-
ment Document explains or assesses how
refineries of widely varying age. process.
geographic location, load availability.
and ether circumstances can further re-
duce flows to the 1983 volumes.
The methods currently being applied
by the Industry to achieve flow reduc-
tions are listed on page 169 of the Devel-
opment Document for Effluent Limita-
tions Guideline^ and New Source Per-
formance Standards for the Petroleum
Refining Point Source Category.
Some other methods of reducing flows
not listed on page 169 are:
I. Maximum reiiaa o( treatment plant
cfllueat. emporatlon. and couumptlve UOT.
1. LIOM and line soda, jortenlng to reduce
bardnns to allow runner recvcllng.
3. DM of ipeclally designed tilgtt dlaaolTtd
ao4ld« cooling towera wtilen would uae uie
blowdown from other cooling tower* aa make-
up water.
Of Che 94 refineries turd In determin-
ing the flow base for the 1977 limita-
tions. 26 were doing as well or better than
the 1983 flow base. These 28 reflnerirs are
located In 15 different states (Alaska.
California, Colorado. Illinois. Kansas,
Kentucky. Louisiana, Montana. North
Dakota. New Mexico. Ohio. Oklahoma,
Texas. Utah, and Wyoming).
(10) One commenter stated that the
control efficiencies needed to meet Che
limitations are higher than those at-
tained by municipal plants employing
traditional secondary treatment, and are
derived partially from EPA's Inclusion of
polishing steps, including granular filtra-
tion or polishing ponds. The commenter
IKISTIR. voc. 40. NO. »•—ruisoAr, MAT 20. 1971
153
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
219-15
argued that EPA's own publications con-
cede that then Is no carefully docu-
mented niter operating experience with
wastewater. and coat toe operating ex-
perience of the two refineries wins gran-
ular media filtration (Amoco. Yorktown:
BP. Marcus Hook) ?hows that this tech-
nology *rt'l «o* achieve the limits.
M«»iy dl5charg*rs will be able to meet
tot limitations without a polishing step.
However, the cost of niters was Included
tn the estimates since some refineries
might need a po't'hlng step to achieve
the suspended soUds and oil and
Oil ind
(01 |/I>
Tne average effluent suspended solids
for the 12 refineries for which EPA baa
1974 suspended solid* data Is 13.1 mg/1
(10 mg/1 la the guideline basis I. Only one
of toes* plants (Marathon Ol). Robinson.
HLJ has a filter In operation. Sereral are
achieving leaa than '0 mg/1 of suspended.
solids without a pa'Lih'n* etep. The ten
refineries for which HP A has 1974 oil and
HIT nn data an* rvenrtpv 50 mg/1 (5.0
mg/1 la the regulation basis).
Experience with pranular media fil-
ters, ae well ss with other polishing
steps. Is extensive and we'l documented.
ERA'S "Process De*lm Manual tor Sus-
pended Solids Removal" gives the results
of studies of filtration of effluent from
secondary biological treatment for 33 fa-
cilities. These 32 show an average sus-
pended solids efflurat concentration of
8.8 mg/1. with only 3 of tap 32 over 10
mg/L
IB addition, there are approximately
2300 granular media filters being used
for suspended 'ollds removal in the
Water Suprly lndu*tr* Many filters are
in operation In othrr ittduitttes. such as
steeL for oil and fol'ds removal.
Within the pe'roleum Industry many
filters an being employed for oil removal
from production water before Its dis-
charge from off* hon otl platforms Fil-
ters an aim being used prior to second-
ary treatment (BP. Marcus Hook. Pa.:
Exxon. Biyonne. NJ.; Amarada-Resa,
Port Reading. N J.. etc.).
Two filters are currently being used as
a polishing step for secondary treatment
effluents (Amoco. Yorktown, Va. and
Marathon. Robinson. DL) and several
others are now in design or under con-
struction.
It la true that the two installations
with filters now in place do not achieve
the 10 mg/1 of suspended solids and 5
mg/1 of oil and grease expected from
these units. This la a result of the condi-
tion* under which these Installations
have been operated. EPA's 1977 treat-
meat model assumes that the influent to
a polishing step will be an effluent from
a well designed, well operated secondary
treatment plant, and that the average
suspended solids and oil and grease In-
fluenta to the alters will be 15-25 mg/1
and 5-10 mg/L respectively.
The following data from Amoco. York-
town's filter operation thow a distinct
Improvement in effluent quality when the
Influent Is within the expected range:
AIUL IWl
SXX. 1971 la""
Nor. IHTl
Pie. mi la
Feb. ivn .
MV. im to
M«r in*
hot. 1977 U>
NOT. I9TZ.
IS 'i.1
«I *lll
• at
» a
« 41
T
IS
IS
IT
9
'LJ
&.»
to
13
'*
i Low IBMI IB* moolhly mutmnai Umll of IT m«A
kr mnxndtrt «W(U. tad, of I m«rt tof oil tod
" Oaw.
The above data Indicates adequate
performance 'of the filter when the sec-
ondary treatment effluent was within the
ranges of expected operation. In spite of
the following unusual (and correctable)
difficulties encountered at the facility:
1> filter media losses and channeling
eventually forced replacement of the en-
tin filter bed; 2) an unexpected Increase
In flow volume was caused by refinery ac-
ceptance of ballast water; 3> untreated
lagoon water (used for backwash) was
left .In the niter after backwashing: and
4) the filter was not properly designed
for both summer and winter Influent
Not as much Information was available
to EPA on the Marathon. Robinson fil-
ters as was available on Amoco, but the
following b known: The data for the 9
months (3/72-V73) of operation prior
' to the Instillation of the filters show a
suspended solids effluent from toe sec-
ondary treatment plant of 19 mg/1 aver-
age. The secondary treatment plant ef-
fluent for the 12 months of 1974 showed
an average suspended solids concentra-
tion of 49 mz/L Thus, the filters were
operating at a level well above their de-
jigD limits and on 2.8 times higher Influ-
ent suspended solids concentration thin
at their Initial Installation. It should be
noted that In spite of this, the filler
effluent averaged 12 mg/1 of suspended
solids for the first IB months of opera-
tion.
Granular media Alters are not a cure-
all or a substitute for a well designed and
well operated secondary treatment sys-
tem, but rather, as EPA Intended, a
polishing step to further improve a good
secondary treatment plant effluent. Thus
employed, they can productively be part
of a system to meet the 1977 limitations.
(11) In support of the previous com-
ment opposing the use of granular media
filtration, a discussion of the results from
a pilot plant study carried out by Stand-
ard of Ohio at Its Lima. Ohio Hennery
was submitted. The pilot study was de-
signed to determine the reductions
achievable tn BOOS. COO. and suspend-
ed solids when a granular media niter
was used to treat the effluent from their
biological treatment pond.
The cammenter claimed that the
growth of algae precluded attainment of
the BPT suspended solids. BODS, and
COO limits.
As In the cases cited In response to
comment no. 10. these alters were being
used for mare than the polishing step
EPA Intended. EPA did not base the reg-
ulations on the use of granular media
nitration for BOOS and COD removal
The treatment model assumes the In-
fluent to the filter be below U mg/1 of
suspended solids and 19 mg/1 of BODS.
Thus, the biological treatment step pre-
ceding filtration should dellever an ef-
fluent of such quality to the filters. Such
treatment can be accomplished by sev-
eral techniques, either separately or In
combination, including activated sludge.
biological ponds, trickling filters, and
aerated lagoons. The technique selected
depends upon an engineering evaluation
of the specific site and raw waste charac-
teristics.
Where lagoons an employed, the ef-
fluent quality of a lagoon system can be
affected adversely during certain periods
of the year by the algae generated In the
system. The algae can settle out in the
bottom of a receiving stream or lake, un-
dergo death and degradation, exert an
oxygen demand In effluent samples aad
in the stream, and will be measured as
part of the solids In the effluent.
Then are. however, a variety of ap-
proaches which can be used to control
the Quantity of solids in the effluent. Most
of these approaches either are In use or
have been thoroughly demonstrated ard
can be used when needed. Under specific
detign and operational conditions, each
approach can be economical. Anollcaole
approaches Include micro-straining, co-
agulation-fiocculaeion. land disposal.
granular media or Intermittent sand fil-
tration, and chemical control.
Micro-strainers liave been used suc-
cessfully In numerous applications for the
removal of algae and other suspended
material from water. In a series of nine
Investigations over a period of years.
plankton removal averaged 39 percent.
Micro-straining requires little mainte-
nance and can be used for the removal
of algae from stabilization ponds or
lagoons.
Coagulatlon-fiocculatlon. followed by
sedimentation, has been applied exten-
sively for the removal of suspended and
colloidal material from water.
Land disposal (soray Irrigation) for all
or a portion of the lagoon effluent can
reduce outflow to a stream during periods
of high algae. This reduction can com-
pensate for the Increased solids concen-
trations and permit the limitations to be
attained. Spray Irrigation In A controlled
manner onto adjacent land can be ac-
complished without additional environ-
mental problems.
Although EPA did not contemplate
using granular media filtration specifi-
cally to remove algae, filters have been
shown to achieve the BPT limits even
when Influent quality was degraded due
to algal growth. The Lima Refinery pilot
project showed that the limits were ob-
tained with certain media sizes and flow
rates.
nDIIAL UGlXnt. VOL 40. NO. 98—FUISOAY, MAr 20, 1973
154
-------
21946
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Chemical measures (or the control of
excessive algae growths In lagoons are
also effective. Proper application depends
upon the type, magnitude, and Irequeocy
of growth, the local conditions, and the
degree of control that is necessary. For
maximum effectiveness, algal control
measures should be undertaken before
the develonment of the algal bloom.
Thus, there are many alternatives
that can be used for alg^e control and/or
removal to assure that the lagoon effluent
oualltv meets the described limitations.
The alternative selected at a specific re-
flnerv will be a function of land avail-
ability, available operating personnel.
degra of difficulty in meeting the Umlta-
^fiM mrf overall wasta management
economics.
(12) A commenter suggested that the
BFT flow basis was based on flows ex-
perienced by refineries which apply good
water conservation practices, and that
only 50 (37 percent) of the 138 refineries
In the 1972 API/EPA survey are meeting
the EPA flow basis.
EPA based the BAT and BADT (1983
and New Source) flow bases on refineries
employing good water conservation prac-
tice?. The BPT flows were based on what
one-lwlf of the industry was achieving
la 1972. In fact. 11 (94 percent) of toe 94
refineries used from the 1972 API/EPA
survey were at or below the BPT process
water flows. No assessment of process
water flow* was made for the remaining
42 of the 138 refineries In the survey.
since their flow volumes Included large
amounts of once-through cooling water.
which was not Included In the flow bise
definition. It must be recognized that the
flow base Is not a flow limitation, and
that Oil pollutant allocations allowed by
the regulations can be met with flows
higher than predicted If the effluent con-
centrations are lower than those used
by EPA. Since a number of refineries
are achieving concentrations for each
pollutant parameter that are consider-
ably below the concentrations used by
EPA. a refinery might be able to meet
the effluent limits with a higher than
predicted flow. The same result might
be achieved by careful control and de-
sign and consequent lowered variability,
(13) Some commenters stated that
EPA did not adequately consider the
effects of climate on biological waste-
water treatment and that substantially
higher reductions can be achieved In
southern states and (or Installations re-
quiring summer operations only. In-
cluded were several examples of claimed
summer-winter variations in refinery
effluents.
EPA has collected data from ten re-
flnertei located In Illinois. Montana.
North Dakota, Washington, and Utah.
Effluent data from these ten refineries
for the parameters which could be fcf-
feeted by cold climates are as follows:
BOOS—13.2 mg/I average (the limita-
tion basis Is 15 mg/1). COD—75 J mg/1
average (the limitation basis (or thsse
refineries varies between 110-115 mg/1)
and phenols—0.049 mg/1 average (the
limitation basis Is 0.10 mg/1).
The eommenten own data submitted
with the comment, provide little support
Tor the position taken In the comment.
These data tend to show, and EPA agrees.
that temperature variations, with a hott
of other factars, do affect refinery varia-
bility. This effect is fully taken Into ac-
count by the variability (actors and does
not appear to depend on refinery
location.
(14) A commenter argued that EPA
regulations would require In-plant modi-
fications, and that ETA was not author-
ized under the law to require such modi-
fications (or 1977.
EPAs regulations do not require any
particular form of treatment, nor do they
require in-plant modifications. The regu-
lations require -the achievement of ef-
fluent limitations which are based upon
the performance of good existing plants.
Since the total effluent loading in pounds
or kilograms Is controlled by three vari-
ables, the total effluent flow, the concen-
tration of pollutant In the effluent, and
the variability, reduction of one or more
of these components can be u*ed to
achieve the limitations. Ths limitations
are based upon flow, concentration, and
variability figures which are readily
achievable. If a discharger's flow Is
higher than the flow upon which the
regulations are based, the discharger has
three options: he may reduce his flow to
or below the predicted level, and main-
tain the appropriate effluent concentra-
tions and variability: he may modify his
treatraint system so ss to achieve lower
effluent concentrations: or he may de-
sign and operate more carefully to
achieve lower variability. EPA has data
on dischargers which are achieving con-
centrations, flows, and variabilities well
below those upon which the limitations
are based.
EPA Is aware, however, that for most
such dischargers reduction of flow
would be the most economical and. In
the long run. the most effective means
of meeting the regulations. Accordingly,
our cost estimate* .ire based upon the In-
stallation of treatment necessary to
meet the regulations, and (or any Inplant
modifications necessary to reduce proc-
ess water flow coromensuratcly.
It should be emphasized that, even (or
those dischargers who choose to reduce
process water flow by In-plant modi-
fications, such modifications amount to
nothing more thAn modification and re-
piping of existing processes. To meet the
1983 guidelines, more extensive changes
may be appropriate. Por example, dis-
chargers emoloylnt fluid catalytic crack-
Ing may change to hydro-cracking: or
those acid treating may change to hydro-
treating, to help In meeting the 1983
limitations. However, such changes 'will
not be necessary for any discharger to
meet the 1977 limitations.
(IS) One commenter argued that EPA
made many errors In Its development of
the median raw waste loads from the
APX/EPA survey used In the regression
analysis.
The median raw waste loads (Tables
18-22 In the Development Document)
were not used in the regression analysis.
The regression analysis was based on the
size, flow, and refining processes of each
refinery used.
(18) A comm-nt was received to the
effect that EPA used median values
rather than mean values to determine
allowable effluent loadings and variabil-
ity (actors.
The eommentar was Incorrect. Mean
values, not medians, were calculated
from the "exemnlary" refineries. These
means were used to develop the achiev-
able concentration?.
In calculating the variabilities (or
each refinery, the 99 percent probability
limit was divided by the mean because
the variabilities were wed to predict 30-
day and dallv maximums from an an-
nual average (mean).
(17) A comments noted that the
variability allowed In many of EPA's
other Industrial guidelines Is greater
than that used for the Petroleum Re-
fining limitations. The commenter there-
fore requested hi?her variabllltv (actors,
especially to cover upset conditions.
The variabilities used bv EPA in set-
ting the Petroleum R»flning limitations
are derived, from extensive long-term
data from refinery operations. These
variability therefore reflect what Is
currently being achieved in this indus-
try.
Comparison to variabilities In other
Industries Is considered Invalid (or sev-
eral reasons:
1. The data base u-ed to calculate tne
variabilities in ma Refining Industry vaa ac
leut 10 time* larg-r than that available tn
any of the ocber Industries mentioned by
tne eommenter
3. tn otner Industrie- tti* «c;ency was of-
ten reouired to enahii«b variabilities' ba«ed
upon relatively llttte long-firm data. In such
ca*w. ronabllltlei were often conservatively
jet it a higB. level, in order to compensate
lor the lack or data. Because or tbe avail-
ability or good long-term data on petroleum
reflner*. the Agency H confident tbac dies*
vartabfltlea itra readily acnlsvabla by all
raflnen over the loig-term
3. The technology •pectfled u the be«t
practicable control technology currently
available baa been In u-e in the petroleum
penning industry for a long period or time
Tna experience accumulated over chu period
of time has enabled the liduitry to Iron out
many Irregularities which contribute to
variability. Thla has enabled the oetroleum
Industry to achieve lover variabilities than
many other Indu-trie* wth le-s experience
in pol'utlon abatement. Tna agency believes
taat the Industry us a whole «hould be re-
quired co maintain the level or control
presently practiced by many reflnen.
The commenter also requested higher
variabilities to cover unset conditions As
has been stated previously, data taken
during periods of jpllh. In-plant upset
conditions, etc.. were Included In calcu-
lating the variabilities. However, a- (ew
data points, which reported either pre-
ventable upsets of catastrophic events
(such as the effects of hurricane Agnes
on a coastal refinery In Texas), were de-
leted from tne variability data base.
since they did not reflect the normal
operation of a well run. carefully main-
tained operation.
FBEIAl IEGUTEI, VOL 40, NO. 90—TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1975
155
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
21947
<18> One comment shows that EPA
used an incorrect equation In the calcu-
lation, of sample variance.
A minor error was made In Che calcu-
lation* used la preparation of the pro-
posed regulations. However, since the
approach used (or data analysis after
publication of the proposed regulations
corrected that error. It did not appear
la the final regulation.
(19) A commenter complained of bi-
ased data selection on the part of EPA
in determining the variabilities.
The commenter presented four charts
showing the monthly average loading for
BOO, TBS. oU and crease, and ammonia
from January. 1970 through April. 1973
tor Shell. Martinet EPA selected one
rear's data, for each parameter, to cal-
culate the variability. For BOD. TSS.
sad oil and grease. EPA chose tha year
after the installation of Shell's waste
treatment plant In September. 1971. Tae
data for these parameters prior to that
dau could not be used because It was
representative of raw waste and not efflu-
ent variability. A period of one year was
chosen for several reasons: 1) one year's
data should adequately represent the un-
orevcaiabla causes of variability: and 3J
the quantity of data Is sufficient for sta-
tistical analysis and prediction of both
variability add long-term performance.
For oil and grease. EPA did erroneously
analyze data for a period before the In-
stallation of biological treatment. How-
ever. EPA has recomputed the variability
using data from the same period (after
Ira taxation of treatment) used for the
other parameters, the difference is neg-
ligible.
EPA believes, as indicated previously.
that low vartabt'lty 1» concomitant
with good plant operation. For ***« rea-
son a year different from that used for
the other parameters, a year In which
low ammonia variability was attained.
was selected far calculating ammonia
variability. It Is Immaterial that this year
preceded Installation of the biological
treatment system, since most ammonia
removal is accomplished by a separata
system.
The eommenter also pointed to sev-
eral data points chut were deleted from
the data analysed from the Marathon.
Texas City Refinery. Five data points
were dropped during the analysis of the
ammonia data as not being representa-
tive of tha normal plant operation. Tae
data points were all of the data from the
period 10/11/73 through 13/8/73. The
data prior to 10/11/73 ranged from 2.3 to
33.« mg/1 and the data after 13/8/73
ranged from 3-J to 394. The points
dropped wen 9.8. 0. 0. 0. and 80 mg/L
These data points were dropped because:
1) they Immediately followed a 33 day
period for which no data were recorded:
and 2> for whatever reason (EPA has
been unable to determine Che cause of
these aberrant values), these five con-
secutive deleted data points are both
startingly lower and higher than ail the
rest of the data. They thus may repre-
sent sampling or analytical errors. These
data are clearly so atypical that EPA de-
cided not to use them la the analysis.
Six data points are depleted as having
been Ignored by EPA la Its analysis of
Marathon's COO data. Two of these
pouits are duplicates (1/13/73 sad
I/IS/73), and one point < 1/31/73) was
mistakenly deleted by EPA. However.
the deletion of tab single point (which
was a low value) would have no sig-
nificant effect on the regulations. The
r..n»ininy four data points were de-
leted because Weston's trip report iden-
tified them as tha result of operator
mistakes.
(30) A commenter questioned the In-
clusion of three data points since they
were preceded by the symbol meaning
leas than the sensitivity at that level"
For all analytical techniques a limit
of sensitivity exists below which UM
method does not yield reliable quantita-
tive measurements. EPA. throughout its
analysis of the Refinery Industry data.
has used the level of analytical sensitivity
as the data points where a "less than
sensitivity" Indicator appeared In tha
data. It is believed that elimination of
these low data points might significantly
bias the analysis of the total data base.
(31) A commenter questioned EPA's
variability analysis on Amoco. York-
town's' BODS data, on the grounds that
two analyses by EPA of the same data
yielded strikingly different result* (4.54
vs. 2-29).
This supposed Inconsistency arose as
a result of the progression followed by
EPA In preparing the regulations (see
"Variability" above). The 3.29 daily var-
iability Is the result of fitting Amoco's
data to a normal distribution, while the
434 figure Is based on n log-normnl fit.
The Improved methodology now being
used by EPA results In a 180 dally
variability. The corrections made initially
for the facts that the data fit only im-
perfectly to either a normal or log-
normal distribution are no longer
necessary.
(33> A commenter stated that EPA
erred la using 3.3 as the BODS variabil-
ity for three refineries In calculating
variabilities for othsr parameters, since
the mean of the three refineries' BODS
variabilities Is 2.14.
The mean of the three refineries'
BODS variabilities Is In fact 3.33: how-
ever. EPA used the median value. 2.3. in-
stead of the mean.
(23) A commenter Indicated that EPA
did not avail Itself of the data In the
Brown and Root Variability study.
EPA did In fact utilize data from five
of the refineries used In th* Brown and
Root Variability Study. However, the
Brown and Root Variability Study Itself
could not be used In deriving the limita-
tions. The study did not give any raw
data, or identify the refineries used In
the study. Thus. EPA had no knowledge
of the operation of these refineries and
no opportunity to determine the causes
of suspect data. Moreover, the statistical
approach used by Brown and Root was
Inconsistent with that selected by the
Agency.
The data from five of the refineries
used In the Brown and Root Variability
Study were used, along with other re-
finery data, to make the adjustment to
the original variabilities which had been
based upon a normal distribution. Since
EPA has been unable to obtain the
names of the refineries used by. Brown
and Root. It has been unable to make
further use of these data.
(34) One commenter stated that since
there Is enormous variation In Un vari-
ability factors themselves, their statis-
tical veracity must be challenged.
The validity of a variability factor in-
creases as the number of data points and
the length of time analysed increase. The
commenter has calculated daily varia-
bilities within ••*•** month art** a coeffi-
cient of variation (standard deviation
divided by the meaa) for each month.
Thus, his calculations would be expected
Co show relatively wide fluctuations. EPA
used longer (era data (la most cases, a
full year). Accordingly. th« uncertainty
observed by* the commenter Is minimised
by ZPA's method of analysis.
The wmrt"ttMr also compared the
daily variabilities based on long-term
data to show the wide range of values.
EPA Is perfectly aware of the wide range
of variabilities, and one of the Intentions
of the limitations la to prevent these
widely varying discharges. In defining
BPT. operational control Is considered
extremely important.
The prevention of spills, operator edu-
cation, ttariitigiy analytical error, and
proper treatment plant design for the
control of variability are Just as Impor-
tant as flow minimization or designing to
achieve a long-term concentration limit.
(23) One eommenter stated that, since
EPA based effluent limits (In pounds) oa
thai product of flow times concentration
times variability, and since the commen-
ter found no consistent correlation be-
tween flow snd any effluent parameter.
EPA should reevaluate the basis of Its
effluent limits.
The commenter provided EPA with a
list of ten refineries for which he exam-
ined the correlation of effluent load with
flow, and a list of those effluent param-
eters which be found to be significantly
correlated with flow. These lists, for
which the commenter failed to provide
either the data on which they are based
or the regression model he used to an-
alyze that data, constitute merely a sum-
mary of results obtained.
EPA determined which effluent param-
eters were reported by each of the ten
refineries used by the commenter. Nona
of the ten refineries reported all effluent
parameters, although the commenter's
lists might lead one to believe they did.
Based upon the commenter's own sub-
mission, then, the following table can be
constructed:
Numbfrnf Sumhtvo'
raanrni- ivlin nfnmi* wim
mm linn n dfiul'mit
itter dtu nnlnKt mrr»l>ilon
raanrtln* Oi» trfrtm HTIurnf
tflltnnt panmotrr ud
nrmmrter tow
KDUAL USISTH. VOL 4O. NO. 98—rulSOAT, MAY 10. 1971
156
-------
21943
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Thus. In moat cues where the refiner-
ies recorded du a on a specific param-
eter. the lomneater actually reported
a significant correlation between effluent
loading ami flew. There waa no reason.
therefore, for EPA to reevaluate the
basis for Its effluent limits.
(26) One commenter stated that, since
data from Shell's Martinez refinery were
not distributed either normally or log-
normally. EPA's approach to variability
was Incorrect.
The commenter provided with his
comment a table summarizing the sta-
tistical parameters he Investigated at
the Martina refinery. He did not provide
EPA with the data he used. From tho
number of data points he reported, how-
ever. he apparently used data taken
over approximately a three-year period.
Since the treatment plant at the Mar-
tina refinery was not Installed until late
In 1971. It Is likely that the commenter
combined In his summary data taken
both before and after the treatment fa-
cilities were Installed. If two such dis-
parate statistical population* were so
combined, the results obtained would be
In addition, the procedure now used
by EPA to determine the variability fac-
tor does not require that the data be dis-
tributed either normally or log-normally
over Its entire range.
(27) A commenter analyzed BOD data.
from Exxon's Baytown refinery, and de-
rived a variability factor of 3.06. not
2.03 as given by EPA.
The commenter's value -of 306 Is the
ratio between the 99th percentile of the
variability distribution and the 50th per-
eentile of that distribution (C99/CSO) for
the Baytown refinery. EPA actually de-
fines the variability factor as the ratio
between the 99th pereentlle of the var-
labllltv distribution and the mean (C99/
A). The correct variability factor for
the Baytown refinery therefore Is 2.69.
EPA originally rave the figure 2.03 as
th.it factor. Uoon reanalyzing the Bay-
town data. EPA discovered that It had
made an error In transcribing the origi-
nal figures from the work shests. EPA
then recomputed the overall variability
factor using the 2.69 figure. and found
It remained unchanged, to within the
round-off limits.
(28) A commenter argued that EPA
has not demonstrated the availability of
carbon adsorption as a proper basis for
establishing the 1983 limitations. The
eommenter cited several references. In
addition to those used by EPA. In malt-
ing this argument.
Carbon adsorption technology has been
used by Industry for many yean for
the removal of organic contamination In
the Sugar and Liquor Industries. In 1960,
the detailed evaluation of carbon adsorp-
tion u a possible wastewater treatment
technology began as part of the mandate
of Congresa (Pub. L. 87-38) to Investi-
gate advanced waste treatment technol-
ogy.
A 1974 article by Eager In Industrial
Water Engineering cites sixteen examples
of full-scale Industry wastewater treat-
ment Installations using activated car-
bon. In addition, the article gives the
results of 220 carbon Isothem tests, de-
pleting the almost universal applicability
of activated carbon as a viable treat-
ment.
Much of the work done to date on
activated carbon adsorption has been to
show it Is an alternative to biological
treatment. However, carbon adsorption
seems more universally applicable as a
polishing step after biological treatment.
A paper by Short and Myers states: "the
best levels of reduction were obtained
with biological treatment followed by
carbon adsorption. Apparently, bio-treat-
ment and activated carbon complement
each other very well and those materials
which are resistant to biological degrada-
tion are adsorbed fairly easily while
those materials which are not adsorbed
by carbon are biologically degradable."
This statement Is confirmed by: (1) A
paper by Hale and Myers entitled "The
Organics Removed by Carbon Treatment
of Refinery Wastewater": (2) A study
carried out by Union Carbide Corpora-
tion on 93 organic compounds: (3) a
paper by E. O. Paulson. "Adsorption as
a Treatment of Refinery Effluent" in
which carbon Isotherm tests show higher
BOD and COD percent removals from
biological effluents than from raw wastes:
and (4> the 1974 pilot plant study at the
BP. Marcus Hook Refinery There a Bio-
Disk was used to remove a portion of
BOD5 irior to -arbon adsorntion. result-
lag in substantially bettcr-effluent quality
than provided by the carbon alone.
The Agency derived Its achievable
BAT effluent-concentrations from the In-
formation available on the results of
activated carbon polishing of biologically
treated effluents. The sources used to
confirm the probable tchievabUlty of
these effluent concentrations are as fol-
lows: Short and Myexa—"Pilot Plant
Activated Carbon Treatment of Petro-
leum Refining Wastewater": The BP.
Marcus Hook 1974 pilot plant study of
Filtration and Activated Carbon (Blo-
Dlsk); EPA Process Design Manual for
Carbon Adsorption, especially the South
Lake Tahoe. California, and Orange.
California, biological-activated carbon
treatment plant studies.
An Important factor In the EPA's
choice of activated carbon adsorption as
a treatment step on which to base the
1983 limitations was the fact that It
would be an add-on to the 1977 treat-
ment technology. In addition, the cur-
rent Interest In activated carbon ad-
sorption should makr available sufficient
Information for the Agency to deter-
mine, prior to the Implementation of
BAT technology not later than 1983. If
the limitations will require modifica-
tion.
The commenter also Questioned the
Justification for lower ammonia con-
centrations for 1983. since activated car-
bon does not remove ammonia. While the
commenter Is correct, he misunderstood
the BAT ammonia limitation. That limi-
tation la not based upon use of carbon
adsorption, but rather Is based on Im-
proved control of the amount of am-
monia released from the ammonia strip-
per to reach the amount just needed
to satisfy the nutrient needs of the bio-
logical creatment plant. The Agency con-
cluded that several additional years of
experience and experimentation with
both ammonia strippers and Individual
biological system should result In better
control of stripper effluents and more
complete knowledge of the nutrient
needs of biological systems. Therefore.
the Agency set the HAT ammonia limita-
tions to reflect the expected reduction In
"excess" ammonia (the difference be-
tween the amount discharged from strip-
pers now and the amount of ammonia
needed by biological systems).
(29) Several comments were received
concerning the apparent anomaly In
the final pound allocations (base limits
times process factors times size factor)
for certain subcategorin. That Is. hypo-
thetlcally. In some Instances. If sufficient
petrochemical operations were added to
either cracking refineries ("B") or lube
refineries ("D") to change their classi-
fications to. respectively, petrochemical
refineries <"C"> or Integrated refineries
("E"). the final pound allocations for
those refineries would decrease. The
commenters suggested two solutions for
this anomaly: either (1) add a weighting
factor for the various petrochemical
operations to Increase the size of their
process factors, or (2) eliminate the "C"
and "E" subcategories. and add to the
pound allocations for "B" and "D" re-
fineries additional pounds based upon
the regulations for the plastics, rubber.
and organic chemical Industries.
In calculating the flows, based upon
the API/EPA survey (see "flow basis"
above). EPA attempted Co derive from
the survey data the actual process waste-
water flow which would require treat-
ment. For the most part, the flows listed
In the survey combined both process
water and once-through cooling water
Since the once-through cooling water
would ordinarily not require creatment. It
was necessary to develop a means for
denying the process flow from the total
flow listed In the survey.
The promulgated regulations were
based upon the flows from 94 of the re-
fineries In the API/EPA survey. Of these
94 refineries. 75 had no once-through
cooling and 19 removed less than 3 per-
cent of their heat by means of once-
through cooling water. It was considered
that total flow for these 94 refineries
would correspond closely to process flow.
After promulgation of the regulations.
EPA undertook to Identify the cause of
the apparent anomaly Identified by the
commenters. Upon careful examination
of the flows In the API/EPA survey. It
was found that the actual process flows
for 108 of these 136 refineries (Including
all the original 94) could be calculated.
When these process flows were compared
to the total flows used, the reason for
the anomaly became apparent: of the
original 94 refineries, most of those with
more than zero but less than 3 percent
once-through heat removed by cooling
water (13 of 19) were In Che cracking
("B") or lube ("C') subcategories. This
FBMIM lEGISTtR. VOL 40. NO. 91—TUESDAY, MAT 20, 1973
-------
RUIE5 AND REGULATIONS
21949
cooling water appeared in Che process
flaw allocations Cor the cracking and lube
refineries, giving those refineries aa extra
"cushion" which will make the regula-
tions easier to attain tor such refineries.
EPA does not believe that the excess
water allocations (or th« cracking and
lubesubeategorles require modification of
the) regulations. Such modification would
have the effect oC decreasing the quanti-
ty of pollutants allowed to be discharged
by refineries In these subcategorles. Pe-
trochemical and Integrated refineries
would be lesa affected, since the original
flow data for these" subeategories Included
a relatively lower proportion of once-
through fM""g water.
It la clear. In any event, that the solu-
tions proposed by the commenters would
tM inappropriate. Since the regulations
are based upon actual performance b'y
refineries In each subcategory. it would
be absurd to attempt to modify them oa
the basis of regulations designed for other
industries. Moreover, no "weighting (ac-
tor" is necessary to account for petro-
chemical operations, since the flows con-
tributed by such operations are fully
reflected in the flow data from petro-
.cnemical and Integrated refineries used
to develop the regulations.
<30» One commenter argued that the
limitation for hexavolent chromium was
unreasonable since technology to meas-
ure such low concentrations was unavail-
able.
The commenter was correct. Conse-
quently, the achievable concentration for
hexavalent chromium has been changed
from O.COS mi/1, to 0.03 me/I In the
amended regulations.
(31) Several commenters stated that
EPA underestimated the costs of achiev-
ing compliance with the regulations.
SPA reexamlned the economic Impact
analysis assuming •>••* the cost of com-
pliance would be SO percent higher than
the costs estimated when the regulations
were originally analyzed. That Is. the
conclusions of the analysis were cheeked
using cost estimates that were SO percent
higher than those shown in the eco-
nomic impact report (EPA 230/2-74-
030) for BAT treatment and for the T»"
inplant cost extrapolation (see Table m
on page H-30>. The conclusion of this
sensitivity analysis was that the Impact
of the regulations would not be ap-
preciably changed even If the costs were
assumed to be SO percent higher. Thus.
even If this assumption about costs were
correct, the results of the Impact study
and the appropriateness of the regula-
tions would be unchanged.
Specifically, using the higher cost as-
sumption, the analysis Indicates that a
total of ten small refineries, represent-
ing a total of 330)00 barrels per day
capacity, would be economically threat-
ened by the regulations. Two of these re-
fineries, representing 7.000 barrels per
day capacity, would face a significant
threat of closure. Ties* *"it-n"anr are
the impact* projected under the original
analysis using the lover con estimates,
and may be affected In any event by gov-
ernmental policy.
This sensitivity analysis was con-
ducted using a 90 percent increase in the
cost estimates, whereas the Industry has
suggested that the costs actually are as
much as ISO percent higher than origi-
nally estimated. This claim was believed
to be totally unrealistic for several
reasons. Specifically, the estimates
should not Include "sunk costs" (those
costs that already have been Increased
In. the past for pollution abatement).
Neither should costs which would be
Incurred regardless of EPA regulations
be Included In the estimated costs of the
guidelines. Therefore, an Increase In the
coat estimates of SO percent Is more than
adequate to test for the possibility that
the original costs were In error. This Is
particularly true because It Is likely that
any price Increases which might have
raised the costs since the original
analysis was made would be offset by the
conservative assumptions which were
built Into the original co« estimates.
The cost estimates are based upon a
complete activated sludge treatment
system Including equalization, flotation
cells, and polishing with mixed media
filters. However, from the data before
the Agency, it is clear that such an elab-
orate system will not be required In all
cases. Of the plants which are achieving
the limitations, a number use only aera-
tion lagoans for treatment. Where ade-
quate land is available at a reasonable
cost, the costs of constructing a lagoon
system can be considerably lower than
the costs associated with Installing an
activated sludge system. Moreover, the
operating costs of a lagoon system are
minimal. Thus, If EPA cost estimates are
In error, they are more likely to over-
state, rather than to understate, the re-
quired capital and operating costs.
(c> As a result of the review unJc-r-
taken by EPA In response to public com-
ment upon the promulgated regulations.
and upon the modifications thereto pro-
posed on October 14, 1974. the following
changes have been made In the regula-
tions as promulgated:
Revision of the proposed amendment
and promulgated regulation:
(1) The proposed amendments have
been promulgated without change (See
39 PR 37069) :
(2) The achievable concentration for
hexavalent chromium has been changed
from .003 mg/1 to 02 mg/1: and
(3) The dally and monthly variabili-
ties for suspended solids have been
changed from 2.9 and 1.7 to 3.3 and 2.1
respectively.
40 CPR Chapter I. Subcbapter N, Part
419 Is hereby amended as set forth below
to be effective June 19. 1973.
Dated: May 9.1975.
RUSSELL E. Tutor.
Administrator.
LIMITATIONS Gaaaums roa
Exnnxc Souacxa AND STAMOUAS or
Pntroaitfutcx ANO PBcraunuBT STAHO-
A«03 ran M«w Sooicxs roe TBX Prrto-
LXQK Rzrnrom Ponrr Sana C*n-
eoir
(1) The tables la ) 419.13 (a), (bt (1)
and (3). and are revised
to read as follows:
§ 119.12 Effluent limitation*
representing tlia degree of etllurni
reduction attainable by the applira-
Uon of the beat practicable control
technology currently available.
(a) • • •
EMItx-m
KOhiuic Uoillailulu
MuJmum tor
•ay on*
mum lor thirty
Metric oniu (kUotnou Bar 1.00B
BOW S.T
TSS «.»
COC ' 117
on uid (mi* 19
IMinuUa 10*
Ammonia uN _____ Ul
Sulfele ............. l«
Total chromium... Ml
rnromlUBi.
pU ................. withta tht rmni*
12. a
lu 1
M.I
IT
.117*
i. a
.KM
..•a
. ou
aniu (poandi oar l.an bM of tediwck)
to
non«
TS9 ........... ---- 1»
COU • ............. «IJ
OH uid man ...... U
compound!. .
Ammonia M M ... 9>
SulBdo ............. 00
Tmal chmmlum ____ IV
lUltnlmt 0.1O
rhnniimil.
pll. . V lihln uw r
t.Oia«A
4.33
in
si. i
11
aa
4.1
.024
071
(b) • * *
111 Size factor
1.000 bol or teadacocfc
par imam o*f
L*u tftan 140
330 Co 409
SO.O to 740
150 ear 900
1004 to 134
1330 to 1494
130.0 or greater....
<3> Process factor.
Plixeaa configuration
3.40
SUt
factor
. 1.09
i.ia
i.ia
1. 50
1.17
3.3 CO 3.40
1.5 co 4.40.
45 to 3.49...
3.5 to 3.90
tJt CO
3.8 to MO.
10 to
1-5 Co
M to a 99..
9.0 to 9.49.
95 to 9.99
100 to 10.49
10.3 M io-da
110 CO 11.49.
115 to 1190.
130 to ia.««.
13.5 CO 1390.
13.0 Co 13.49.
13.3 Co 13.90.
144 or
(C) ' *
(1) • •
rTDUAi lICISTEt, VOL, 40, NO. «•—tUISOAY. MAV 30. 1973
158
-------
21950
RULES AND RECUIATTONS
Kfliwnl llmiutlfHii
CfaamtertMl*
Minimum lir
•arena dar
n fcir ihinv
enitMruUv* data
ihall 1101
Mrtrtr nnlto (Mtacmnu i«r raiile imtrr el flow)
T-W
1'IHII
, O.OIV..
V
01.1
uitrtnihrrant*.
.aei
19
gflBlb* miu (pound* (w 1.900 di al Oavi
Ptum.il eonflgiirmuon:
• 7 0 to 7 49
73 to 7 99
8.0 to 8 49
8.9 to 8.99._..........
9.0 to 9 49
9.3 to 9.99
10 0 to 10.49
10J to 1O.99
11.0 to 11.49
1'JIO 11J9
13.0 to 13.49.,
I3J to 13.99.,
13.0 to 13.49.,
13 J to 13.99..,
1\JO or grettar.
o.«». ..........
an
B00«
TS8...... ....... . a.........»»•
P'£~::::: SiiJi.^- ™ to read as follow,:
••
(3) Tfce tables In I419.19(a>. (b)(l>
aod (2). and (c)(l> and (2) an revised
Proceaa cooflrunaon:
7 0 to 7.49
7 i to 7.99
8.0 to 8.49
8 3 to 8.89.
9.0 to 9.49..
9 J to 9 99
iO.O to 10.49..
10J to 10 99..
11.0 to 11.49
M.S to 11.99.
13 O to 1X49
13.8 to 13J9.._..
13.0 to 13.49.
13.3 to 13.99..
14.0 or graaur..
to • •
(I) • •
/actor
. 1.39
. 1.91
. 1.84
. 1.79
. 1.98
. 3.13
9.31
3.31
3.73
2.98
3.34
3.33
3.84
4. 18
4.38
8 419.13 Standard* of performance for
EBuMt
onancwrUao
(a)
Mutmnm kr
•nronadaj
ATvnvnofitiill*
TKIUM tor iMrtr
Hull not
BfflUMil umluuem
KffllOTII
Mulmnm lor
•UT era di/
BffluMt ilmiutloni
MMria anlu (kUotnau pv eabla outer el flewi
nliw* far uilrtT
eorwvuim da
SIBumi
Maxlmam (be
•ay en* daf
MMfta orttt ftflamau p» eubta rarur al Itovl
man tor ihlrty
eonarcuU ra dan
tkau not ._ .. Oil
aoa
.an
j*
Rn«U*h qnlu (pound! POT LOOOni ol Oovl
Bon«_.._ t
TSW^™™.::.. »,».....
oiYaoa'i *'"" ~
M
Jit.............
O.J
4.9
a
U9
.oa
Eodbh onlU (paondi par IJOO ni el flaw)
BOM_
TSS....
DOIM
ruin
iMlan«l
pll
P
0.40 .............
an
17
id
00
Ammonia u
Suind*....
Total ehn>mlam
llrunlMit
chromium.
pll _„ „ Within lite
OLIO
..... 27...
— .......... ............
Oltandfraaai ...... 13 ........
pU ................. wiuilnina
rmn 4-0 M
an
.17
i. a
.007
(2)
Ejifllaa nailB (pottfld* iw IM bbl of fatdllae*)
nillullerai
(2> Tbe tables la I 419.13(b) (1) and
(2) an revised to rend as follows:
§ 419.13 Effluent UraiUllorw iruidrliiic*
rvprrwnlina; iho deam of effluent
reduction attainable or ll>« applica-
tion of lh« bnl aTailaUa Icciinolocr
1IOIM --- ......... 4.2 ......... ---
TSH ................ XO ............ _
COI»i ........ --- 21.7 ........... _
oil rout gmm ...... U ............ _
1-honoUe OH ........... _
CORIpOIBUll*
Ammonia aaN ..... IB ..............
BulAd* ............. 027 .............
Teial enramlum.... 004 .............
13
L»
IL2
70
.Die
012
OT7
ri'iir* (nr tnlrtv
auMeuilm a/i
ih»ll not uconl-
rnroniii
pU._....
.
..._.... VMthlnihe
Murle uiilu iklleiruw per culilc niuirr of flowi
noi>5 aoca aiui
T!M flU ir.-t
COI>' 47 ji
OHwidiraaB 01.1 nn
pll — Mllhlnine
range 6.0 la
(b) • • •
(1) Size factor.
1.000 bbl at (Mdatock per •'
Laaa t&an MA
28.0 to 49 9
M.O to T4.9
78.0 10 99.0..
1004 to 134.9
1334 10 149.9....
130.0 or crmter...
(3) Process factor.
Proceaa condguratloa:
Lew in*a 149.
3.3 to 3.49.
1.3 to 4.49........
4.8 to 8.49
3.3 to 3.99
1.0 to 8.49
•A to 849 ..
(b) * ' *
(1) Sire factor.
1.000 bbl of rMditoek par itnun d>y
39.0 to 49 J»
30.0 to 74J)
73 0 to 99.9.
100.0 to 134 9
133.0 to 149 9 ------
130.0 or (TMtar..,
(3) Procesr (actor.
/actor
0.03
0.87
0.80
0.98
1.07
1.17
1.37
Enfllak uiillx (noandi por 1.000 nl ol flovl
DOM. a«0 ail
TSS 3._ 17
C0l»' HI 4»
OlluidinaM 12* in!
all_ Within the
range «J> 10
9.a
Lea* man 2.49
2.3 to 3.49.
3.3 to 4.49
4.3 to 8.49..
3 8 to 3.99.,
8.0 to 8 49
8.8 to 8.99—
(4) Tfeo tables IB I 419.23 fa) and (b)
(1) and (3) are revised to read as fol-
lows:
S 419.22 Effluent limitation* guideline* '
reprceentinc the degree of effluent
redaction attainable by the applica.
lion of the bat practicable control
technology currentl? •railable.
(a) • • •
RDUAt UOIS7K. VOL 4O. NO. 98—rUISOAf. MAT 2O. 1*79
159
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
21951
ZfliMffi Uniuaon
(2) Process factor.
TiflhMM
Uadnuin br
as? oa* day
Anrwt ofdnlly
wluca tor thirty
cemmuun oa*i
•Ban not UCMII—
Menu noli* (kllocnau p« 1.000 n< ol r*>oaack>
B004_
i&a
ini
4.J
.19
L5
.082
a
.019
taaa 3.49..
3.8 to 3.49..
3.5 to 4.49
4.5 to 5.49..
55 to 5.90..
84 to 8.40.
8.5 to 8.99
74 to 7.40.-
73 to 790..
84 to 8.40
84 to 840_
94 to 9.49
94 or greater.
/actor
_ 0.58
0.83
0.74
0.88
1.00
1.09
1. 19
L39
1.41
1.53
1.87
1.83
1.89
TJ to 799.
84 to 8.40.
8.5 CO 199.
90 to 949
98 or greater.
factor
1.41
1.13
1.87
1.83
1.89
Bail!* aniu (pood* per 1.000 bM «
BOM U
TW. *•»
coo i *« •
Oil and JIM si...... «
n- .OT4.._
Ammonia a* N.'.... Is...
8uMd4> 051..
Total cBremtam— IS..
H<
LI
• 4.4
a.4
1.1
(8) The tables In I 419.26 (a) and are revised to read is fol-
lows:
9 419.25 Standard* of perforauutce for
(a)
(7) The tables to I 419.32 and (b>
(1) and (2) are revised to read aa fol-
lows:
§ 419-32 Effluent limitation* guideline*
representing the degree of effluent
redaction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
lecnnofoirj currently available.
(a) • • *
Bflomt UmlUdon*
(b) • • •
U> Sice factor.
1400 bat of feedstock
per nr:am day:
Less taaa 344
33.0 to 494.,
50.0 to 749..
75.0 to «9.9
100.0 to 1344..
138.0 to 149.9..
Ulislir.
factor
. 0.91
. 0.98
. 1.04
1.13
1.33
1.38
1.41
(2) Process factor.
Process eonaguntioa:
Less, taaa X49....._.
34 to 3.49.__ .
34 to 4.49 —
4.4 to t.49. ...........
5.5 to 599 .
8.0 to 8.49_ „
84 ta fl 99............
7.0 Co 749.. .
7.5 to 799...
84 to 8.49 ........
•-9 » » W........ ....
9.0 to »«.... ......
94 or cn»ur..___
/•etor
0.88
. 0. 83
0. 74
. . — . 0. 88
1,00
... 1. 09
........... I. 19
. , ' «•
...... 1.*'
......I.... 1. M
.. . .... 1 87
., -.--.... ' •»
—.__... 1.80
(3) THe tables ta I 419.23 (b> (1)
(2) are revised to read as follows:
§ 419.23
and
Effloenl nmitation* guidelines
nf tno deswa of effluent
reduction attainable by the applies.
Uon of the best available technology
economically available.
• • *
(1) Size factor.
1.000 bbl of feedstock
per itream day
L*ss toaa 34.9
3S.O to 499
504 to 74
7B4 to 999...
100.0 to 134.9..
1354 to 1494..
cmter.
StMt
factor
. 0.91
0.98
1.04
I. 13
1.33
1.3S
1.41
Eflmrt
Mi
any
[adman tat mar* *>r tlilnv
iflaU not
r> dan
nc««r1—
10
.OEM
XIBuwit
ATtnw of dally
Marimom hr tatoal for thirty
any on* day •^i^cHtlT* day*
naaiMOCMd—
par UOOO a< •! badnoek)
• prr 1.009 m> of
BOD« M.«
T88 a.*
COO ' .... 710..............
On and imaa. ll.l
PhlswWelel 1ffHft~ Js**.••••...•••••
BOM I&J—_-.
T88 11.1
COD« _. in
on ind *n*m 4J
Ptwnoile JU....
.10*
JBO'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.I
withmih*
rannd.0
is* A
Ammonia •* N..... H.4........
8alM* JS
Total enramtaD9_. Ja _.
Baunlm JJ«*
... within UM
ir
T.2
•I
.12 pa...:
18.4
14. a
1UO
.OM
.30
Ammonia aa N ___
SulAd* .......... -
Total fh
chromium.
PH ...........
. oou BnflM onlta (poonda par I SCO bbl at faadnoek)
fedllatt unlla (pound* par I.OM bbl of indnack)
BOO* J.»
T9S 40 _
COO' « J
OH Mid im*a...... I 7..........
PTMioUa 00
Ammonia aa I* (.« _
SUIIWt BIT
Tola! flnnmlum__ 0*4.
lltunlrni .0071........
rhramliun.
pU . ............ Wlthla tb*
ran** 4.0
1.1
3.0
.017
(b) • • •
(1) Size factor.
1400 bbl or foedatock per
Leas taaa 3«4__.
38.0 to 499
MO to 749.
oar:
78.0 to 894
1000 to 1344
135.0 to 1499....
150.0 or gnalar..
Sin
factor
0.91
... 0.95
1.04
_. 1.13
1.33
1.39
—. 1.41
(2) Process factor.
Proeeu
Procns eooflgunttoa: /actor
Less tbsa 3.49.................. 0 38
3.S to 3.49_...._..._____„.. 0. 03
35 to 449 0.74
45 to 5.49 . 0.88
55 to 599 l.OO
84 to 8.49 -- 1.00
8.5 to 8.99 1. 19
70 to 7.40.___ 1.30
SOW IS.1 ».»
TSS »» IJ»
ClIO' . 7« ML«
OUafldlK*** 111 1.1
Phtiwlk cun>- OH .M21
poandx
Ammonia aa N tJS 3LS
SuKWr an .01
Tnrat rluwnlum._ IH 107
IIna*aKnl OU .0079
rhromium.
pU Within UM
rwic**.aia
(!) Size factor.
SIM
1.000 bbl of feedstock per itream-day: factor
Leu taaa 344.._......._...__ 0.73
344 to 49.9._........_._....__ 0.78
504 hi 744.._.._._._...._.. 0.83
734 CO 999 0.91
1000 to 1349 „_ 0.39
135.0 to 1400 .__. 1.38
180.0 or gruur.. 1.13
(2) Process factor.
Process candguratloa:
Lu* taaa 4.40..
4.5 to 5.49
5.5 to 899
8.0 to 8.49....
84 10 899
70 to 7.49
75 to 799...
80 to 849...
8.8 (O 8.99...,
90 10 949
9.5 or greater..—...
(8) The tables In i 419J3(b> (1) and
<2> are revised Co read as follows:
FOIKM ncnrn. vou 40. NO. 9»—TUISOAT. MAT 20. 1975
160
-------
21952
§419.13
Efll-irnl Umilnlion* puidrlinea
M tiling the de«re« of effluent
reduction attainable bf the appllea.
lion of the oral available lechaoloty
exonomicullr achievable.
._,.••
i, CM, f.^M
ill 512* IBCtor.
SIM
1.000 bbl of feedatock per sttr»amd»7S /actor
Lmtlua34.9 --------------- 0.73
RUIE5 ANO REGULATIONS
(1> SUa factor.
i.ooo bbl of rnditock per icntca dar:
L Process factor.
(1) CUO factor.
Sl*i
i.OOO 661 or (Mdstock per ilraara d»r: /actor
Len taaa 40.0.._ ----------- 0. 71
90.0 to 74.9 ------------------- . O.T4
730 to MB ---------------------- 0.81
100.0 to 134.0 ------------------- 0.88
139.0 to 1499 ------------------ 0.97
100.0 to 174.9 ---- ... ----------- 1.08
175.0 to 199 9 ---- _ ------------- 1.14
300.0 o» (water --------------- 1.19
"Hi* tables In I 419.42 (a) and (b)
(3) an rertsed to read aa fol-
| 419.42 Effluent limitation! rnidelinca
repramifaiB tha defre* of effluent
redneUoB .luinabl. br the applies
LTB taaa 8.40—
8.8 to 7 49
7J to 740
8.0 to 8.40...
U to 8.90..
0.0 to 0.49
9J to 9 90..
10.0 to 10.49_.
10.8 to 10.99
11.0 to 11.49
11.3 to 1149 _.
134 to 13.49..
13J to 1340.
134 or greater.
0.81
0.83
1.00
1.00
1.10
1.39
1.41
1..'3
1.87
1.83
1.98
3. IS
3.34
3.44
(11) Taa tables In I 419.43(b) (W and
(a> „, revised to read as follows:
8 419JS Standard* of performance for
uum
{•> »
'*'
gmo»«t amiuuom
MMlmnm tor vclim tor uilnr
MT on* dar onnMcuUn otr*
Zfltuwtt Umlutlan
XfltuMM
•«*«"«
" '**
Mruir aalu (mnttmm. p«- 1 jBPoH o> tedaak)
redaction altainaale br llie applica-
tlon of the beat available leehnolonr
eeonomiuilr aeUevable.
(b) • • •
(1) Size factor.
5U»
1.000 bbl at feedstock per ttream-dar: /actor
Lra t&aa 404 0.71
p» I.COD or
F.OM .............
roli'i.""""""I.II
ROIM
TM
10 ............
6? .......... "
""
IL«
«.»
1*
.OH
HX7
-M ..... 3.4
suirwi. ............ J3
Toi«lel»mmlum_.. 7T..
Bmnteni J»
1ST
ia*
.uo
100.0 to 134.0
1334 to 1400
1804 to 1740....
178.0 to 1990
300.0 or greater..
0.83
0.97
l.OS
1. 14
1.19
Kn|Uihanlti(poua
(b)
(13) The tables In i 419.43 (a) and (b)
(1) and (2) are revised to read as fol-
io wa:
RDUAL icoisrn. vou 40. NO. 98—ruiMAr. MAT 20. 1979
161
-------
BULES AND REGULATIONS
21953
419.45 Standard* of performance for
new «ourcea.
(b) • • •
(1) Size fa
:tor.
Kfflont BmlUUan
BfflWU
BantatlaJUOem
Mulinam far
SBtnfil
Mulmam tor
uiv an* d»T
Annnefdiair
mua in iniity
lln Ammonia<• K.._ B.4..._.......
.*jS tallM*..........
Bndltfi onlu (pounOj 0>r I.OB9 bel o< Cpiditael)
tiwlba imiu cpoaarti v*r IJ300 bbl at (Mddaekt
Bon«
Bon*. — wi
TUS ........ i" -
— COD* ...... I* ...........
.. Oil and (KM* 10
£3 Pnwntlrma- 14
........... .
Total emnranBB—.. J9
BuanMit JB3
enramlon.
fit.. ............ Wltlilnth*
.03
11XJ
8.4
8.0 to 8.49.....
8J to 8^9..
9.0 to 949
9J to
10.0 10 10.49
10.9 to 10.09
11.0 to 11.49
11.8 to 11.99
13.0 to 13.49
13J to 1399
13J>
.17
.Oil
•n _.
(b) * * '
<1) Size factor.
1400 Ml of fntfatock ptr i0«ma day:
Last thu 49J —
SO.O to 749 — ...
7S.O to 99.9 ______
100.0 CO 134.9 ----
1390 to 14«9._..
190.0 to 1749 ______ _.
1790 to 1999..
3000 or
to.
U) Size factor.
1.00O Ml at feaetetoc* per i
Law ttaa 134.9
1290 to 149.9
ISO 0 to 174.k
179.0 to 1999
3OO.O to 2349
339 or
(15) The tables In 419 55 (a) and (b)
U) and (2> an amended to read as
- followa:
S 419.55 Standard* of performance for
(a)
Saiwni Ibniiutlam
v«luri Bnr ihtf i
canvfnillvo ilu«
Mall not r>mnl
tfruleUMIU (»lt»T«m> (*r l.oom>
<2> Process (actor.
•tocaia eooajuraaoa:
Laa tbaa 8.49.
8J U 7.49...
TJ to 7JM
8.0 to 8.49..
8.9 la 8.99
9.0 CO 949..
9J to 999
iao to 10.49..
10A to I099..._.........
11.0 to 11.49
UJ to 1199..
19.0 to 13.49...
13J to 1OS9
13JO or p«aur..
(13) The tables In I 419.53 (a) and
d) and
(3) are revised to read aa follows:
9 419.53 Effluent linulationa ruidellnea
repreaenlina; the dcfna of cfflaenl
reduction iltaiaabJc by lh« ipplica*
tion of the be*l >*ailibla lechnoJoty
eeononiieally achievable.
now. ............. 147 .............
T39.. ............... »•> ... ..
COD' ............ IM ..... . ..... "
nil mil >in» ...... M ............
10} .............
"
........
Total rftrefnium..
Htwmtanl
cnnailiun.
l»l
390.
UI9
T »
• 1
VI
1 I
uu
14
IMJ
II
. WIUilnUM
lota.
Ib)
notiAi IICISTIR. vac 40, NO. is— TUIIOAT, MAT 10. 197]
162
-------
> 11 Size (actor.
Slit
l.OOO bol of iMdatock par SCTCMU d»T /actor
L*u tnaa 134.9 0.73
1394 to 149.9 0. 78
190.0 to 1749 n. 83
178.0 to 1M.9.. .. 0.91
300.0 to 234.9 .- 0.90
•J3S or groaur................... 1.04
(2) Process factor.
Procc-a
Proecu eonflvurmuon. lot-tor
L*n than 8.49 079
8.910T49 0.83
7.9 to 7 99 0.93
.00
10
.20
. 30
.43
94
88
83
13.0 to 13.49 90
139 to 13.99 3.17
13.0 or tr»t«r 3.28
|FR Ooe.78-13959 Piled 9-10-79:8-49 tml
8.0 to 8.40.
8.9 10 am
94 to 0.40
99 CO 9.99
100 to 1040
10.9 to 1099
11.0 to 11 49 --._
11.9 to 11 99
RDIIAl UGISTR, VOL 40, NO. 98—WISDAr, MAY 20. 197S
-------
Friday
December 21, 1979
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
Petroleum Refining Point Source
Category Effluent Limitations Guidelines,
Pretreatment Standards, and New Source-
Performance Standards
164
-------
75926
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Rules
VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
NCY
40 CFR Part 419
[FRL 1312-1]
Petroleum Refining Point Source
Category Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards,
and New Source Performance
Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EgA).
ACTION: Proposed regulation.
SUMMARY: EPA proposes regulations to
limit effluent discharges to waters of the
United States and the introduction of
pollutants into publicly owned treatment
works from facilities which are engaged
in refining petroleum. These facilities
are defined more specifically as those
classed by the Bureau of the Census in
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
2911. The purpose of this proposal is to
provide effluent limitations guidelines
for "best available technology," and
"best conventional technology." and to
establish new source performance
standards and pretreatment standards
under the Clean Water Act.
Tie effect of these regulations on the
ileum refining industry would be to
.are pretreatment of process
waste waters introduced into publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs) and
treatment of process wastewaters
discharged to waters of the United
States. After considering comments
received in response to this proposal.
EPA will promulgate a final rule.
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
on April 21.1978.' 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.
These proposed regulations are
supported by three major documents
available from EPA. Analytical methods
are discussed in Sampling and Analysis
Procedures for Screening of Industrial ~
Effluents for Priority Pollutants. EPA's
techincial conclusions are detailed in
- the Development Document for
"^oosed Effluent Limitations
'elines, New Source Performance
dards and Pretreatment Standards
,~f the Petroleum Refining Point Source
Category. The Agency's economic
analysis is found in Economic Analysis
of Proposed Revised Effluent Standards
and Limitations for the Petroleum
Refining Industry.
DATE: Comments on this proposal must
be submitted on or before February 19.
1980.
AOORESS: Send comments to: Mi.
William A. Telliard, Effluent Guidelines
Division (WH-552). Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M St.. S.W..
Washington. D.C. 20460. Attention: EGD
Docket Clerk. Petroleum (WH-552). 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 (Rear) PM-213. (EPA
Library). 401M Street, S.W..
Washington. D.C. 20460. The EPA
information regulation (40 CFR Part 2)
provides that a reasonable fee may be
charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Technical information and copies of
technical documents may be obtained
from Mr. William A. Telliard. (202) 755-
7733 at the address listed above. The
economic analysis may be obtained
from Mr. Louis DuPuis, Water
Economics Branch fWH-586).
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
St. S.W.. Washington. D.C. 20460, (202)
755-7733.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Organization of This Notice
I. Legal Authority
IL Background
a. Clean Water
b. Prior EPA Regulations
c. Overview of the Industry
III Scope of This Rulemaking and
Summary of Methodology
IV. Sampling and Analytical Program
V. Data Gathering Efforts
a. Technical Questionnaires
b. Sampling and Analysis
c. Results
1. Analytical Results
2. Achievable Pollutant Concentrations
(BPT)
VL Industry Subcategonzation
VII. Available Wastewater Control and
Treatment Technology
a. Status of In-place Technology
b. Control Technologies Considered for Use
in This Industry
1. Reuse and Recycle of Wastewater
2. Powdered Activated Carbon
3. Granular Activated Carbon
4. Metals Removal
S. Biological Treatment
VIIL BAT Effluent Limitations
a. BAT Options Considered
1. Increased Reuse and Recycle of
Wastewaters (279)
2. Increased Reuse and Recycle of
Wastewaters (52%)
3. Segregation of Process Streams
4. Powdered Activated Carbon
5. Granular Activated Carbon
8. No Discharge of Wastewaters
b. BAT Selection and Decision Criteria
IX BCT Effluent Limitations
X. New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS)
a. NSPS Options Considered
1. Increased Reuse and Recycle of
Wastewaters (52%)
2. Granular Activated Carbon
3. No Discharge of Wastewaters
b. NSPS Selection and Decision Criteria
XI. Pretreatment Standards
a. Pretreatment Options Considered
1. Metals Removal
2. Biological Treatment for Certain Indirect
Dischargers
b. Pretreatment Selection and Decision
Criteria
XIL Regulated Pollutants
a. BAT
b. BCT
c. Pretreatment Standards
XIII. Pollutants Not Regulated
a. BAT
b. Pretreatment Standards
c. Pollutants Limited by BPT
XTV. Non-Water Quality Aspects of
Pollution Control
a. Air Pollution
b. Solid Waste
c. Energy Requirements
XV. Costs. Effluent Reduction Benefits, and
Economic Impact
a. Economic Scenario One
1. BAT/BCT
2.PSES
3. NSPS/PSNS
b. Economic Scenario Two
1. BAT/BCT
2.PSES
3. NSPS/PSNS
e. Effluent Reduction Benefits
XVI. Best Management Practices
XVIL Upset and Bypass Provisions
XVUL Variances and Modifications
XIX Relationship to NPDES Permits
XX Summary of Public Participation
XXI. Solicitation of Comments
XXII. Appendices:
A—Abbreviations. Acronyms and Terms
Used in This Notice
B—Toxic Pollutants Not Detected in
Treated Effluents (Direct Discharge)
C—Toxic Pollutants Detected in Only One
Refinery Effluent (at concentrations higher
than those found in intake water) and Which
are Uniquely Related to the Refinery at
Which it Was Detected (Direct Discharge)
D—Toxic Pollutants Detected in Treated
Effluents of More Than One Refinery or
Detected in the Treated Effluents of One
Refinery But Not Uniquely Related to the
Refinery at Which it Was Detected (Direct
Discharge]
E—Toxic Pollutants Not Detected in.
Discharges to POTWs (Indirect Discharge)
F—Toxic Pollutants Detected in Discharges
to POTWs (Indirect Discharge)
G—Toxic Pollutants Found To Pass
Through POTWs With Only Primary
Treatment (Indirect Discharge)
I. Legal Authority
The regulations described in this
notice are proposed under authority of
sections 301. 304. 306\ 307. 308. and 501
165
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Rules 75927
of the dean Water Act (the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972. 33 USC1251 et
seq.. as amended by the Clean Water
Act of 1977. Pub. L 9S-217) [the "Act").
These regulations are also proposed in
response to the Settlement Agreement in
Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc.
v. Train. 8 ERG 2120 (D.D.C 1976).
modified March 9,1979 and in response
»o the decision of the United States
Court of Appeals in American
Petroleum Institute v. EPA 540 F. 2d 1023
(10th Cir. 1976).
IL 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 intergrity of the Nation's
waters." Section 101(a). By July 1.1977.
existing industrial dischargers were
required to achieve "effluent limitations
requiring the application of the best
practicable control technology currently
available" (BPT), Section 301(b)(l)(A];
and by July 1.1983, these dischargers
were required to achieve "effluent
limitations requiring the application of
the best available technology
economicaUyrachievable . . . which will
result in reasonable further progress
toward the national goal of eliminating
the discharge of all pollutants" (BAT),
section 301(b)(2)(A). New industrial
direct dischargers were required to
comply with section 308 new source
performance standards (NSPS). based
on best available demonstrated
technology: and new and existing
dischargers to publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) were subject to
pretreatment standards under sections
307 (b) and (c) of the Act While the
requirements for direct dischargers were
to be incorporated into National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits issued under section
402 of the Act pretreatment standards
were made enforceable directly against
dischargers to POTWs (indirect
dischargers).
Although section 402(a)(l) of the 1972
Act authorized the setting of
requirements for direct dischargers on a
case-by-case basis, Congress intended
that for the most part, control
requirements would be based on
regulations promulgated by the
Administrator of EPA. Section 304(b) of
the Act required the Administrator to
promulgate regulations providing
guidelines for effluent limitations setting
forth the degree of effluent reduction
attainable through the application of
BPT and BAT. Moreover, sections 304{c)
and 308 of the Act required
promulgation of regulations for NSPS,
and sections 304(f). 307(bJ, and 307(c)
required promulgation of regulations for
pretreatment standards. In addition to
these'regulations for designated industry
categories, Section 307(aJ of the Act
required the Administrator to
promulgate effluent standards
applicable to all dischargers of toxic
pollutants. Finally, section 501(a) of the
Act authorized the Administrator to
prescribe any additional regulations
"necessary to carry out his functions"
'under the Act.
EPA was unable to promulgate many
of these regulations by the dates
contained in the Act In 1978, EPA was
sued by several environmental groups,
and in settlement of this lawsuit EPA
and the plaintiffs executed a
"Settlement Agreement" which was
approved by the Court This Agreement
required EPA to develop a program and
adhere to a schedule for promulgating
for 21 major industries BAT effluent
limitations guidelines, pretreatment
standards, and new source performance
standards for 65 "priority" pollutants
and classes of pollutants. See Natural
Resources Defense Council. Inc. v.
Train. 8 ERG 2120 P J3.C. '1976],
modified March 9.1979.
On December 27.1977. the President
signed into law the Clean Water Act of
1977. Although this law makes several
important changes in the federal water
pollution control program, its most
significant feature is its incorporation
into the Act of several of the basic
elements of the Settlement Agreement
program for toxic pollution control.
Sections 301(b](2)(A) and 301(b)(2}(C) of
the Act now require the achievement by
July 1.1984. of effluent limitations
requiring application of BAT for "toxic"
pollutants, including the 55 "priority"
pollutants and classes of pollutants
which Congress declared "toxic" under
Section 307(a) of the Act Likewise.
EPA's programs for new source
performance standards and
pretreatment standards are now aimed
principally at toxic pollutant controls..
Moreover, to strengthen the toxics
control program. Congress added
section 304(e) to the Act authorizing the
Administrator to prescribe "best
management practices" (BMPsJ to
prevent the release of toxic and
hazardous pollutants from plant site
runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste
disposal, and drainage from raw
material storage 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 revised the control program for
non-toxic pollutants. Instead of BAT for
"conventional" pollutants identified
under section 304(a)(4) (including
biological oxygen demand, suspended
solids, fecal colifonn and pH), the new-
section 301(b)(2)(E) requires
achievement by July 1,1984, of "effluent
limitations requiring the application of
the best conventional pollutant control
technology" (BCT). The factors
considered in assessing BCT for an
industry include the costs of attaining a
reduction in effluents and (he effluent
reduction benefits derived compared to
the costs and effluent reduction benefits
from the discharge of publicly owned
treatment works (Section 304(b)(4)(B)].
For non-toxic, nonconventional
pollutants, sections 301(b)(2)(A) and
(b)(2)(F) require achievement of BAT"
effluent limitations within three years
after their establishment or July 1.1984,
whichever is later, but not later than
July 11987.
The purpose of these proposed
regulations is to provide effluent
limitations guidelines for BAT and BCT.
and to establish NSPS, pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES),
and pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS), under Sections 301, 304.
308. 307, and 501 of the Clean Water
Act
(b) Prior EPA Regulations. EPA
promulgated BPT, BAT, NSPS, and PSN
for the Petroleum Refining point source*
category on May 9,1974 (39 FR 18560,
Subparts A-E). The BPT. BAT, and
NSPS regulations were challanged in the
courts by the American Petroleum
Institute and others. Both BPT and NSPS
were upheld by the court, but BAT was
remanded for further consideration.
Interim final PSES were promulgated on
March 23.1977 (42 FR 15884) in response
to the Settlement Agreement.
The regulations proposed in this
notice will supersede existing NSPS.
PSNS and PSES. These proposed
regulations will also establish BAT and
BCT.
(c) Overview of the Industry. The
petroleum refining industry is defined by
Bureau of the Census Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) 2911. Tha
raw material of this industry is
petroleum material (generally, but not
always, crude oil). Petroleum refineries
process this raw material into a wide
variety of petroleum products, including
gasoline, fuel oil. jet fuel, heating oils
and gases and petrochemicals. Refining
includes a wide variety of physical
separation and chemical reaction
processes. The Development Document
lists over one hundred processes used r
the petroleum refining industry. Becau
of the diversity and complexity of the
processes used and the products
166
-------
75928 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Rules
Huced. petroleum refineries are
•ally characterized by the quantity
MT matenal processed, rather than
oy the quantity and types of products
produced.
EPA has identified 285 petroleum
refineries in the United States and its
possessions. The smallest refinery can
refine fifty barrels of oil per day (one
barrel equal 42 gallons), while the
largest can refine 665.000 barrels per
day.
The U.S. refining industry processes a
total of about 15 million barrels per day.
However, industry growth has slowed in
recent years due to a number of factors
including efforts to conserve petroleum
supplies and competition from foreign
suppliers. Growth has averaged about
•five percent per year and has resulted
largely from additions to existing
refineries rather than by construction of
new ones. Largely because of
encouragement from the Department of
Energy's crude oil allocation program, a
limited number of small, new refineries
have been constructed. The ratio of
growth in U.S. refining capacity by
additions to existing refineries to the
growth by construction of new refineries
has been approximately 3.5 to 1.
'The major sources of process
"—4tewater are cooling water, water
'to wash unwanted materials from a
/ss stream, water used as part of a
i^ction process, and boiler blowdowns.
Current treatment systems used by
refineries for this process waste water
include (a) in-plant controls of ammonia
and water use, and (b) end-of-pipe
treatment consisting of oil/water
separators, biological treatment and. in
some cases, mixed media filtration.
Although significant concentrations of
toxic and other pollutants are found in
untreated waste, data show that
application of BPT results in substantial
reduction of pollutants. Toxic pollutants
were reduced to near or below the
concentrations which can be accurately
measured using available measurement
techniques.
HI. Scope of This Rulemaking and
Summary of Methodology
These proposed regulations open a
new chapter in water pollution control
requirements for the petroleum refining
industry. In EPA's 1973-1976 round of
rulemakings. emphasis was placed on
the achievement of best practicable
technology (BPT) by July 1.1977. In
general, this technology level
represented the average of the best
p---ting performances of well known
ilogies for control of pollutants of
onal concern.
this round of rulemaking, in
contrast, EPA's efforts are directed
toward insuring the achievement by July
1.1984. of the best available technology
economically achieveable (BAT), which
will result in reasonable further progress
toward the national goal of eliminating
the discharge of all pollutants. In
general, this technology level represents.
at a minimum, the very best
economically achievable performance in
any industrial category or subcategory.
Moreover, as a result of the Clean Water
Act of 1977. the emphasis of EPA's
program has shifted from "classical"
pollutants to the control of a lengthy list
of toxic substances.
In the 1977 legislation. Congress
recognized that it was dealing with
areas of scientific uncertainty when it
declared the 65 "priority" pollutants and
classes of pollutants "toxic" under
section 307(a] of the Act. The "priority"
pollutants have been relatively
unknown outside of the scientific
community, and those engaged in
wastewater sampling and control have
had little experience dealing with these
pollutans. Additionally, these pollutants
ofter appear and have toxic effects at
concentrations which severly tax
current analytical techniques. Even
though Congress was aware of the state-
of-the-art difficulties and expense of
"topics" control and detection, it
directed EPA to act quickly and
decisively to detect, measure and
regulate these substances. Thus, with
the passage of the 1977 legislation, the
Nation's water pollution control
program was thrust toward the frontiers
of science.
EPA's implementation of the Act
required a complex development
program described in this section and
succeding sections of this notice.
Initially, because in many cases no
public or private agency had done so.
EPA and its laboratories and
consultants had to develop analytical
methods for toxic pollutant detection
and measurement, which are discussed
under Sampling and Analytical program.
EPA then gathered technical and
financial data about the industry, which
are summarized under Data Gathering •
Efforts. With these data in hand, the
Agency proceeded to develop these
proposed regulations.
First. EPA studied the petroleum
renning 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 segments of the
industry. This study included the
identification of raw waste and treated
effluent characteristics including: (1) the
sources and volume of water used, the
processes employed, and the sources of
pollutants and wastewaters in the plant,
and (2) the constituents of wastewaters,
including toxic pollutants. EPA then
identified the constituents of
wastewaters which should be
considered for effluent limitations
guidelines and standards of
performance.
Next. EPA identified several distinct
control and treatment technologies.
including both in-plant and end-of-
process technologies, which are in use
or capable of being used in the
petroleum refining industry. The Agency
compiled and analyzed historical data
and newly generated data on the
effluent qualityresulUng from the
application of these technologies. The
long term performance and operational
limitations of each of the treatment and
control technologies were also
identified. In addition. EPA considered
the nonwater quality environmental
impacts of these technologies, including
impacts on air quality, solid waste
generation, and energy requirements.
The Agency then estimated the costs
of each control and treatment
technology from-unit cost curves
developed by standard engineering
analysis as applied to petroleum refining
wastewater characteristics. EPA derived
treatment process costs from plant
characteristics (production and flow)
applied to each treatment process unit
cost curve (i.e.. powdered activated
carbon, metals precipitation, etc.). These
unit process costs were added to yield
total cost at each treatment level. The
Agency evaluated the economic impacts
of these costs. (Costs and economic
impacts are discussed in detail under
the various technology options, and in
the section of this notice entitled Costs.
Effluent Reduction Benefits and
Economic Impacts).
Upon consideration of these factors
EPA identified various control and
treatment technologies as BCT. BAT.
PSES. PSNS. and NSPS. The proposed
regulations, however, do not require the
installation of any particular technology.
Rather, they require achievement of
effluent limitations representative of the
proper operation of these technologies
or equivalent technologies.
The effluent limitations for BAT, BCT
and NSPS are expressed as mass
limitations (kg/1000 cubic meters raw
material) and are calculated by
multiplying three figures: (1) achievable
long term effluent concentrations based
on each control technology (2)
achievable wastewater flow and (3)
variability factors to account for short
term variations in effluent
167
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Rules
75929
concentrations (daily and monthly
variations). This basic calculation was
performed for each regulated pollutant
or pollutant parameter. Effluent
limitations for PSES and PSNS are
expressed as allowable concentrations
in milligrams per liter (mg/l). For
POTWs which may wish to impose
mass limitations, the proposed
regulations provide alternate equivalent
mass limitations.
IV. Sampling and Analytical Program
As Congress recognized in enacting
the Clean Water Act of 1977, the state-
of-the-art ability to monitor and detect
toxic pollutants is limited. Most of the
toxic pollutants were relatively
unknown until only a few years ago. and
only on rare occasions, has EPA
regulated or has industry monitored or
even, developed methods to monitor for
these pollutants. As a result analytical
methods for many toxic pollutants.
under Section 304(h) of the Act. have not
yet been promulgated. Moreover, state-
of-the-art techniques involve the use of
highly expensive, sophisticated
equipment, with costs ranging as high as
$200,000 per unit of equipment
When faced with these problems. EPA
scientists, including staff of the
Environmental Research Laboratory in
Athens. Georgia and staff of the
Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory in Cincinnati. Ohio
conducted a literature search and
initiated a laboratory program to
develop analytical protocols. The
analytical techniques used in this
rulemaking were developed
concurrently with the development of
general sampling and analytical
protocols and were incorporated into
the protocols ultimately adopted for the
study of other industrial categories. See
Sampling and Analysis Procedures for
Screening of Industrial Effluents for
Priority Pollutants, revised April 1977.
Because section 304(h) methods were
available for most toxic metals.
pesticides, cyanide and phenol, the
analytical effort focused on developing
methods for sampling and analyses of
organic toxic pollutants. The three basic
analytical approaches considered by
EPA were infra-red spectroscopy. gas
chromatography (GC) with multiple
detectors, and gas chromatography/
mass spectrometry (GC/MS). In
selecting among these alternatives, EPA
considered their sensitivity, laboratory
availability, costs, applicability to
diverse waste streams from numerous
industries, and capability for
implementation within the statutory and
court-ordered time constraints of EPA's
program. The Agency concluded that
infra-red spectroscopy was not
sufficiently sensitive or specific for
application in water. GC with multiple
detectors was rejected because it would
require multiple runs and be
incompatible with program time
constraints. Moreover, because this
method would use several detectors,
each applicable to a narrow range of
substances, GC with multiple detectors
possibly would fail to detect certain
toxic pollutants. EPA chose GC/MS
because it was the only available
technique that could identify a wide
variety of pollutants in many different
waste streams, in the presence of
interfering compounds, and within the
time constraints of the program. In
EPA's judgment. GC/MS and the other
analytical methods for toxics used in
this rulemaking represent the best state-
of-the-art methods for toxic pollutant
analyses available whea this study was
begun.
As the state-of-the-art began to
mature. EPA began to refine the
sampling and analytical protocols, and
intends to continue this refinement to
keep pace with technology
advancements. Resource constraints.
however, prevent EPA from reworking
completed sampling and analyses to
keep up with the evolution of analytical
methods. As a result, the analytical
techniques used in some rulemakings
may differ slightly from those used in
other rulemaking efforts. In each case.
however, the analytical methods used
represent the best state-of-the-art
available for a given industry study.
One of the goals of EPA's analytical
program is the promulgation of
additional section 304(h) analytical
methods for toxic pollutants, scheduled
to be done within calendar year 1979.
Before proceeding to analyze
petroleum refining wastes. EPA
concluded that it had to define speciGc
toxic pollutants for analyses. The list of
65 pollutants and classes of pollutants
potentially includes thousands of
specific pollutants: and the expenditure
of resources in government and private
laboratones would be overwhelming if
analyses were attempted for all of these
pollutants. Therefore, in order to make
the task more manageable, EPA selected
129 specific toxic pollutants for study in
this rulemaking and other industry
rulemakings. The criteria for selection of
these 129 pollutants included frequency
of occurrence in water, chemical
stability and structure, amount of
chemical produced, availability of
chemical standards for measurement;
and other factors.
EPA ascertained the presence and
magnitude of the 129 specific toxic
pollutants in petroleum refining
wastewaters in a sampling and analysis
program involving 23 refineries and tv
POTWs. The plants were selected
primarily to be representative of the
manufacturing processes, the prevalent
mix of production among plants, and the
current treatment technology in the
industry. Compliance with BPT
requirement is also one of the site
selection cnteria. Seventeen of these
plants were direct dischargers and six
were indirect dischargers.
The primary objective of the field
sampling program was to obtain
composite samples of wastewater to.
determine presence, absence and!
relative concentrations of toxic
pollutants. Sampling visits were made ta
correspond to three consecutive days of> •
plant operation. Raw wastewater
samples were taken prior to biological
treatment. Treated effluent samples
were taken subsequent to biological
treatment; in some instances sampler
were taken after effluent polishing (i.e..
polishing pond, sand filter]. EPA also
sampled intake water to determine the
presence of toxic pollutants pnor to
contamination by refining processes.
In all instances, grab samples taken
every two hours were combined into
twenty-four hour composites. Samples
for conventional and nonconvenaonal
pollutants were obtained from the 24-
hour composite samples. Aliquots fro
the remaining sample volumes were
combined in equal portions at the
laboratory to obtain the 72-hour
composites for toxic pollutant analysis
(and and base-neutral extractable
orgamcs, pesticides, metals). Grab
samples were taken in specially
prepared vials for volatile (purgeable)
orgamcs. total phenols and cyanide.
Pnor to the plant visits, sample
containers were carefully washed and
prepared by specific methods,
depending upon the type of sample to be
taken. Samples were kept on ice pnor to
express shipment in insulated
containers.
The analyses for toxic pollutants were
performed according to groups of
chemicals and associated analytical
schemes. Organic toxic pollutants
included volatile (purgeable), base-
neutral and acid (extractable)
pollutants, total phenols and pesticidesr-
Inorganic toxic pollutants included
heavy metals, cyanide and asbestos..
The primary method used in screening
and verification of the volatiles, base-
neutral, and acid organics was gas
chromatography with confirmation and
quantification of all priority pollutants
by mass spectrometry (GC/MS). Tot?'
phenols were analyzed by the 4-AA
method. GC was employed for analyt.
of pesticides with limited MS
168
-------
75930
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Rules
Inflation. The Agency analyzed the
heavy metals by atomic adsorption
.trometry (AAS). with flame or
graphite furnace atomization following
appropriate digestion of the sample.
Duplicate samples were analyzed using
plasma emission spectrometry after
appropriate digestion. Samples were
analyzed for cyanides by a colorimetric
method, with sulfide previously removed
by distillation. Analysis for asbestos
was accomplished by microscopy and
Gber presence reported as chrysotile
fiber count Analyses for conventional
pollutants (BOD5, TSS. pH. and Oil and
Grease) and nonconventional pollutants
(TOG and COD) were accomplished
using "Methods for Chemical Analysis
of Water and Wastes." (EPA 825/6-74-
003) and amendments. x
The high costs, slow pace and limited
laboratory capability for toxic pollutant
analyses posed difficulties unique to
EPA's experience. The cost of each
wastewater analysis for organic toxic
pollutants ranges between $650 and
$1.700. excluding sampling costs (based
upon quotations recently obtained from
a number of analytical laboratories).
Even with unlimited resources, however.
time and laboratory capability would
have posed additional constraints.
ough efficiency has been improving,
i this study was initiated a well-
.ied technician using the most
sophisticated equipment could perform
only one complete organic analysis in an
eight hour work day. Moreover, when
this rulemaking study was begun there
were only about IS commercial
laboratories in the United States with
sufficient capability to perform these
analyses. Today there are about 50
commercial laboratories known to EPA
which have the capability to perform
these analyses, and the number is
increasing as the demand for such
capability also increases.
In planning data generation for this
rulemaking, EPA considered requiring
dischargers to perform monitoring and
analyses for toxic pollutants under
Section 308 of the Act. The Agency
refrained from using this authority in
developing these regulations because it
desired to keep direct control over
sample analyses due to the
developmental nature of the
methodology and the need for close
quality control Additionally. EPA
believed that the slow pace and limited
laboratory capability for toxic pollutant
analyses would have hampered a
p"»ndatory sampling and analytical
. Although EPA believes that the
ible data support these regulations,
* Agency would have preferred a
larger data base for some of the toxic
pollutants and will continue to seek
additional data. EPA will periodically
review these regulations, as required by
the Act. and make any revisions
supported by-new data. In developing
these regulations, moreover. EPA has
taken a number of steps to deal with the
limits of science and available data.
V. Data Gathering Efforts
The data gathering effort is described
in detail in Section IV of the
Development Document. The effort
consisted of two general phases—
technical questionnaires sent to each of
the refineries and sampling and analysis
of wastewater streams at selected
refineries.
(a) Technical Questionnaires. The
purpose of the technical questionnaires
was to characterize the industry and
thus identify those factors which.
pursuant to section 304 of the Act, must
be considered in setting effluent
limitations based on BAT, BCT, NSPS,
PSES and PSNS. Questionnaires were
sent to 299 facilities believed to be
included in the petroleum refining point
source category. Two hundred sixty
completed questionnaires were
returned; 25 did not return completed
questionnaires and 14 claimed not to be
operating refineries.
In addition to the engineering data
needed to establish effluent limitations
in accordance with the Act the Agency
also asked the refineries for any
analytical data they may have collected
measuring the presence and quantities
of both traditional and toxic pollutants.
It also asked the refineries to identify
any raw materials used which could be
a source of toxic pollutant discharge.
The questions about raw materials were
intended to form a basis for possible
best management practices (BMP)
regulations. BMP regulations might
specify that alternate methods or raw
materials be utilized to reduce or
eliminate discharges of toxic pollutants
(for example, in the refining industry.
the use of organophosphate materials as
biocides in cooling towers could be
specified to replace the ones commonly
used which contain chromium and zinc).
Although data existed on the presence
and quantity of traditional pollutant
parameters, very little data existed on
either the presence or quantity of toxic
pollutants. The major exceptions were
the metallic toxic pollutants and
phenol—many of which had been
monitored as a result of previous water
pollution abatement requirements.
(b) Sampling and Analysis. EPA
selected seventeen direct discharging
refineries to sample for the presence and
concentration of toxic pollutants in
untreated process wastewaters and to
sample for the efficiency of current
treatment methods in reducing the
quantities of these pollutants. The
seventeen refineries represent a range of
the factors required for consideration by
EPA in setting effluent limitations.
including size, location and age of
equipment and facilities. EPA also
selected six of the seventeen refineries
to determine the effectiveness of
granular activated carbon in further
reducing amounts of toxic pollutants
after presently used treatment but
before discharge to waters of the United
States. In addition, the effluent from four
of the six plants with activated sludge
processes were tested to determine the
effectiveness of powdered activated
carbon. No refineries currently use
either of these treatments; EPA therefore
installed the equipment to treat a
portion of these refineries' effluent. EPA
also took samples of the intake water
source from all of the direct discharging
refineries. The samples were intended to
determine what percentage, if any, of
the toxic pollutants in a plant's
untreated effluent was attributable to its
presence in the intake water. In addition
to the 17 refineries sampled by RSKERL,
Effluent Guidelines Division and its
contractors, 8 refineries were sampled
by teams from Surveillance and
Analysis Divisions in EPA regional
offices. These teams sampled the
refineries in the course of their checks of
facilities for compliance with current
wastewater treatment requiremens; the
data collected was used to supplement
other sources of information.
EPA also selected for sampling and
analysis six indirect discharging
refineries and the two POTWs into
which they discharge. One POTW was a
secondary plant (i.e., with biological
treatment) and one was a primary plant
(i.e., without biological treatment). The
intent of this analysis was to determine
the presence and concentration of toxic
pollutants being discharged to POTWs
by indirect discharging refineries and to
measure the effectiveness of POTWs in
removing these pollutants prior to their
discharge into the waters of the United
States. Additionally, the study involved
sampling and analysis of the sludges
produced by the POTWs.
During the above described sampling
program, replicate samples at nine of the
direct discharging refineries, three of the
indirect discharging refineries, and one
of the POTWs were given to
representatives of the American
Petroleum Institute and/or the company.
These samples were analyzed
separately by the industry and the
results of the analyses at the nine direct
discharging refineries have been made
169
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Rules
75931
available to EPA by the American
Petroleum Institute. Analyses of-the
duplicate samples from the POTW
sampling program have not yet been
reported to EPA.
(cj Results.—(1) Analytical Results.
The analytical data obtained on the
concentration of toxic pollutants show
significant concentrations of these
pollutants in untreated refinery
wastewaters. They include, among
others, volatile and extractable
organics. heavy metals, and cyanide.
Results of analyses for traditional
pollutant parameters also confirm the
findings of the previous study that
significant concentrations of traditional
pollutant parameters are found in
untreated refinery wastes.
During trhe sampling and analysis
phase of the data gathering effort. EPA
found that BPT treatment substantially
reduces toxic pollutant concentrations.
Most toxic pollutants are reduced to
near or below the concentrations
considered accurate for use in the
Analytical Protocol developed by the
Agency. Discharge of toxic pollutants
into U.S. waters continues after BPT
treatment however, even though at
much reduced concentrations from that
of untreated effluent Appendix D is a
list of toxic pollutants which were found
in treated effluents at more than one
refinery in concentrations greater than
nominal analytical detection limits and
in concentrations greater than in the
intake water source. Also included in
Appendix D are those pollutants found
in only one refinery but which could not
be attributed to factors unique to that
refinery (See discussion of
POLLUTANTS NOT REGULATED
below].
Analytical results were compared to
those reported by the American
Petroleum Institute (API} from the
duplicate samples taken at nine of the 17
refineries sampled by EPA. While the
quantitative concentrations measured
by the industry generally differed from
those reported by EPA contract
laboratories (industry concentrations
show a tendency to be higher than EPA.
concentrations), the conclusion drawn-
from the industry data ia (he same as
EPA's. Industry data confirm that
substantial concentrations of toxic
pollutants are discharged in untreated
refinery wastes: that BPT treatment
makes substantial reductions in priority
pollutant concentrations: and that toxic
pollutants are still being discharged to
the waters of the United States after
BPT treatment.
Results of the analyses of samples
taken from the two. POTW3 show- that
secondary POTWs reduce the-
concentration of the toxic pollutants
discharged by refineries to similar levels
as that achieved by the BPT technology
employed by direct discharges. This
result is based on refineries operating at
existing PSES levels. The analysis also
shows that primary treatment (both the
primary treatment phase of the
secondary POTW and the primary
POTW] does not significantly remove
many of the toxics discharged by
indirect discharging refineries. Analyses
of POTW sludges shows that substantial
concentrations of priority pollutants
(heavy metals) accumulate in sludges of
POTWs employing either primary or
secondary treatment.
(2) Achievable Pollutant
Concentrations (Existing Treatment).
EPA reevaluated the final
concentrations of regulated pollutants
now achieved by existing technology.
The results of the data gathering effort
indicate that with one exception, BPT
technology is achieving concentrations
comparable to those on which the
original BPT limitations were based. The
data also indicates, however, that plants
are currently achieving concentrations
of 4AAP phenol far lower than that
assumed for BPT. Although BPT
limitations for 4AAP.phen.ols were
based on a concentration of 100 pg/L
the average 4AAP phenol concentration
in the final effluent from the seventeen
samples refineries was 19 pg/1. The
results ranged from "no phenol
detected" to 84 fig/1. Without
consideration of any variability factors
for short term fluctuations, all of the 17
refineries were meeting concentrations
of 4AAP phenol less than the achievable
concentrations assumed for BPT.
VI. Industry Subcategorization
In developing these regulations. EPA
carefully evaluated characteristics of
petroleum refineries to determine if
Subcategorization of the industry was
appropriate. In most industries, factors
which affect the ability of facilities to
achieve technology-based limitations
vary among groups of plants. In such
cases. EPA will establish different
effluent limitations or standards for the
various groups (i.e.. subcategories).
Additionally, the establishment in the
1977 amendments to the Act of a "coat
reasonableness" analysis for BCT
limitations provides another basis for
Subcategorization. Where one group of
plants has higher costs per pound of
pollutant removal, different BCT
limitations may be established.
Essentially, Subcategorization allows
the Agency to more precisely fine tune
the requirements of technology based
limitations to the-capacity of a diverse
industry.
The study in support of the previous
regulations (BPT. BAT. NSPS.and PSNS*
concluded that only one factor of—the
total effluent flow per unit of
producfion—significantly affected the
ability of the various plants in the
industry to achieve effluent reductions.
However, rather than establishing
limitations for various groups of plants '
based on their flow. EPA developed five
mathematical models which allowed the
Agency to predict the total effluent flow-
of a petroleum refinery based on its size
and process characteristics. The
Agency, therefore, divided the industry
into five subcategories—topping,
cracking, petrochemical", lube and-
integrated. Each subcategory included
the refineries whose flow was predicted
by one of the five models.
In developing these regulations. EPA
reviewed those factors, including BCT
costs, which might warrant
Subcategorization of the industry. Again.
the Agency concluded that total effluent
flow per unit of production is the only •
factor which significantly affects a
refinery's ability to achieve effluent
limitations. After review of the
previously developed mathematical
models. EPA found that while these
models adequately predicted effluent
flows before application of BPT, they do
not adequately predict current industrj
effluent flow rates. Thus, other models
were considered.
In developing its flow model. EPA
evaluated which of the petroleum
refinery's production processes were
most significant in predicting its total
effluent flow. Over one hundred distinct
processes were considered, as well as a
considerable number of process
groupings. Ultimately, the Agency's
analysis identified four groups of
process variables which form the basis
of the proposed flow model,These are-
crude oil capacity, cracking capacity.
asphalt capacity and lube capacity.
Together, these four groups represent a
total of 49 different processes. Although
these processes do not necessarily
represent the largest contributions to
total flow, EPA found that their use in
the mathematical model generated the-
most accurate predictions of that flow
(See Summary of Public Participation
section below).
This flow model represents the core, of
EPA regulations for the petroleum.
refining industry and it is used in two
important ways. First, by comparing a
plant's actual flow to its predicted flow,
EPA is able to determine which plants
have higher or lower flows than the
average for comparable plants in the
industry. EPA has used this informatio.
to determine the capacity of plants to
170
-------
7S932 federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Rules
'
-------
Federal Register / Vot 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Rule* 75933"
the total effluent flow and the-
concentration of pollutants in that flow.
the six options considered for BAT
include various combinations of flow
reduction and'improved performance'of
waste- treatment technology.
(a) BAT options considered. (1)
Option One—Require effluent
limitations based on an average flow-
reduction of 27 percent achieved through-
greater reuse and recycle of wastewater.
This option would not require additional1
end-of-pipe treatment since limitations.
would be based upon the performance
of BPTend-of-pfpe technology, phenol
(4AAP) limitations, however, would be
based on a long term achievable
concentration of 19 p.g/1 (See discussion
under BAT Selection and Decision
Criteria below]. Effluent limitations on
ammonia, sulffde. COO* and pH would
be set at BPT levels.
The level of flow for this option, is
now achieved by 50 percent of. the
facilities Lathe industry.The.
Development Document contains a- fuller
discussion of the manner in. which
figures, were derived. Since treatment of
pH, ammonia, and sulfide is based on
process changes-or La-plant controls, no.
further reduction, from BPT levels would;
be achieved by a reduction in final
effluent flow. EPA does not have
sufficient data to conclude that the
concentration of COD in treated effluent
remains constant as flow is reduced.
Consequently, COD. pH. ammonia, and
sulfide limitations, are- being- maintained
at BPT levels. (See Summary of Public
Participation).
For the-165 direct discharging
refineries affected by this regulation;
$19.3 million, additional investment
would be required with-an annual cost
of $7.7 million including interest and
depreciation.This amount* to 3:00005
per gallon of product No closures would
be expected*. Refining capacity and
consumption!would remain unaffected.
(2) Option Two*— Require effluent
limitations, based on an average 52
percent flow-reduction achieved through.
greater reuse and recycle of wastewater;.
This option, would not require additional:
end-of-pipe treatment since limitations
would be based on the performance- of
BPT end-of-pipe technology. In-plant
side stream treatment may be required
in' a small number of facilities to remove
corrosive or scale forming constituents.
Mass limitations on 4AAP phenol would
be based on the 19 pg/1 currently
achieved by industry. Effluent
limitations on. ammonia, sulfide, COD
and pH would be set at BPT levels.
The level of flow for this option is-
now achieved by 34 percent: of the
industry, an average reduction of 52
percent would be required throughout
the industry.
Although precise costs have not yet
been calculated for this option. EPA has
concluded, baaed on Us technological
evaluation of the industry, that the costs
for Option-Two approximate those
projected for Option three below. For
the 165 direct discharging refineries
affected by this regulation. S113.0
million additional investment would be
required with an annual.cost of $48.7
million including interest and
depreciation. This amounts, to $.0002 per
gallon of product. No closures would be-
expected. Refining capacity and
consumption would remain unaffected1.
In order to confirm its assessment of
costs EPA intends to conduct an
engineering field survey of the costs
associated with Option Two. This
survey will be completed and a report
prepared pnor to final promulgation of
these regulations. EPA will publish a
notice in the Federal Register when the
report is available to the public.
Comments on the cost approximation for
Option Two-are requested (see
solicitation of Comments section below).
(3) Option Three—Require effluent
limitations based on a combination of
OPTION'. ONE flow reduction and
improved1 end-of-pipe treatment.
Improved end-of-pipe treatment was
evaluated with the use of powdered
activated carbon (PAQ. Several pilot
studies have- demonstrated this
technology; it has been-used at full scale
by one plant in the industry. This
combination of treatment produces mass
limitations equivalent to those produced
by flow reduction alone under Option
Two;
For the 165 direct discharging
refineries affected-by this regulation.
$113.0 million additional investment
would be required with an annual cost
of S48.7 million including: interest and
depreciation. This amounts to S.0002 per
gallon of product. No closures would be
expected Refining capacity, and
consumption would remain unaffected
(4) Option Four.— Require mass
limitations based on Option Two plus
segregation and separate treatment of
cooling tower blowdown. Cooling tower
blowdown would be treated for metals
(reduction of hexavafent chromium- to
bivalent chromium. pH adjustment.
precipitation and clarification).
Limitations for other process streams
would be based on treatment in existing .
BPT treatment systems.
Treatment of segregated streams may
result in the removal of more toxics than
would use of biological treatment on a
combined, more dilute, waste-stream.
Potential contamination of biological
sludges by cooling tower biocides
(generally containing chromium and
zinc) would be reduced. Removal- of
organic toxic pollutants in the-biologies
treatment system may be increased
since the wastewaterwould not be
diluted with-cooling-tower water prior to*
treatment.
EPA has not made a detailed cost
analysis for this option. While the cost
of metals treatment can be estimated..
the cost of segregating cooling tower
blowdown from other process- streams
cannot be estimated with.available-
data. The engineering-survey, described!
above (See Option 2) will' also be used
to collect data on the technical
requirements and cost of cooling, water
segregation.
(5) Option Five—Require effluent
limitations based on Option One flow-
reductions plus the addition of granular
activated carbon (GAC) to control-
residual toxic organic pollutants
dissolved' in the wastewater. discharged
from Option 1 technology.
While GAC is not a demonstrated
technology in the petroleum refining
industry, it has been used in other
industries and in treating municipal
water supplies. EPA conducted pilot
"treatability" tests at six refineries'
during the data gathering effort. Several.
technical articles have been published
comparing GAC with other technologic?
in treating refinery-wastes. Although.
results of the Agency study were
inconclusive, itcan.be generally stated
that toxic pollutant removal increases
with the use of GAC This removal.
however, appears to be only- marginally
better than with PAC (Option Two] and
the cost of GAC is much greater than
PAC
EPA evaluated.the economic impact
of this option during the previous round
of guidelines (See Prior EPA Regulations*
discussion above). While EPA did not
reevaluate the economic impact of this
option, the earlier economic impact
analysis-predicted that some refineries
could be expected to close1 if. this option>
were adopted
(6) Option Six—Require zero
discharge from existing refineries. This
could be achieved by further reuse and1
recycle, evaporation, and/or subsurface-
reinjection of wastewaters. Fifty-five
existing refineries are-now at zero
discharge1.
This is a demonstrated technology.
but costs were not calculated for this-
option. While additional costs for
building a new refinery to achieve zero
discharge can be calculated (See New
Source Performance Standards below],
the costs of retrofitting an existing
refinery are highly site specific. Costs;
however, would be significantly higher
172
-------
75934 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Rules
>u«n costs for applying any of the other
ins.
) BAT Selection and decision
<~,teria—EPA. has selected Option Two
as the basis for proposed effluent
limitations. This option was selected
because it was best supported by
available data and because it affords
further reduction in total pollutant
discharges through the use of proven
technology. It provides reasonable
further progress towards the Clean
Water Act's goal of the elimination of
the discharge of pollutants. Further.
these limitations are also
technologically and economically
. achievable through the use of Option
Three. Thus, all facilities have several
ways to achieve this limitation. They
may meet it totally through flow
reduction or through a combination of
flow reduction and improved treatment
Available data show that existing
treatment is reducing the concentration
of 4AAP phenols to 19 jig/1 (See data
gathering effort section above].
Consequently mass limitations on
phenols will be based on that
achievable concentration. In order to
validate this decision. EPA is presently
requesting, under section 308 of the Act,
that 37 refineries believed to have
'"stalled BPT model technology send
• to EPA for further evaluation of -
t constitutes a proper achievable
.icentration of 4AAP phenols based
on BPT treatment technology. That data
will also allow EPA to make a
determination of whether the variability
factors used to determine daily and
monthly fluctuations should be changed
• as a result of the lower concentrations.
Mass limitations on all other pollutants
are based on those final concentrations
already part of the BPT limitations.
EPA does not have complete data on
the cost of achieving these limitations
• solely through the use of flow reduction
and requests comments on this matter.
Further. EPA specifically requests
comments and data regarding the
proposed change in the achievable
concentration-of 4AAP phenol (see
Solicitation of Comments section
below).
Option Four still remains a serious
candidate for the basis of final
regulations. EPA has data establishing
that greater quantities of metals and
toxic organics can be removed when
introduced into separate treatment
systems at higher concentrations. EPA
has only limited data on the costs
required to segregate flows from cooling
towers. This matter is presently under
'y and comments are requested.
jtion Five was not selected because
.0 allows only slightly better
pollutant removal than PAC (Option
Three] and because the cost of GAG is
considerably higher than the cost of
PAC.
Option Six was not selected because.
in the Agency's judgment, the costs of
retrofitting for zero discharge on a
uniform national basis would be
significantly higher than the selected
option and may result in a substantial
number of plant closures. Nevertheless.
this option still remains a serious
candidate for-any subsequent revisions
of BAT limitations, especially for certain
sizes and/or types of plants.
IX. BCT Effluent Limitations
The 1977 amendments added section
301(b)(4)(E] 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)—BOD. TSS. fecal coliform and
pH—and any additional pollutants
defined by the Administrator as
"conventional." On July 30.1978. EPA
designated oil and grease as a
conventional pollutant (44 FR 44501].
BCT is not an additional limitation:
rather it replaces BAT for the control of
conventional pollutants. BCT requires
that limitations for conventional
pollutants be assessed in light of a new
"cost-reasonableness" test which
involves a comparison of the cost and
level of reduction of conventional
pollutants from the discharge of publicly
owned treatment works (POTW) to the
cost and level of reduction of such
pollutants from a class or category of
industrial sources. As a part of its
review of BAT for certain "secondary"
industries, the Agency has promulgated
a methodology for this cost test. (See 44
FR 50732. Aug. 29.1979). The Agency
compares industry costs with that of an
"average" POTW with a flow of 2 mgd
and costs (1977 dollars) of Sl.18 per
pound of pollutant removal (BOO and
TSS).
EPA applied this methodology to the
costs for removing conventional
pollutants in the petroleum refining
industry and concluded that BCT
limitations based on a 52 percent
reduction in total effluent flow by
greater recycle and reuse of
wastewaters (Option Two] or a 52
percent reduction in pollutants
discharged by a combination of flow
reduction and powdered activated
carbon enhancement of activated
sludges (Option Three) are reasonable.
At this level, the total annualized cost
for BCT technology is S48.7 million and
EPA projects that 48.7 million pounds of
BOO and TSS will be removed
throughout the industry by Option Two
technology. Based on these figures, the
cost to pollutant reduction ratio for
Option Two is Sl.OO per pound of BOD
and TSS removed (compared to a
POTW cost of Sl.18 per pound of BOD
and TSS). Therefore* EPA proposes; BCT
effluent limitations at the proposed BAT
(Option Two) level. BCT investment.
annualized costs, and economic impact
are included in the BAT analyses.
X. New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS)
The basis for new source performance
standards (NSPS) under section 308 of
the Act is the best available
demonstrated technology. New plants
have the opportunity to design the best
and most efficient petroleum refining
processes and wastewater treatment
technologies; Congress, therefore.
directed EPA to consider the best
demonstrated process changes, in-plant
controls, and end-of-pipe treatment
technologies capable of reducing
pollution to the maximum extent
feasible.
(a) NSPS Options Considered. (1)
Option One—Require performance
standards based on the same technology
proposed for BAT. including wastewater
flow control by recycle and reuse of
wastewaters after BPT treatment. As
discussed under BAT Option Two.
application of this technology will
ensure a high degree of removal of toxic
pollutants. Similar reductions in
pollutant mass discharge can be
achieved by BAT Option Three. This
level of treatment is similar to current
NSPS, and no additional expenditures
are required due to these revised
standards.
(2) Option Two—Require performance
standards based on grandular activated
carbon (BAT Option Five). As discussed
under BAT Option Five. GAG allows
somewhat better pollutant removals
than NSPS Option One. but is
considerably more expensive.
(3) Option Three—Require a
performance standard of zero discharge.
Unlike BAT Option Six. there is no cost
of retrofitting to come into compliance
with a zero discharge requirement. Zero
discharge of refinery wastes is a
demonstrated technology: fifty-five
refineries have been identified by EPA
which are currently achieving no
discharge of wastewaters to U.S. waters.
The American Petroleum Institute (API)
has published a technical report which
makes a detailed evaluation of the
technologies capable of achieving no
discharge of refinery wastes. The report
also calculates the costs to be expected
if those technologies were designed into
a new refinery (i.e.. without the need to
retrofit existing equipment). This option •
173
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21, 1979 / Proposed Rules 75935:
would require new source of the size
and configuration- likely to be built in the
1980*9 to incur additional investment of
S9.5 million with an annual cost of S3.5
million including interest and
depreciation. If a level of pnce
protection-is instituted that maintains.
industry capacity at current levels, these
regulations will essentially have no
effect1, since newrefineries will not be
entering the industry in the foreseeable
future. If a level of price protection is
instituted that allows for growth in
refinery capacity proportional to growth
in consumption, the cost of compliance
of $.001 a gallon will be reflected in
higher product prices of the same
amount
(b) NSPS Selection and Decision
Catena—EPA has selected Option
Three as the basis for proposed new
source performance standards. Zero
discharge ia a demonstrated technology
in the: petroleum, refining industry and,
based on available data, can be
economically achieved. Consequently.
EPA believes that the-Act requires that
Option Three be the basis for NSPS.
EPA, however; solicits other data- which
would supporter refute the assumption
that zero discharge is an achievable-
technology foe new sources on a
nationwide basis. Additionally, EPA
solicits comments on the other options
suggested. (See solicitation of comments
section below.)
XL Prairaatment Standards
Section 307(b] of the Act requires EPA
to promulgate pretreatment standards
for both existing sources (PSES) and
new sources (PSNS) of pollution which
discharge their wastes- into publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs).
These pretreatment standards are
designed to prevent the discharge of
pollutants which pass through, interfere
• with, or are otherwise incompatible with
the operation of POTWs. In addition, the
Clean Water Act of 1977 adds a new
dimension to these standards by
requiring pretreatment of pollutants.
such as heavy metals, that limit POTW
sludge management alternatives. The
legislative history of the Act indicates
that pretreatment standards are to be
technology based and, with respect to
toxic pollutants, analogous to BAT. The
Agency has promulgated general
pretreatment regulations which-
establish a framework for the
implementation of these statutory-
requirements: (See 43 FR 27736. June 20.
1978).
A determination, of which pollutants
may pass through or be incompatible
with POTW operations, and thus be
subject to pretreatment' standards.
depends on the levef of treatment
employed by the POTW. In general.
more pollutants will pass through or
interfere with a POTW employing
primary treatment (usually physical
separation by settling] than one which
has installed secondary treatment
(settling phis biological stabilization).
Section 301(b)(l](B] of the Act
requires most POTWs to have installed
secondary treatment by July 1.1977.
There are. however, two groups of
POTWs which have not yet met this
requirement. One group remains subject
to the obligation and contains POTWs
which are scheduled to install
secondary treatment within the next few
years. A second group of POTWs will be
exempt from the requirement to install
secondary treatment Under Section
301(h) of the Act. POTWs which
discharge into marine waters may,
under certain circumstances, receive a
waiver from this requirement EPA has
promulgated regulations dealing with
the issuance of section 301(h) waivers.
(44 FR 34784. June IS. 1979).
fa) Pretreatment Options Considered.
(1) Option One—Establish pretreatment
for all refineries which requires metals
(chromium) removal (pH adjustment
precipitation and clarification) and
existing PSES controls of ammonia and
oil and grease. Metals removal would be
required only for cooling tower
blowdown. since that is the major
source of the heavy metals of concern—
chromium and zinc. Under this option,
organic priority pollutants would pass
through primary POTWs which have not
yet complied with Section 301(b)(l)(B) of
the Act and those POTWs which are
granted waivers under Section 301 (h).
For the 53 indirect discharging
refineries affected by this regulation S9.6-
million additional investment would be-
required with annual costs of $5-2
million including interest and
depreciation. No closures would be
expected. A new indirect discharging
refinery of the size and configuration
likely to be built in the I960'a would
incur additional investment of $0.3
million with annual costs of $0.2 million.
including interest and depreciation.
Refining capacity and domestic
consumption would be-unaffected by
this regulation.
(2) Option Two—Establish two
pretreatment standards. Pretreatment
for those refineries discharging into
POTWs which have been granted
waivers under Section 301(h) would be
based on concentrations achievable
after application of BPT technology.
Pretreatment for other indirect
discharging refineries would contain the
limitations identified in Option One.
At this time the economic effects for
this option, are the same as for Option
One. since there are no POTWs which-
have been granted waivers under
Section 301(h). Costs were developed.
however, for seven indirect discharging
refineries to install biological treatment.
These costs are presented in the
Development Document
(b) Selection of pretreatment
technology and decision criteria—EPA
has selected Option Two as the basis for.
pretreatment standards. Based on its*
sampling and analysis program, EPA
has determined that pollutants found in
petroleum refining wastes after present
PSES treatment do not pass through
secondary POTWs and that only metals
limit the POTW sludge management
alternatives. Consequently, for metals
only. EPA is proposing additional
pretreatment standards for indirect
dischargers, whose wastes go to POTWs
employing secondary treatment.
The Agency additionally proposes
that this limitation apply to those
indirect dischargers whose wastes go to
a primary POTW which is scheduled to.
install secondary treatment. Although
EPA has determined that petroleum
refining wastes pass through primary
POTWs. the Agency believes, that it
woud be improper to require industrial
sources discharging into such POTWs to
install treatment systems which will be
unnecessary when the POTWs come
into compliance with the requirement of
secondary treatment
EPA is. however, proposing specific
pretreatment standards based on
application of BAT technology for those
indirect dischargers whose wastes go to
POTWs with 301(h] waivers. Since
POTWs with 301(h) waivers will remain
at primary treatment only specific
limitations on indirect dischargers will
ensure that their wastes do not pass
through into waters of the United States,
Such standards., however, will apply
only where a valid 301 (h) waiver has
been granted. Those sources discharging.
into a POTW which has a pending
application for a 301(h) waiver will be
subject to the generally less stringent
pretreatment standards, based on
secondary treatment in the POTW until
such time as the waiver is finally
approved. The Agency requests
comments on the approach, it has
adopted for determining which
pollutants must be regulated through
pretreatment standards. (See
Solicitation, of comments section below.).
XII. Regulated Pollutants
The basis upon which the controlled
pollutants were selected is set out in
Section VI of the Development
Document
(a) BAT. EPA has selected two toxic
pollutants for control of toxic discharges
174
-------
75936
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Rules
in the petroleum refining industry.
•ific effluent limitations are being
ilished for total phenol (4AAP) and
jmium (both total chromium and
hexavalent chromium). These pollutants
are subject to limitations expressed in
kilograms per 1000 cubic meters of raw
material.
Pollutants which have the same
requirement under BPT and BAT include
' COD. ammonia and sulfide.
(b) BCT. The pollutants selected for
control by BCT technology are those
pollutants limited by BPT which have
been classified as conventional
pollutants—BODS. TSS. and oil and
grease. These pollutants are subject to
limitations expressed in kilograms per
1000 cubic meters of raw material.
Additionally, a BCT limitation for pH is
set at BPT levels.
(c) Pretreatment Standards. In
establishing existing PSES. EPA found
that ammonia and oil and grease
interfere with the operation of POTWs
at levels which may be discharged by
indirect dischargers in the petroleum
refining industry. Although the existing'
PSES also contain a technology based
limitation for chromium, this limitation
was included only as guidance to those
POTWs which found it necessary or
desirable to limit chromium. The Agency
loses that the chromium limitation
be adopted as a mandatory
.eatment standard since EPA has
tound that chromium accumulates in
POTW sludges and wiil limit the sludge
management alternatives of the POTW.
The same pollutants (chromium, oil and
grease, and ammonia) are also selected
for control in PSNS. The pretreatment
standards are expressed as maximum
daily concentrations (milligrams per
liter). Informational mass limitations are
also provided for those POTWs which
find it necessary or desirable to limit
total mass discharge of pollutants.
(d) NSPS. Since the new source
performance standard is zero discharges
all pollutants are regulated.
Xni. Pollutants Not Regulated
The Settlement Agreement contained
provisions authorizing the exclusion
from regulation, in certain instances, of
toxic pollutants and industry
subcategories. These provisions have
been re-written in a Revised Settlement
Agreement which was approved by the
District Court for the District of
Columbia on March 9.1979.
It should be noted that the limitations
in this regulation has been developed to
cover the general case for this industry
'"Category. In specific cases, it may be
isary for the NPDES permitting
jrity to establish permit limits on
luxic pollutants which are not subject to
limitations in this regulation. (See
relationship to NPDES permits section).
(a) BAT Limitations. Paragraph
8(a](iii) of the Revised Settlement
Agreement allows the Administrator to
exclude from regulation toxic pollutants
not detectable by Section 304(h)
analytical methods or other state-of-the-
art methods. Data collected by EPA, the
American Petroleum Institute, and ~
individual companies were used in
making decisions not to regulate specific
toxic pollutants. Eighty-five toxic
pollutants were not found at any of the
seventeen refineries sampled. These
pollutants are excluded, therefore, from
regulation and are listed in Appendix B
to this notice.
Paragraph 8(a)(iii) of the Revised
Settlement Agreement also allows the
Administrator to exclude from
regulation toxic pollutants detected in
the effluent from a small number of
sources and uniquely related to those
sources. Appendix C lists the 7 toxic
pollutants which satisfy this criterion.
Although certain other pollutants were
found in the treated effluent at only one
refinery, their presence in the untreated
effluent of a number of facilities indicate
that they are not uniquely related to that
source.
Paragraph 8(a)(iii) of the Revised
Settlement Agreement also allows the
Administrator to exclude from
regulation toxic materials which were
detected but for which no treatment
technology is known to the
Administrator that will reduce
discharges of the pollutant. Cyanide is
discharged in significant amounts by the
petroleum refining industry (see Section
VI of the Development Document) but
EPA is not aware of any end-of-pipe
technology which will reduce cyanide
discharges beyond those presently
discharged by the petroleum refining
industry. Based on the available data,
EPA is not able to determine which
processes generate cyanide found in the
untreated waste. EPA. however, plans to
continue study of this problem to
determine whether cyanide discharges
can be reduced by in-plant control.
Paragraph 8(a)(iii] of the Revised
Settlement Agreement also allows the
Administrator to exclude from
regulation toxic pollutants which will be
effectively controlled by the technology
upon which are based other effluent
limitations. The Agency believes that
the technology upon which BAT effluent
limitations for phenol (4AAP) and
chromium are based will effectively
control the organic and metallic toxic
pollutants listed in Appendix D. The
toxic pollutants listed in Appendix D
are. therefore, excluded from regulation.
(b) Pretreatment Standards. On the
basis of sampling at six refineries which
practice indirect discharge and two
POTWs. the Agency concludes that the
organic prionty pollutants listed in
Appendix F discharged by refineries in
compliance with existing PSES do not
pass through or interfere with a
secondary POTW. The Agency proposes
in this notice to require pretreatment
standards which limit the same
pollutants at the same concentrations as
interim final PSES. The pollutants
limited under PSES include oil and
grease and ammonia. Additionally, EPA
establishes a standard for total
chromium based on interim final PSES
guidance. As with BAT. EPA will
continue to study methods for reducing
the discharge of cyanides.
This standard, however, only applies
to those refineries which discharge into
a POTW which is required by the Act to
achieve effluent limitations based on
secondary treatment. Appendix G is a
list of those priority pollutants which
were found to pass through POTWs
which only apply primary treatment.
Therefore, the Agency concludes that
existing regulations cannot be used to
exclude these pollutants from regulation
when a POTW has been granted an
exemption under section 301 (h) of the
Act from the requirement to achieve
effluent limitations based on secondary
treatment. As discussed above
(Regulated pollutants section) the
Agency proposes to limit the toxic
pollutant total phenol (4AAP). As in the
case of BAT. the Agency believes that
the technology upon which pretreatment
standards for phenol (4AAP) and
chromium are based will effectively
control the other organics and metals
listed in Appendix F.
XIV. Non-Water Quality Aspects of
Pollution Control
The elimination or reduction of one
form of pollution may aggravate other
environmental problems. Therefore.
sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act
require EPA to consider the non-water
quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements) of
certain regulations. In compliance with
these provisions, EPA has considered
the effect of these regulations on air
pollution, solid waste generation, and
energy consumption. This proposal was
circulated to and reviewed by EPA
personnel responsible for non-water
quality environmental programs. While
it is difficult to balance pollution
problems against each other and against
energy utilization. EPA is proposing
regulations which it believes best serve
often competing national goals.
175
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Rules 75937
The following are the non-water
quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements)
associated with the proposed-
regulations:
Air Pollution-—Imposition of BAT.
BCT, NSPS, and pretreatment standards
will not create any additional air
pollution problems.
Solid Waste—A study by EPA'?
Office of. Air Quality and Standards
shows that considerable amounts of
solid wastes are already being
generated by the petroleum refining
industry. Some of this solid waste is
generated by current wastewater
treatment equipment, but the majority is
generated by other sources such as
process sources, storage tank bottoms.
etc. Proposed BAT and PSES will
increase these wastes by as much as
15.000 metric tons per year beyond BPT
levels. Most of this amount will be
additional sludge from the use of
powdered activated carbon, if used
(BATOPTION THREE} as an alternative
to some of the flow reduction in BAT
OPTION TWO. These sludges wiO
contain additional organic toxic
pollutants and some additional metals.
On the other band. EPA estimates that.
implementation of proposed
pretreatment standards will result in
POTW sludges having lesser quantities
and concentrations of toxic pollutanO.
POTW sludges will become more
amenable to a wider range of disposal
alternatives, possibly including
beneficial use on- agricultural lands.
Energy Requirements—EPA estimates
that the achievement of proposed BAT
and BCT effluent limitations will result
in a net increase fn electrical energy-
consumption of approximately 28.4
million kilowatt-hours per year.
Proposed pretreatment standards are
projected to add1 another 1.9 million
kilowatt-hours to electrical energy
consumption for existing, indirect
dischargers.
XV. Costs, Effluent Reduction Benefits.
and Economic Impact
Executive Order 12044 require? EPA
and other agencies to perform
Regulator/Analysis of certain
regulations* 43 FR 12661 (March 23,
1978). EPA's proposed regulations for
implementing Executive Order 12044
require a Regulatory Analysis for major
significant regulations involving annual
compliance costs of SlOO million or
meeting other specified criteria. 43 FR
29891 (July 11.1978). Where these
criteria are met. the proposed
regulations require EPA to prepare a
formal Regulatory Analysis, including
an economic impact analysis and an
evaluation of regulatory alternatives.
The proposed regulations for the
petroleum refining industry do not meet
the proposed criteria for a formal
Regulatory Analysis. Nonetheless, this
proposed rulemakmg satisfies- the formal
Regulatory Analysis requirements.
EPA's economic impact assessment is
set forth in Economic Analysis of
Proposed Revised Effluent Standards
and Limitations for the Petroleum •
Refining Industry November 1979. EPA
440/2-79-027. This report details the
investment and annual costs for the
industry as a whole and for individual
plants covered by the proposed
petroleum refining regulations. The data
underlying the analysis were obtained
from the "Estimation of Costs
Associated with the Application of BAT
Limitations for the Petroleum Refining
Point Source Category on a Plant-by-
Plant Basis", March. 1979 and
supplements, publicly available
economic information, and data from the
Agency survey of the industry. The
report assesses the impact of
compliance costs in terms of plant
closures, production, changes, price
changes, employment changes, local
community impacts, and balance of
trade effects.
Refined petroleum products hold«suchi
economic importance in our society that
price fluctuations tend to have serious
consequence; as a result, the U.S.
government stringently controls the
industry. Some of the major economic
controls on. the industry are crude oil
price controls, product pnce controls.
and price- protection from, imported
refined products. The economic analysis
assumes that crude oil and product price
control? will be essentially eliminated
by the time these regulations require
compliance, but considers two scenarios
of price protection. The first scenario
assumes a level of pnce protection for
domestic refineries that maintains the
current capacity. The second scenano
assumes a level of price protection such
that capacity increases parallel to the
increase in total domestic consumption.
The economic impacts-of the
regulations, including refinery closings.
are discussed separately for each of
these scenarios. A more complete
discussion of possible future scenarios
and the selection of these two is
presented.in the Economic Analysis.
Refinery closures are evaluated on an
individual refinery basis. Refineries with
costs of more than S.001 per gallon are
analyzed in detail including a
comparison of the estimated cash flow
per unit of production with unit costs of
complying with the regulations. If the
refinery generates a cash flow greater
than the unit costs of compliance, it is
not considered a potential closure'.
For new sources. EPA considers the
impact of the regulations on the costs
production of new capacity. The
Department of Energy has predicted that
during the penod form 1985 to 2000 most*
of the growth, of petroleum product
consumption will be in gasoline.
distillate fuels, and petrochemical-
feedstocks. In keeping with this
prediction, the economic analysis foe
new sources was based on a 190,000
barrel a day refinery with a
configuration appropriate for
emphasizing production of these
products.
Of the 285 domestic refineries; 218 are
expected to incur additional cost's to
comply with these regulations. The
investment required would be $132.2*
million with-an annual cost of $53.9
million including interest and
depreciation. No refinery closures would
be expected due to these regulations
and the equivalent of 610 jobs to operate
pollution control equipment would.be
added to current industry employment
of 160.000. Other economic effects would
depend on the course of public policy
regarding refineries and are discussed1
below.
Scenario One—The first economic
scenano assumes tariffs on. imported1
goods are set taa manner that gives L
industry a relatively low level of
protection from imported products. As a.
result current refining, capacity is
maintained and no new sources enter
the industry. Price leves are unaffected
by these proposed regulations, and'.the
average pollution control cost of S.0002 a
gallon is absorbed by the refineries.. The
proposed regulation? would not affect
refining capacity, domestic
consumption, or the balance of trade.
1. BAT/BCT—EPA estimates that 165
directly discharging refmenes would
incur additional costs to meet these
requirements. Additional investment
would be $113.0 million with annual
costs of S48.7 million including interest
and depceciation. These costs would be
absorbed' by the refineries rather, thaa
passed on as price increases. None, of
the refineries would be expected, to
close due to these regulations and
refinery capacity, would remain
unchanged.
2. PSES—Approximately 53 indirect
discharging refinenes would incur
additional costs to meet these
requirements. Additional investment
would be S9.6 million with annual costs
of $5.2 million including interest and
depreciation. These costs would be
absorbed by the refineries rather thai
passed on as price increases. None of
these refinenes would have compliance
176
-------
75938
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Rules
c»-'a of $.001 or more per gallon of
st None of the refineries would be
.ed to close due to the regulation
.efinery capacity would remain
unchanged. Since prices would be
unaffected, domestic consumption and
the balance of trade would also remain
unchanged by these regulations.
3. NSPS/PSNS—Since refinery
capacity is held at current levels for this
scenario, no major new capacity is
constructed. These new source
requirements then have no economic
effects.
Scenario Two—The second economic
scenario allows for a level of industry
price protection such that refining
capacity grows at the same rate as
domestic consumption. In other words.
domestic refineries retain the same
share of the domestic market as they do
now. In this scenario the price level is
set high enough to attract new refineries.
with new source pollution control
equipment, into the industry. These
proposed regulations increase the cost
of production at new refineries by S.0001
to $.001 a gallon of product, and raise
the industry-wide price level by the
same amount
1. BAT/BCT—EPA estimates IBS
direct discharging refineries would incur
additional costs to meet these
-ements. Additional investment
be $113.0 million with an annual
jf S48.7 million including interest
and depreciation. None of this cost is
absorbed by the refineries, however.
since the price level is set high enough
to attract new refineries. Existing
refineries would be in a much more
favorable financial situation compared
to Scenario One because of the elevated
price levels necessary to attract new
refineries to the industry. No closures
would be expected, and capacity,
domestic consumption, and the balance
of trade would be unchanged by these
BAT/BCT regulations.
2. PSES—Approximately S3 indirect
discharging refineries would incur
additional costs to meet these
requirements. Additional investment
would be S9.8 million with annual costs
of S5.2 million including interest and
depreciation. As with direct dischargers.
cone of this cost is absorbed by the
refineries. No closures would be
expected, and capacity, domestic
consumption, and the balance of trade
would remain unchanged by these PSES.
3. New Sources—In economic
Scenario Two. refinery capacity grows
at the same rate as domestic
consumption, encouraged by pnce
ases due to higher tariffs. New
ity brought on stream is either a
discharge facility (since NSPS
auows no discharge) or a facility subject
to PSNS. The additional costs and
resulting price increases are based on a
190.000 barrel a day refinery configured
to emphasize products for which
additional capacity is most needed. If
this new refinery would discharge to a
municipal treatment system, an
additional $0.3 million investment would
be required with annual costs of S0.2
million including interest and
depreciation. This would amount to
S.0001 per gallon. Price increases would
be no more than S.0001 a gallon due to
PSNS. If this refinery is at an acceptable
site from which it could not discharge to
a municipal treatment system, the
refinery would have to achieve zero
discharge to be in compliance with
NSPS. Additional investment of S9.S
million with annual costs of S3.S million
including interest and depreciation
would be required as compared to the
costs of meeting current NSPS. This
would amount to S.001 per gallon.
causing price increases of up to S0.001 a
gallon. Depending on sites available for
new refineries, prices would increase
from S.0001 to S.001 per gallon.
Effluent Reduction Benefits
EPA estimates that achievement of
BAT effluent limitations will remove
approximately 123,300 pounds per year
of chromium. 86.180 pounds per year of
phenols (total-4AAP). and substantial
quantities of other toxic pollutants. EPA
estimates that achievement of BCT
effluent limitations will remove
approximately 48.7 million pounds per
year of conventional pollutants.
XVI. Best Management Practices
Section 304(e) of the Clean Water Act
authorizes the Administrator to
prescribe "best management practices"
("BMPs"). described under Authority
and Background. EPA intends to
develop BMPs which are: (1] applicable
to all industrial sites; (2) applicable to
an designated industrial category; and
(3) capable of guiding permit authorities
in establishing BMPs required by unique
circumstances at a given plant.
EPA is considering promulgating
BMPs specific to the petroleum refining
industry at some time in the future. One
area of concern is the potentfal for leaks
and spills of toxic pollutants stored in
on-site facilities and not subject to
controls under section 311(j)(l)(c) of the
Act. Another process which might be
controlled by BMPs is cooling tower
blowdown. It is possible that refineries
could be required to monitor for
chromium and zinc in both cooling
tower blowdown and in effluent
discharge. In the event of persistently
high discharges of these compounds, the
permitting authority may require that
certain refineries cease using corrosion
inhibitors which contain zinc and
chromium and use alternate
organophosphate corrosion inhibitors or
other alternates. Additionally. EPA may
promulgate BMPs requiring dikes, curbs,
or other measures to contain leaks and
spills of toxic pollutants not controlled
under section 31lG)(l)(c) of the Act
XVIL 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
upset 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 to
require only what technology can
achieve, it is claimed that liability for
such situations is improper. When
confronted with this issue, courts have
divided on the question of whether an
explicit upset or excursion exemption is
necessary or whether 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, and Com Refiners
Association, et ah v. Castle. 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 F. 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 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 has
recently promulgated NPDES regulations
which include upset and bypass permit
provisions 44 FR 3285. (June 7.1979). The
upset provision establishes an upset as
an affirmative defense to presecution for
violation of technology-based effluent
limitation. The bypass provision
authorizes bypassing to prevent loss of
life, personal injury or severe property
damage. Consequently, although
177
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Rules 75939
permittees in the petroleum refining
industry will be entitled to upset and
bypass provisions in NPDES permits,
these proposed regulations do not
address these issues.
XVTII. Variances and Modifications
Both BAT and BCT effluent
limitations are subject to EPA's
"fundamentally different factors"
variance. See £ /. du Pont de Nemours
and Co. v. Train. 430 U.S. 112 (1977);
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, supra. This
variance recognizes factors concerning a
particular discharger which are
fundamentally different from the factors
considered in this rulemaking. Although
this variance clause was set forth in
EPA's 1973-1976 industry regulations
and will not be included in the
petroleum refining or other industry
regulations. See the final NPDES
regulations at 44 FR 32SS4. 32950 (June 7.
1979). for the text and explanation of the
"Fundamentally different factors"
variance. Final NPDES regulations will
be promulgated shortly.
Pretreatment standards for existing
sources are subject to the
"fundamentally different factors"
variance and credits for pollutants
removed by POTW's. See 40 CFR 403J.
403.13: 43 FR 27736 (June 28,1978).
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 modification through EPA's
"fundamentally different factors"
variance or any statutory or regulatory
modifications. See duPont v. Train.
supra.
XIX. Relationship to NPDES Permits
The BAT. BCT. and NSPS limitations
in these regulations will be applied to
individual petroleum refining plants
through NPDES permits issued by EPA
or approved state agencies, under
section 402 of the Act Upon the
promulgation of final regulations, the
numerical effluent limitations must be
applied in all federal NPDES permits
thereafter issued to petroleum refining
direct dischargers. Permits issued by
States with NPDES authority may
contain more stringent limitations than
those proposed here. In addition, on
promulgation, the pretreatment
limitations are directly applicable to
indirect dischargers.
The previous section discussed the
availability of variances and
modifications from national limitations.
but there are other issues relating to the
interaction of these regulations and
NPDES permits. One matter which 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
issuing NPDES permits prior to
promulgation of these regulations must
include a "re-opener clause." providing
for permits to be modified to incorporate
"toxics" regulations when they are
promulgated. See 43 FR 221S9 (May 23.
1978). To avoid cumbersome
modification procedures. EPA has
adopted a policy of issuing short-term
permits, with a view toward issuing
long-term permits only after
promulgation of these and other BAT
regulations. The Agency has published
rules designed to encourage states to do
the same. See 43 FR 58060 (Dec. 11.
1978). However, in the event that EPA
finds it necessary to issue long term
permits pnor to promulgation of BAT
regulations. EPA and states will follow
essentially the same procedures utilized
in many cases of initial permit issuance.
The appropriate technology levels and
limitations will be assessed by the
permit issuer on a case-by-case basis.
on consideration of the statutory factors.
See U.S. Steel Corp. v. Tram. 556 F. 2d
822. 844. 854 (7th Cir. 1977). In these
situations. EPA documents and draft
documents (including these proposed
regulations and supporting documents)
are relevant'evidence, but not binding,
in NPDES permit proceedings. See 44 FR
32854 (June 7,1979).
Another noteworthy topic is the effect
of these regulations on the power of
NPDES permit issuing authorities. The
promulgation of these regulations does
not restrict the power of any permit-
issuing authority to act in any manner
not inconsistent with law or these or
any other EPA regulations, guidelines or
policy. For example, the fact that these
regulations do 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 these
regulations (or require more stringent
limitations on covered pollutants), such
limitations must be applied by the
permit-issuing authority.
With respect to monitoring
requirements, the Agency intends to
establish a regulation requiring
permittees to conduct additional
monitoring when they violate permit
limitations. The provisions of such
monitoring requirements will be specific
for each permittee and may Include
analysis for some or all of the toxic
pollutants or the use of biomomtoring'
techniques. The additional monitoring is
designed to determine the cause of the
violation, necessary corrective
measures, and the identity and quantity
of toxic pollutants discharged. Each
violation will be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis by the permitting monitoring-
contained in the permit is necessary. A
more lengthy discussion of this
requirement appears at 44 FR 34407,
(June 14.1979).
One additional topic that warrants
discussion is the operation of EPA's
NPDES enforcement program* many
aspects of which have been considered •
in developing these regulations. The
Agency wishes to emphasize that
although the Clean Water Act is a stnct
liability statute, the initiation of-
enforcement proceedings by EPA is
discretionary/EPA has exercised and
intends to exercise that discretion in a
manner which recognizes and promotes
good faith compliance efforts and
conserves enforcement resources for
those who fail to make good faith efforts
to comply with the Act.
XX. Summary of Public Participation
On April 21.1978, EPA circulated a
draft technical development document
to interested parties, including the
American Petroleum Institute (API), the
Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC). and affected state and local
authorities. That document did not
include recommendations for specific
effluent limitations and pre treatment
standards. Instead it presented the
technical basis for these proposed
regulations. A public meeting was held
on June 1.1978 for presentation and
discussion of comments by interested
parties. A brief summary of major
comments is presented below. The
Agency received a number of comments
relating to specific technical information
in the Development Document. These
have not been summarized here but
have been considered in revising the
Development Document.
178
-------
75940 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21.' 1979 / Proposed Rules
fi) Comment—A number of
•apanta expressed concern about
nited amount of data available to
Agency for establishing BAT
limitations and pretreatment standards.
especially for toxic pollutants.
Response—EPA recognizes that the
data base for toxic pollutants is limited.
Data limitations result from a history of
infrequent monitoring or regulation, and
the high costs, sophistication, time
delays, and limited laboratory
availability for toxic pollutant analyses.
The Agency has sought and utilized all
available data, except to the extent that*
it has not required mandatory sampling
and analyses under Section 308 of the
Act EPA solicits additional voluntary
data submissions.
(2) Comment—Reductions in flow
have not been documented to result in
reductions in pollutant discharge.
particularly for Chemical Oxygen
Demand.
Response—As stated in the section
Available Waste Water Control and
Treatment Technology, the Agency has '
concluded that effluent concentrator!
from a given size treatment system will
not change as effluent flow is decreased.
EPA has recognized that Chemical
Oxygen Demand may be an exception
and is not regulating COD until
•dent information is available to
lish the relationship between
.ent COD concentration and flow
reduction. A technical paper is
referenced in the Development
Document describing measurements
made at one refinery which significantly
decreased effluent flow (increased
reuse/recycle of wastewaters]. That
refinery reported that effluent
concentrations of all pollutants
remained constant after the flow
reductions except COD. Total COD
discharged was reduced but not in direct
proportion to the flow reduction.
(3) Comment— Wastewater reduction
and reuse may require extensive
additional treatment before it can be
used for some applications. In areas
where there is a scarcity of suitable raw
water, extensive treatment of
wastewater for reuse may be
economically justified. However, there
is a point considerably short of total
recycle where it becomes uneconomical
to treat wastewater for reuse.
Response—EPA recognizes that the
establishment of BAT and NSPS
considers factors such as cost and that
zero discharge while technically feasible
(some refineries have already achieved •
it) may require very high costs
Ocularly retrofit costs for existing
ries). EPA has carefully considered
, of technology options in selecting
BAT and NSPS technologies. Thus. EPA
is proposing a stepwise approach
toward higher recycle rates for existing
refineries and zero discharge of
pollutants only for new sources (see
discussion under Option Two of Best
Available Technology Economically
Achievable and Option Three of New
Source Performance Standards].
(4) Comment—Numerous comments
were received stating that the flow
model presented in the Draft
Development Document was invalid for
a number of statistical and technical
reasons. The comments also stated that
some of the data used in the model were
not correct
Response—EPA has mailed to each
refinery which responded to the original
questionnaires a printout of important
information which EPA used to
characterize their refinery and has
asked them to verify or correct the
information. Considerable additional
flow modeling effort has also been
expended with the result that a much
improved flow model represents the
basis for these proposed regulations.
EPA will continue its flow modeling
efforts, and any improvement will be
reflected in the final regulations.
(5) Comment—All major sources of
wastewater are not represented as
variables in the flow model.
Response—The intent of the flow
model is not to identify and quantify
each source, or even major source, of
wastewater in the refinery. The
variables contained in the model are not
necessarily the major contributors of
wastewater (cooling tower blowdown.
for example, although generally one of
the largest contributors to wastewater
flow is not a variable). The intent is to
determine, if possible, the total refinery
effluent flow by usinjpa number of
process or other variables. By
considering the variables in the model
(49 processes in 4 groups), the model
does predict the effluent flow within
statistical acceptability.
(6) Comment—Effluent limitations are
obtained by multiplying achievable
values of three parameters—(1)
wastewater flow, (2) pollutant
concentration, and (3) a variability
factor to account for short term
fluctuations in pollutant concentration.
Wastewater flow rates also vary and an
additional variability factor should be
used to account for fluctuations in
wastewater flow.
Response—Pollutant concentrations
in final wastewater flow will vary
somewhat even with good operation of
the treatment system. Additional
variability will occur in poorly operated
treatment systems. The variability
factors used to establish these proposed
regulations are intended to account only
for uncontrollable variations in pollutant
concentrations. The Agency believes
that where variations can be controlled
with available technology, these sources
of variation should be controlled. A
large part of the variation in effluent
flow (about 75% of the variation) is
attributable to variations in amount of
crude oil processed. This variation will
be considered by the establishment of
limitations based on the mass pollutant
discharged per unit of crude oil
processed (kg of pollutant/1.000 cubic
meters of crude throughput).
Technology is available to control the
remaining variation in effluent flow.
That technology Is equalization—
providing a large storage volume for the
effluent and controlling the rate of
discharge. Equalization was considered
as a part of BPT technology, and costs
and economic impacts for equalization
were calculated when BPT was
promulgated. Based on the use of
equalization, no variability factors were
used for flow variations in establishing
BPT limitations, and the Agency
believes that none are necessary in
these regulations if available BPT
technology is used.
XXI. Solicitation of Comments
EPA invites and encourages public
participation in this rulemaking. The
Agency asks that any deficiencies in the
record of this proposal be pointed to
with specificity and that suggested
revisions or corrections be supported by
data.
EPA is particularly interested in
receiving additional comments and data
on the following issues:
(1) The Agency is reviewing the
sampling and analytical methods used
to determine the presence and
magnitude of toxic pollutants, and
solicits comments on the data produced
by these methods, and the methods
themselves.
(2) The Agency is considering the
possibility of establishing numerical
effluent limitations for toxic pollutants
other than phenol and chromium. The
Agency is considering mass limitations
for the following additional toxic
pollutants: ethylbenzene. 50 fig/1;
naphtalene. 50 pg/1; 2.4 dimethylphenol,
50 fig/1: benzene. 50 pg/1; toluene. 50
pg/1. The concentrations being
considered are thirty day average
concentrations. Mass limitations would
be calculated by multiplying the
concentrations by the achievable flow
for the selected option. Daily maximum
limitations would be calculated by
multiplying the thirty day limitation by a
variability factor to account for daily
fluctuations in pollutant concentration.
The technical bases for these limitations
179
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44.' No. 247 / Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Rules 75941
are presented in the development
document. EPA requests comments on
these limitations and their bases.
(3) In recognition of the limits of
available data and the expense of
monitoring for the toxic pollutants listed
in solicitation of comment (2) above.
EPA is also considering the possibility
of regulating those toxic pollutants with
limitations on "Indicator" pollutants
rather than or as an alternative to
limitations on the specific toxic
pollutants discussed above. The
sampling and analysis data (see Data
Gathering Efforts section above) show
that when concentrations of certain
traditional pollutants are reduced.
concentrations of toxic pollutants are
also reduced. While relationships
between "indicator" pollutants and
toxic pollutants may not be quantifiable
on a one-to-one basis, control of the
"indicator" would reasonably assure
control of toxics with similar physical
and chemical properties responsive to
similar treatment mechanisms (e.g.: 2.4
dimethyl phenol is treated by
biodegradation and could be controlled
with BO05 as an "indicator" of
biodegradation performance). This
method of toxics regulation could
obviate the difficulties, high costs, and
delays of monitoring and analysis that
could result from limitations solely on
the toxic pollutants. Specifically. EPA is
considering limitations on oil and
grease, total suspended solids,
biochemical oxygen demand, and total
organic carbon as "Indicator" pollutants.
Limitations would be based on
"indicator" pollutant concentrations and
flows achievable with technologies
identified as BAT and BAOT (See Best
Available Technology Economically
Achievable and New Source
Performance Standards sections above).
It is the Agency's position that when
used as "indicator" pollutants. BAT
limitations may be established for
conventional pollutants without regard
to the BCT cost test Moreover, when
non-toxic, non-conventional pollutants
(such as total organic carbon) are used •
as "indicator" pollutants, it is the
Agency's position that such limitations
are not subject to Section 301(c) or '
Section 301 (g) modifications. EPA
requests comments on the use of specific
limitations on the discharge of
"indicator" pollutants as an alternative
to limitations on the toxic pollutants
described above in this section.
(4) A study by an industry trade
association (the American Petroleum
Institute) (API) concludes that for new
refineries total recycle (no discharge) is
not only technically feasible, but may be
economically more favorable than
treatment for discharge to U.S. waters:
fifty-five existing refineries already
practice zero discharge. EPA specifically
solicits comments and data which would
support or refute the achievability of no
discharge on a nationwide basis for new
refineries. Comments on the other
options identified for new source
standards are also solicited.
(5) As stated in the section Data
Gathering Efforts, EPA found that the
seventeen refineries sampled during the
data gathering effort were achieving a
significantly lower effluent
concentration of total phenol (4AAP)
than that assumed in establishing BPT
limitations. Other technical studies have
reached the same conclusion. Therefore,
the Agency is proposing to use 19 pg/1
as the achievable long term
concentration for total phenol (4AAP).
EPA requests comments and data which
would either verify or refute the
assumption that a lower concentration
of total phenol (4AAP) is achievable in
petroleum refineries.
(6) EPA assumes that POTWs have
installed secondary treatment in
deciding whether pollutants pass
through or are incompatible with
POTWs. EPA makes this assumption
regardless of whether a refinery is
actually discharging into a POTW with
secondary treatment The only
exception to'this assumption would be if
a refinery discharges into a POTW
which is not required by the Clean
Water Act to achieve effluent
limitations based on secondary
treatment. These are refineries
discharging into a POTW which has
received a waiver under section 301(h)
of the Act. (See discussion under
Pretreatment Standards above). EPA
solicits comments on this approach to
selecting pollutants for control by
pretreatment standards.
(7) Possible underestimation of control
technology costs was an issue raised
during the public comment meeting and
in written comments. In order to perform
a meaningful comparison of EPA cost
data and industry cost data. EPA
requests detailed information on salient
design and operating characteristics:
actual installed cost (not estimates of
replacement costs) for each unit
treatment operation or piece of
equipment the date of installation and
the amount of installation labor
provided by plant personnel: and the
actual cost for operation and-
maintenance, broken down into units of
usage and cost for energy (kilowatt
hours or equivalent), chemicals, and
labor (work-years or equivalent).
(8) The Agency is considering best
management practices (BMPs) for
specific application in this industry (see
Best Management Practices). EPA
requests comments on the clarity,
specificity, and practicability of these
BMPs. as well as information and
suggestions concerning additional BMPs
which may be appropriate.
(9) EPA has obtained from the
industry a substantial data base for the
control and treatment technologies
which serve as the basis for the
proposed regulations. Plants which have-
not submitted data, or which have
compiled data more recent than that
already submitted, are requested to
forward these data to EPA. These data
should be individual data points, not
averages or other summary data.
including flow, production, and all
pollutant parameters for which analyses
were run. Please submit any
qualifications to the data, such as
descriptions of facility design, operating
procedures, and upset problems during
specified periods.
(10) EPA requests that POTWs which
receive wastewaters from petroleum
refining plants submit data which would
document the occurrence of interference
with collection system and treatment
plant operations, permit violations.
sludge disposal difficulties, or other
incidents attributable to the pollutants
contained in POTW influent
• Dated: November 27.1979.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
Appendix A *—Abbreviations. Acronyms and.
Other Tunis Used in this Notica
Act—The Clean Water Act
Agency—The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
BAT—The best available technology
economically achievable, under Section
304(b)(2)(B) of the Act
BCT—The best conventional pollutant
control technology, under Section 304(b](4).
of the Act
BMP—Best management practices under
Section 304(e) 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. 12S1 at seq.]. as amended by the
Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 93-217).
Direct discharger—A facility which
discharges or may discharge pollutants into
waters of the United States.
Indirect discharger—A facility which
discharges or may discharge pollutants into.
a publicly owned treatment works.
NPDES permit—A National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit
issued under section 402 of the Act.
NSPS—New source performance standards.
under section 306 of the Act.
POTW—Publicly owned treatment works.
1 Appendix A through H will not appear in the
Code of Federal Regulations.
180
-------
75942
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Rules
06CS—Pretreatmant standards for existing
ones of indirect discharges, under
!ctfon307(b)oftheAct
PSNS—Pretreatment standards for new
• sourcaa of direct discharges, under section
307(b) and (c) of the ACL
RCRA—Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (PL 94-580) of 1978.
Amendments to Solid Waste Disposal Act
Appendix B—Toxic Pollutants Not Detected
In Treated cm..«iit« (Direct Discharge)
Organia
acrolein
acrylonitxile
chlorobenzene
1.1,1-trichIoroethane
1.1-dlchloroethane
1.1.2-trichloroethane
chloroelhane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
chloroform
methyl chloride
methyl bromide
bromofom
trichlorofluoromethane
dichlorodifluoromethane
chlorodi bromome *h<*"'»
vinyl chloride
acenaphthene
benzidine
1.2,4-trichIorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
hexachloroethane
bis(cbloromethyl) ether
M«r2-chloroethyl) ether
'oronaphthalene
tnchlorophenol
.Jorophenol
1.2-dichlorobenzene
1.3-dichlorobenzene
1.4-dlcfllorobeiizBne
3J'-dichlorobenzidina
2,4-dlnitro toluene
2.6-dinitrotoluene
U-dlphenylhydraztne
4-chlorophenyl phenyt ether
4-bromoph«nyl phenyl ether
bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
hexachlora butadiene
hexachlorocydopentadiene
isophorane
nitrobenzene
2-nitrophenol
2.4-nitrophenol
4.6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodimetnyiamuie
N'ttitrasodiphenyiamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
pen iachlorophenol
butyl benzyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phtbalate
3.4-benzofluoranthene
benzo(k) fluoranthane
acenaphthylene
dibenzo(aji]anthracene
ideno(1.2J-cd]pyrene
2.3.73-tetrochlorodibenzo-p-dioxin CTCDD)
Pesticide*
'•in
rin
dane
...ODT
4.4--DDE
4.4-DDD
a-endosulfan-Alpha
b-endosulfan-Beta
endosnlfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
heptachlor
heptachior epoxida
a-BHC-Alpha
b-BHC-Beta
r-BHC-Gamma
g-BHC-Delta
PCB-1242
PGB-1254
Others
asbestos (fibrous)
Appendix C—Toxic Pollutants Found in Only
One Refinery Effluent (at Concentrations
Higher Than Those Found in the Intake
Water) and Which Are Uniquely Related to
the Refinery at Which it Was Delected (Direct
Discharge)
J. Orgonica
Carbon tetrachloride
l.l-dichloroethylene
U-dichloropropane
U-dlchloropropylene
2.4-dichlorophenol
di-o-butyi phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
Z Pesticides
None
IMetola
Nona
4.OUier»
None
Appendix D—Toxic Pollutants Detected in
Treated Effluents of Mora Than One Refinery
or Detected in the Treated Effluents of One
Refinery But Not Uniquely Related to the
Refinery at Which it Was Detected (Direct
Dlsdurge)
L Ofgoiu'ca
Benzene
1.2-dichloroethane
l.l.Z2-(etrachloroethana
parachlorometa cresol
1.2-trans-dichloroethylene
2.4-dimethylphenol
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
methylene chloride
dichloro bromome thane
naphthalene
4-nitrophenol
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
bis(2-e(hylhexyl) phthalata
diethyl phthalate
benzo(a]anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene
chrysene
anthracene
benzo(ghi)perylene
fluorene
phenanthrena
pyrene
tetrachloroelhylena
toluene
trichloroethylene
2. Metals
antimony (total)
arsenic (total)
beryllium (total)
cadmium (total)
copper (total)
cyanide (total)
lead (total)
mercury (total)
nickel (total)
selenium (total)
silver
thallium (total)
zinc (total)
AppendixE—ToxicPollutantsNot Detected
In Discharges to POTWs (Indirect Discharge)
2. Orgaiucs
acrolein
acrylonitrile
carbon tetrachloride
1.1-dlchloroe thane
1.1.2-trichloroe thane
1.1.2.2- tetrachloroe thane
chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
1.1-dichloroethylene
l^-trans-dlchloroethylene
1.2-dichloropropane
U-dichloropropylene
methyl chloride
methyl bromide
bromoform
dlchlorobromome thane
trichlorofluoromethane
dichlorodifluoromethane
chlorodibramomethane
trichloroethylene
vinyl chloride
benzidine
1.2.4-frichIorobenzena
hexachlorobenzene
hexachloroethane
bis(chloromethyl) ether
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
2-chloronaphthalene
2.4.6-trichlotophenol
parachlorometa cresol
2-chlorophenol
1.2-dichlorophenoI
parachlorometa cresol
2-chlorophenol
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1.3-dlchlorobenzene
1.4-dlchiorobenzene
3.3'*dichlorobenzidino
2.4-dichlorophenol
2,&-dlnitrotoluene
fluoranthene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocydopentadiene
nitrobenzene
2-nitrophenol
4-mtrophenol
2.4-dinitrophenol
4.6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-mlrosodiphenylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalata
dimethyl phthalata
benzo(a)pyrene
181
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Rules
75943
3,4-benzofluoranthena
benzo(k)fluoranthene
acenaphthylena
benzo(ghi)perylene
dibenzo(a.h)anthracane
ldeno(1.2,3-cd]pyrene
U.7.8-tetrachlora-dibenzo-p-dioxin(TCDD)
2. Pesticides
dieldrin g-BHC-Delta
chlordana PCB-1242
4.4'-DDD PCB-IZM
a-«ndosuIfan-Alpha PCB-1221
b-endosulfan-Beta PCB-1232
endosulfan sulfata PCB-1248
endrin PCB-1280
endrin aldehyde PCB-1018
heptachlor toxaphena
4-BHC-Gamma
3. Metals
antimony (total) silver (total)
beryllium (total) thallium (total)
cadmium (total)
4. Others (Asbestos. 4AAP Phenol)
Not analyzed
Appendix F—Toxic Pollutants Detected in
Discharges to POTW (Indirect Discharge)
1. Orgaaics
benzene
chlorobenzene
1.2-dichloroethane
1.1.1-trichloroethane
chlorofonn
ethylbenzene
methylene chlnide
tetrachloraethylene
toluene
acenaphthene
2.4-dimethylphenol
2.4-dinitortoluene
1.2-diphenylhydrazine
isophorona
naphthalene
N-nitrosodiphenylamina
pentachlorophenol
phenol
butyl benzyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
dl-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
benzo(a)anthracene
chrysene
anthracene
fluorene
phenanthrene
pyrene
Z Pesticides
aldrin
4.4'-DDT
4.4--DDE
3. Metals
arsenic (total) mercury (total)
chromium (total) nickel (total)
copper (total) selenium (total)
lead (total) zinc (total)
hepatachlor epoxide
a-BHC- Alpha
b-BHC-Beta
4. Others (Asbestos. 4AAP Phenol)
Not analyzed
Appendix G—Toxic Pollutants Found to Pasa
Through POTW with Only Primary
Treatement (Indirect Discharge)
1. Organics
benzene
1.2-dichloroethane
1.1.1-trichloroethane
chloroform
ethylbenzene'
methylene chloride
tetrachloroetbylene
toluene
2.4-dimethylphenol
naphthalene
phenol
butyl benzyl phthalate
di-n-butyl-phthalate
dl-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
Z Pesticides
4.4'-DDT
4.4--DDE
3. Metals
arsenic (total)
chromium (total)
copper (total)
lead (total)
a-BHC- Alpha
b-BHC-Beta
mercury (total)
nickel (total)
selenium (total)
zinc (total)
4. Others (Asbestos. 4AAP Phenol)
Not analyzed
Appendix H
The following derivation presents the
development of mass limitations for phenol.
based upon Option 2. from the flow model
discussed in Section V.
(1) Mass=Flow x concentration x variability
(equation 1)
BAT Mass a.48 x Mass (based on average
1976 industry flow)
(2) Flow Model (See Section IV of the
Development Document)=0.004C +
0.048K + 0.48(A+L) (equation 2)
Where:
Flow a million gallons per day/1000 barrels of
petroleum liquid and natural gas liquids
C=» summation of the crude oil and fed
natural gas liquids to the atmospheric
distillation, vacuum distillation, crude
desalting (in units of 1.000 bbls/day)
K a summation of the petroleum liquids fed to
the catalytic cracking processes (in unit
of 1.000 bbls/day)
Aasummation of the petroleum liquids fed to
the asphalt processes (in units of 1.000
bbls/day)
(.—summation of the petroleum liquids fed to
the lube processes (in units of 1.000 bbls/
day)
(3) Concentration and variability factor
Phenol=19 ng/1 (concentration)
1.7 (variability factor for 30 day averages)
(4) Sample Calculation
Mass=Flow x concentration x variability
factor x .48=(.004C+ 046 K4- .048
(A +L]] x .019 mg/1 x 1.7 x a34 x .48
Mass (Ibs of
Phenol)=O.OOOSC+0.0060K+0.0062( A+
L)
Part 419 is revised to read as set forth
below:
PART 419—PETROLEUM REFINING
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
General Provisions
Sec.
419.10 Applicability.
419.11 General Definitions.
BPT Limitations
Subpart A—Topping Sub-category
419.20 Applicability; description of the
topping subcategory.
419.21 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
Subpart B—Cracking Subcategory
419.30 Applicability: description of the
cracking subcategory.
419.31 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
Subpart C—Petrochemical Subcategory
419.40 Applicability; description of the
petrochemical subcategory.
419.41 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
Subpart D—Lube Subcategory
419.50 Applicability; description of the lube
subcategory.
419.51 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
Subpart E—Integrated Subcategory
419.60 Applicability: description of the
integrated subcategory.
419.61 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
BAT. BCT Limitations and New Source and
Pretreatment Standards
Subpart F—Petroleum Refining Point
Source Category
419.70 Applicability; description of the
petroleum refining subcategory.
419.71 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
419.72 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
419.73 New source performance standards
(NSPS).
419.74 Pretreatment standards for new and
existing sources.
182
-------
75944 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Rules
419.75 Pretreatment standards for facilities
discharging into certain publicly owned
treatment works with only primary
treatment
Appendix—Sample calculation of phenol
effluent limitations for a typical refinery.
Authority: Sections 301.304(b). (cfc (e). and
(g). 306(b) and (c). 307(b) and (c). and 501 of
the dean Water Act (the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
as amended by the Gean Water, Act of 1977),
(the "Act"]: 33 United States. 1311.1314Cb),
(cj, (e). and (g). 1316(b) and (c). 13l7(b) and
(c). and 1381:88 StaL 818, Pub. I~ az-&Xk 91
StaL 1587.Pob. L. 95-217.
General Provisions
9419.10 Applicability.
This part.applies to any petroleum
refinery which discharges or may
discharge pollutants to waters of the
United States or which introduces or
may Introduce pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works.
J 419,11 General definitions.
In, addition, to the definitions set forth.
hi 40 CFR Part 401. the following,
definitions apply to this part
(a) The term "ballast" means the flow.
of waters, from a ship, which is treated
at the refinery.
(b) The term "feedstock" means the
crude oil and natural gas liquids fed to
the topping units.
(c) The term "once-through cooling
water" means those waters discharged
that are used for the purpose of heat
removal and do not come into direct
contact with any raw material.
intermediate, or finished product
(d) The term "crude throughput" or
"C" means- the summation of the crude
oil and natural gas liquids- fed to the
crude processes in unit of 1.000 bbl/day
(when using the English unit tables) or
1.000 cubic meters/day (when, using the
metric unit tables).
(e) The term "crude processes'* means
atmospheric distillation, vacuum
distillation and crude desalting
processes.
(f) The term "cracking throughput" or
"K" means the summation of the
petroleum liquids fed to the cracking
processes in unit of 1.000 bbl/day (when
using the English unit tables) or 1.000
cubic meters/day (when, using the
metric unit tables).
(g) The term "cracking processes'"
means hydrocracking, visbreaking,
thermal cracking, fluid catalytic
cracking and moving bed catalytic
cracking processes.
(h) The term "asphalt and lube
throughput" or "AL" means the-
summation of the petroleum liquids fed
to the asphalt and lube processes in unit
of 1.000 bbl/day (when using the English
unit tables) or 1,000 cubic meters/day
(when using the metric unit tables).
(i) The term "asphalt and lube
processes" means asphalt production.
asphalt oxidizing, asphalt emulsifying,
hydrofining, hydrofinishing. lube
hydrofining, white oil manufacturing,
propane dewaxing, propane
deasphalting, propane fractioning,.
propane deresining. Duo Sol solvent
treating, solvent extraction, duotreating,
solvent dewaxing, solvent deasphalting,
lube vacuum tower, oil fractionation.
batch still (naphta strip], bright stack
treating, centrifuge and chilling MEK.
dewaxing. butane dewaxing, MEK-
Toluene dewaxing, deoiling (wax],
naphthenic lube production,
SOiextraction. wax pressing, wax plant
(with neutral separation), furfural
extracting, clay contacting-percolation,
wax sweating, acid treat phenol
extraction. lube and fuel additives.
sulfanate plant MIBFC wax slabbing,
rust preventives, petrolatum oxidation.
grease manufacture processes. These
processes are described in more detail
in Sections IV and V of the development
document
(j) The term "process wastewater"
means all the wastewater from the
refinery with exception to storm water.
ballast water, sanitary wastewater. and
noncontact once through cooling water.
(k) The following abbreviations shall
mean: (1) "bbl" means barret (one barrel
equals 42 gallons), and (2} "R" means
the ratio of cooling tower blowdown-
flow to total effluent flow.
BPT Limitations
Subpart A—Topping Subcategoiy
S 419.20 Applicability: Description of the
topping sufacategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges from any
facility which produces petroleum
products by the use of topping and
catalytic reforming whether or not the
facility includes any other process In
addition to topping and catalytic
reforming. The provisions of this subpart
are not applicable to facilities which
include thermal processes (coking.
visbreaking, etc.) or catalytic cracking.
S 419.21 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degrea of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the. best practicable control technology
currently available.
(a) The following limitations establish
the quantity or quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties, controlled by this
paragraph, which may be discharged by
a point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the
best practicable control technology
currently available:
EKuanf Hfnftadon§>
enaractanstfa
for any
iday
vibrator 30
conaacudva day»
anaflnott
MttkrunRa (Uogrgmt parl.OOO m»or
TSS—
coo>.
00 and
Tout cfwofTvufii •
22.7
is a
117
163
2.81
MS
1ZO
10.1
603
17
an
1.27
068
.20-
PH
028 .012
WlNn UM rang* 0.0 la 84
Engfiah ints (pounds par 1.000 bbl of
BO05-
TSS
80
SB
4T2
13
060
99
053
.122
0.10
Witrm tna range 6.0 to 0.0
4.25
IS
J1J'
1J
oaf
.45
024
an
'In.any casa HI wnlcfi the applicant can demonatnila mat
the cntanda tan cumaiiiiaBun HI me effluent exceeds 1.000
mg/l (1.000 ppm), ma Regional Admralralor may substitute
TOC aa a parameter n beu of COO. Effluent Imuttdona lor
TOC anafl be basad on affluent data from ma plant correlav
Ing TOC to BOQ5,
If In mo judgment of ma Regional AdmnMralor. adaquala
eorreladon data are not available, ma affluent Umluaon* for
TOC anall be aatabnaned at a rain of 12 to-1 la ma appfcfr
Me effluent OmtaUona on BOOS
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
£b»
1.000 bol of feedstock par uream day:
23.0 to 49 9_
50.00 ID 74.9.
75.0 to 99.9-_
100 to 1249-
125(01499-
'ISO ore
102
1.08
i.ie
1.28
138
ISO
1.37
(2) Process factor.
Lasa man 2.49.
2.3 to 148_
3.510449 _
4.5103.49 _
3.3 to ««•
8.0 to *^a
70 10 7.49
75lo799_
8.0 to 9.49__
8.5 10 ««•
9.010949
8.3(0999
100 to 10.49 _
10.Stot099
11.0 to 1 1.49
083
0.87
107
1.17
1^7
139
IJ1
164
1.79
1.95
2.12
2.31
2.51
2.73
183
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Rules
75945
115101199.
12.010 12.40.
12.3 to 12.99.
13.010 11*9.
1UM 13.99.
1440 or gran
2.98
124
3.53
344
4.18
4J8
(3) See the comprehensive example
Subpart O § 419.Sl(b)(3).
(c) The following allocations
constitute the quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph and
attributable to ballast which may be
discharged after the application of best
practicable control technology currently
available, by a point source subject to
the provisions of this subpart in
addition to the discharge allowed by
paragraph (b) of this section:
(1) Ballast. The allocation allowed for
ballast water flow, as kg/cu m (Ib/M
gal], shall be based on those ballast
waters treated at the refinery.
Effiuant
Mndnun Avereot of difly
tar my value* tar 30
loty conaacuav* day*
anal not aioaaov^
matt una (Uognna par cube mrar
of now|
TSS.
Oiand
PH
0.028
033 021
47 24
015 008
WttmM ring* 8.0 »90
Engtah unti (pound! par 1.000 gal of
0.40 0.21
M 17
9.9 2.0
120 467
Witt* tr» range 64 to TO
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph.
attributable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon
concentration not to exceed 5 mg/1.
Subpart B—Cracking Subcategory
9 419.30 Applicability; description of the
cracking subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to all discharges from any
facility which produces petroleum
products by the use of topping and
cracking, whether or not the facility
includes any process in addition to
topping and cracking. The provisions of
this subpart are not applicable however.
to facilities which include the processes
specified in Subparts C 0. or E of this
part
9 419J1 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT).
(a) The following limitations establish
the quantity or quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties, controlled by this
paragraph, which may be discharged by
a point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the
best practicable control technology
currency available:
Effluant
dnncuitaao
Maximum
tor any
Ida*
Average of darfy
valuator 30
oonaaeu** day*
ahalnou
Mane unoi (Utognra par 1.000 m« el
BOO5_
TSS-
000—
OBandc
Ammoria aa N__
Sulflda—
Tots! ctwonvufvi «*^v
Haartalant
262 15.8
19.5 1Z8
210 109
8.4 4J
.21 10
184 8.5
18 .082
.43 JS
035 .018
Wltt*itha range 6.0 to 9.0
EngEati units (pounds par 1.000 bbl of
BO05-
TSS
Oil and
PlMMfe
compounds
Ammona
Total cftromum_
cnroinufli.
PH
99 U
8.9 44
74 384
3JO 14
074 038
88 3.8
085 029
.15 • 088
012 0058
VWIhm tna rang* 80 to 9.0
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1.000 DM of teadstook par stream day:
lasatnan249
SOOtO 749
75010999
1000 ID 124 9.
1250101499.
150.0 or greater
Actor
091
09S
104
I 13
1.23
135
141
(2) Process factor.
(3) See the comprehensive example
Subpart D § 419.51(b)(3)
(c) The provisions of 5 419.21(c)(l)
apply to discharges of process waste
water pollutants attributable to ballast
water by a point source subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph,
attributable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
Once-through cooling water may be
discharged a total organic carbon
concentration not to exceed 5 mg/1.
Subpart C—Petrochemical
Subcategory
9 419.40 Applicability; description of the
petrochemical subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to all discharges from any
facility which produces petroleum
products by the use of topping, cracking
and petrochemical operations, whether
or not the facility includes any process
in addition to topping, cracking and
petrochemical operations. The
provisions of this subpart shall not be
applicable however, to facilities which
include the processes specified in
Subparts 0 or E of this part
§ 419.41 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT).
(a) The following limitations establish
the quantity or quality of pollutant or
pollutants properties, controlled by this
paragraph, which may be discharged by
a point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the
best practicable control technology
currently available:
Efftuant
characteristic
for any
iday
Average of daily
valuaa for tMrty
•nail not
Las* man i49_
2.5 to 3.49
34 to 4 49
4 5 10 5 49
5410599
8 Ota 8.49
65106.99
7010749
7510799
8.0 to 8.49
8510899
9409.49
94 or greater-.
Metric unftt (kilograms per 1.000 m
-------
75946 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Rules
Effluent flnvtaflona
QBuant ttnanvsh Avenge of darfy
cnanKtaratte tor any values for 30
Idqr coiuac-modaya
•na. not axoaod1—
EngHan unto (pounds par 1.000 bat of
tee-stock)
COO 74 38,4
OR and grease— 3. 2.1
Phenofcr
confounds—-, 088- JM25-
Amnonbi aa N— _ 8-3 U
%*•* _,_.__— 078 OSS
Total cfranun_ .183 .107
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
m Size, factor:
Stf
1 jOOO bbl of faed3 par sVBBjff>4ay: Acflar
Una Oar " ° , , . ,.i . , , . n **
"••) Process factor:
Hocm
-•H oonfiQuciiuni v&ij*
4m-«-B nm
•AMSIM no.
Utaflaa inn
• n HI a .a 1 10
(3) See the comprehensive example
Subpart D § 419-51(b)(3).
(c) The provisions of § 419.21(c](l)
apply to discharges of process waste
water pollutants attributable to ballast
water by a point source subject to the
provisions of this subpart
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants- or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph.
attributable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the disclosure
allowed by paragraph, (b) of this section.
Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon
concentration not be exceed 5 mg/1.
Subpart 0— Lube Subcategory
§ 419.50 Applicability; description of the
lubssubcategory.
"he provisions of this subpart are
icable to all discharges from any
Jity which produces petroleum
products by the use of topping, cracking
and lube od manufacturing processes.
whether or not the facility includes any
process in addition to topping, cracking
and lube oil manufacturing processes.
The provisions of this subpart are not
applicable however, to facilities which
include the processes specified in.
Subparts C and E of this part.
§ 41 9.51 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application- of
the best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT).
(a) The following limitations establish
the quantity or quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties, controlled by this
paragraph, which may be discharged by
a point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the
best practicable control technology
currently available: •
Effluent bmtatona
Effluent Maximum Average of daily
cfiaraaanrto lor any values lor 30
t day consecutive daya
thai not exceed—
Metric unrts pdograma par 1.000m »of
feedstock)
BOO*. __s 50.8 2SL8
*$? 1^1 2Z7
mr> ion IB*
CD and grease 18.2 IS
Pnanouc
Amoma as N 23 4 1058
&„(«. -LI , n
Total enremun 77 AS
rtaavalent
Engfajn units (pounds per 1.000 bM of
(•edstocfc)
TSS »? «n
mn m at
0 to fl 4ft __^___^ 1 09
a«i.aoa tin.
10 S to 10 99 ' . __.._ ' t7
1 • 0 IO 1 1 '9 .. -_- • "?
11 f I0 1* 1)9..... . .._ ' •"
•into iai» ...... ..._..,..,_... »1*
ISOorgrtattr.. ... .._, 2"
(3] Example of the application of the
above factors.
Calculation of the Procesa Configuration
PtDCeUat) PfDOOSSaW inCHHOQ WOtQnttnQT
ealagory lador
eoklng.
Moving oed cat cracking ____
Aspnait oxidauon
Asphalt ernulsifyirg
(c) The provisions of § 419.21(c)(l)
apply to discharges of process waste
water pollutants attributable to point
source subject to the provisions of
ballast water by this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph,
attributable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon
concentration not to exceed 5 mg/1.
0 M/ per Stream Day Throughput
CaipAOty Cafpaidty WwyhtlnQ PfOCBssinQ
(1.000 DM per Mauve to factor configuration
SsTBaVD O8yi . IfeTOUQjPpUt
12S V
. 90 .46"
.129 1
. .__ 2.W X" 1 •• 2,48
185
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 247 / Friday, December 21, 1979 / Proposed Rules
75947
Eompta'-tuteflaftMy 1SS.OOO 6U par Stream Day Throughput-CmOauet
Capacity Capacity
(1.000 MX per re-ova la
»d«y) throughput
Cnctang-
4t
20
J2S
.160
ToW.
S3
40
43
488
042
033
JH9
TOM.
4.0
.113 X
JB2 x
e -
13
12
2.93
1.47
J3
7.28
NOTES
Set table 4 419.42(bK2) for process (actor. Process (actor-0 80.
Sea leUe f 419.42(01(1) lor see (actor (or 125.000 bbl par stream day kibe refinery St» (ictor-093.
recalculate me Ma lor each parameter, multiply via -ml |4ia.42(al By bom gia procau (actor ana ta factor
BCC5_mt(inewnumlaranyl aay)- t73xOJaxOS3»l4.6 ox p«r 1.000 btt of feedstock.
Subpart E—Integrated Subcategory
§ 419.60 Applicability; description of the
Integrated subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to all discharges resulting
from any facility which produces
petroleum products by the use of
topping, cracking, lube oil manufacturing
processes, and petrochemical
operations, whether or not the facility
includes any process in addition to
topping, cracking, lube oil manufacturing
processes and petrochemical operations.
9 419.81 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by Uie application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available (BPTV,
(a] The following limitations establish
the quantity or quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties, controlled by this
paragraph, which may be discharged by
a point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the
best practicable control technology
currently available:
Effluent Mtaoons
Mwdmum
lor any
Average of daty
values tor 30
consecutive day*
cnalnoK
IMta wtt (Uogranu par 1.000 ffl'et
TSS.
544
373
388
17.1
.40
Total
He
c
PH
289
23.7
198
ill
192
104
.138
WUn the nnge 6.0 to 94
032
cKhMnl umrtrtomi
Effluent
Majumum Average el daily
lor any values tor 30
1 day cmecuove daya
Englan inta (pounds perl,000 bH of
B005-
TSS-
COO
OU and oru£a—
contpounos _
Anvnoniai u N
194 102
iaa a.4
138 70
8.0 U
14 068
8J U
124 058
33 .17
025 JHt
Wimm ID* nnga84 to 9.0
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maxifnum for any one day and the
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(1] Size factor:
1.000 bbl ol feedstock par mam day:
Leas man 124 9
1Z5.0 to 149.9
1500 to 1749
175.0 to 199.9 ________
200.0 to 224.9 ___________
"•-IT*"—
Hetor
0.73
0.78
083
091
049
104
[2] Process factor:
Less man 8.49-
8.5 to 7 49
7510799
8 0 to 8.49
8510899
90 to 9.49
95 H 9.99
10 010 10.49 _
10.510 10.99 _
IIOlo 11 49_
11J to 11 99 _
12.0 to 12.49 _
12,Sto>Z99_
13.0 or greater.
Ifctor
0.75
082
0.92
100
1.10
120
130
142
154
168
1.83
199
2.17
2M
(3) See the comprehensive example
Subpart 0 § 419.Sl(b)(3).
(c) The provisions of § 419.21 (c)(l)
apply to discharges of process waste
water pollutants attributable to ballast
water by a point source subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants of pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph.
attributable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic
concentration not to exceed 5 mg/L
BAT, BCT Limitations and New Source
and Pretreatment Standards
Subpart F—Petroleum Refining Point
Source Subcategory
S 419.70 Applicability; description of the
petroleum refining subcategory.
This subpart applies to discharges to
waters of the United States, and
introductions of pollutants Into publicly
owned treatment works from any
petroleum refinery.
§ 419.71 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best available technology economically
achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.3C
125.32. any existing point source subjei
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 [BAT]:
(a) The quantity of pollutants
discharged from process wastewater
shall not exceed the sum of the
allocations specified below (3C means 3
multiplied by C):
(D
Subpart F
PoOutantor
poflutant property
BAT crude allocation
Maamum Average of dady
(or any values (or 30
1 day consecutive days
Metric units Odoonvns par day)
TolAl ChrOITMfll«
Hexavalent
chnxnuflt««__
Phenol
Tola! cnromum.
00031C
0.0332C
0.0028C
0001SC
0.0194C
0.0013C
Englan units (pounds per day)
cnromuiii..
0.0011C
0.0116C
OXO10C
0.00058C
Q.006SC
0.0
186
-------
75948 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed" Rules
SobpaitP
Pollutant or _______________
PoDutant property. Maxsnum Average of daily
for any values for 3O
Tday eansecudve.day*
Matnc unto (Uograms par day>
Phenol—— 0.03SIK 0.017QK
ToM dWxrdui»_ O3812K O2234X
chromium OJ328K OJ)147K
Enotsn tints fjxjonos peroayr
Total cnrarnum — 0.1338* aOTSSK
Hexavafent
cnrarnum OJJM4IC OOOSaC
C31
Subpart F
BAT aspnalf and kibe allocation
DURUM ar
ptfUantpnpeA Maxnuav Average of daily
for any values lor 30
Tday consecutive oaye-
Uetric urata (Uognjms par day)
•_»! aaaiKu am-niL
Totafchramum X3971AL O2332M.
"«M»alen>
vxnum 0.0340AL O01S4AL.
EngSsnunrts (pounds per day)
Phenol 0.0128AL O008ZAL
Tot* enronun O.U93A1. OJM17AI_
Hexa.ule»i
(b) The Rhulations for COD, ammonia
(as N). sulfide and TOC are the same as
those specified in §9 419.21, 419.31,
419.41, 419.51, and 419.61.
(c) The limitations for ballast wafer
and once through cooling water are the
same as those specified in § J 419.21.
419.31. 419.41. 419.51. and 419.61.
Note. — See Appendix to- this regulation for
"WlPplfl *"aj5f1lla'*l?t1 flf A. HAT efflufiOl
limitation.
§ 419.77 Effluent limitations guide lines
representing trie degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application, ot
the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT)>
' 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
Ne best conventional pollutant
.•ol technology (BCT]:
id) The quantity of pollutants-
discharged from process wastewater
shall not exceed the sum of the
allocations specified below (3C means 3
multiplied by C):
(1)
Subpart P
8ATmjrta allocBDorr
PnCi riant n«
pollutant property Maximum Average ol daily
lor any values (or 30
Iday consecutive daya
Metric urala (Utognrna per day)
aOOS 7.'9W ' ««C
TSS. rSOTC QflOT'C
Ot andgrease— 06S8C 0366C
English units (pounds per day)
BOOS 0 7WMC 0 "W!C
TW * *'MG 0 338SC
Ol and grease O240C 0.1ZBC
(2)
Subpart P
8CT cocking allocation
Poducanlor
paUantpraoerrt Maximum Average ol daily
tor any values lor 30
Iday consecutive days
Metric units (kilogram per day)
WVM MMK ,f^l^
TSS,_.._ _.._. 1733K 11 OIK
01 sod grease 789K 4.21 K.
English urots (pounds per day)
T$S „..__ «081K Xfl/OK
ON and grease— 176K 1.47K,
PI
Subpart F
BCTa«Ml»Nliul>.tfocn»
pollutant property Maximum Average ol daily
lot any values for 30
1 day consoculwaaays
Metric units (Uograms per d9ay)
m 9**3AL 19 MAL
0» and gr«as»__ 933M. 43SAL
English units (pounds per day)
BODS. • 779*1 A 903*1
TSS 4.3^6^ A Q3BAL
01 and grease 188AL 1.S4AL
(b) the pH shall be within the range of
a to 9.
(c] The limitations for ballast water
and once through cooling water are the
same as those specified in §§ 419.21,
419.31. 419.41, 419.51, and 419.61.
S 419.73 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this
subpart mast achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS]:
(a) There shall be no discharge of
pollutants front process wastewaters to
the waters of the United Slates.
(b) The limitations for ballast water
and once through cooling water are the
same as those specified in §§ 419.21,
419.31. 419.41. 419.51. and 419.61.
§ 419.74 Pretreatment standards for new
and existing sources.
Any point source subject to this
subpart which introduces pollutants into
a publicly owned treatment works
which has not been granted a waiver
from achieving effluent limitations
based on secondary treatment under
section 301(h) of the Act must achieve
the following pretreatment standards (in
addition to complying with 40 CFR Part
403 in the case of new sources and
except as provided in 40 CFR Part 40X13
in the case of existing sources):
(a) The following standards apply to
the total refinery flow contribution to
the POTW.
Subpart F
poDutant property Maanura tar any 1 day
MUgrams par Olar (mg/1)
Q3 >nd gmsv^^HH 100
(b) The following standard is applied
to the cooling tower blowdown portion
of the refinery flow to the POTW or may
be applied to the total refinery flow by
multiplying the standard by the ratio of
the cooling tower blowndown flow to
the total refinery flow to the POTW.
Subpart r
PoHuttrtf or PivdVcitnwTir atendgrds '••
poUutantprooerty Mawnunvfarany i day
MSbgrams par liter (mg/1)
Total ciirornvn
(c) Informational mass limitations are
as. follows:
Subpart P
Pollutant or Pretraalmant standards—
pollutant properly Maximum lor any 1 day
Metric unrts (kilograms par day)
Ol and arena 857C+l0952K.f-1l430At.
Ammonia 957C-t-10952K+11430AL
Total crrarrdum flx(0.0957C+l0952K+1.143QAL)
— — Engasn units (pounds per day)
Oil and grease—— X3SC+38.35K+40 02AL
Total chromium __ Rx(00335C+0.3S35K+0.4002AU
187
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Rules
75949
9 419.75 Pretreatment standards for
facilities discharging Into certain publicly
owned treatment works with only primary
treatment*
Any point source subject to this
subpart which introduces pollutants into
a publicly owned treatment works
which has been granted a waiver from
achieving effluent limitations based on
secondary treatment under section
301(h) of the Act must achieve the
following pretreatment standards (in
cddition to complying with 40 CFR Part
403 In the case of new sources and
except as provided in 40 CFR 403.13 for
Existing Sources):
Subpart F
PoMantor
pofetam proparty
Oi(n| Watnara
Manmum
torn*
Aung* o* daily
valuator 30.
(3)
Poouumor
potkium prapariy
Aunali and MM allocation
uaxtmum Avaraoa at daily
lor any «alu»i tor 30
i day eoraacuM day*
Mamc units (talograma par day)
Tom Gnpomurn.
00365AL
OJ87SAL
00177AL
OJ332AL
0.01 HAL
English urea (pound* p«r day)
Total cnremum.
00128AL
0.13O3AL
00119AL
00062AL
OOB17AL
80054AL
UOgram* par Itor (mo/1)
Appendix—Sample Calculation
The following example presents the
derivation of a BAT phenol effluent
limitation for a typical refinery
RefliMryX YZ
OW7
0.723
0.06
0032
0.439
(b) Information mass limitations are
as follows:
(1)
CnidaaiocaMn
Rafinan/
nreugnput
1000bW/day
dwflatt
Oamatdng.
100
79
SO
229
FCC.
Hvdre
tar any
tday
Maoto uMOdtognm par dayl
TeMehremun.
00031C
00332C
00019C
0.0194C
0.001X
Total aapnalt and lub* pnxaim (AU
(ba/
29
20
(poiafads pw dsy)
1O-<(9)-044.
00011C
00118C
0.0010C
0.00092C
0.0008BC
00009C
(FR Doc. 7V-U4U FUed 12-ZO-Jft 6.41 am|
anjUNQ coot IMO-OI-M
(2)
Mkiuniar
poMam propariy
Mmaomuni
tor any
iday
Awaoa ol daay
•amaatarM
Mane untt (kiloenuna par day)
Total chrarnun.
Haiavalant
003S1K
03812K
00326K
00170K
OJ234K
00147K
Engwn unro (pounds par day)
Total ctvofn1urnH
00123K
01336K
00114K
00060K
007K3K
0.0092K
188
-------
Monday
October 18, 1982
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
Petroleum Refining Point Source
Category Effluent Limitations Guidelines,
Pretreatment Standards and New Source
Performance Standards; Final Rule
189
-------
46434 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday. October 18. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 419
IWH-FRL 2203-3]
Petroleum Refining Point Source
Category Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards,
and New Source Performance
Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: These regulations limit the
discharge of pollutants into navigable
waters and into publicly owned
treatment works (POTW) by existing
and new sources in the petroleum
refining industry. The Clean Water Act
and a consent decree require EPA to
issue these regulations. These
regulations provide final effluent
limitations guidelines for "best available
technology economically achievable"
(BAT), and establishes final
pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES) and for new sources
{PSNS). The Agency has decided to
retain its previously promulgated "new
source performance standards" (NSPS)
for this industry. Effluent limitations
guidelines for "best practicable control
technology currently available" (BPT)
were not modified by EPA in this
rulemaking. The Agency is reserving
coverage of "best conventional pollutant
control technology" (BCT) effluent
limitations guidelines because the
methodology to assess the cost
reasonableness of BCT has not yet been
established. The Agency is withdrawing
storm water runoff limitations
promulgated on May 9.1974 (39 FR
16560) for BPT. BAT. and NSPS. because
these limitations were remanded by the
court in American Petroleum Institute v.
EPA. 540 F. 2d 1023 (10th Cir. 1976).
DATES: In accordance with 40 CFR
100.01 (45 FR 26048], the regulations
developed in this rulemaking shall be
considered issued for purposes of
judicial review at 1.00 p.m. Eastern time
on November 1.1982.
These regulations shall become
effective December 1.1982.
The compliance date for the newly
issued PSNS regulation is the date that
the new source commences discharge.
The compliance date for PSES is the
same as the compliance date for the
interim final PSES for this industry
promulgated on March 23.1977. (See 42
FR 15684). The PSES promulgated today
is no more stringent than the interim
final PSES.
Under Section 509(b](l) of the Clean
Water Act judicial review of these
regulations is available only by filing a
petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals within ninety days
after these regulations are considered
issued for purpose of judicial review.
Under Section 509[b](2) of the Clean
Water Act. these requirements of the
regulations may not be challenged later
in civil or criminal proceedings brought
by EPA to enforce these requirements.
Those portions of the existing
petroleum refining effluent guidelines
limitations and standards (hat are not
substantively amended by this notice
are not subject to judicial review nor is
their effectiveness altered by this notice.
These regulations are BPT and NSPS.
ADDRESSES: The record for this
rulemaking will be available for public
review within four weeks after the date
of publication in EPA's Public
Information Reference Unit. Room 2004
(Rear) (EPA Library). 401 M Street. S.W..
Washington. D.C. The EPA information
regulation (40 CFR Part 2) provides that
a reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
Technical information may be
obtained by writing to William A.
Telliard. Effluent Guidelines Division
(WH-552), EPA, 401 M Street. S.W..
Washington. D.C. 20460. or by calling
(202) 426-4617. Copies of the technical
development and economic documents
can be obtained from the National
Technical Information Service.
Springfield, Virginia 22161 (703/487-
6000).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis Ruddy. (202) 382-7165.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Organization of this Notice
I. Legal Authority
II. Scope of this Rulemaking
111 Summary of Legal Background
IV. Prior Regulations and Methodology and
Data Gathering Efforts
V. Control Treatment Options and
Technology Basis for Regulations
A. Final BAT Limitations
D. New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS)
C Final Pretreatmenl Standards for
Existing Sources (PSES)
0. Final Pretrealmeni Standards Tor New
Sources (PSNS)
VI. Costs and Economic Impacts
VII. Non-Water Quality Environmental
Impacts
A. Air Pollution
B. Solid Waste
C. Consumptive Water Loss
0. Energy Requirements
VIII. Pollularfts and Sub-categories Not
Regulated
A. Exclusion of Pollutants
B. Exclusion of Subcategones
IX. Responses to Major Comments
X. Beat Management Practices
XI. Upset and Bypass Provisions
XII. Variances and Modifications
XIII. Relationship to NPDES Permits
XIV Public Participation
XV. Small Business Administration (SBA)
Financial Assistance
XV]. Availability of Technical Assistance
XVII. Appendices
A. Pnonly Pollutants Not Detected in
Treated Effluents Discharged Directly.
and Excluded from Regulation
a Pnorty Pollutants Not Delected in
Effluents Discharged to POTWs, and
Excluded from Regulation
C Priority Pollutants Detected m Treated
Effluents Discharged Directly, but
Excluded from Regulation
D. Pnonly Pollutants Detected in Effluents
Dischdrged to POTWs. but Excluded
from Regulation
E. Abbrevmlions. Acronyms, and Other
Terms Used in this Notice
I. Legal Authority
These regulations are being
promulgated under the 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. 12S1 et seq.. as amended
by the Clean Water Act of 1977, Pub. L.
95-217) also called the "Act". These
regulations are also being promulgated
in response to the Settlement Agreement
in Natural Resources Defense Council.
Inc. v. Tram. 8 ERG 2120 (D.D.C. 1976).
modified 12 ERG 1833 (D.D.C. 1979).
II. Scope of this Rulemaking
The petroleum refining industry is
included within the U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
2911. A detailed overview of the
petroleum refining industry can be found
in the proposed regulations of December
21,1979 for this industry (44 FR 75926).
The most important pollutants or
pollutant parameters in petroleum
refinery waste waters are: (d) toxic
pollutants (chromium); (b) conventional
pollutants (TSS, Oil and Grease. BOD5.
and pH); and (c) nonconventional
pollutants (phenolic compounds (4-
AAP). COD. suifide and ammonia).
EPA's 1973 to 1976 rulemaking efforts
emphasized the achievement of best
practicable control technology currently
available (BPT] by July 1.1977. In
general. BPT represents the average of
the best existing performances of well-
known technologies for control of
traditional (i.e.. "classical") pollutants.
In contrast, this round of rulemaking
aims for the achievement by July 1.1984.
of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT) that will
result in reasonable further progress
toward the national goal of eliminating
190
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday. October 18. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 46435
the discharge of all pollutants. At a
minimum. BAT represents the best
economically achievable performance in
any industrial category or subcategory.
Moreover, as a result of the Clean Water
Act of 1977. the emphasis of EPA's
program has shifted from "classical"
pollutants to the control of a lengthy list
of toxic pollutants.
EPA is promulgating BAT. PSES. and
PSNS for each of the five subcategories
established for this industry. BPT. BAT
and NSPS effluent limitations for storm
water runoff for all direct dischargers
and all BCT requirements, including
storm water runoff, are being reserved
for future rulemaking.
III. Summary of Legal Background
The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 established a
comprehensive program to "restore and
maintain the chemicai. physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's
waters" (Section 101(a)). To implement
the Act. EPA was to issue effluent
standards, pretreatment standards, and
new source performance standards for
industry dischargers.
The Act included a timetable for
issuing these standards. However. EPA
was unable to meet many of the
deadlines and. as a result, in 1976. it was
sued by several environmental groups.
In settling this lawsuit, EPA and the
plaintiffs executed a court-approved
"Settlement Agreement". This
Agreement required EPA to develop a
program and adhere to a schedule m
promulgating effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for 65
"priority" pollutants and classes of
pollutants for 21 major industries. See
Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc.
v. Train. 8 ERG 2120 (D.O.C. 1976).
modified. 12 ERG 1833 (D.O.C. 1979). See
also: 43 FR 4108: 46 FR 2266; 46 FR 10723.
Many of the basic elements of this
Settlement Agreement program were
incorporated into the Clean Water Act
of 1977. Like the Agreement, the Act
stressed control of toxic pollutants
including the 65 "priority" pollutants. In
addition, to strengthen the toxic control
program. Section 304(e) of the Act
authorizes the Administrator to
prescribe "best management practices"
(BMPs) to prevent the release of toxic
and hazardous pollutants from plant site
runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste
disposal, and drainage from raw
matenal storage associated with, or
ancillary to. the manufacturing of
treatment process.
Under the Act. the EPA program is to
set a number of different kinds of
effluent limitations. These are discussed
in detail in the Development Document
supporting these regulations. The
following is a brief summary:
1. Best Practicable Control
Technology (BPT). BPT limitations are
generally based on the-average of the
best existing performance by plants of
various sizes, ages, and unit processes
within the industry or subcategory.
In establishing BPT limitations. EPA
considers the total cost of applying the
technology in relation to the effluent
reduction derived, the age of equipment
and facilities involved, the process
employed, the engineering aspects of
control technologies, process changes.
and non-water-quality environmental
impacts (including energy requirements).
The total cost of applying the technology
is balanced against the effluent
reduction. EPA promulgated BPT for the
petroleum refining point source category
on May 9.1974 (39 FR 16560) and
amended the regulations on May 20.
1975 (40 FR 21939). BPT is printed m this
final rule for the sake of completeness to
the reader.
2. Best Available Technology (BAT).
BAT limitations, in general, represent
the best existing performance of
technology in the industrial subcategory
or category. The Act establishes BAT as
the principal national means of
controlling the direct discharge of toxic
and nonconventional pollutants to
navigable waters.
In arriving at BAT, the Agency
considers the age of the equipment and
facilities involved, the process
employed, the engineering aspects of
control technologies, process changes.
the cost of achieving such effluent
reduction, and non-water quality
environmental impacts. The
Administrator retains considerable
discretion in assigning the weight to be
accorded these factors.
3. Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT). The 1977
Amendments added Section 301(b)(2)(E)
to the Act establishing "best
conventional pollutant control
technology" (BCT) for discharge of
conventional pollutants from existing
industrial point sources. Conventional
pollutants are those defined in Section
304(aj(4) (biochemical oxygen
demanding pollutants (BODS/, total
suspended solids (TSS), focal coliform
and pH|, and any additional pollutants
defined by the Administrator as
"conventional" (oil and grease, 44 FR
44501. July 30.1979|.
BCT is not an additonal limitation but
replaces BAT for the control of
conventional pollutants. In additon to
other factors specified in section
304(b)(4)(B). the Act requires the BCT
limitations be assessed in light of a two
part "cost-reasonableness" test.
American Paper Institute v. EPA. 660
F2d 954 (4th Cir. 1981). The first test
compares the cost for private industry to
reduce its conventional pollutants with
the costs to publicly owned treatment
works for similar levels of reduction in
their discharge of these pollutants. The
second test examines the cost-
effectiveness of additional industrial
treatment beyond BPT. EPA must find
that limitations are "reasonable" under
both tests before establishing them as
BCT. In no case may BCT be less
stnngent than BPT.
EPA published its methodology for
carrying out the BCT analysis on August
29.1979 (44 FR 50732). In the case
mentioned above, the Court of Appeals*
ordured EPA to correct data errors
underlying EPA's calculation of the first
test, and to apply the second cost test.
(EPA had argued that a second cost test
was not required). The Agency is
reserving BCT effluent limitations
guidelines because the methodology to
assess the cost reasonableness of BCT
has not yet been established.
4. New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS). NSPS are based on the best
available demonstrated technology.
New plants have the opportunity to
install the best and most efficient
production processes and wastewater
treatment technologies. EPA
promulgated NSPS for the petroleum
refining point source category on May 9,
1974 (39 FR 16560) and amended the
regulation on May 20.1975 (40 FR 21939).
NSPS is printed in this final rule for the
sake of completeness to the reader.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources (PSES). PSES are designed to
prevent the discharge of pollutants that
pass through, interfere with, or are
otherwise incompatible with the
operation of a publicly owned treatment
works (POTW). They must be achieved
within three years of promulgation. The
Clean Water Act of 1977 requires
pretreatment for toxic pollutants that
pass through the POTW in amounts that
would violate direct discharger effluent
limitations or interfere with the POTW's
treatment process or chosen sludge
disposal method. The legislative history
of the 1977 Act indicates that
pretreatment standards are to be
technology-based, analogous to the best
available technology for removal of '
toxic pollutants. EPA has generally
determined that there is pass through of
pollutants if the percent of pollutants
removed by a well-operated POTW
achieving secondary treatment is less
than the percent removed by the BAT
model treatment system. The general
pretreatment regulations, which served
as the framework for the categorical
191
-------
46436 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday. October 18, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
pretreatment regulations are found at 40
CFR Part 403 (43 FR 27736. June 26.1978:
46 FR 9462 January 28.1981).
6. Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources (PSNS). Like PSES. PSNS are to
prevent the discharge of pollutants
which pass through, interfere with, or
are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of the POTW. PSNS-are to be
issued at the same time as NSPS. New
indirect dischargers, like new direct
dischargers, have the opportunity to
incorporate the best available
demonstrated technologies. The Agency
considers the same factors in
promulgating PSNS as it considers in
promulgating PSES.
IV. Prior Regulations and Methodology
and Data Gathering Efforts
A. Prior Petroleum Refining Regulations
EPA promulgated BPT, BAT. NSPS.
and PSNS for the petroleum refining
point source category on May 9.1974 (39
FR 16560). The BPT. BAT. and NSPS
regulations were challenged by the
American Petroleum Institute (API) and
others in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Both BPT
and NSPS were upheld by the Court
with the exception of limitations for
storm water runoff which were
remanded for further consideration.
BAT. including limitations for storm
water runoff, was remanded for further
consideration. American Petroleum
Institute v. EPA. 540 F.2d 1023 (10th Cir.
1976). Interim final PSES was
promulgated on March 23.1977 (42 FR
15684) in response to the Settlement
Agreement.
BAT and BCT were proposed on
December 21.1979 (44 FR 75926). At the
same time, the Agency proposed to
revise NSPS. PSNS. and PSES.
B. Methodology and Data Gathering
Efforts
The methodology and data gathering
efforts used in developing the proposed
regulations were summarized in the
preamble to the proposed petroleum
refining regulations published on
December 21.1979 (44 FR 75926).
EPA has prepared the following
reports concerning data it has acquired
on this industry since the December
1979 proposed regulations were
published: (1) a report entitled
Petroleum Refining Industry.
Refinements to 1979 Proposed Flow
Model; and (2) a report entitled
Petroleum Refining Industry. Surrogate
Sampling Program. The Agency has
rejected the options which utilized the
data and conclusions from these reports
in this rulemaking: therefore, the results
were not used by EPA as bases for the
Agency's regulations in today's
rulemaking.
V. Control Treatment Options and
Technology .Basis for Regulations
A. Final BAT Limitations
EPA is promulgating BAT limitations
which are equivalent to the BPT level of
control (Option 9 discussed below).
These limitations are based on both m-
plant and end-of-pipe technologies.
including sour water stripping to control
ammonia and sulfide. water use
management, sewer segregation.
wastewater. flow equalization, initial oil
and solids removal (API separators or
baffle plate separators), advanced oil
and solids removal (clanfiers. dissolved
air flotation, or filters), biological
treatment and Filtration or other
"polishing" steps. The flow model and
subcategonzation scheme upon which
these limitations are based are the same
as those used for developing the BPT
effluent limitations. BPT removes 96
percent of the toxic pollutants from raw
wastewaters discharged by the'
petroleum refining industry.
1. Control Treatment Options for BA T.
The control and treatment technology
options that EPA investigated for use in
this industry for BAT are presented
below. Options 1 through 6 were
considered in formulating the proposed
rule. Option 7, a modification of Option
2, and Option 8. a modification of
Option 1. were developed on the basis
of information available at the time of
the 1979 proposal, modified as a result
of information collected by EPA after
the proposed rule was published, as well
as from public comments received on
the proposed rule. Option 9. the BPT
level of control, was reconsidered after
publication of the proposed rule, as a
result of public comments received.
Option 1—Discharge flow reduction of
27 percent from the proposed model
flow, achieved through greater reuse
and recycle of wastewaters. in addition
to BPT treatment.
Option 2—Discharge flow reduction of
52 percent from the proposed model
flow, achieved through greater reuse
and recycle of wastewaters. in addition
to BPT treatment. This was the control
treatment option selected in the 1979
proposal.
Option 3—Discharge flow reduction of
27 percent from the proposed model
flow per Option 1. plus enhanced BPT
treatment with powdered activated
carbon to reduce residual toxic organic
pollutants.
Option 4—Discharge flow reduction of
52 percent from the proposed model
flow per Option 2. in addition to BPT
treatment plus segregation and separate
treatment of cooling tower blowdown.
Cooling tower blowdown treatment for
metals removal includes reduction of
hexavalent chromium to tnvalent
chromium, pH adjustment, precipitation.
and settling or clarification.
Option 5—Discharge flow reduction of
27 percent from the proposed model
flow per Option 1. in addition to BPT
treatment plus granular activated
carbon treatment to reduce residual
toxic organic pollutants.
Option 6—A "no discharge of
wastewater pollutants" (i.e.. zero
discharge) standard based upon reuse.
recycle, evaporation, or reinjection of
wastewaters.
Option 7—Discharge flow reduction of
37.5 percent from revised model flow
achieved through greater reuse and
recycle of wastewaters, in addition to
BPT treatment.
Option 8—Discharge flow reduction of
approximately 20 percent from revised
model flow achieved through greater
reuse and recycle of wastewaters. in
addition to BPT treatment.
Option 9—Flow equalization, initial
oil and solids removal, advanced oil and
solids removal, biological treatment, and
filtration or other final "polishing" steps.
This option is the basis of the existing
regulations.
2. Technology Basis for the Final BA T
Regulation, (a) Final BAT Limits: EPA is
promulgating BAT limitations based on
Option 9 which is equivalent to the BPT
level of control. Regulated pollutants for
BAT are (1) nonconventional pollutants:
Chemical oxygen demand (COD), total
phenols (4AAP). ammoma(N), and
sulfides: and (2) toxic pollutants: total
chromium, and hexavalent chromium.
(b) Changes From Proposal: The
options considered in formulating the
proposed rules were based on various
combinations of wastewater flow
reduction and improved performance of
wastewater treatment technology. A
flow modeling approach was used for
regulatory purposes to define the
industry's current wastewater
generation and to correlate effluent flow
with process variables. The proposed
1979 flow model was developed to
establish the average wastewater flow
that can be expected from refineries
with similar process configurations. The
proposed flow model was also used to
determine specific effluent limitations
for the prescribed levels of flow
reduction in Options 1 through 5.
The proposed regulation was based
on the Option 2 level of control. This
option proposed to regulate chemical
oxygen demand (COD), total phenols
(4AAP), ammonia(N), sulfide. total
chromium, and hexavalent chromium.
192
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday. October 18. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 46437
The Agency determined that.
regardless of the amount of flow
reduction, the levels of ammonia.
sulflde. and COD would not measurably
change compared to the BPT level of
control. The control of ammonia and
sulfide is achieved through steam
stripping, an in-plant control technique.
No technologically feasible process
changes or in-plant controls beyond
those presently in use in this industry
were identified to further reduce
ammonia and sulfide. The Agency's
attempts'to quantify or predict changes
in COD levels with implementation of
flow reduction/water reuse technologies
were inconclusive.
The proposed regulation would have
limited total phenols at a mass
equivalent of 19 jig/1. The Agency
received a number of comments on this
issue stating that the proposal to limit
total phenols at 19u.g/l was too
stringent because technology is not
available to consistently achieve such a
level. Additional information on phenol
was collected by EPA in the "Long Term
Data Collection Survey" and the
"Surrogate Sampling Program" (See
Sections IV and XVI] subsequent to the
December 1979 proposal. Information
collected included effluent data from 37
refineries for calendar year 1979.
Analysis of the data collected during
these two studies concluded that
existing BPT treatment systems are not
achieving the proposed 19 jig/l level on
a long term basis. However, the results
do show that such systems are capable
of achieving the 100 /xg/1 level of control
previously established for determining
BPT mass limitations.
The preamble to the 1979 proposal (44
FR 75938) stated that implementation of
Option 2 would result in the removal of
approximately 123.000 pounds of
chromium per year, at an incremental
(beyond BPT] annual cost of S62 million
and a capital cost of S138 million (1979
dollars). This 123. 000 pounds of
chromium per year represents the
incremental removal from the BPT level
to the BAT Option 2 level. However.
based upon revaluation of the effluent
data base, the Agency has found this
figure was overstated because the
observed chromium discharge of
refineries with BPT level treatment was
considerably less than (hat allowable by
the BPT chromium limitations. The
actual amount of chromium which
would have been removed under this
option is approximately 32.000 pounds
per year. The capital costs, to a
considerable extent, represent retrofit
costs.
BAT Option 2 was developed using
the proposed 1979 flow model. However.
based upon data submitted by
commenters and the "Flow Model"
study performed by EPA after the
proposal (See Section IV), the proposed
197*9 flow model was modified. The
technical points raised by some of the
commenters were of considerable
assistance in the flow model refinement
process. The main emphasis of the
comments concerned the statistical
deficiencies of the proposed model, the
choice of model variables, and aspects
of the resulting model fit. The structure
of the model and the process variables
to be included were reexammed and
modified accordingly. This refinement
process resulted in the revised 1979 flow
model which was more representative of
the current wastewater generation in the
industry. Thus. Option 2 has been
rejected because it was based on the
proposed flow model that has been
modified. (See discussion of Option 7
below).
Other Options Considered
Because BAT Option 1 relies on the
same technology as BAT Option 2.
ammonia, sulfide. and COD levels
would not be measurably changed by
implementing Option 1. The total
phenols limitation for this option was
based upon the same 19 pg/1
concentration level as was used for
Option 2. However, as previously
discussed. BPT end-of-pipe treatment
has not been shown to be capable of
achieving this concentration level on a
long term basis.
The Agency's analysis of available
data shows that implementation of
Option 1 would remove an additional 1
percent beyond BPT treatment levels of
toxic pollutants that are present in raw
wastewaters. This translates into an
additional removal beyond BPT of
approximately 1.3 pounds of toxi
pollutants per day. per direct discharge
refinery. The proposed 1979 regulation
would require S23 5 million additional
capital investment at an annual cost of
S9.3 million (1979 dollars) to implement
Option 1 for this industry. The capital
costs, to a considerable extent.
represent retrofit costs. This option was
rejected because it was based on thn
proposed 1979 flow model, which, ds
discussed above, has been modified.
(See discussion of Option 8 below).
The Agency's analysis of available
data shows that implementation of
Option 3 would remove an additional 1..5
percent (beyond BPT treatment) levels
of beyond BPT treatment levels. This
translates into an additional removal
beyond BPT of approximately two
pounds of toxic pollutants per day. per
direct discharge refinery. The two end-
of-pipe treatment technologies that were
used to establish Option 3 are rotating
biological contactors (RBC) and
powdered activated carbon (PAC)
treatment. At the time of the Agency's
data collection efforts in 1976-1979,
there were seven facilities using these
technologies. The Agency determined
that, upon analysis of available data,
there are significant operational
(mechanical) problems with RBC
technology. The Agency also found that
full-scale experience with PAC
technology was mixed, i.e.. some
facilities experienced consistently
measurable pollutant reductions as
intended, while others experienced
inconsistent or no measurable effluent
reductions. Because of these operational
problems observed in full-sc;ile
facilities, there was limited performance
information available. While both of
these technologies appear promising, the
Agency believes there is not enough
performance information available at
this time upon which to base national
regulation for this industry.
Option 4 was predicated on
industrywide ability to segregate.
collect, and separately treat cooling
tower biowdown. the major source of
chromium for this industry. The
wastewater recycle/reuse study (See
Section IV], completed after the
publication of the proposed regulation.
concluded that, for existing sources, it is
extremely difficult in many instances to
segregate cooling tower biowdown for
chromium treatment. Cooling tower
recirculation and biowdown is typically
practiced at numerous locations
throughout a refinery. Extensive
collection systems would be necessary
at many refineries to collect all
biowdown streams for separate
treatment. In addition, not all cooling
tower biowdown streams are collectible.
For instance, cooling water when used
as makeup for refinery processing
commingles with process water and
cannot be traced or segregated.
especially in older refineries. Therefore.
the Agency has determined that it would
not be proper to base OAT effluent
limitations guidelines on this technology
option.
The alternative fur additional
chromium removal beyond OPT is to
treat the combined final effluent.
However, further end-of-pipe treatment
for chromium in combined final effluent
after BPT treatment would result in
limited, if any, measurable effluent
reduction benefits. This is because the
chromium level in combined final
effluent (115 jig/1 observed average)
approximates the level achievable by
any further treatment of this type of
wastewater. For the foregoing reasons.
193
-------
46438 Federal Register / Vol. 47. Nu. 201 / Monday. October 18. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
the Agency rejected Option 4 for this
industry.
BAT Option 5 was predicated on
industry's ability to install and operate
granular activated carbon (GAG)
treatment as an end-of-pipe technology.
In the preamble to the 1979 proposal (44
FR 75933), the Agency stated that
granular activated carbon (GAG)
treatment is not a demonstrated
technology in this industry. The Agency
also stated that toxic pollutant removal
generally increases with the use of GAG.
However, because the levels of toxic
pollutants after HPT treatment are so
low. additional pollutant reduction
across GAG treatment would be
minimal. Difficulties in quantifying
pollutant reductions were experienced
when the Agency conducted six pilot
plant (Testability studies using GAG on
BPT-treated wastewaters in this
industry. See 44 FR 75930. EPA is not
' aware of any petroleum refinery
• presently using this technology.
Although this technology is used in
other industries, EPA has no adequate
data to indicate that this technology is
capable of being transferred to the
petroleum refining industry. For the
foregoing reasons the Agency rejected
Option 5 for this industry.
The Agency rejected BAT Option 6, a
zero discharge requirement: (1) Because
of its high capital and operating costs.
including significant retrofit
expenditures; and (2) because analysis
of the zero discharge technologies
revealed that significant non-water
quality impacts would result from their
use. These non-water quality impacts
include generation of large amounts of
solid waste and very high energy
consumption.
BAT Option 7 is the revision of
regulatory Option 2. and is based upon a
discharge flow rsduction of 37 S percent
'from the revised 1979 model flow. The
Agency revised the costs to implement
Option 7 recycle and reuse technologies.
An estimated capital coat of S112 million
dollars and S37 million dollars annually
would be required for refiners to comply
with Option 7 (1979 dollars). The
Agency's analysis of available data
shows that implementation of Option 7
would remove 110.000 pounds of toxic
pollutants annually beyond BPT
treatment levels, which is equivalent to
an additional l.S percent [beyond BPT
treatment levels] of toxic pollutants
from raw wastewaters. This translates
into an additional removal beyond BPT
of approximately two pounds of toxic
pollutants per day, per direct discharge
refinery. The Agency believes, that
given all of these factors, the costs
involved do not warrant selection of
Option 7 for this industry.
BAT Option 8 is a revised version of
Option 1 reduction of 20 percent from
the revised 1979 model flow. The
Agency has not performed a detailed
cost analysis for Option 8 but rather has
estimated such costs based upon the
costing procedure developed for Option
7. (Option 7 is the revision of the
regulatory Option 2 selected in the 1979
proposal]. The Agency's analysis of
available data shows that
implementation of Option 8 would
remove an additional 80.000 pounds of
toxic pollutants annually beyond BPT
treatment levels, which would be an
additional one percent (beyond BPT
treatment levels) of toxic pollutants
from raw wastewaters at a capital cost
of S77 million dollars and an annual cost
of S25 million (1979 dollars]. This
translates into an additional removal
beyond BPT of 1.3 pounds of toxic
pollutants per day, per direct discharge
refinery. The Agency believes that given
all these factors, the costs involved do
not warrant selection of Option 8 for
this industry.
Option 9 is based upon the same flow
model and subcategonzation scheme
that were used for developing the BPT
regulations promulgated by the Agency
in 1974. A process classification system
was used to divide the industry into five
subcategones. A procedure was
developed to establish effluent
limitations for each subcategory. The
resulting limits were defined in terms of
a quantity of pollutant per unit of
feedstock (mass allocation), and were
derived by multiplying a predicted
was"tewater flow per unit of production
times an achievable effluent
concentration for each pollutant. A flow
modeling approach, Ijaied on process
configuration, was used to predict
expected waste water flow for an
individual refinery, and is referred to as
the "BPT flow model".
Option 9 was selected by the Agency
as the basis for the final BAT
regulations. Considering the limited
pollutant reduction benefits associated
with Options l through 8. the inability to
quantify nonconventional pollutant
reduction via Options 1 through 8. the
costs involved of going beyond the BPT
level of control, and the 96 percent
reduction in toxic pollutant loadings
achieved by BPT. the Agency has
determined that the BAT should be
equivalent to the BPT level of control for
this industry.
B. New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS)
NSPS were promulgated by EPA on
May 9,1974 (29 FR 16560) and are
currently in effect. The Agency is
retaining the existing NSPS.
1. Control Treatment Options for
NSPS. The control and treatment
technology options that EPA
investigated for use in this industry for
NSPS are presented below. Options 1
through 3 were considered in
formulating the proposed rule and were
based upon the 1979 flow model. Option
4. the existing NSPS level of control.
was reconsidered after publication of
the proposed rule as a result of the
public comments and is based upon the
1974 flow model.
Option 1—Discharge flow reduction of
52 percent from model How, achieved
through greater reuse and recycle of
wastewaters. in addition to BPT
treatment. This option is equivalent to
BAT Option 2.
Option 2—Discharge flow reduction of
27 percent from model flow, achieved
through greater reuse and recycle of
wastewaters in addition to BPT
treatment, plus use of granular activated
carbon to reduce residual organic toxic
pollutants. This option is equivalent to
BAT Option 5.
Option 3—Zero discharge of
wastewater pollutants.
Option 4—Discharge flow reduction of
from 25 percent to 50 percent of average
BPT flow, depending upon subcategory,
achieved through greater reuse and
recycle of wastewaters in addition to
BPT treatment. This option, which is
based upon the 1974 flow model and
1974 subcategonzation scheme, is the
existing NSPS.
2. Technology Basis for the NSPS
Regulation, [a) NSPS Limits: EPA is
retaining the existing NSPS which are
based on recycle and reuse technology
resulting in pollutant reductions that
range from 25 to 50 percent beyond BPT
removals, depending upon the
subcategory. Regulated pollutants for
NSPS are BOD5, total suspended solids.
chemical oxygen demand, oil and
grease, total phenols (4AAP), ammonia
(N), sulfide, total chromium, hexavalent
chromium, and pH.
1 (b) Changes from Proposal: The
proposed NSPS regulation was bused on
Option 3. Upon revaluation of the
existing data base and evaluation of
comments received on (he proposed
regulation. EPA has decided not to
revise the existing NSPS.
Option 3, zero discharge, was refected
for the following reasons. First, it
generates'sigmficant adverse non-water
quality environmental impacts.
including the production of large
amounts of solid waste and high energy
consumption. Second. EPA estimates
that the annual costs of achieving zero
194
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday. October 18. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 46439
discharge are extremely high, especially
in geographical areas of low
evapotranspiration which requires
energy intensive forced evaporation
techniques. It would cost an estimated
$4.6 million (1979 dollars) annually for a
150.000 barrels per day new source of
refinery in the cracking subcategory to
comply with a zero discharge
requirement. Third, only marginal
additional water pollution reduction
benefits would be achieved beyond the
existing NSPS requirement. The
quantities of pollutants that would be
removed daily are 2.46 pounds of total
phenols (4AAP), 3.9 pounds of
hexavalent chromium. 6 pounds of total
chromium. 308 pounds of total
suspended solids, and 381 pounds of
BOD5. EPA believes that the high costs
of implementing such requirements
would raise senous banners to any
decision involving construction of a new
source refinery.
Other Options Considered
NSPS Option 1 is equivalent to
proposed BAT Option 2. The technology
for this option is the same as that for the
existing NSPS regulations—wastewater
recycle and reuse technologies, in
addition to BPT end-of-pipe treatment.
The Agency compared effluent
reductions achievable by existing NSPS
and this option. The analysis was
performed on a model greenfield new
source refinery (190,000 bbl/day). which
is classified as a "Subcategory B"
refinery as defined by the existing
regulation ("cracking"). This model
refinery was configured to correspond
with demand growth forecasts published
by the Department of Energy (See the
Economic Analysis document.) This
comparison concluded that effluent
reductions resulting from existing NSPS
and this option are comparable. The
costs to implement this option are
comparable to the existing NSPS. Non-
water quality environmental impacts
and energy requirements are also
comparable to existing NSPS.
Accordingly, there would be no benefit
in revising the existing NSPS option.
NSPS Option 2 is equivalent to
proposed BAT Option 5. which is based
on granular activated carbon (GAC)
treatment as an end-of-pipe technology.
For the reasons slated in the above
discussion on BAT Option 5. the Agency
believes that GAC treatment is not a
demonstrated technology for this
industry. Accordingly, the Agency
rejected Option 2 for this industry.
NSPS Option 4. is the existing NSPS
level of control. It consists of recycle
and reuse technologies to achieve flow
reduction of from 25 to 50 percent of
average BPT flow, depending upon the
subcategory. For the reasons discussed
above, after careful consideration of the
options proposed in 1979. together with
the public comments received, the
Agency finds no reason for revising
current NSPS. Accordingly, the existing
level of NSPS. Option 4. is retained.
C. Final Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources (PSES)
Interim final PSES was promulgated
by the Agency on March 23.1977 (42 FR
15684) and is currently in effect.
Regulated pollutants are oil and grease
(100 mg/l) and ammonia-N (100 mg/1)
each on a daily maximum basis. EPA is
retaining the existing PSES regulation.
with one modification. An alternative
mass limitation for ammonia(N) is
provided for those indirect dischargers
whose discharge to the POTW consists
solely of sour waters.
1. Control Treatment Options
Considered. The control and treatment
options that EPA investigated for PSES
in this industry are presented below.
Options 1 and 2 were considered m
formulating the proposed rule. Option 3.
the existing PSES level of control, was
reconsidered after publication of the
proposed rule as a result of public
comments received on it. As a result of
public comments, Option 3 also contains
' an alternative mass limitation for
ammonia(N).
Option 1—Chromium reduction by pH
adjustment, precipitation and
clarification technologies applied to
segregated cooling tower blowdown.
plus control of oil and grease and
ammonia at the existing PSES level of
control.
Option 2—Establish two sets of
pretreatment standards. The first would
be Option 1 control for refineries
discharging to POTW with existing or
planned secondary treatment. The
second would be Option 1 control plus
treatment for total phenols based on
biological treatment for those refineries
discharging to a POTW that has been
granted a waiver from secondary
treatment requirements under Section
301(h) of the Act. EPA's proposed
pretreatment standards for existing
sources were based on this option. For a
further discussion see the 1979 proposed
petroleum refining regulation at 44 FR
7S935.
Option 3—Reduction of oil and grease
and ammonia based on oil/water
separation and steam stripping
technologies. This option is the basis for
the existing interim final PSES
regulation. An alternative mass
limitation for ammonia(N) is included
for those indirect dischargers whose
discharge to the POTW consists solely
of "sour" waters. Sour waters generally
result from water brought into direct
contact with a hydrocarbon stream, and
contain sulfides. ammonia and phenols.
The Agency developed an alternative
mass limitation for ammonia in response
to public comments received on the
proposed regulation. Several
commenters indicated that, when the
refinery discharge to the POTW consists
solely of sour waters, the achievement
of the 100 mg/1 ammonia concentration
limitation is often not possible. This is
because steam stripping technology, the
basis for the limitations, cannot
consistently reduce ammonia in sour
water streams to the 100 mg/1 level.
Thus, an equivalent mass limitation for
ammonia was developed by the Agency.
2. Technology Basis for the Final
PSES Options, (a) Final PSES Limits:
EPA is retaining the existing PSES
regulation. Regulated pollutants are oil
and grease and ammonia(N). each
limited at 100 mg/1 on a daily maximum
basis. An alternative mass limitation for
ammonia-N is also provided as
described above.
(b) Changes from Proposal: The
proposed regulation was based on
Option 2 for the PSES control level. EPA
has rejected Option 2 because it now
believes that it is not feasible ana* that it
would be inappropriate to establish
national pretreatment standards that
take into account whether a discharger
uses a POTW which has received a
301 (h) waiver. Rather, the need for more
rigorous pretreatment controls should be
resolved on a case-by-case basis during
ihe Section 301 (h) waiver process. This
is because the level of treatment
proposed by Section 301(h) applicants
var.es considerably, and the Section 301
(h) process entails the consideration of
site-specific toxic pollutant problems.
Options 1 and 2 as proposed also
would have established a chromium
limitation for PSES. This limitation was
proposed to avoid concentration of
chromium m POTW sludge. At the time
of proposal, the Agency believed such
concentrations would limit a POTW's
use or management alternatives of the
sludge. Based upon review of existing
information and analysis of public
comments on the proposal. EPA has
determined that this rationale is not
valid on a nationwide basis. For this
industry, chromium levels in sludge from
POTW receiving petroluem refinery
wastes generally do not impact on
sludge disposition or alternatives for
use. There are no Section 405 sludge
standards directed at concentrations of
chromium in the sludge. Accordingly.
EPA has determined that the better
approach is to leave it to :he POTW to
establish chromium pretreatment
195
-------
46440 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday. October i8. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
standards for existing sources if refinery
waste would limit their sludge disposal
alternatives. The general pretreatment
regulations specifically provide POTWs
with this authority. (See 40 CFR 403.5).
EPA has investigated whether toxic
pollutants "pass through" a POTW. The
Agency generally considers (hat there is
pass through of a pollutant if the percent
of the pollutant removal by a well-
operated POTW achieving secondary
treatment is less than the percent
removed by the BAT model treatment
technology. Under this approach.
chromium passes through a POTW. The
Agency's BAT model treatment system
removes 86 percent of the chromium
while a well-operated POTW achieving
secondary treatment removes 65 percent
of the chromium. In addition, under this
approach the toxic pollutants identified
in Appendix D—Parts II/III of this
Federal Register notice may pass
through a POTW.
As discussed under BAT Option 4
above, the Agency found it infeasible in
many instances to segregate cooling
tower blowdown for chromium
treatment on an industrywide basis.
Accordingly. EPA has determined that
implementation of Option 1 for PSES is
not achievable on an industry-wide
basis. As an alternative, treatment of
the combined refinery waste stream for
chromium removal would require
installation of most if not all of the BPT
treatment train. Installation of such
treatment for all indirect dischargers
would cost an estimated SI 10 million in
capital costs, with a total annual cost of
$42 million in (1979 dollars). The Agency
did not propose requiring installation of
BPT-type treatment on an industrv-wide
basis for indirect disr hargers. EPA did
not receive any comments during the
public comment pen: d suggesting such
a requirement. For the foregoing
combination of reasons, and given the
costs involved. EPA does not believe
installation of the BPT treatment train
for chromium removal for indirect
dischargers is warranted.
The toxic pollutants listed m
Appendix 0 of this preamble were
detected in petroleum refinery waste
streams that are discharged to POTWs.
The Agency has decided not to establish
PSES for these toxic pollutants in this
industry for the following reasons:
The pollutants listed in Part I and Part
II of Appendix 0 are excluded from
national regulation in accordance with
Paragraph 8 of the Settlement
Agreement because either they were
found to be susceptible to treatment by
the POTW and do not interfere with.
pass through, or are not otherwise
incompatible with the POTW. or the
toxicity and amount of incompatible
pollutants are insignificant.
The pollutants listed in Part III of
Appendix 0 are excluded for several
reasons in accordance with Paragraph 8
of the Settlement Agreement. First, there
is significant removal of some of these
pollutants by the existing oil/water
separation technology used to comply
with the pretreatment standard for oil
and grease. Second, there is significant
removal of these pollutants by the
POTW treatment processes by air
stripping and biodegredation. Third, the
amount and toxicity of these pollutants
does not justify developing national
pretreatment standards.
D. Final Pretreatment Standards for
New Sources (PSNS}
PSNS was promulgated bv the Agency
on May 9.1974 (39 FR 16560) and is
currently m effect. Pretreatment
Standards for incompatible pollutants
are equivalent to NSPS.
1. Control Treatment Options
Considered. The control and treatment
options that EPA investigated for PSNS
in this industry are the same as those
presented for PSES. as described above.
Option 1 was selected as the basis for
PSNS. As a result of public comment.
the final PSNS contains an alternative
mass limitation for ammoma(N).
Option 1—Chromium reduction by pH
adjustment, precipitation and
clarification technologies applied to
segregated cooling tower blowdown.
plus control of oil and grease and
ammonia to 100 mg/1 each.
Otion 2—Establish t\\o sets of
pretreatment standards as for PSES
Option 2.
2. Technology Basis for the Final
PSNS. (a) Final PSNS Limits: EPA is
promulgating PSNS equivalent to Option
1. Regulated pollutants are oil and
grease and ammoma(N). each limited at
100 mg/1. on a daily maximum basis.
and total chromium at the equivalent of
1 mg/1 for the cooling tower discharge
part of the total refiner}* flow to the
POTW. An alternative mass limitation
for ammonia(N) is also provided, as
described above for PSES.
(b) Changes from Proposal: The final
PSNS limits are equal to Option 1. the
option selected at proposal. Chromium
was selected for regulation for PSNS
because: (1) It was determined to "pass
through" POTWs as described above;
(2) treatment technology is available
and demonstrated; and (3) there are no
retrofit problems or retrofit costs
involved with implementing Option 1.
Alternative mass limitations for
ammonia(N) are also provided, as
discussed previously
Pretreatment costs for a typical new
source refinery arc estimated to be
5260,000 in capital costs and S190.000 in
annual costs (1979 dollars).
VI. Gusts and Economic Impacts
Executive Order 12291 requires EPA
and other agencies to provide regulatory
impact analyses for rules that result in
an annual cost to the economy of 100
million dollars or more or that meet
other economic impact criteria. In
addition, the Clean Water Act specifies
that the Agency should consider the
costs and economic impacts in
establishing effluent limitations and
standards. The Agency does not
consider this final regulation to be a
major rule. This rulemakmg satisfies the
requirements of the Executive Order for
a non-major rule.
The economic impact assessment is
presented in Economic Impact Analysis
of Proposed Revised Effluent
Limitations for the Petroleum Refining
Industry (EPA). Copies of the analysis
can be obtained by contacting the
National Technical Information Service.
5282 Port Royal Road. Springfield. VA
22161 (703/487-4600).
BAT/'PSES
EPA is making substantial changes to
the regulations that vveie proposed m
December 1979. The limitations
promulgated today for existing sources
do not reflect any treatment
requirements beyond BPT for existing
direct dischargers. For indirect
dischargers the PSES promulgated today
is no more stringent than existing
pretrealment standards already m
effect. Accordingly. EPA expects no
incremental costs or impacts for existing
plants from this nilemakmg.
NSPS
EPA is not imposing any more
stringent NSPS by today's action.
Accordingly, today's action will not
affect the rale of entry of new refineries
into the industry. Moreover. EPA does
not expect the NSPS promulgated in
1974 to change the rate of entry or
growth of the industry. The Agency
expects that if a firm decides to bring a
nuw refinery on line, the control costs
that will be required to meet these
standards are relatively small compared
to the total cost required to start a
greenfield operation. The current
economic analysis was based on a
190.000 barrel per day refinery with a
configuration appropriate for production
of gasoline, distillate fuels and
petrochemical feedstocks. There would
essentially be no additional investment
required for meeting the current
196
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday. October 18. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 46441
standard beyond the BPT level of
control. This is because the "add-on"
recycle technology for the existing NSPS
can be incorporated in the water supply.
use. and treatment systems during
planning and construction of the new
source. Therefore, this regulation is
expected to have negligible economic
effects on the industry.
Due to significant changes in the
world market for refined petroleum
products, however, the Agency does not
anticipate any new sources within the
petroleum refining category through
1990. A refinery can be a new source if it
is a "greenfield site" or if modification
of an existing plant is extensive enough
to be "substantially independent" of an
existing source. (See 45 FR 59343.
September 9.1980.) The Agency expects
that in the latter case the control costs
that would be required to meet these
standards would be less than the cost in
the case of a greenfield operation.
PSNS
EPA believes that for indirect
dischargers the PSNS promulgated
today is no more stringent than existing
PSNS. Under the existing PSNS
chromium was subject to regulation on a
case-by-case basis along with other
pollutants. The Agency expects that if a
firm decides to bring a new indirect
discharger on line, the control cost that
will be required to meet these standards
are relatively minor compared to the
total investment cost for a new refinery
and would not pose a banner to entry.
The Agency believes that where an
existing refinery is modified so that it is
considered a new source, the costs for
chromium treatment would not be
greater than the costs for a greenfield
refinery and the cost of chromium
treatment would not be a significant
factor in the decision to modify that
refinery.
Public Law 96-334 requires that a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) be
prepared for regulations proposed after
January 1.1981 that have a significant
effect on a substantial number of small
entities. This regulation was proposed
on December 21.1979. Therefore, a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not
required. The Agency does not believe
that this regulation will have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities
VII. Non-Water Quality Environmental
Impacts
Eliminating or reducing one form of
pollution may cause other
environmental problems. Sections 304(b)
and 308 of the Act require EPA to
consider the non-water quality
environmental impacts (including energy
requirements) of certain regulations. In
compliance with these provisions, we
considered the effect of this regulation
on air pollution, solid waste generation.
water scarcity, and energy consumption.
This regulation was circulated to and
reviewed by EPA personnel responsible
for non-watec quality programs. While it
is difficult to balance pollution problems
against each other and against energy
use. we believe that this regulation will
best serve often competing national
goals.
The following non-water quality
environmental impacts (including energy
requirements) are associated with the
final regulation. The Administrator has
determined that the impacts identified
below are justified by the benefits
associated with compliance with the
limitations and standards.
A. Air Pollution
The petroleum refining regulations
will not result in any additional air
quality impacts beyond those from
compliance with existing regulations.
B. Solid Waste
The petroleum refining regulations
will not result in any additional solid
waste impacts beyond those from
compliance with existing regulations.
C. Consumptive Water Loss
The petroleum refining regulations
will not result in any additional water
consumption beyond that from
compliance with existing regulations.
D. Energy Requirements
The petroleum refining regulations
will not result in any additional energy
requirements beyond those for
compliance with existing regulations.
VIII. Pollutants and Subcatcgories Not
Regulated
The Settlement Agreement contains
provisions authorizing the exclusion
from regulation, in certain
circumstances, of toxic pollutants and
industry categories and subcategones.
A. Exclusion of Pollutants
Paragraph 8(a)(iiO of the Settlement
Agreement authorizes the Administrator
to exclude the following toxic pollutants
from regulation: (a) Those not delectable
by Section 304(h) analytical methods or
other state-of-the-art methods: (b) those
present in amounts too small to be
effectively reduced by available
technologies: (c) those present only in
trace amounts and neither causing nor
likely to cause toxic effects: (d) those
detected in the effluent from only a
small mumber of sources within a
subcategory and uniquely related to
those sources: and (e) those that will be
effectively controlled by the
technologies on which other effluent
limitations and standards are based.
The toxic pollutants excluded from
regulation in all subcategones because
they were not detectable by Section
304(h) analytical methods or other state-
of-the-art methods are listed in
Appendix A for direct dischargers and
Appendix B for indirect dischargers
The toxic pollutants that will be
effectively controlled by the
technologies on which other effluent
limitations and standards are based are
listed in Appendix C for direct
dischargers.
B. Exclusion of Subcalegones
Paragraph 8(b) of the Settlement
Agreement authorizes the Administrator
to exclude from regulation a category if:
(i) 95 percent or more of all point
sources in the subcategory introduce
into POTWs only pollutants which are
susceptible to treatment by the POTW
and which do not interfere with, do not
pass through, or are not otherwise
incompatible with such treatment
works: or (ii) the toxicity and amount of
the incompatible pollutants introduced
by such point sources into POTWs is so
insignificant as not to justify developing
a pretreatment regulation. The
pollutants excluded under Paragraphs
8(b)(i). 8(b)(ii). and 8(a) are listed in
Appendix 0 for indirect dischargers-.
IX. Responses to Major Comments
This section contains responses to
those issues raised in a large number of
the comments received and which affect
all subcategones. The original
comments and a summary of the
comments received and our detailed
responses to all comments are included
in a report "Responses to Public
Comments, Proposed Petroleum Refining
Effluent Guidelines and Standards".
which is included in the public record
for this regulation.
Most of the commenters criticized the
need for further control beyond existing
BPT and NSPS and the alleged technical
inadequacy of data to support the
proposed regulations. Since the Agency
has decided to promulgate BAT
equivalent to BPT retain the existing „•
NSPS and retain the existing PSES
regulation (with an alternative mass
limitation provided for ammonia (N)).
EPA believes it unnecessary to address
in detail many of the comments in this
preamble. A brief summary of
significant comments received by the
Agency, together with the Agency's
responses, is set forth below:
A. Regulation Beyond the BPT Level
Many of the commenters indicated
197
-------
.46442 - Federal Register / Vol. 47. Nu. 201 / Monday. October 18. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
that further control beyond BPT is
unwarranted since BPT technology
already reduces significant quantities of
toxics.
The Agency agrees with the
commenters thai BPT technology
already removes significant quantities of
toxic and other pollutants and is thus
promulgating BAT equal to BPT. One of
the many factors considered in
formulating the final rule are the very
low pollutant levels in BPT effluents and
the overall effectiveness and efficiency
of the treatment systems already in
place in removing toxic and other
pollutants.
Other commenters argued for BAT to
be promulgated at the proposed BAT
JeveJ or a more stringent level, including
zero discharge or separate treatment of
cooling water discharges. The reasons
fur not adopting levels of treatment are
discussed in Section V above.
The proposed requirement for
separate treatment of cooling tower
blowdown for existing dischargers was
not adopted as a result of public
comments received. In addition, the
Agency performed a study which
evaluated the cost and feasibility of
implementing recycle and reuse
technologies. The study (Recyde/Reuse
Study referenced in Section IV)
indicated that the collection of all the
cooling tower water is infeasible in
many existing refineries because of
leaks and auxiliary uses and thus
supports the Agency's decision not to
impose this requirement.
Several commenters argued that the
proposed zero discharge requirement for
new sources has questionable effluent
reduction benefits and the Agency did
not consider the benefit/cost ratio of
zero discharge. The factors that led to
the Agency's decision to retain the
existing NSPS are discussed m Section
V.
B. Pretreatment Standards for POTW
wnh§301(h) Waivers
Some commenters argued that EPA
has no authority to establish more
stringent pretreatment standards for
refineries that discharge to POTW with
Section 301 (h) waivers.
Although the Agency does not agree
with these commenters. we have
decided to change the proposed
approach and establish one set of
prelreatment standards for all indirect
dischargers in this industry. This
industrial category is the only one for
which EPA proposed separate
pretreatment standards for indirect
dischargers whose wastes go to POTWs
with § 301(h] waivers. The Agency
would like to gam more experience with
5 3Olfh) applicants before considering a
two-tier pretreatment requirement.
Added experience will enable the
Agency to decide whether control of
toxics should be effectuated through
requirements imposed on POTW during
Ihe 9 301 (h| waiver process or by
revised pretrealmeoj standards.
C Pretrfalment Standards for Hydrogen
Sulfide and fvlercaptans
A few commenters indicated that
hydrogen sulflde and mercaptans can
cause damage to thp wastewater
collection systems and can cauae
significant odor problems at the
treatment plant if not removed.
Pretreatment standards were
recommended.
Pretreatment standards adopted today
limit ammonia to 100 mg/1. The
technology for control of ammonia is
steam stripping, the same technology
required for sulfide removal. The
Agency therefore believes that the
technology for control of ammonia will
also control sulfide and therefore that it
is not necessary to establish separate
pretreatment standards for sulfide.
Mercaptans were not found to be a
problem warranting national regulation.
Any POTW experiencing problems
caused by mercaptans should impose
the appropriate pretreatment standards
on a case-by-case basis.
D. Total Phenol (4AAP)
Several commenters indicated that
EPA has incorrectly assumed that total
phenols as determined by the 4-
ammoantipyrine method (4AAP) is a
toxic pollutant in this industry.
The Agency agrees. Total phenols
(4AAP) measures many compounds.
including the phenolic compounds that
are on the Agency's list of priority
pollutants. Because the 4AAP method
measures more compounds than just the
GC/MS compounds, it does not provide
an accurate quantification of the toxic
pollutant phenol (GC/MS). Thus, total
phenols (4AAP) is considered a non-
conventional pollutant for this industry.
E. Regulation of Toxic Organics
It was argued that EPA should
promulgate effluent limitations
guidelines for specific toxic pollutants
such as methylene chloride, carbon
letrdchlonde. mercury, ethylbenzene,
naphthalene. 2-4 dimethylphenol.
benzene, and toluene.
The Agency has concluded that the
levels of these pollutants detected in
this industry do not warrant industry-
wide regulation. Mercury was found in
effluents from BPT treatment systems
during the Agency's sampling programs
at an average concentration of less than
1 pob. Methylene chloride was detected
in BPT effluents, but is a contaminant
inherent m the analyses of organic
compounds. Thus, it is difficult to
determine the amounts discharged by
refinery operations. Ethylbenzene.
naphthalene. 2.4-dimethylphenol.
benzene, toluene, and carbon
tetrachloride were either not detected i>
BPT treated wastewalers.or were
present at average concentrations that
were at or less than the level of
quantification, which is nominally 10
ppb.
F. Indicator and Surrogate Pollutants.
Comments were received from
industry and private citizens on the
possible use of indicator or surrogate
pollutant limitations. Most of the
comments were not favorable. The
industry commenters argued that
indicator limrtations, if necessary.
should be developed on a case-by-case
basis. Industry also questioned the use
of total organic carbon (TOG], chemical
oxygen demand (COO), and BPT-limited
pollutant parameters as indicators for
toxic pollutants because the
concentration of toxics are several
orders of magnitude smaller than that of
such traditional pollutants. The private
citizens felt that the Agency should limit
the toxics directly instead of relying on
indicators. Additionally, many
commenters pointed out the difficulty in
using the BPT pollutant parameters as
indicators of toxic pollutants. .
In the Solicitation of Comments
section of the preamble to the 1979
proposal (40 FR 45941). the Agency
requested comments on the possibility
of regulating toxic pollutants with
limitations on indicator pollutants.
While EPA recognizes that the
relationship between "indicator" and
loxic pollutants may not be quantifiable
on a one-to-one basis, we believe
control of the "indicator" pollutants
would reasonably assure control of
toxic pollutants with similar physical
and chemical properties.
Subsequent to (he 1979 proposal, the
Agency conducted a sampling program
at two refineries for a period of sixty
days to determine whether an indicator/
surrogate relationship existed between
the BPT pollutant parameters and the
toxics. The results of the study confirm
the difficulties of using such parameters
and indicates that a statistically
significant correlation between
candidate surrogate/indicator
parameters and toxic pollutant
parameters does not exist for this
industry. The Agency, therefore, decided
nut to issue limitations for indicator or
surrogate pollutants in this rule.
Specific toxic pollutants other than
chromium are not regulated by today's
rule fur reasons presented in Sections V
and VIII of this preamble.
198
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday. October 18. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 46443
G. New Source Construction
It was argued that there is no basis for
EPA's statements that no new refineries
will be enlenng the industry.
Commenters stated that new refinenes
are currently being planned, such as the
one in Portsmouth. Virginia.
The U.S. refining industry has
experienced a dramatic reversal of
historical growth trends as a result of
the reduction in consumption of
petroleum products that has taken place
since 1978. U.S. crude oil runs peaked at
14.7 million barrels per day in the
calendar year 1978. Runs have
decreased each year since then reaching
12.5 million barrels per day for the
calendar year 1981. In early 1982 runs
dropped to below 11.5 million barrels
per day—representing percentage
capacity utilizations in the low GO'S. The
1981 DOE Annual Report to Congress
predicts production to regain strength to
T4.4 million barrels per day in 1985 and
13.4 million barrels per day by 1900. The
Agency believes that these forecasts of
U.S. refinery activity indicate that it is
unlikely that any new refinery facilities
will be built at undeveloped sites over
the next decade, including the
Portsmouth. Virginia site which has
become uneconomical and is not
expected to be built. However, it will be
necessary for U.S. refiners to modernize
and expand downstream facilities at
existing refinery sites to allow
increasingly heavier and higher sulfur
crude oils to be processed into a product
mix which emphasizes production of the
lighter and higher quality products that
will be demanded by the marketplace.
This modernization process is not
expected to be sufficiently independent
to be considered a new source.
X. Best Management Practices
Section 304(e) of the Clean Water Act
gives the Administrator authority to
prescribe "best management practices"
(BMPs).
Although EPA is not establishing
BMPs at this time, we are considering
development of BMPs specific to the
petroleum refining industry. Numerous
problem areas are known exist.
including leaks and spills, storm water
contamination, groundwater infiltration
from storage areas and on-site solid
waste disposal. Section VII of the
development document describes
possible BMP's for this industry. This
information can guide the permitting
agency in developing case-by-case
BMPs for NPDES permits.
XI. Upset and Bypass Provisions
A recurring issue of 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 an unintentional
noncompliance occurring for reasons
beyond the reasonable control of the
permittee. It has been argued that an
upset provision is necessary in EPA's
effluent limitations because such upsets
will inevitably occur even in properly
operated control equipment. Because
technology based limitations require
only what technology can achieve, it is
claimed that liability for such situations
is improper. When confronted with this
issue, courts have disagreed on 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. Costle. 590 F. 2d 1011
(O.C. Cir.. 1978). and Corn Refiners
Association, et a/, v. Costle. 594 F. 2d
1223 (8th Cir.. 1979). See also American
Petroleum Institute v. EPA. 540 F. 2d
1023 (10th Cir. 1978); CPC International.
Inc. v. Tram. 540 F. 2d 1320 (8th Cir.
1976); and FMC Corp. v. Trow. 539 F. 2d
973 (4th Cir. 1978).
A bypass is an act of intentional
noncompliance during which waste
treatment facilities are circumvented
because of an emergency situation. EPA
has in the past included bypass
provisions in NPOES permits.
The Agency has determined that both
upset and bypass provisions should be
included in NPDES permits and has
promulgated Consolidated Permit
Regulations which include upset and
bypass permit provisions [see 40 CFR
122.60. 45 FR 33290. May 19. 1980). 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. Consequently, although
pemittees in the petroleum refining
industry will be entitled to upset and
bypass provisions in NPDES permits, the
final petroleum refining regulations do
not address these issues.
XII. Variances and Modifications
Upon the promulgation of the
regulations the effluent limitations for
the appropriate subcategory must be
applied in all Federal and State NPDES
permits thereafter issued to direct
dischargers in the petroleum refining
industry. In addition, upon
promulgation, the pretreatment
limitations are applicable to any indirect
dischargers.
For the BPT effluent limitations, the
only exception to the binding limitations
is EPA's "fundamentally different
factors" vanance. See £ /. du Pont de
Nemours & Co. v. Train. 430 U.S. 112
(1977); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle.
supra. This variance recognizes factors
concerning a particular discharger that
are fundamentally different from the
factors considered in this rulemaking.
Although this variance clause was set.
forth in EPA's 1973-1976 industry
regulations, it is now included in the
NPDES regulations and is referenced by
citation in the petroleum refining or
other industry regulations. See the
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR Part 125.
Subpart D.
The BAT limitations in this regulation
are also subject to EPA's
"fundamentally different factors"
variance. BAT limitations for
nonconventional pollutants are subject
to modifications under Sections 301 (c)
and 301(g) of the Act. These statutory
modifications do not apply to toxic or
conventional pollutants. 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
40895. September 13.1978.
Pretreatment standards for existing
sources are subject to the
"fundamentally different factors"
vanance and credits for pollutants
removed by POTW. (See 40 CFR 403.7.
403.13: 43 FR 27736 (June 28.1978)).
Pretreatment standards for new
sources are subject only to the credits
provision in 40 CFR 403.7. NSPS are not
subject to EPA's "fundamentally
different factors" vanance or any
statutory or regulatory modifications.
See £". /. duPont de Nemours and Co v.
Train, supra.
XIII. Relationship to NPDES Permits
The BAT limitations in this regulation
will be applied to individual petroleum
refinenes through NPDES permits issued
by EPA or approved state agencies.
under Section 402 of the Act. As
discussed in the preceding section of
this preamble, these limitations must be
applied in all Federal and State NPDES
permits except to extent that variances
and modifications are expressly
authorized. Other aspects of the
interaction between these limitations .
and NPDES permits a.re discussed
below.
One issue that warrants consideration
is the effect of this regulation on the
powers of NPDES permit-issuing
authorities. The promulgation of this
regulation does not restrict the power of
any permitting authority to act in any
manner consistent with law or these or
any other EPA regulations, guidelines, or
199
-------
46444 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday. October 18. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
policy. For example, even if this
regulation does not control a particular
pollutant, the permit issuer may still
limit such pollutant on a case-by-case
basis when limitations are 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 (or require more stringent
limitations on covered pollutants), such
limitations must be applied by the
permit-issuing authority.
A second topic that warrants
discussion is the operation of EPA's
NPDES enforcement program, many
aspects of which were considered in
developing this regulation. Although the
Clean Water Act is a strict liability
statute, the initiation of enforcement
proceedings by EPA is discretionary.
EPA has exercised and intends to
exercise that discretion in a manner that
recognizes and promotes good-faith
compliance efforts and conserves
enforcement resources for those who fail
to make good-faith efforts to comply
with the Act.
XIV. Public Participation
Numerous agencies and groups have
participated during the development of
these effluent limitations guidelines and
standards. Following the publication of
the proposed rules on December 21.
1979. in the Federal Register. EPA
provided the development document
supporting the proposed rules to
industry. Government agencies, and the
public sector for comments. Five
technical workshops were held on the
proposed rulemakmg. On April 9.1980.
in Washington. D.C.. a public hearing
was held on the proposed pretreatment
standards.
The individuals and organizations
that submitted written comments dunng
the comment period on the proposed
regulation are listed in Appendix A of
this preamble.
All comments received have been
carefully considered, and appropriate
changes in the regulations have been
made whenever available data and
information supported those changes.
Major issues raised by commenters are
addressed in Section IX of this
preamble. A summary of all the
comments received and our detailed
responses to all comments are included
in a report "Responses to Public
Comments. Proposed Petroleum Refining
Effluent Guidelines and Standards."
which is a part of the public record for
this regulation. This report, along with
the rest of the public record, will be
available for public review four weeks
after the effective date in EPA's Public
Information Reference Unit. Room 2004
(Rear). (EPA Library). 401 M Street.
S.W.. Washington. D.C
XV. Small Business Administration
(SBA) Financial Assistance
The Agency is continuing to
encourage small manufacturers to use
Small Business Administration (SBA)
financing as needed for pollution control
equipment. Three basic programs are in
effect: the Guaranteed Pollution Control
Bond Program, the Section 503 Program.
and the Regular Guarantee Program. All
the SBA loan programs are open only to
businesses with net assets less than S6
million, with an average annual after-
tax income of less than S2 million, and
with fewer than 250 employees.
The guaranteed pollution control bond
is a full faith and credit instrument with
a tax free feature, making this program
the most favorable. The program applies
to projects that cost from Si50.000 to
S2.000.000.
The Section 503 Program, as amended
in July I960, allows for long-term loans
to small-and medium-sized businesses.
These loans are made by SBA-approved
local development companies, which for
the first time are authorized to issue
Government-backed debentures that are
bought by the Federal Financing Bank.
an arm of the U.S. Treasury.
Through SBA's Regular Guarantee
Program, loans are made available by
commercial banks and are guaranteed
by the SBA. This program has interest
rates equivalent to market rates.
For additional information on the
Regular Guarantee and Section 503
Programs contact your district or local
SBA Office. The coordinator at EPA
headquarters is Ms. Frances Oesselle
who may be reached at (202) 426-7874.
For further information and specifics
on the Guaranteed Pollution Control
Bond Program contact: U.S. Small
Business Administration. Office of
Pollution Control Financing. 4040 North
Fairfax Drive. Rosslyn, Virginia 22203,
(703) 235-2902.
XVI. Availability of Technical
Assistance
The major documents upon which
these regulations are based are: (1) The
Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines. New Source
Performance Standards, and
Pretreatment Standards for the
Petroleum Refining Point Source
Category (EPA 440/1-82/014: (2) a report
entitled Long Term Monitoring Data
Collection Survey for the Petroleum
Refining Industry (public record); (3) a
report entitled Wastewater Recycle
Study, Petroleum Refining Industry
(public record): (4) Economic Analysis
of Promulgated Effluent Standards and
Limitations for the Petroleum Refining
industry (EPA 440/2-82/007); (5) public
comments received by the Agency on
the studies upon which the proposed
regulations were based; and (6) the
development document supporting the
proposed regulations. A summary of the
public comments received on the
proposed regulation is presented in a
report "Responses to Public Comments
Proposed Petroleum Refining Effluent
Guidelines and Standards", which is a
part of the public record for this
regulation.
The regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by Executive Order
12291.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 419
Petroleum. Water pollution control.
Waste treatment and disposal.
Dated: September 30.1982.
John W. Hernandez.
Acting Administrator
XVII. Appendices
Appendix A.—Priority Pollutants Not
Delected in Treated Effluents Discharged
Directly, and Excluded From Regulation
Pursuant to Paragraph 8(a)(in) of the
Settlement Agreement, the following 98
priority pollutants are excluded from national
regulation because they were not detected in
effluents from BPT treatment systems by
Section 304(h) analytical methods or other
state-of-the-art methods:
EPA
NO.
2
3
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
24
26
27
28
29
32
39
36
37
38
39
«2
43
PrujMty potfuttnt
acretatn
ttCtytoruuito
senudine
carton lairaenionda
cfiioroOQnzQne
1 2.4-(ncniorooenzon«
2^tcMofQ0tnm0
i Mncfuoroeinana
rwiachiofogifta/n
.i-dieniore« inane
.1 2-mcnkxoatnan*
. 1 JJ-letraeWoroeinane
cntofOfltri&fw
bis(2*cnUxMthyO ether
2-cMoroeinyfvmyl etner
2^fliQfonioni nflione
2 4 6-tncMareoMnol
2-cnioreMMnoi
t.a-OiCMo«X>8ni«rw
1.4-acfllorotMniena
3.T-4icnioroMnMine
1.1-ochioreeinyiwM
1 2-acfilofocreoane
2 4.
2 v^HtfOfOfUOflO)
i .2-dianenyinydraxm*
•UtyUMnzw
fluor&ninono
tn(2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday; October 18: 1982 / Rules and Regulations 46445
E£j^ Prtorty poUuunt
47 bwnofo'ffl
54 augnmuna
57 2-nMpnm.
65 pnanoi
87 butfl baray) pmtiataM
72 bonxof&l 8*>ifii aitvOfiff
74 X4-a.vQOfluarwttn*vi*
80 fluarvn*
83 id0no(i J.3*4Q)p^vn«f
88 wiyl cMondv
69 uorwi
90 Oattin
91 entORSano
92 4 4--OOT
93 4.4-.OOE
94 4.4-.000
95 clpftti fltidOMjM wi
97 andowllan wllatt
98 •tirtrtn
100 naeucnior
102 tfpna-SHC
103 bata-8HC
104 gamma-BHC
105 OMB4HC
108 PC8.I242
107 PC8-I2S4
108 PC8-1221
109 PCS- 1232
110 PCS- 1248
111 PC8.1280
112 PC8-1018
114 ararany IBUI)
MS attMsioa
Appendix B.— Prionty Pollutants not
Detected in Effluents Discharged To POTWs.
EPA
NO,
19
20
21
22
25
28
27
28
29
31
32
33
35
38
37
41
42
43
44
45
48
47
51
12
S3
58
81
82
83
66
88
71
74
75
79
82
83
97
89
90
91
' 94
95
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
108
107
106
109
110
111
112
113
114
116
127
129
Pnonty pollutant
2.4 8-lnenlerepnonol
PWSCftlOrOfRfltS CTflSQi1
l.2-4cnlaroMnzen.i
2.4.4naotoluana
2.frotatreiolijana
immytano cntando
N-niroaodMvpropyiami
bo(2-ainyiha*yQ pmna
(Kvoctyl pninalaia
banzoPO fluorantnarw
d«no(i.2.3-CO)pyrm
vmylcniantfo
diakftn
cniQRlano
44-OOO
•noooutan wtat*
naaucHor
Ma-BHC
janma-BHC (kndano)
PCB-1242
PCP-1254
PC8-I221
PC8-1232
PCB-1248
PCS-1260
pea-tola
inunony lloial)
noostn
alow (total)
inaitum voun
l^_ Pifufily pnHrtint
73 bORtotaloyrano
84 pynjno
88 toluana
MS araerae
118 aamam
120 ooopar
121 eyanda
122 lead
123 mercury
124 nckal
123 lalanun
128 tfvar
127 malBum
128 one
II. Pursuant to Paragraph 8(a)(m) of the
Settlement Agreement, the following two
priority pollutants are excluded from national
regulation because their detection is believed
to be attributed to laboratory analysis and
sample contamination:
j-gj Pnonly pollutant
88 batZ-atfiyffwiyl) pntnalata
Appendix D. — Priority Pollutants Detected in
Effluents Discharged to POTWs. but
Excluded From Regulation -
1. Pursuant to Paragraph 8(b)(i) of the
Settlement Agreement, the following 5
priority pollutants are excluded from
regulation because 95 percent or more of all
point sources in the subcalegory introduce
into POTWs only pollutants which are
susceptible to treatment by the POTW and
which do not interfere with, do not pass
through, or are not otherwise incompatible
with such treatment works:
•j^ Prtonty odiutmt
57 2*nitropiliflnQf
77 acaruontnyiena
80 Ruorm
and Excluded From Regulation
Pursuant to Paragraph 8(a)(iu) of the
Settlement Agreement, the following 75
priority pollutants are excluded from national
regulation because they were not delected by
Section 3O4(h) analytical methods or other
state-of-the-art methods in effluents
discharged to POTWs:
EPA
Ma
Prtonty polMant
Appendix C.—Priority Pollutants Delected in
Treated Effluents Discharged Directly, but
Excluded From Regulation
I. Pursuant lo Paragraph 8(a|(iu) of the
Settlement Agreement, the following 25
priority pollutants are excluded from national
regulation because they are already
effectively controlled by technologies upon
which other effluent limitations and
guidelines are based:
II Pursuant to paragraph 8(b)(u) of the
Settlement Agreement, the following 33
priority pollutants are excluded from
regulation because the amount and toxicity of
each pollutant does not justify developing
national regulations:
U-ofcniuruainana
l.U-tneMonMttiana
l.ljU-lavacMoraatng
EPA
No.
1
4
22
23
31
68
ro
71
Pnonty poUutam
cNoiofoini
dMwbuiyt oftmsiiau
dffMftfW* BMfUlalM
EPA
Ma
2
7
23
30
39
67
68
Pnonty pollutant
aeroMoi
CMOTOOOnZBOfi
cMwufUfin
I 2 ttonniV fifc» OBOTMOIH
Huoranttwn*
butyl benzyl pmnalaif
dM^euiyi pnthciflta
201
-------
46446 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday, October 18. J982 / Rules and Regulations
EPA
No.
TO
72
ra
9*
89
92
n
98
109
IIS
117
118
120
t21
122
123
124
121
Priori* poauura
atom* pMMUM
BOTO|I IMVMOWW
cfityV0nv
pyran*
ridrtn
M'-ODT
4.4M30E
MstndosMn
MUBHC
mane
Mtyttjm
CeMIHMftl
copper
cm*
nod
mreuy
rack*
one
UL Punuanl to Paragraphs 8(aj(iii). 3(a)(iv).
and 8(b) of the Selltement Agreement the
following 12 priority pollutants are excluded
from regulation for a combination of reasons.
First, there is significant removal of some of
these pollutants by the existing pretreatment
standards for oil and grease; second, there is
significant removal of all these pollutants by
the POTW treatment system: and thirdly, the
amount and toxicity of the pollutants does
not justify developing national pretreatmenl
standards.
EPA
No.
1
4
34
38
M
55
SB
»
«s
78
81
Plumy pofcinnt
Appendix E.—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)(B) of the Act
BCT—The best conventional pollutant
control technology, under Section
304(b](4) of the Act
BMP—Beat management practices under
Section 304(e] of the Act
BOD5—Five day biochemical oxygen demand
BPT—The best practicable control technology
currently available, under Section
304(b)(l] of the Act
COD—Chemical oxygen demand
Clean Water Act—The Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (33 U.S.C 12S1 el aeq.l, as amendeo
by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L.
95-217)
Direct discharger—A facility which
discharges or may discharge pollutants
into waters of the United States
Indirect discharger—A facility which
discharges or may discharge pollutants
into a publicly owned treatment works
kg/m *—Kilograms per cubic meter
Ib/bbl—Pounds- per barrel (one barrel equals
42 gallons)
mg/1—Milligrams per liter
NPDES permit—A national pollutant
discharge elimination system permit
issued under section 402 of the Act
NSPS—New source performance standards.
under section 304 of the Act
ppb— Parts per billion
POTW—Publicly owned treatment works
PSES—Pretreatment standards for existing
sources of indirect discharges, under
section 307(b) of the Act
PSNS—Pretreatment standards for new
sources of direct discharges, under
section 307 (b) and (c) of the Act
RCRA—Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (Pub. L. 94-580) of 1976.
Amendments to Solid Waste Disposal
Act
TOC—Total organic carbon
TSS—Total suspended solids
Hg/1—Micrograms per liter
40 CFR Part 419 is revised to read as
follows:
PART 419— PETROLEUM REFINING
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Subpart A—Topping Subcategory
Sec.
419.10 Applicability: description of the
topping subcategory.
419.11 Specialized definitions.
419.12 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree, of effluent
reduction, attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
419.13 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reductio.i attainable by the application of
best available technology economically
achievable.
419.14 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best conventional pollutant control
technology. [Reserved)
419.15 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
419.16 Standards of performance for new
sources.
419.17 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Subpart B—Cracking Subcategory
419.20 Applicability: description of the
cracking subcategory.
419.21 Specialized definitions.
419.22 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
419 23 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best available technology
economically achievable.
419^24 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
Sec.
reduction attainable by the application of
the best conventional pollutant control
technology. (Reserved]
419.25 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
419.26 Standards of performance for new
sources.
41927 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Subpart C—Petrochemical Subcategory
419.30 Applicability; description of the
petrochemical subcategory.
419.31 Specialized definitions.
419.32 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
419.33 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best available technology
economically achievable.
419.34 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best conventional pollutant control
technology. (Reserved)
419 35 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
419.36 Standards of performance for new
sources.
419.37 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Subpart D—Cube Subcategory
419.40 Applicability: description of the lube
subcategory.
41941 Specialized definitions.
419.42 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
419.43 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best available technology
economically achievable.
419.44 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best conventional pollutant control
technology. (Reserved)
419.45 Preireaonent standards for existing
sources.
419.48 Standards of performance for new
sources.
419.47 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Subpart E—Integrated Subcategory
419.50 Applicability: description of the
integrated subcategory
419.51 Specialized definitions.
41952 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
419.53 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best available technology
economically achievable.
202
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday. October 18. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 46447
SIM:.
419.54 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best conventional pollutant control
technology. [Reserved]
419.55 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
419.56 Standards of performance for new
sources.
419.57 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Authority: Sees. 301. 304 (b). (c). (e). and
{g|. 306 (b) and (c). 307 (b) and (c). and 301 of
the Clean Water Act (the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 as
amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977)
|the "Act"]: 33 U.S.C. 1311.1314 (b). (c). (e).
and (8). 1316 (b) and (c). 1317 (b) and (c). and
1381: 86 Stal. 818. Pub. L 92-500: 91 Slat. 15A7.
Pub. L 95-217.
Subpart A—Topping Subcategory
§ 419.10 Applicability; description ol the
topping subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart apply
to discharges from any facility that
produces petroleum products by the use
of topping and catalytic reforming.
whether or not the facility includes any
other process in addition to topping and
catalytic reforming. The provisions of
this subpart do not apply to facilities
' that include thermal processes (coking.
vis-breaking, etc.] or catalytic cracking.
9419.11 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) Except as provided below, the
general definitions, abbreviations, and
methods of analysis set forth in Part 401
of this chapter shall apply to this
subpart.
(b) The term "runoff shall mean the
flow of storm water.
(c) The term "ballast" shall mean the
flow of waters, from a ship, that is
treated along with refinery wastewaters
in the main treatment system.
[d] The term "feedstock" shall mean
the crude oil and natural gas liquids fed
to the topping units.
(e) The term "once-through cooling
water" shall mean those waters
discharged that are used for the purpose
of heat removal and that do not come
into direct contact with any raw
material, intermediate, or finished
product.
(f) The following abbreviations shall
be used: (1) Mgal means one thousand
gallons: (2) MbbI means one thousand
barrels (one barrel is equivalent to 42
gallons).
« 419.12 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR
125.30-32. 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 (BPT]:
Pollutant or pollutant property
BPT Einuem bimaiioiu
Maximum for
any I nay
Average ol
daily values
lor 30
conMcutiva
days snail
not exceed
-_
100 to 10 '9
10 5 lo 10 99 . ___..
11 0 to 1 1 49 _.«. .__..«—«-.. . _.. _.._... _
ii 5 10 11 99
19 Ola 19 a
!»« M 1900
1? rj to IJ IB
tj 5 14 ij 09
Process
(Ktor
131
J.S1
273
2.98
3.24
153
384
4.18
438
Meme uM> (kilogram* ear
1.000 m* of feedstock)
(3) See the comprehensive example
Subpart 0 § 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The following allocations
constitute the quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph and
attributable to ballast, which may be
discharged after the application of best
practicable control technology currently
available, by a point source subject to
this subpart. in addition to the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
The allocation allowed for ballast water
flow, as kg/cu m (Ib/M gal], shall be
based on those ballast waters treated at
SO05 _. . . 1 80 425
TSS „ I »8 3(1
COO ' | *« 2 ?' 3
Oamgreese ^ ...._ ..! ?S 13
AmmoraaaaN _ 099 04S
Suffice . .- 0 S3 0 24
Total cnrormum . . ...j 0122 0071
Hexavalem crvomum . { 010 00044
pH _. j 1') I1)
i
1 See footnote following Table « < 4 19 I3(e)
•Wilhn me range 01 80 to 90
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1.000 MM ol feedstock oer it/earn day [ ,^£,
Less than 24 9 -.,- . . i 02
25 0 10 '9 9 ... I 09
MO to 74 9 . __ _. _. lie
'iQ(o9*9 "29
100 to 124 9 _..___ _ ... _.__ . 1 38
i?f 0191499 _ „..., | «jfl
'SO 0 or greater 1 57
the refinery.
i
Pollutant or pollutant prooeny i
1
1
BOD5 .... _ J
TSS J
coo-, _ _j
pH _ . _ _. |
8OQ5 .... j
TSS . - . - . . . _.)
COO ' . ,
Oil ana grease ..... . . |
PM 1
3PT affluent Imuoons
'or oaiiasi water
Avar age
of daily
Maximum "•««»'«
"» '? ' coniecu.
My nve days
snail not
exceed
Metnc urns (kilograms
ger CUM meter ol
flow)
0048 0028
3033 , 0021
0 47 0 24
0015 0008
I1) C)
englan unu (pounds
per 1 000 gel of flow)
0 40 ' 0 21
029 017
39 | 20
0128 i OOS7
I'l C)
(2) Process factor.
Process configuration
Less man 2 49
2.5 to 3 49
3 5 to 4 49 .
4 5 10 5 49 —
55 to 599 —
6010649-..
6.5 to 6 99 -.
7 0 to 7 49. ._
7 S 10 7 99
8010849
8 5 to 8 99 .
9010949-
9510999
Process
factor
062
067
080
095
107
I 17
I2T
139
151
184
I 79
US
212
1 See footnote tonowmg taole m 1419 i3(ei
'Witnm me range of 60 lo 90
|d) The qudtitity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph.
attributable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon
concentration not to exceed 5 mg/l.
(e) Effluent Limitation for Runoff—
(Reserved].
203
-------
46448 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday. October 18. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
§ 419.13 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of affluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best available technology economically
achievable (BAT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR
125.30- 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 (BAT):
Poamant or pofutant proparty
BAT effluent hmunons
Maximum
lor any 1
day
Average
01 OB*
values lor
30
consecu.
nva days
ma* not
eiceeo
Maine units (Uograna
par 1.000 m* ol
COO1
SuMtft
It7
0188
2.81
0149
OJ45
01128
803
0.076
127
0088
020
0012
units (pounds
1.000 tJOJ of
COO'
PnenuM
Total en
in"
•UH^gff _._
412
0060
099
0053
0122
0.10
213
0027
045
0024
0071
00044
'Sew footnote tollowng TaBle «i f «19 13(c).
(b) The limits set forth m paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1.000 OM ot leadsmen per stream day
Sue
Lass man 24 9 ..
25010499
500 10 749
75010999
100 IB 1249
125010 1499..
1500 or greater.
102
108
I 18
128
138
ISO
157
(2) Process factor.
CDnnguraoon
Lasa man 2.49 .
2.5 to 3.49
4 5 to 5 49-
062
067
080
095
107
1 17
^roc»WB oonnQuriiion
««««<»
7 n M 7 ia
7«M70<1
• OM ma
Kupaaa
9 n'?..._
11 *»> 11 00
I90lq l?*0
17 fin <> ,
innini.ljo
ia s ia 19 oo
QMU.^..
ITocasa
factor
1.27
139
151
164
179
195
2.12
231
251
in
2.98
324
JS3
384
418
438
(3) See the comprehensive example in
Subpart D. § 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The following allocations
constitute the quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph.
attributable to ballast, which may be
discharged after the application of best
available technology economically
achievable by a point source subject to
the provisions of this subpart. These
allocations are in addition to the
discharge allowed by paragraph (b) of
this section. The allocation allowed for
ballast water flow, as kg/cu m (Ib/M
gal], shall be based on those ballast
waters treated at the refinery.
Pollutant or pollutant property
BAT effluent bmilaiions
tar ballast water
Mawnufn
lor any 1
d*y
Average
or dad?
values lor
30
ova days
snail not
Metric unrti (Uoareins
ol
COO-
COO'
047
024
English uraa (pounds
par 1000 gal ol How)
39
2,0
•in any case
me cnlonde on concentration m me eMuent eiceeos i QUO
mall (l.OOO ppmt. me Regional Aarmnuuator may sutnuiuie
TOC as a parameter •> lieu ol COO Effluent limitations 'or
TOC snau ee based on effluent oata from me plant comrtai-
ing TOC to 8O05
II m ine mdgment ol tne Regional Aomirastrator. adequate
correlation data are not available, me elllueni laniainns lor
TOC snail be esiabMned at a rain ol 22 to i to me
appkcawe erllueni bmnanons on 8O05
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph.
attributable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon
concentration not to exceed 5 mg/1.
(e) Effluent Limitation for Runof—
[Reserved].
§ 419.14 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT). [Reserved]
$ 419.15 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES).
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 (PSES).
The following standards apply to the
tolal refinery flow contribution to the
POTW:
PoUuiam or poUuiam property
mam
standards
lor fraimg
sources
maximum
lor any I
day
(Milligrams
par mar
(mo/O)
Ot ana Grease
Ammonal (a* N).
•Where ine oacnarge » ma POTW consists solely ol sour
waters, ine owner or ooeraux tu ine oonon ol comgryuig
win ins limit or me daily maiimum -ness limitation lor
ammonia sal lonn mi 419 13 lal and (b)
§419.16 Standards of performance for
new sources (NSPS).
(
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday. October 18. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 4G449
Pollutant o pa-mum propeny
COO'
Qt Wl QfllM . — ................ ,..__,_.
Ammonaj u N
KSPS effluent
i tmuDons
for any I
day
30
21 7
13
10
0027
0,084
00052
n
Average
ol dairy
•alura for
live days
snaa not
eiceed
i 9
11 2
070
049
0012
0037
00026
• See footnote toax-ng taote «1419.1310.
' Wimn ine ring* of 6 0 10 8 0
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(l) Size factor.
1.000 DM of
par drum day
Less man 24 9.
100 to 124 9 .
i500or«
Sue
factor
102
108
1 16
126
138
ISO
157
•(2) Process factor.
Z.TJL _::
TT
iM.if«.9«a
74 193*9
51 * n A M
*«ui*.0 '99
HO u> I AH
««i Hfooa
an ufa*a
a««aoa
iO 0 n iQ *9
irxqin^a
11 OK) 114?
11«« 1100
is a 14 i? 10 ... _
12 S M 12.99. _ __ __. -
iinm ij.^9
11* n 1100
14 0 C* QTMW
Praoat
uenr
062
067
080
09S
1 07
17
27
39
51
84
79
95
2.12
231
251
2.73
2,98-.
3.24
353
384
4 18
436
(3) See the comprehensive example m
Subpart D. 5 419.42(b){3).
(c) The following allocations
constitute the quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph and
attributable to ballast, which may be
discharged after the application of best
practicable control technology currently
dvaila*ble. by a point source subject to
this subpart. in addition to the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
The allocation allowed for ballast water
flow, as kg/cu m (Ib/Mgal). shall be
based on those ballast waters treated al
the refinery.
Poiiuuni or ponuttn) propony
NSPS Effluent
Uimibona lor Ballm
Water
Munmum
lor iny 1
day
Average
valuator
30
live day*
snail no)
par CUDC meiar ol
BO05-
TS.«.
COO ' ... .
Oil and gram
P*4
p
""
0048
0033
0.47
001S
n
0028
0021
0.24
0008
n
Engtnn unra (pounds
per 1.000 9*1 of Bo»l
8OO5__ _.
TSS
COO '
pn
0.40
0.27
3.9
0128
(1
021
017
2.0
0087
n
•• See footnote MOMng note « ] «19 W(e»
1 WWn the «ange ol 6.0 to 9 0
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph.
attributable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon
concentration not to exceed 5 mg/1.
(e) Effluent Limitations for Runoff—
[Reserved]
§ 419.17 Pretreatment standards for new
source* (PSNS).
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 (PSNS] (a)
The following standards apply to the
total refinery flow contribution to the
POTW:
r;
Ponuiam or pooutam property
Preneai.
lor any 1
day
(mg/l)
CM ana grease
Ammonia (ai N)
100
•100
•wnm in« oacnarge 10 inn POTW con»u 9oK*y of vx»
wmem. ine owner or operator "as ine opron ol complying
wiin im I«IM or the oatfy maximum mass imiahnn tor
nmmona set form n | 419 16 lal and (HI
(l>) The following standaid is
to the cooling tower discharge part of
the total refinery flow to the POTW by
multiplying: (1) The standard: (2) by the
total refinery flow to (he POTW. and (3)
by the ratio of the cooling lower
discharge flow to the total refinery flow.
Ponuiara or poUutani properly
Preiraat-
standards
maximum
for any t
Mdhgrams
per H
(mg/1)
Total cnromum „.
Subpart 8—Cracking Subcategory
§ 419.20 Applicability; description of the
cracking subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to all discharges from any
facility that produces petroleum
products by the use ol topping and
cracking, whether or not the facility
includes any process m addition to
topping and cracking. The provisions of
this subpart are not applicable.
however, to facilities that include the
processes specified in Subparts C. 0. or
E of this part.
§ 419.21 Specialized definitions.
The general definitions, abbreviations
and methods of analysis set forth in Part
401 of this chapter and the specialized
definitions set forth m § 419.11 shall
apply to this subpart.
5 419.22 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beat practicable control technology
currently available (BPT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR
125.30- 32. any existing point source
subject to (his 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:
205
-------
'46450 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday. October 18. 1082 / Rules and Regulations
PoNuttm or poiartara prooarty
BOOf . . , j, .,,...-.-....-
T^S
O8 and graasa
BOO5 _.._._..
COO1
Orf trot gr*.i!M ,
Si.Wd*
pH
« 74 a
no m 4« 9 ,.
cnn I^JAO
7? Om 99 9
7 1749 . , .
i?*Q<7 1490
150 0 or graalar ...._.
(2) Process factor.
nMMB. ..
>w
( m ikfo 7 4B , ,, ,
j ^ m 1 19 , . .
1 5 m .< 49
4 s n 5.49
15 to 199 , ...
90 "o 8 49....
US 10 B 99. j....
» n .1 7 49
»«, ^ 199
R0t)fl'9 ..........
f S lo « 99
90 to 949 ..
95 or gmur
SUa factor
091
095
1 04
1 13
1 23
135
1 41
Proeass
factor
058
083
074
088
1 00
I 09
•1 19
1 29
1 41
1S3
187
1 82
1 89
MWUfTVfTI
lor any t
Maine units (kilograms
par IOOO m* of
coo • . .._.._.
Sv«0*
210
021
188
018
•043
0035
109
010
SS
0082
OJS
0018
English units (pounds
par i.OOO oa ol
COO • -. _._.._,
Pnanotcc
SutlkM - .
Total cnromum
740
0074
86
0085
015
0012
384
0038
30
0079
0088
00058
•SM fooinola loikiwing uel* n f 419 I3(c)(2)
(3) See the comprehensive example
Subpart 0 § 419.421 b)(3).
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
to discharges of process wastewater
pollutants attributable to ballast water
by a point source subicct to the
provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph.
attributable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon
concentration not to exceed 5 mg/1.
(e) Effluent Limitation for Runoff—
[Reserved]
§ 419.24 Effluent limitation guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT). [Reserved]
§ 419.25 Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources (PSES).
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 (PSES).
The following standards apply to the
total refinery flow contribution to the
POTW:
206
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday. October 18. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 46451
Poflutanl of pQuiteVit property
mam
standards
lor new
fflaUlfllUfll
(or toy 1
day
par Mar
(mg/l)
100
'100
•Where ma ettcnarge lo rfle POTW corona somyotsour
itaW* tfw ovnv of QQoraior has tfto option ol GOfflplyinQ
•urn na bm or dia da*y mamwrn masa limrtanon lor
smmcna aal eorti n { 419.23 (a) and (tt.
§ 419.26 Standards of performance for
new sources (NSPS).
(a) Any new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS):
NSPS effluent
Imnaoons
Maamun
lor any 1
day
Average
at daily
30
bv9 days
snail not
mctod
Metre urala (kilograms
par 1.000 m' ol
ann«
TWO
IWll
i"mu~l (11 •") , ,._^....._
^M-
Tnui eM«ii.«i
pM
163
113
1180
48
0.119
188
0105
°JL
ODSO
C)
8.7
72
81
:s
0058
as
0048
014
00088
C)
Engtan unrta (pounds
par i.OOO 601 ol
ann«
T!0»
rmy '
tf if yn^lmr
Sa
lactor
104
1.13
123
135
1.41
(2) Process factor.
Piutam configuration
i mi " 7 40
T f m 7 99
ii a M a 40
a«uiaao
an i« a 40
9 ? «r gmf Iff „ ,„-„..„,„„
Process
lacior
osa
063
074
088
100
109
1.19
129
1 41
153
187
182
189
(3) See the comprehensive example in
Subpart D. § 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The provisions of § 419.16(c) apply
to discharges of process wastewater
pollutants attributable to ballast water
by a point source subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph.
attributable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon
concentration not to exceed 5 mg/1.
(e) Effluent Limitation for Runoff—
[Reserved]
§ 419.27 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
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 (PSNS).
(a) The following standards apply to
the total refinery flow contribution to
the POTW.
Pollutant or poUuiant property
standard!
lor new
manrnuffl
lor any I
day
(mg/0
OH and grease .
100
Pollutant or DoUutant property
Amman-* (a* M)
standards
lor new
source*—
Mr any 1
day
•100
'Whara me discharge to (he POTW consists solefy ol sour
•raters, ma owner or operator Has uw option ol complying
win on inn or ina daily muvnurn mass (million lor
ammonia sat lorm m J 419 26(al and (b).
(b) The following standard is applied
to the cooling tower discharge part of
the total refinery flow to the POTW by
multiplying: (1) The standard: (2) by the
total refinery flow to the POTW; and (3)
by the ratio of the cooling tower
discharge flow to the total refinery flow.
Pollutant or pollutant oropany
Pretraal-
fHQfll
itandarda
lor now
sources—
fliajamum
lor any 1
day
MOgrams
Total cnronuurn .............. n _ . ........ . . .......... „.
(mg/l)
t
Subpart C—Petrochemical
Subcategory
§ 419.30 Applicability; description of the
petrochemical subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to all discharges from any
facility that produces petroleum
products by the use of topping, cracking.
and petrochemical operations whether
or not the facility includes any process
in addition to topping, cracking, and
petrochemical operations. The
provisions of this subpart shall not be
applicable, however, to facilities that
include the processes specified in
Subparts 0 or E of this part.
§ 419.31 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) The general definitions.
abbreviations, and methods of analysis
set forth in Part 401 of this chapter and
the specialized definitions set forth in '
3 419.11 shall apply.
(b) The term "petrochemical
operations" shall mean the production
of second-generation petrochemicals
(i.e.. alcohols, ketones. cumene. styrene,
etc.) or first generation petrochemicals
and isomerization products (i.e. BTX,
olefins. cyclohexane. etc.) when IS
percent or more of refinery production is
as first-generation petrochemicals and
isomerization products.
207
-------
46452 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Mondjy. October 18. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
9 419.32 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet practicable control technology
currently available.
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR
12S.30-.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 (BPT):
8PT EMuont Mwanona
Average
olds*?
PoMjtBM .,Tm~,7«i or)
9* n n jp a n TR
in a M 74 a 1 an
T5 0 to 99 9 0 9*
1000101248 .._ . ... 099
'290(0 '499 "W
1 SO 0 or areeier 113
(2) Process factor.
Proc
lar'or
Lass men 4 49 0 73
4 5 to 5 49 . _. . J 0 80
5510599 . _ . , 091
8010649 . ... 099
6510699 . . 1 08
70(0 749 . _ . _ _ 17
7 5 lo 7 99 . - 28
8 0 to 8 49 . . .. - ... 39
8510899 -. . - 51
9 0 >o 9 49 8f
9 5 or greater 1 72
"
(3) See the comprehensive example in
Subpart 0. $ 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The provisions of § 4l9.12(c) apply
to discharges of process wastewater
pollutants attributable to ballast water
by a point source subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph.
attributable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon
concentration not to exceed 5 mg/1.
(e) Effluent Limitation for runoff -
[Reserved].
§ 419.33 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best available technology economically
achievable (BAT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR
125.30- 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 techology
economically achievable (BAT]:
BAT Effluent Unuoons
Average o(
Ponuiarn or pouuuuu property M,,,,,,,, i,, (or 30
any 1 day consecutive
days anal
not exceed
Mane unrts (Mograme per
1000m* of raedslockl
COO- _ _. 2100 1090
Ammonia UN ._. ... 234 106
SulMa 022. 0099
Total enromum _ 052 030
MexavaMnt avomum _ 0046 0020
Engunumi (pounds per
1 000 DM ol leeosiock)
COO ' 74 0 38 4
Ammonal «» H . | 8 25 38
SuMoa- ._ 0078 003S
Total cnromum . 0183 0 107
HeuveJem enromum 0016 00072
•SOT lootnota looming wow « {419 I3(cl
(b] The limits set forth in pjragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
I 000 Ml ol leenstock par stream day ' ,^£,
Less rnan 24 9 - - . i 0 73
25 0 10 49 9 . . . • — 1 " 7S
50010749 _- .. ._ . _. i 083
75 0 lo 99 9 . _ _ . ._ 4 091
IOOOUI249 . __ ._ . J 099
(25OI01499_. .. _ . _. | 108
1500 or greater „. . ._ , i V)
(2) Process factor.
Proe-
1 (actor
I
4 5 (o 5 49 . 0 80
5 5 10 5 99 . _ _ ._ -. * I 0 91
6 0 to 6 49 { 0 99
85 00
7 S to 7 99 j 1 28
8.0 (O 8 *9 J * 39
• 9
-------
•Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday. October 18. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 46453
total refinery flow contribution to the
POTW:
Pratfaai-
(TWO!
POMMerpoMimpRWQrty j£SS2!
lor any 1
day
[VUhgrama
par Mar
POTW comma salary of saw
•stars, on ownar or operator naa no uouon o* comply Big
•mm ttvs Irw or tns darfy mumum mm Brmaoon lor
ammona Ml tonh « 1*18.33 (a) and (bl.
9 419.36 Standards of performance for
new source* (NSPS).
(a) Any new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS):
1 000 bM ol laaastoek par svaam day
Laaa than 24 8
250»*99
* son
11199 It '7*9
17^0 ^ naa
1500 or graator n._ _.
Sin lacier
073
078
083
091
099
108
1 13
(2) Process factor.
Um !Min **9 _ _
«S'ff T'9
$ S w $ 99
ijij '(?«••»
«f 19 «9f
in if 7*9
'5IO '99 , -
B 0 to 8 *9
f ? IB* 99
a o la 9 '9 — ......
Process
factor
073
080
091
099
108
1 17
128
139
1SI
IBS
1 72
(3) See the comprehensive example in
Subpart 0. § 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The provisions of 5 419.16(c) apply
'Whan DM dnefiarqa to DM POTW oonsau soWy ojiojj
wstafs. ina o*
•Saa kjonota lonoang new « f 4I9.13ICX21.
>VMlnn «• nwga ol 8.0 to 9 a
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
to discharges of process wastewater
pollutants attributable to ballast water
by a point source subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph.
attributable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon
concentration not to exceed 5 mg/1.
(e) Effluent Limitations for Runoff—
[Reserved]
§ 419.37 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
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 (PSNS).
(a) The following standards apply to
the total refinery flow contribution to
the POTW:
PoOuum or poUutani propany
Praraal'
mam
standards
tar naw
SOUTCM
lor any I
day
Mdborama
par Mar
(mg/l)
CM andgraaaa._
Amman* (u N)_
100
•100
Subpart D— Lube Subcategory
§ 419.40 Applicability; description of trie
lube subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to all discharges from any
facility that produces petroleum
products by the use of topping, cracking,
and lube oil manufacturing processes,
whether or not the facility includes any
process in addition to topping, cracking.
and lube oil manufacturing processes.
The provisions of this subpart are not
applicable, however, to facilities that
include the processes specified in
Subparts C and E of this part.
§ 419.41 Specialized definitions.
The general definitions, abbreviations
and methods of analysis set forth in Part
401 of this chapter and the specialized
definitions set forth in S 419.11 shall
apply to this subpart.
§ 419.42 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing trie degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT).
(n) Except as provided in 40 CFR
125.30-.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 (BPT):
209
-------
46-154 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday. October 18, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
Poatttnt or poNuurt propany
BOO*
TSS .....
COO1
CMandgraaaa .__....
Pfarolie nompourtt
Total cnmmun - ... ..
MM . . •
BO05
TSS
COQ1
m —H T~»
Total etwqrmjm
P"
BPT amuam fmUMna <
Maimmi
tor any t
day
Avaragja
olda*
vakMStor __
30 Procaaaa
in* days
snal not Cmda
Mane unts (blograma Cractang ar
par 1.000 m' of a*"*
faadatock)
506
398
3600
162
038
23.4
033
077
0066
IT
258
22.7
1870
• * Luba . _-..«
8 9 ^^
0184
:ALCUI>TION OF THE PROCESS representing the degree
CONFIGURATION reduction attainable by
Itagory Procasa nckidad
Aim
Vacu
Oasa
id Fhid
Vivo
Tharr
Mow
H)*dn
FUd
Oalay
Funn
Eruda daMat
urn. crudada
uig . ._
cat. cracking
nal cracking
ig bad cat o
on
BKlluon .
coking. ._ ..„ . ...
•d coking ....
ar dalnad » ma da-
gpmant documant.
045 Aspharl amulsrlyma
n
Engkan urns (pounds
par i.OOO BH 04
toadstock)
179
125
1270
57
0133
83
0118
0.273
0024
0
91
80
660 Ciudr
30 Aim
0069 Vacuum
38 Oaaan.
0093 *ig
0160 Total
'0011 Cracking-
(1 FCC_
•SaatootnotaloikMiingiaolan{4i9l3lcK2>. cracking.
• WHNrr ma rsnga o<60lo 90. Total-
Capaaiy
(1000 DM
par straam
day)
1290
60 J>
125.0
410
200
Capacity
raiaiivau
tnroua>
put
10
048
10
2.46
0328
0.160
0488
FacC
< |
"6
^acnT9 economically achievable
i
6
Pollutant or pollutant propany
13
of effluent
he application
inology
s (BAT):
BAT affluant Imnauons
Manmum
tor any 1
day
Avaraea
of dairy
valuas tor
30
consecu-
tivadays
snaanM
Maine unta (ktograma
par
COO1 . ..... . .
Pnanofcc compounda ... . . ... .
Ammonia as N _. . .
Suiiida __.__._.
ng Hajavaiani crwonvum
QQfll^l^. »•• ... ^. TJI ^at ...... .. ... .. .
ration
3600
038
234
033
077
0066
1870
0184
106
0190
045
0.030
par 1.000 DM ol
laaostock)
COO1
Phwolic compounds
.&4g Ammonia am N__ . .
Su/firt*
Total cnromum .... __
1270
0133
83
0118
0273
0024
660
0065
38
0053
0160
0011
.i!l.1 'S«a (ocwota (ollowing uortm }<19 I3(e)(2)
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate (he
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
i.OOO bH ol liidiiact par straam day
1 ru mar *9 "
inn «r i* a
'SOW 99 9 _
1000 to 124 9 .___„__
'290 IO "99...... ..
ISOOM 1719
I»OM 1000
(2) Process factor.
Pmcmconfiouram
Lass wan 6.49 .. . _.
6.9 to 7 49 . _ _ __„
7 5 tf 7 90 „__ , _ _....„ ..
8010649 . _
4510(99.... . ...
9 9 tg 9 19 _
»5 W999
'00 1C "0*9
'09 W '094
1 1 0 to 1 1 49 -- . .__ __. _«_
If f M It 00
unin 19 1*
12.5 » "2.99 ..
130 or yiiaiar. .._..«...... _.
Sea
factor
071
074
061
068
097
1 OS
1 14
1 19
Praeasa
lactar
081
068
1 00
109
1 19
1 29
1 41
1 53
1 67
182
198
2.15
2.34
2.44
(3) Example of the application of the
above factors. Example—Lube refinery
125.000 bbl per stream day throughput.
Saa Tabkt i4i942(b)(2) tor procasa factor Piocass
factor.n Kg
Saa TaoM } 419 42(bH1) lor mm factor (or 125 000 MX par
straarn day kjoa rafinwy Sua lactoroi) 9T
To cateuJaia ma imns lor aacn paramanr. multiply ma iimi
{419 42(a| Oy ooin irw procasa lactor and vie (actor BOOS
limrt (rnanmum 'or any I day)- 179x038x097= 153 ib
par 1.000 DM ol toaonack.
(c) The provisions of S 419.12(c) apply
to discharges of process wastewaler
pollutants attributable to ballast water
by a point source subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph.
attributable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon
concentration not to exceed 5 mg/1.
(e) Effluent Limitations for Runoff—
(Reserved)
§ 419.43 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best available technology economically
achievable (BAT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR
125.30-.32. any existing point source
subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
|b) The limits set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1 000 bet of faadsieck par itrum day
Lass man 49 9 ._ . ..
SO 0 to 74 9 -
75 0 10 99 9 ._ _. _
1000 to 1249 .
125 Oto 149 9 . ...
1500 to 1749 ._ _. . __
179010 1999 . . .
200 0 or ofaatar . ..... ... _. „ .. „ . ....
Sizo
(actor
071
074
081
088
097
105
1 14
1 19
(2) Process factor.
Lass than 6 49 .... .... .
8510749 .
7 5 b) 7 99 ....,„
8 0 to 8 49 _ . . .
8 5 to 6 99 _
9 0 IO 9 49 ._ . __
9 5 IO 9 99 ....
100 to 10 '9
10$ 10 1099
P 0 to 11 49
1 1 5 to 1 1 99 . _. __
120 IO 12.49 .. _
12 5 to 1299 .. - ._.--..- - ...
Proem
lactor
081
088
100
109
1 19
129
1 41
1 53
1 67
182
196
2.15
134
210
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. Z(H / MoncKiy. October 18. 19H2 / Rule* diuJ Rt-jjululionh
os» conligwation
OOar oreanr -
Prnceu
facto
2*4
(J) See the comprehensive example m
Subpart D. § 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The provisions of § 419.13(c) apply
to discharges of process wastewaler
pollutants attnbutable to ballast water
by a point source subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph.
attnbutable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon
concentration not to exceed 5 mg/1.
(e) Effluent Limitation for Runoff—
(Reserved]
9 419.44 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT>—{Reserved!
5 419.45 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES).
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 (PSES)
The following standards apply to the
total refinery flow contribution to the
POTW.
PcHuuni or BOttuam property
Ml*.
standards
maunum
lor my i
0*y
lmo/0
CM aM grnM . ...
Airmona (as N)
100
•100
•Where ma rjacnarge u> tn« POTW comma solely al sow
•aters. me o«mer of operator nas me ooton of complying,
wiffi ma iimn or me dariy mawmum maas hmriauon 'or
I lortn in • 419 43 (a) and (B)
§ 419.46 Standards of performance for
new sources (NSPS).
(a) Any new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS)-
"rMuiam or poouiani pi nearly
NSPSitfluan
lor any i
aday
AV4JfQQC
oidaty
values let
30
no* day*
snalnoi
Uetnc unm (kaao/oma
par 1.000 m' ol
aooi . .
TSS
COO ' . __
CH and grease _. —
Svf|4e
Tnul rnrnmun
Hauvkient cnromurn . _ .
pH . . .
346
234
2450
IDS
234
0.220
0.52
0046
<•)
Engksn un
par IOC
184
149
1280
56
107
010
031
0021
I1)
«s (pounds
» OH Ol
8OO . _
TSS _ _ . .
COO '
Ori a^d Q/eaae
Ajiwnoma as N
Sutham
Tola* wv1"*!"*™ _ ...,
JM
1&2
83
870
38
0088
83
0078
0180
0022
O
65
S3
4$0
20
0043
38
0035
0105
00072
O
'SMI
e tollowno; law* « f 419 13(O
Winw ;rw ranoa 6.0 10 0 0
|b| The limits set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum fur any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
i coo ecu oi
day
S«
Less :nan *9 9
«0 o >o 74 9
7*010999
innn r, i5«o
i?« an 149 9
1500101749 _
174 a 10 190 9
200 0 or greater .
_.| 0"
n 74
| nm
i n«a
i 09'
. | 1 OS
' 1 14
- i "9
(2) Process factor.
Process configuramn , ^jjor*
Less man 6 49 „ .1
r. « >n 7 49 . ... ,
' » 'O 7 99
B 0 to 8 49 ,'
If*. 11} * 90
90 rij a A* _
9 5 IO 9 99 ... . . !
ion 101949 .. .
to 5 to 10 99 . ... . _
1 1 0 to 1 1 49 . . '
11 5 IQ 1 1 99
120IOI249 ... _. |
125 to 1299 . ._.__._ J
13 0 or greater ... . ............ _ •
081
088
too
109
1 19
129
1 41
1 S3
167
182
198
215
234
244
(3) Sou the compn.-licn.Mvf* example m
Subpurl D. §419.42(h)(.U
(c) Th«: provisions of S 419.15(c) apply
lo discharges of process wastewaler
pollutants attributable to ballast water
by d point source subject to the
provision of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph.
attributable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon
concentration not to exceed 5 mg/1.
(c) El fluent Limitations for Runoff—
(Reserved)
!> 419.47 Pretreatment standards tor new
sources (PSNS).
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 (PSNS).
(a) The following standards apply to
the total refinery flow contribution to
the POTW
»o
-------
46456 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday. October 18. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart E—Integrated Subcategory
§ 419.50 Applicability; description of the
Integrated subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to all discharges resulting
from any facility that produces
petroleum products by the use of
topping, cracking, lube oil manufacturing
processes, and petrochemical
operations, whether or not the facility
includes any process in addition to
topping, cracking, lube oil manufacturing
processes, and petrochemical
operations.
§ 419.51 Specialized definitions.
The general definitions, abbreviations.
and methods of analysis set forth in Part
401 of this chapter and the specialized
definitions set forth in § 419.31 shall
apply to this subpart.
9 419.52 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT%
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR
12S.30-.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 (BPT):
Potlutwil oc pollutmt propwiy
aPTEmuam
LmUDona
Munwn
for any 1
day
Avaram
of oa*r
vaAwafcr
30
nvadaya
mall not
axcMd
Maine unra (Uograma
par 1.000 m* of
8OO ........
Tiea
fftfi
Aimma a
SulHa-__
Total Cnnx
haxavafant
PM
.M
•""
544
373
3880
171
040
234
035
062
0088
n
289
237
198.0
91
0.192
108
0158
048
0032
O
EngUan unrta (pounds
par 1.000 bM of
ROO* .
TSS
COO1 .
Oi and graaaa
p^HOl^ oompOM^It
-il-mal^ I. M
SuffM.
T^ff ^IMy^fM
P"
19.2
132
1380
80
014
8J
0124
029
0029
O
102
84
700
32
0068
38
0058
0.17
0011
(1
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and .
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(1] Size factor.
1.000 MM ai iMoanck par stieam day
Laaa tnan 124 9-
1500 to 174 9 _
ITS 010 199 9-_
Siza factor
073
078
083
091
0.99
104
(2) Process factor.
Prcea»s configuration
laaa tnan 6.-9 .. _
* 5 it 7 40
7 5 to 7 99 _____ —_____...-_. _____
• a m *'a
» S »f 9*
90 «» 9 49
? $ r-. 9 99 , .
in n M in _a
'OS "0 ">99
HO*-. 11-9
11 « M 11 aa
'JO1* '?-»
175 Hf 1790
'3,0 v grt-«r ,.,..„
Proem
(actor
075
082
092
100
1 10
120
130
142
154
168
183
199
117
1M
•SM foamm fettowng tuM n f 419.13(C).
1 Witun ma ranga 6 0 to 9 0.
(3) See the comprehensive example in
Subpart D. S 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The provisions of § 419.12(c) apply
to discharges of process wastewater
pollutants attnbutable to ballast water
by a point source subject to the
provision of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph.
attnbutable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon
concentration not to exceed 5 mg/l.
(e) Effluent Limitations for Runoff—
(Reserved)
§ 419.53 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best available technology economically
achievable (BAT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR
125.30-32, 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 (BAT):
Po-uian or poUulM property
BAT EfRuant
Ufl-rtiflons
Avar-
I «9«o«
I daily
Max*. I
'ar*ar!y i co(v
I day
'0/30
sacutjva
oaya
mail
not
Metnc unrts (kilo-
1 fJOO
COO1 ....
P"-MOfcc compounds i.
AB N __^_
Tool ctVorrauni .
3880
040
234
035
0068
0068
. 1980
0 192
108
3158
I 0032
I 0032
(pound* par
1.000 M* of
COO1 .
Phanoncc
Ammonia aa N.
Sulflda
1380 700
0 14 I 0068
83 | 38
0124| OOS8
029 j 017
0025 0.011
•Saa lootnoia loilOMng laolo « {419 13(C).
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
i.OOO DM ol faadaiock par uroam day I Sfea factor
Laaatnan 1249_
1250 to 1499.
1500 to 1749.
175010 1999. .
200102249 ..__
225 or graaiar
J
1
i
073
078
083
391
099
104
2) Process factor.
Procasa configuration
l.»«t IH»" « 49
8 « It) 7 4B ... .
75 to 799
8 0 to 8 49 „ _ _ _
8 5 to 8 99 _ _ . .
9 O 19 9 40
9 5 to 9 99
ion iif in .a _ _,
io«!q in as _
ii n MI 140 ,
1 1 S to 1 1 99 .__ .__ - - _.._
1701417.9 j
us m 1399
13 Q or great**
Procn.
'actor
0 75
082
092
1 00
1 10
1 20
130
1 42
1 54
1 68
183
1 99
217
228
(3) See the comprehensive example in
Subpart D. S 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The provisions of § 419.13(c) apply
to discharges of process wastewater
pollutants attributable to ballast water
by a point source subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
212
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday. October 18. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 46457
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph.
attributable to once-through i.uoling
water, drc i:\cluderl from the disc-hiirxc
allowed by paragraph (b) of (his section
Once-through cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon
concentration not to evceed 5 mg/l
(e| Effluent Limitdtions for Runoff—
(Reserved)
$ 419.54 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT)—(Reserved)
§ 419.35 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES)
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13 any existing source bubiect to
this subpart which introduces pollutants
into a publicly owned treatment works
must comply with 40 CFR 403 and
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES).
The following standards apply to the
total refinery flow contribution to the
POTW:
Mamc urns (knoo/vm
par 1000 m- ol
raadstock)
BCO5
TSS... . _ .
COO ' . . _._- _
Oil and graaaa . —
Ammona as N .._._. ._
Total cnromum
HaxavalarN cnronmjm .„« .. __. __
pH _ .
416
281
2950
126
234
0.26
064
0052
Engksn
par
221
179
1520
67
107
0 12
037
0024
O
urns (pounds
1000 em ol
•So* foomota following laoM « J 419 I3(cl
•Wrttwi ma ranga 60 to 90
(b) The limits set forth m paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
controlled by this paragraph.
dttnbu table to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section
Once-thruugh cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon
concentration not to exceed 5 mg/l
(e) Effluent Limitations for Runoff—
(Reserved).
§ 419.57 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided m 40 CF$ 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 (PSNS).
(a) The following standards apply to
the total refinery flow contribution to
the POTW:
Polutani or pofluiam prooaty
lor any 1
'Where ma oisenarga to ma POTW oonarra soMy at sou
waters, ma owner or oparator rtas ma option ol comparing
with ma) limn or ma datfy manmum mass Itmtaoon lor
ammonia aat toon « 1419 S3 (al and (b)
§ 419.58 Standards of performance for
new source* (NSPS).
(a) Any new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS):
NSPSaffluarH
Pouutam or poiiuiant propany
Mannum
lor any 1
day
Avwot
oloariy
vakiaaioi
M
t»«day»
sfialnoi
Lass man 6 49
6 S to 7 49
7 5 to 7 99
60108.49 .
• S "0899
9010949 _ . _
9 S V 9 99
100 10 1049 _
105 to 1099 .
1 1 0 to 1 1 49 _
11 51011 99
12 01012 49.. _
12SU 1299 .
13 0 or graatar . .
i
__ . . . .
"" "1
" "1
_. j
. _ _• __]
!
1
. _ . . . .. .. . ..
1
075
082
092
100
1 10
1.20
130
142
154
188
183
199
2.17
i»
(3) See the comprehensive example m
Subpart 0. § 4l9.42(b)(3).
(c) The provisions of § 419.15(c) apply
to discharges of process wastewater
pollutants attnbutable to ballast water
by a point source subject to the
provision of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
par
(mo/l)
On and graaaa _
Ammona (as N)
_ .
100
'100
'Whara ma doenarga to ma POTW consols solely ol sour
waters, me owner or operator has ma option ol comprying
wim tm arm or ma oufy manmum mass tarnation lor
I sal lorn «i f 419 58 (al and (61
(b) The following standard is applied
to the cooling tower discharge part of
the total refinery flow to the POTW by
multiplying: (1) The standards. (2) by the
total refinery flow to the POTW: and (3]
by the ratio of the cooling tower
discharge flow to the total refinery flow
Pravaat-
mam
standards
Bonulam or oonuiam orooany
numntuni
(orany I
aay
(mg/l)
|FH Due. B2-2H0M rih-tf HMJ-Ht b U ami
BILLING CODE 6MO-50-M
213
-------
Tuesday
August 28, 1984
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 419
Petroleum Refining Point Source
Category; Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Pretreatment Standards; Proposed
Regulation
214
-------
34152
Federal Register / Vol. 4P. No. 16*1 / Tuesday. Angus* 28. 1W4 / Pnipoacd Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 419
IOW-Fm.-2606-1|
Petroleum Refining Point Source
Category; Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Pretreatment
Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Proieclion
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed regulation.
SUMMARr EPA proposes modifications
to the regulation which limits effluent
discharges to waters of the United
Slates from facilities engaged in the
refining and processing of petroleum.
EPA agreed to propose these
modifications in a settlement agreement
which resolved the lawsuit brought
Hgninsl EPA by I he N.iturnl Resources
Defense Council. Inc.. challenging the
final petroleum refining regulation
promulgated by EPA on October 18,
1962.
The proposed modifications include:
(1) Amendments to the "best available
technology" (DAT) effluent limitations
for process was/ewater for the
pollutants phenolic compounds, lotal
ch'romium. and hexavalenl chromium:
(2) "best conventional pollutant
technology" (DCT) effluent limitations
for process wRstewaten and (3] "best
practicable technology" (8PTJ. BCT. and
BAT effluent limitations for
contaminated slonn water runoff.
DATE Comments on this proposal must
be submitted on or before September 27.
1984.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Mr.
Dennis Ruddy. Effluent Guidelines
Dnision (WH-552). Environmental
Protection Agpncy. 401 M Street. S.W..
Washington. D.C 20460. Attention: EGD
Docket Ctork. Proposed Petroleum
Refining Rules (WH-552).
The supporting information and all
comments on this proposal will be
available for inspection and copying at
the EPA Public Information Reference
Unit. Room 2922 (EPA Library). The EPA
information regulation provides that a
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Dennis Ruddy. Effluent Guidelines
Division, at (202) 382-7131.
SUPPLEMENTART INFORMATION!
I. Legal Authority
II. Background
A. Pnnr Regulation
B. Challengei (o the Prior Regulation
C Settlement Agreement
111. PropoicO Anen'dmi-nl) la the Celrolrum
Refining Point Source Ciliary
Rrjnilatim
A. Bear Available Trrhi«lo«.|r KFTluenl
(.imitations Guidelines
B. Best Conventional Pollutant Technology
Effluent Limitations
C Effluent Limitalioni Cuidulinct for
Contaminated Sturm Water Runoff
IV. Cntirofimental Impact of the Proposed
Modifications to the Petroleum Refining
Industry Regulation
V. Solicitation of Comment*
VI Executive Order 1291
VIL Regulatory Flexibility Analyst*
VUl/OMB Review
IX Litt of Subjects: 40 CFR Part 41«
I. Legal Authority
The amendments to the regulation
described in this notice are proposed
under the authority of sections 301. 304.
307. 308. and 501 of the Clean'Waler Act
(the Federal-Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972. 33 U.S.C 1251. et
scq.. as amended by the Clean Water
Act of 1977. Pub. L. 92517). These
changes are also proposed in response
to the Settlement Agreement in Natural
Resources Defense Council. lac. v.
Environmental Protection Agency. No.
83-1122 (D.C Or.).
II. Background
A. Prior Regulation
On October 13.1992. EPA published
final effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for the petroleum refining
point source category. That regulation
provided Final effluent limitations for
"best available technology economically
achievable" (BAT) and established final
pretreatmenl standards for existing
sources (PSES) and for new sources
(PSNS). The Agency retained ils
previously promulgated "new source
performance standards" (NSPS) and
also did not modify its effluent
limitations guidelines for "best
practicable control technology currently
available" (BPT). The Agency reserved
coverage of "best conventional pollutant
control technology" (BCT] effluent
limitations guidelines. The pieamble to
the final regulation describes the history
of (he rulemakmg. 47 FR 46434.
B. Challenges to the Prior Regulation
The Natural Resources Defense
Council. Inc. ("NRDC"] filed a petition
to review the final petroleum refining
regulation. Natural Resources Defense
Council. Inc. v. Environmental
Protection Agency. No. 83-1122 (D.C
Cir). The American Petroleum Institute
("API") and seven individual oiJ
companies (hereinafter referred to as
"Intervenes") intervened in the
litigation.
C Settlement Agreement
On April 17,19«. EPA. NRDC. API
antl all other inlerveners to the liiignlinn
entered into a comprehensive
Settlement Agreement which resoKed
all of the issues raised by the petitioner
and all intervene™. In the Settlement
Agreement. EPA agreed (o publish a
notice of proposed rulemaking and lo
solicit comments regarding certain
modifications to the final petroleum
refining BAT effluent limitations
guidelines. In addition. EPA agreed to
propose BCT effluent limitations
guidelines for four conventional
pollutants and BPT. BAT and BCT
effluent limitations guidelines for
contaminated storm water runoff.
Petitioner NRDC agreed that if EPA
takes final action pursuant to and
consistent with the Settlement
Agreement thai i( •Mill dismiss ils
tatvsuit challenging (he final petroleum
refining regulation.
As part of the Settlement Agreement.
the parties agreed to seek a judicial stay
of the regulatory provisions to be
modified. On July 24.1984 the Co-jrt
entered a stay of the effluent limitations
for phenolic compounds, total chromium
and hexavalent chromium for the
following portions of the regulation
pending the rulemaking- 40 CFR
419.13(3]. 419.23(aJ. 41933(a). 41943(a).
and 419.S3(a).
III. Proposed Amendments lo the
Petroleum Refining Point Source
Category Regulation
The following are the changes lo the
petroleum industry regulation that EPA
is»proposmg:
A. Best Available Technology Effluent
Limitations Guidelines
On October 18. 1982 EPA published
final effluent limitations gUidelinn for
best available technology economical!)
achievable (BAT) and final pretrea'ment
standards for existing sources [PSES!
and for new sources |PSNS) fur the
petroleum refining industry 47 PR 46434
The Natural Resources Defense Council
("NDRC") filed a petition to review the
October 18. 1982 regulation in the United
Slates Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit. The American
Petroleum Institute (API) and seven
companies which own and operate
petroleum refineries intervened in that
proceeding. A number of issues were
raised in settlement discussions among
the parties in the lawsuit pertaining lo
the BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
After extensive discussions, the
petitioner, inlerveners and EPA entered
a Settlement Agreement, which provides
for specified revisions lo the BAT
215
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 100 / Tuesday, August 28. 1004 / Proposed Rules
34153
effluent limitations gnldrllnns. Those
revision* are set forth In today's
proposal.
In October 1982 EPA promulgated
BAT effluent limitations for the
following pollutants: (1) Non-
conventional pollutants: chemical
oxygen demand (COO), phenolic
compounds (4AAP). ammonia (as N) and
sulfide: and (2) toxic pollutants: total
chromium and hexavalent chromium.
The model technology for these
regulations was flow equalization, initial
oil and solids removal, advanced oil and
solids removal, biological treatment and
nitration or other final "polishing steps."
The Agency is now proposing to
amend the BAT effluent limitations
guidelines for total chromium.
hexavalent chromium and phenolic
compounds (4AAPJ. EPA is proposing to
add flow reduction to (he model
treatment technology for the BAT
effluent limitations guidelines and to
base I he effluent limitations for each of
these three pollutants on a more recent
data base, rather than the one it relied
upon in the October ia 1982 BAT
promulgation. That rulemaking utilized
the same data base used by the Agency
when it established best practicable
control technology currently available
(OPT) effluent limitation guidelines for
the petroleum refining point source
category. BPT level of control for this
industry was promulgated on May 9.
1974 (39 FR 16360) and subsequently
amended on May 20. 1975 (40 FR 21939).
The BAT effluent limitation guidelines
for other pollutants would remain
unchanged.
The BAT effluent limitations
guidelines for total chromium being
proposed today are based upon the
revised 1979 flow model developed by
the Agencf )o predict refinery flows.
rather than the BPT 1974 flow model
used in the October 1982 BAT
promulgation. The effbent limitations
for total chromium proposed today were
derived by applying this updated flow
model to concentrations for total
chromium observed from plant sampling
in 1978-1977.
BAT effluent limitations guidelines for
hcxavelenl chromium and phenolic
compounds being proposed today were
dmved using the 1982 Development
Document concentrations and the
revised 1979 flow model to more
arcurately represent effluent reductions
for Iheie pollutants which the Industry
was generally achieving in 1979 or could
technologically was generally achieving
in 1979 or could technologically achieve
by the final BAT compliance dale. BAT
for hexavalent chromium being
proposed today is based upon Option 7
(discharge flow reduction of 37.5 percent
from the revised 1079 model flow). BAT
for phenolic compounds (4AAP) being
proposed today is based upon option 8
(a reduction of 20 percent from the
revised 1979 model flow).
Under today's proposal the BAT
effluent limitations guidelines for each
of these there pollutants would be
substantially more stringent than the
BAT effluent limitations guidelines
promulgated in 1982. The total allowable
discharge of total chromium to the
nation's navigable waters would be
reduced by approximately 288.000
pounds per year, a 86% annual reduction
beyond discharge levels allowable
under the existing BAT effluent
limitations guidelines: the total
allowable discharge of hexavalent
chromium would be reduced by
approximately 19.300 pounds per year, a
56*3 annual reduction beyond discharge
levels allowable under existing BAT: the
total allowable discharge of phenolic
compounds (4AAP). would be reduced
by approximately 75.000 pounds per
year, a 43% annual reduction beyond
discharge levels allowable under
existing BAT. These reductions are
based on data in the Agency's refined
BAT model. The refined flow model la
included in the record for this
rulemaking proposal in a report entitled
"Petroleum Refining Industry,
Refinements to 1979 Proposed Flow
Model."
EPA believes (hat approximately one
half of refineries which directly
discharge pollutants to navigable waters
already are complying with the effluent
limitations being proposed today.
Further. EPA believes that these effluent
limitations are economically'achiovabie
for the industry.
In the preamble to the October 18.
1982 promulgated regulations for this
industry. EPA estimated that capital
costs of S112 million and S37 million
(1979 dollars) In annualized costs would
be required in order for petroleum
refiners to comply with option 7. one of
the BAT control treatment options
considered by the Agency (47 FR 46438).
Likewise. EPA estimated that capital
costs of $77 million and annualized
costs of S23 million (1979J dollars would
be required in order for petroleum
refiners to comply with option 8. another
of the OAT control treatment options
considered by the Agency (47 FR 46438).-
The revised limitations being
proposed today for phenolic compounds.
hexavalent chromium and total
chromium are not based on either option
7 or option 8 alone. The effluent
limitations for phenolic compounds are
based upon option 8. The effluent
limitations for hexavalent chromium are
based upon option 7 The effluent
limitations for total chromium, while
somewhat more stringent than the BPT
effluent limitations for total chromium.
are less stringent than those bascH upon
option 8.
The Agency has reevaluated the costs
of compliance for today's proposed
changes to the BAT effluent limitations
and estimates that the total industry
costs of compliance would not exceed
those previously calculated for option 8.
EPA estimates that no more than 81
petroleum refineries will have to incur
aggregate capital costs no greater than
S77 million and annualized costs no
greater than $25 million (1979 dollars).
These costs translate to an average
increase of no greater than one half cent
per gaHon of refinery product. No
refinery closures are anticipated by the
Agency. Refinery capacity and
consumption would remain unaffected.
Given these factors, the Agency believes
that its earlier heavy reliance on costs
as the basis for rejecting more stringent
effluent controls in this industry was
inappropriate, and thai the effluent
limitations guidelines for total
chromium, hexavalent chromium and
phenolic compounds (4AAP) being
proposed today, rather than the effluent
limitations guidelines promulgated in
1982. are appropriate for this industry as
the BAT level of control The revised
proposed BAT numerical limitations are
contained in the proposed regulation.
8. Best Conventional Pollutant
Technology Effluent Limitations
Guidelines
As part of the Settlement Agreement
EPA agreed to propose best
conventional pollutant control
technology ("BCT") effluent limitations
guidelines for the petroleum refining
industry. The 1977 Amendments to the
Clean Water Act ("CWA") added
section 301(b)(2)(E) of the Act
establishing BCT for discharge of
conventional pollutants from existing
industrial point sources. Conventional
pollutants are those defined in Section
304(a](4) (biochemical oxygen -
demanding pollutants (BOD») total
suspended solids (TSS). fecal coliform
and pK|. and any additional pollutants
defined by the Administrator as
"conventional". The Administrator
designated oil and grease as a
conventional pollutant on July 30.1979.
44 FR 44501.
BCT is not an additional limitation t>ul
replaces OAT for the control of
conventional pollutants. In addition to
other factors specified in section
304(b)(4)(B) the Act requires the BCT
limitations be assessed in light of a two
part "cost reasonableness" test.
216
-------
34154
Federal Register / Vol 49. No. 108 / Tuusdny, August 21T. 19H4 / Proposed Rules
Amencnn Paper Institute v. Ef'A. 600
FZd954 (4(h Cic. 1861]. The first lcs<
compares the COB! Tor private industry lo
reduce its conventional pollulanli with
the coats to publicly owned treatment
works for similar levels of reduction in
their discharge of these pollutants. The
second lest examines the cost-
effectiveness of additional industrial
treatment beyond best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT). EI'A must find that limitations are
"reasonable" under both tests before
establishing them as BCT. In no case
may BCT be less stringent than BPT.
EPA published a proposed SCT
methodology oo October 29.1982. (47 FR
49176V This proposed BCT methodology
explains the details of the two part cost-
reasonableness test Le., the "POTW
lest" and ihe "industry cosl test".
Today's proposed BCT effluent
limitation* guidelines for the petroleum
refuting industry are based on tbe
proposed BCT irelhodolosy. EPA is
proposing that BCT be set equal to BPT
For the petroleum refining industry.
EP*i considered two levels of
technology for incremental control
beyond BPT of total suspended solid*
(TSS} and oil and grease. These -
technology levels are recycle/reuse and
recycle/reuse followed by granular
media filtration. These technologies an
already in use at certain sites in the
petroleum refining industry. These
technologies were selected as candidate
BCT technologies because the Agency
believes they represent the first levels of
contraf beyond BPT which could effect
reduction! in conventional pollutant
loading* in this industry. Filtration alone'
was not selected aa a candidate BCT
technology because it ii one of the
existing BPT treatment technologies.
However, the Agency decided lo
consider the combination of recycle/
reuse plus filtration as a candidate BCT
technology. This is because the
decreased hydraulic loading resulting
from recycle/reuse results in the need
for smaller and loss costly filtration
equipment than that included m the BPT
treatment model The BCT cost test wa*
Ihen performed on the combination of
recvde/reuse and filtration as a double-
check on the effects of the less costly
filtration Hep.
In order lo determine « hcf her these
candidate technologies are "cost-
reasonable". EPA developed one model
plant representative of a typical plan! in
each of the five BPT subcalegorica. The
five BPT lubcalPgories are:
A—Topping
B—Cracking
C— Petrochemical
D—Lube
C—Integrated
Then EPA calculated the incremental
[beyond BPT] conventional pollutant
removals and the incremental costi
associated with these technologies Tor
each model plant. Based oo this
information, cosl-per-pound ratios were
calculated for each of the fi\e BPT
sub categories.
EPA evaluated reductions in total
•uapended solids (TSSf. biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD,}, and oil and
grease for each of these technology
levels. However, oil and grease was not
considered For the BCT calculations for
recyde/retise for this industry.
Additionally. BOD* was not considered
for the BCT'calculations for filtration for
this industry. This is in accordance with
the proposed BCT methodology in order
to avoid "doable counting1* of the
amount of pollutants removed by a
candidate BCT technology.
The recycle/reuse technology option
identified lor BCT was evaluated in ihe
range of tnrrn 20 to 40 percent reduction
in discharge flow. The cost per pound
ranges from $41.00 to 50.77 (1977 dollars]
in the Erst part of the proposed BCT cost
reasonableness test fihe "POTW test"].
Accordingly, the Agency found that (he
addition of recycle/reuse technology
fails the first part of the proposed BCT
cost reasonableness test in all five
subcategories (S0.30 per pound in 1977
dollars].
The Agency also found that the
addition of recycle/reuse plus filtration
fails the first part of the proposed BCT
cost reasonableness test in all Gve
cubcategoriea. The recycle/reuse portion
of this option was evaluated in the range
of from 20 to 40 percent reduction in
discharge flow. The cost per pound [J977 •
dollars) ranges from S21.00 to S0.53.
compared to Ihe benchmark of SO_3C per
pound (1977 dollars].
Therefore, the Agency is proposing
(hat BCT be set equal to BPT for the five
subcategories in this industry.
A more complete discussion of ihe
selection of the candidate BCT
technologies, the details of the first part
of the proposed BCT cost
reasonableness lest ("POTW lest").
and the basis for decision on this
proposal are contained in the
administrative record of this rulcmnkmg,
C. Effluent Limitations Cuidriines for
Contaminated Storm Water Runoff
In Ihe October 18.1982 rulemukmg the
Agency withdrew storm water effluent
limitations guidelines for BPT. BAT and
NSPS. because they were remanded by
the U.S. Court of Appeals in American
Petrvlevai Institute v. ETA. 540 K-2d 1023
(10th Cir. 1978).
Since that remand there has been
some confusion an the pert of permit
writers and others aa lo whether storm
water runoff ("runoff") effluent
limitations should be contained in
permits. There are two kinds of such
runoff. Le. contaminated and
uncontaounated. The purpose of this •
rolemsking is to establish'BPT. BCT and
BAT effluent limitations guidelines for
contaminated storm water runoff. These
proposed contaminated runoff effluent
limitations would be included in
petroleum refinery permits in addihon lo
process wastewaler effluent limitations.
NSPS for contaminated runoff is being
reserved for future rulemaking.
In today's proposal EPA is defining
contaminated runoff, for purposes of
these regulations only, to be runoff
hhich comes Into contact with any raw
material, intermediate product, finished
product, by-product or waste product
located on petrdeum refinery property.
Arty other storm water me off at a
refinery ts considered uncontaminated.
In today's proposal. EPA also is
proposing to amend the definition of the
term "runoff" currently found in 40 CFR
419.11/bJ to deanfy that i! means Ihe
flow of jlorm water resulting from
precipitation coming into con lad with ,
petroleum refinery properly.
Contaminated runoff constitutes an
additional source of pollution M hich
must be managed during periods of
precipitation along with process
wastewaler from refinery operations.
The regulations being proposed today
do nol establish numerical effluent
limitations for uncoatarmnaled runoff.
Effluent limitations, including but not
limited lo aHoca lions, for
unconiaminaled runoff may be
established by the permit writer based
on his/her best professional judgment.
The Agency believes that the best
practicable control technology currently
available. Ihe best conventional
pollutant control technology and the
best available technology economically
achievable for treatment of
contaminated runoff are the same as the
technologies identified /or treatment of
process wastewaler. The Agency has
not identified any feasible technologies
capable of achieving pollutant
reductions for contaminated runoff from
rpfinenes to any greater degree than
those which are achievable by the
process wastewaler treatment Facility.
The Agency believes that the
conventional pollutant oil and grease
and Ihe nonconventional pollutant
parameter total organic carbon (TOG)
are appropriate measures to determine
whether pollutant loadings in
contaminated runoff would be
217
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. IBS / Tuesday. August Zfl. 1984 / Proposed Rules
34155
measurably reduced l>y the mortal
tree Intent technologies used to develop
these proposed regulations. Under
today's proposal for OPT. wastewatcr
consisting solely of contaminated runoff
ma> be discharged directly without
trea'ment if it does not exceed IS mg/l
oil and grease and 110 mg/l TOG. based
upon an analysis of any single grab or
composite sample. Under today's
proposal for BCT. wastewater consisting
solely of contaminated runoff may be
discharged directly without treatment if
it does not exceed 15 mg/l oil and grease
and under today's proposal for BAT.
wastewater consisting solely of
contaminated runoff may be discharged
directly without treatment if it does not
exceed 110 mg/l TOG If contaminated
runoff (whether or not it exceeds 15 ing/
I oil and grease or 110 mg/l TOQ is
commingled or treated with process
wastewater. or if wastewater consisting
solely of contaminated runoff which
exceeds 15 mg/I oil and grease or 110
mg/l TOC is not commingled or treated
with any other type of wastewater. then
such runoff would be subject to the
alternative BPT/BCT/BAT effluent
limitations guidelines for contaminated
runoff being proposed today, as'
appropriate. These oil and grease and
TOC numerical effluent limitations are
based on the concentrations expected
from the properly designed and operated
modpl treatment facilities.
The effluent limitations guidelines in
today's BIT proposal for contaminated
runoff are based on the same
concentrations and variability factors
used to develop the Agency's existing
BPT process wastewater effluent
limitations guidelines.
Today's BAT proposal for
contaminated runoff Is baaed upon the
samp concentrations and variability
factors used to develop the Agency's
existing BAT process wastewater
effluent limitations guidelines, except
those for total chromium, which are
based upon the same concentrations
and variability factors used for today's
proposed BAT effluent limitations
guidelines for process wastevtaler.
Today's proposed BAT effluent
guidelines for phenolic compounds
(4AAP) for contaminated runoff are
basrd on the same concentrations used
for today's existing BAT effluent
limitations guidelines for process
wastewater and the same variability
factors used for (he Agency's existing
BAT effluent limitations guidelines. EPA
has determined that this approach is
appropriate in this proposal because of
the specifics ol each data base available
to the Agency. If EPA used the
variability factors from today's
proposrd BAT o(DiK>af limitation*
guideline*, less stringent BAT
contaminated runoff numerical effluent
limitations for phenolic compounds
(4AAP) would be derived than under
today's proposed BPT contaminated
runoff numerical effluent limitations for
phenolic compounds (4AAP). The more
stringent effluent limitations clearly are
achievable and as a matter of law BAT
cannot be less stringent than BPT.
Today's BCT proposal for
contaminated runoff Is based on the
same concentrations and variability
factors used for today's proposed BCT
process wastewater effluent limitations
guidelines.
The Agency believes that the costs
attributable to today's proposal will be
minimal, while providing for reductions
in refinery pollutant discharges. This is
because the Agency believes the
industry*as a whole already is (a)
treating contaminated runoff with
process wastewater or (b) is discharging
contaminated runoff below today's
proposed threshold for treatment This
proposal does not cover contaminated
runoff which is commingled with non-
process wastewater streams. EPA
believes that such instances are
infrequent and accordingly, they are left
to the permit wnter's discretion.
Unlike the effluent limitations
guidelines for process wastewater for
this industry which are mass-based.
today's proposed effluent limitations
guidelines for contaminated runoff are
concentration-based. This is because
storm water volumes are not related to
any measurement of refinery production.
However, under today's proposal permit
effluent limitations for contaminated
runoff are to be established on a ma si
basis. The mass-based effluent
limitations for each regulated pollutant
for contaminated runoff in a petroleum
refining permit are the product of (1J the
respective effluent guideline
concentration for thai pollutant: and (2)
the measured or calculated
contaminated runoff volume.
Under today's proposal permit writers
are given flexibility in determining
refinery storm water volumes on a case
by case basis. The following factors are
among those appropriate for permit
writers to consider in determining what
contaminated runoff volume to use in
calculating mass-based effluent
limitations for refinery permits- (a)
Measured difference between dry
weather and wet weather discharge
flow from the treatment facility where
contaminated runoff is the only runoff
present in the treatment facility: and (b)
volume of contaminated runoff water
calculated from the product of (1)
measurement of land area where
precipitation would become
contaminated, and (2| an historical
measure of precipitation for the
particular refinery location.
Once the mass based effluent
limitation Is derived, it may be
incorporated into a refinery permit in
one of three ways. Trie proper choice
depends on site-specific factors, such as
local rainfall patterns and the design of
runoff holding facilities.
The first method is a continuous
allocation. This presents the problem of
providing an allocation wheano runoff
is present and is appropriate only where
precipitation patterns are relatively
constant through the year or when
holding facilities are used to bleed
runoff into the treatment facility over
most or aD of the year. The second
method Is a variable allocation based on
measurement or calculation of actual
contaminated runoff volume. While this
is the most ideal method, it may present
compliance measurement and
enforcement complexities. The third
method is dual wet weather/dry
weather limitations triggered by either
time of year, precipitation events, or
actual contaminated runoff volume. The
method of determining contaminated
runoff volume used to calculate the
effluent limitations will vary dependin
on the method used and the design of
any runoff holding facilities. Therefore.
it is left to the permit wnter to select an
appropriate method under today's
proposal.
These proposed regulations do not
address uncontaminated runoff which is
discharged through the process
wastewater treatment facility. This is
because the Agency believes that
introducing uncontaminated runoff to
the process wastewater treatment
system may result in the discharge of an
increased mass of pollutants to the
environment compared to the mass of
pollutants discharged if no
uncontaminated runoff were present in
the process wastewater treatment
system. Therefore, the Agency does not
want to encourage this practice on a
national basis.
In the case of BPT. the effluent
limitations guidelines being proposed
today are for the following pollutants:
(1) contentional pollutants total
suspended solids (TSS1. oil and grease.
five-day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOOs) and pH: (2) nonconventional
pollutants phenolic compounds (4AAP).
chemical oxygen demand (COD) and
total organic carbon (TOC}: and (3) to*
pollutants total chromium and
hexavalent chromium. In the case of
BAT. the effluent limitations guidelines
218
-------
34156
Federal Rogi5ter / Vol. 49. No. IPO / Tuesday. August 28. 1904 / Proposed Rules
being proposed today are for (1)
N'onconvenlional pollutants phenolic
compounds (4AAP). chemical o\\gen
drnidnd (COO) and lul.il orgnmc c.irbon
(TOC): and (2) toxic pollutants told!
chromium and hexavalent chromium. In
the case of BCT. (he effluent limitations
guidelines being proposed today are for
the conventional pollutants TSS. oil and
grease. BOD* and pH. In (he case of
COO. there may be instances where
extremely high chloride levels (greater
than 1.000 mg/l) will interfere with the
COO analytical method. In this event.
the Agency believes that TOC is an
acceptable substitute parameter for
COO. A TOC limitation shall be based
upon effluent data from the particular
refinery which correlates TOC to DOD*.
Where adequate correlation data are not
available, the permitting authority may
establish a TOC limitation on a ratio of
2.2 to 1 to the applicable DPT /BCT
effluent limitations for BOD». This ratio
is based upon effluent data analyzed by
the Agency.
No effluent limitations guidelines for
contaminated runoff are being proposed
for the nonconventional pollutants
ammonia (as N] and sulfide regulated
under existing BPT and BAT levels of
control.
fV. Environmental Impact of the
Proposed Modifications to (ha Petroleum
Refining Industry Regulation
ETA's estimates of the reduction in
industry-wide direct discharges of
phenolic compounds, hexdvalent
chromium, and total chromium for
process wastewater Iron those allowed
under the final petroleum industry
regulation to (hose allowed by this
proposed modification arc presented
below.
REDUCTIONS m ALLOW >BUE
**<(•«
ToMcfMMI _ .
Ptww* oconrai
»«•*»
ten
»S 000
19300
75000
V. Solicitation of Comments
EPA invites public participation in
this nilemakmg and requests comments
on the proposals discussed or set out in
this notice. The Agency asks that any
deficiencies in the record of this
proposal he pointed to with specificity
and that suggested revisions or
corrections be supported by data.
VI. Executive Order 12291
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to ihe
requirement of a Rigulalory Impact
Analysis. This proposed regulation is
not major because it does not fall within
the'criteria for major-regulations
established in Executive Order 12291
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 5
U.S.C. 601 el seq.. EPA must prepare a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for all
proposed regulations that have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The Agency
does not believe that today's proposed
amendments will have a significant
impact on any segment of Ihe petroleum
refining industry, large or small. The
Agency Is not. therefore, preparing a
formal analysis for this regulation.
Vin. OMB Review
This regulation wds submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review aa required by Executive Order
12291.
IX. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 419
Petroleum. Water pollution control
Wastewater treatment and disposal.
Dated: August 13. 1984.
William O. Ruckelibaua.
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble. EPA is proposing to amend 40
CFR Part 419 as follows:
PART 419—{AMENDED!
1. The authority citation for Part 419
continues to read as follows:
Aulfaonly: Sees. 301. 304 (b). (c). (e). and
la I. 306 (b) and (c). 30r |b| and (c). 308. and
SOU Federal Water Pollution Control Act ai
amended (ihe Act). 33 U S C 1311. 1314 (b|.
(r). («). and (3). 1316 (b) and (c) 1317 |b) and
(c). 13ia and 1361: 96 Stal. 816. Pub. L 92-
500: 91 Slat. 1567. Pub L 95-217.
2. Section 419.11 is amended by
revising paragraph (b| and adding
paragraph fg) to read as follows:
i 419.11 Specialized definition*.
(l)J The term "runoff" shall menn (he
flow of storm water resulting from
precipitation coming into contact with
petroleum refinery property.
foj The term "contaminated runoff
shall mean runoff which corner into
contact with any raw material.
intermediate product, finished product.
by product or waste product located on
petroleum refinery property.
3 Sections 419.12. 419.22.41932.
41? 42. an-! 119 52 are amended by
removing the paragraph heading and the
word "reserved" in paragraph (e) and
adding the following text:
J 419.— Effluent [Imitations guideline*
representing th* degraa of affluent
reduction attainable by the application of
th« best practicable control technology
currvntty available (BPT).
• • • i •
(e) Effluent Limitations for
Contaminated Runoff.
The following effluent limitations
constitute the quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph and
attributable to contaminated runoff.
which may be discharged after the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
by a point source subject to this subparl.
(1) If wastewater consists solely of
contaminated runoff and is not
commingled or trea'ed with process
wastewater. it may be discharged if il
does not exceed 15 mg/l oil and grease
and 110 mg/I total organic carbon (TOC)
based upon an analysis of any single
grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is
commingled or treated with process
wastewaler. or if wastewater consisting
solely of contaminated runoff which
exceeds 15 mg/l oil and grease or 110
mg/l TOC is not commingled or treated
with any other type of waslewater. the
quantity of pollutants discharged shall
not exceed the quantity determined by
multiplying the flow of contaminated
runoff as determined by the permit
writer times the concentrations listed in
Ihe following table:
uwxvti IB
•nr i a*
unc inn f>i o)
900..
TSS
COO«
CX ind ?>•«• .
18.
33.
360
IS
03J
on
OOftJ
(M
»
21
190
I
017
043
oon
(')
i OOO guom * 1*7.1
PCX* .*
CCO1 _ .„.-„_.. _„_
OJO
OH
10
013
00071
OOOM
aooosj
I'l
022
oia
tl
0067
00014
OOOM
090073
I'l
219
-------
Fed oral Rcgistnr / Vol. 49. No. 108 / Tuesday, August 25. 1984 / Propo«ed Rules
34157
'UC a SCO. * « •« tngmrxt ai am
'OC
•DM. n» *rnu«a1 (1000 oant. »>• uxmronu wiMxiiif mir
TCC n • aw«i* « k~ of COO. A roc «nw«
n • aw«i*
«>•( a* ou*d an vtu** 3*1*
CDffMia rOC a 9OOS. I
v •> (powvn per
1 OOC 00" c- t*MUec»l
Umc
1.008
oi «o»1
0.3S
air
6. Sections 41913. 419 23. 419 33. and
419.53 are amended by adding a new
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
{419.— Effluent limitations guideline*
representing trie degree of affluent
reduction attainable by the application of
!ne best available technology economically
achievable (BAT).
(c)(l) In addition to the provisions
contained above pertaining to COO.
ammonia and sulfide any existing point
source subject- to this subpart must
achieve the following effuent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best available technology
economically achievable (OAT):
For each of the regulated pollutant
parameters listed below, (he effluent
limitation for a gi\en refinery is the sum
of the products of each effluent.
limitation factor times the applicable
refinery process feedstock rate.
calculated as provided in 40 CFR
122-4S(b). Applicable production
processes are presented in Appendix A.
hy process l>pe. The process
identification numbers presented in ihis
Appendix A are for the con\emence of
the reader. They can be cross-referenced
in the Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines. Xew
Source Performance Standards, and
Pretrectment Standards for the
Petroleum Refining Point Source
Category (EPA 440/1-82/014). Table UI-
7. pp. 49-54.
(2) See the comprehensive example in
Subpart 0. S 419.43(c](2).
7. Section 419.43 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
{419.43 Effluent limitation guideline*
representing tne degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the b«*t available technology economically
achievable (BAT).
In addition to the provisions
contained above pertaining to COO.
ammonia and sulfide 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
IBAT):
For each of the regulated pollutant
parameters listed below, the effluent
limitation for a given refinery Is the sum
of the products of each effluent
limitation factor time* the applicable
220
-------
34158
Federal Register / Vol. 4«O3C)MSI->
8. Section 419.14 is revised to read as
follows:
5419.14 Affluent nmnattoru guMedne*
representing tne degree of effluent
reduction attainable by me •ppdcetton of
tne best conventional pollutant control
technology (8CT%
(a) 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 conventional pollutant
control technology"(BCTJ:
BCT
x
1 OOP m» d iniannH
TSS
01 4n) gran
*M
ISO
ao
(•»
101
rr
(•I
BOO...
OtOTll
2.9
I'l
42S
(•»
• WMMi tw ran«* ol 10 M ( 0.
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following-factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
100 a 124 • —
12S00 1<9*_ .
iSOOor (
i e>
to>
,' M
(2) Process factor.
l«n fw 2 40_
3 S 10 4 49
SSHSN.
I0k>«4*_
7SWI9I
total*
»0»»4»1Z
«» io.3atoo9-
iu«u«.
140«rgrwMr
Otl
007
OM
107
1 17
127
139
Ml
1*4
I 79
1*S
212
231
ZM
324
3S3
3*4
• 10
'M
(3) See the comprehensive example In
Subpart D. S 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The following allocations
constitute the quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph and
attributable to ballast which may be
discharged after the application of best
conventional pollutant control
technology by a point source subject to
this subpart. in addition to the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
The allocation allowed for ballast water
flow, as kg/cu m (lb/1000 gal), shall be
based on those ballast waters treated at
the refinery.
UOTK MM (Woor««ni C—
o« »m aum.
ON
0033
001S
002*
0021
owe
ri
t 000 9* « "0
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 108 / Tuesday. August 20. 1984 / Proposed Rules
34159
polhilnnl properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to
contaminated runoff which may be
discharged after the application of the
best conventional pollutant control
technology by a point source subject to
this subpart.
(1) If waslewater consists solely of
contaminated runoff and is not
commingled or treated with process
wastewater. it may be discharged if it
does not exceed IS mg/l oil and grease
based upon an analysis of any single
grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is
commingled or treated with process
wastewater. or if wastewater consisting
solely of contaminated runoff which
exceeds IS mg/l oil and grease is not
commingled or treated with any other
type of wastewater. the quantity of
pollutants discharged shall not exceed
the quantity determined by multiplying
the flow of contaminated runoff as
determined by the permit writer times
the concentrations listed in the
following table:
TSS
oim<
14
PI
21.
&
PI
IWVA
TS«
040
OL20
019
11
o_a
0.10
0407
Pi
• WWW t* nrg* 8.0 a OA
9. Section 419.24 a revised to read aa
follows:
1419.24 Effluent BmKaMona 1
repreeenttng tfw degree of •ffluent
reduction attainable by tfie appOeaeon of
me beat conventional pollutant control
technology (8CTV
(a) 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 conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT):
SCTi
t.000m'<*
01M(
2U
10 9
14
PI
ISO
PI
•m
TIM
™ * -
• t
10
10
PI
is
44
1jt
PI
1 WWM 0» one* Of U » 00.
(b) The limits let forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
WO «• 740.
790*000.
toed*
129.0 « 1400.
iSOLOoramM
091
000
1O4
II]
121
1.39
141
CM (2J Process factor.
00«040_
0Jar am*
0.90
OOS
074
000
100
100
110
1.20
141
153
107
102
140
(3) See the comprehensive example in
Subpart D. | 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The provisions of j 419.14(c) apply
to discharges of process wastewater
pollutants attributable to ballast water
by a point source subject to the
provisions of this subpart
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph.
attributable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) Effluent Limitations for
Contaminated Runoff.
The following effluent limitations
constitute the quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph and
attributable to contaminated runoff
which may be discharged after the
application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology by a point
source subject to this subpart
(1) If wastewater consists solely of
contaminated runoff and ia not
commingled or treated with process
wastewater. it may be discharged if it
does not exceed 15 mg/l oil and grease
based upon an analysis of any single
grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff Is
commingled of treated with process
wastewater. or if wastewater consisting
solely of contaminated runoff which
exceeds IS mg/l oil and grease Is not
commingled or treated with any other
type of wastewater. the quantity of
pollutants discharged shall not exceed
the quantity determined by multiplying
the flow of contaminated runoff as
determined by the permit writer times
the concentrations listed in the
following table:
1.000 «
Oi«r«»<
PM
19.
PI
28.
21.
p>
anrvji
T««
040
O2S
013
PI
033
010
0087
PI
< W«Mt 0« rang* 84 » UL
10. Section 419.34 Is revised to read as
follows:
I419J4 Effluent Umnattorta guidellnM
reprvMnting tn« degree ol offluent
reduction attainable by tn« appHcatton of
me best conventional poHutant control
technology (BCT).
(a) 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 conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT]:
222
-------
34160
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 188 / Tuesday. August 28. 3904 / Proposed Rules
CM andi
11.1
PI
IS/4
P»
Oland
PM
U.1
U
It
PI
tt
us
C.1
PI
tn ir»» cl S.Q « n
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are To be multiplied by
the following factors lo calculate the
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive day*.
(1) Sin factor.
1.000
90JOB74
7»o«a«
1000 » 1349-
ISOOori
door
on
OTS
ago
090
too
us
(2) Process factor.
» S • S 90_
ao««,49_
TOMT40.
M»J»»9_
94 W,
OTS
000
091
090
100
I IT
170
1J9
i.n
(3) See the comprehensive example m
Subpart 0. i 419.42(b](3).
(c) The provisions of I 419.14(c)
to discharges of process wastewater
pollutants attributable to ballast water
by a point source subject U» the
provisions of this subparL
(dJ.Tbe quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph.
attributable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
(c) Effluent Limitations for
Contaminated Runoff.
The following effluent limitations
constitute the quantity an.J quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this, paragraph and
attnbntaUe to contaminated runoff
which may be discharged after the
application of (he best conventional
pollutant control technology by a point
source subject to this subpart
(1) If wastewater consists sojery of
contaminated ninofTaiui is not
commingled or treated with process
wastewater. it may be discharged if it
does not exceed 15 mg/l oil and grease
based upon an analysis of any single
gnb or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is
commingled or treated with process
wastewater. or if wastewater consisting
solely of contaminated runoff which
exceeds 15 mg/l oil and grease is not
commingled q* treated with any other
type of wastewater. the quantity of
pollutants discharged shall not exceed
the quantity determined by multiplying
the flow of contaminated runoff as
determined by the permit writer times
the concentrations listed in the
following table?
19.
PI
29L
n.
PI
1.000,
OiUHH
on
I'l
0087
PI
• OM90L
11. Section 419.44 is revised to read as
follow*:
1 419^*4 ErBtMni imttabona gufataOna
in* d«gro« of •muant
rojduetlan «ltain«M« by trw appQcatlon el
ttM best convojnflonal peflutant control
tccftnology (BCT).
(a) Any existing point source fubfect
to (his subpart must achieve ihe
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best conrentional pollutant
control technology (BCT):
art
1.000 m> at
TSS.
Oi and,
•9B.S
AS
Z5J
33.1
IS
1.000 UCt a* I
•m,
•m •
p*i
ITS
u>a
17
0
01
10
3.0
n
• of eoiaa.0.
(b) The limit* vet forth m paragraph
(a) of this aection are to be muhrpled by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values Cor
thirty consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1000
rso»Mj
20PJO«I
on
011
ou
09T
109
I 14
1 19
P* (2) Process factor.
L«Ml
I0««4*_
ISM «.*9_
•90«04«.
9SM*9»_
10S«> 1099.
11510 ll^ol
119 MUM.
laoararwav
091
OH
100
in
I 19
141
1M
I SB
JH
194
2<4
(c) The provisions of S 419.14(c) apply
to discharges of process w«»tewater
pollutants attributable to ballast w«ier
by a point source subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph.
attributable to ooce-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) Effluent Limitations for
Contaminated Runoff.
223
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 168 / Tuesday. August 28. 1«)84 / Proposed Rules
34161
The following effluent limitations
constitute the quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph and
attributable to contaminated runoff
which may be discharged after the
application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology by a point
source subject to this subpart.
(1) If wastewater consists solely of
contaminated runoff and is not
commingled or treated with process
wastewater. it may be discharged If it
does not exceed 15 mg/l oil and grease
based upon an analysis of any single
grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is
commingled or treated with process
wastewater. or if wastewater consisting
solely of contaminated runoff which
exceeds 15 mg/l oil and grease is not
commingled or treated with any other
type of wastewaler. the quantity of
pollutants discharged shall not exceed
the quantity determined by multiplying
the flow of contaminated runoff as
determined by the permit writer time*
the concentrations listed in the
following table
acr
lor 30
1000
TSS-
Oi**(
IS.
It
21
S.
(1
EngM> ma
1000
•"*»n
T«M
p"
040
0.2*
0.13
0
022
Oi«
aow
(1
12. Section 419.54 is revised to read as
follows:
i 4 19.54 Efnuent HnHtaflono gutdoHnea
rcpmentlng tn« dear** of effluent
reduction attainable by tn« application of
the beet conventional1 poflutant control
(a) Any existing point fource subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
QI the best conventional pollutant
central technology (BCT):
19 30
n^PCViH
dirt If**
800.
1.000 bH ol i
mis
T«
(••
1*1
132
to
n
10.J
• 4
u
It
I at U « ML
(b) The limits set forth En paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum'for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
isao*i74t
179.0V IM*
JOOO«oZ24»
073
on
003
081
ow
104
(2) Process factor.
a o B «.49_
100 « 1049.
non 1149.
11101199.
l3.Sai2.99.
13 Oar arm
075
on
092
100
1 10
1.20
'.»
1 M
16S
1S3
199
217
Lit
(3) See the comprehensive example in
Subpart D. S 419.42Jb)(3).
(c) The provisions of S 419.l4(c) apply
to discharges of process wastewaler
pollutants attributable to ballast water
by a point source subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this- paragraph.
attributable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) Effluent Limitations for
Contaminated Runoff. The following
effluent limitations constitute the
quantity and quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to
contaminated runoff which may be
discharged after the application of (he
best conventional pollutant control
technology by a point source subicri to
this subpart.
(1) If waslewater consists solely of
contaminated runoff and is not
commingled or treated with process
wastewater. it may be discharged if it
does not exceed 15 mg/l oil and grease
based upon an analysis of any single
grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is
commingled or treated with process
wastewater. or if wastewater consisting
solely of contaminated runoff which
exceeds 15 mg/l oil and grease is not
commingled or treated with any other
type of waslewater. the quantity of
pollutants discharged shall not exceed
the quantity determined by multipl>ing
the flow of contaminated runoff as
determined by the permit writer lime*
the concentrations listed in the
following table:
8CT
N tmu
UMTK ma (Marina v
1.000 CJOK rnrara el Ur
TSS.
33
1*
I1)
21
S.
ri
1.000 emnl at T«1
OM
01]
022
eta
i «KOM «••>v*t «o to - -
13. 40 CFR Part m9 is amenccd bv
adding the following appendix:
Appendix A—Processes Included in the
Determination of BAT Effluent
Limitations for Total Chromium.
Hexavaient Chromium, and Phenolic
Compounds (4AAP)
Crude Processes;
1. Atmospheric Crude Distillation
2. Crude Desalting
3. Vacuum Crude Distillation
Cracking and Coking Processes:
4. Vubreaking
S. Thermal Cracking
6. Fluid Catalytic Cracking
7. Moving Bed Catalytic Cracking
10. Hydrocracking
15. Delayed Coking
16. Fluid Coking
54. Hydrotreaimg
224
-------
34162
Federal Resistor / Vol. 49. No. 168 / Tuesday. Augtut 28. 19M / Proposed Rule*
Asp/mil t'nfcvfxnr
18. Asphalt Production
32. 3V F Softening Point Unfluxed
Asphalt
43. Asphalt Oxidizing
89. Asphalt Emulsifying
Lube Pr&fsses:
21. Hydrofioing. Mydrafiaishiog, Lab*
Hydrofining
22. While Oil Manufacture
23. Propane Dewaxing, Propane
Deasphalting. Propane Fractioning.
Propane Oemining
24. Uuo Sol. Solvent.TrmUng. Solvent
Extrnction. Ountrealing. Solvent
Oewaxing. Solvent Deaaphalting
25. Lube Vac TwK Oil Fractionation.
Batch Still (Naphtha Strip). Bnghl
Slock Treating
28. Centrifuge & Chilling
27. MEX Dewaxing. Kelone Dewaxing.
MEK-ToJuene Oewaxing
28. Deoiling (wa.xj
29. Naphthenic Lubes Production
30. SO* Extraction
34. Wax Praising
35. Wax Plant (with Neutnl
Separation)
38. Furfural Extraction
37 Clay Contracting—Percolation
38. Wax Sweating
39. Acid Treating
40. Phenol Extraction
Reforming and Alkylatmn fracasex
8. HiSO« Alkyiation
12. Catalytic Reforming
im OK. M>CUS FIM »-V-M. M* «•)
225
-------
foLSO
No. 134
Friday
July 12, 1985
226
-------
28318
Federal Register / Vol. SO. No. 134 / Friday, July 1Z 1385 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
<0 CFR Part
-------
Fsdml KggjgtBf / Vol. M. No. 134 / Friday. July 12. 1965 / Rules and Regulations 28517
affluent limitation* gakfolism have beea
reviMd since the prapoeai bat do not
•Act the Agency's original oaachatoa
thai BCT samdd be set equal to BPT for
this industry.
EPA Dobiished a proposed BCT
methodology (47 FR 49175) which cat
forth a procedure foreva bating the coat
reasonableness of BCT'efflusnt
timi»«tf*««»« guidelines. Ha propoaed
BCT sritac'ons far the petroleum
refining industry were baaed upon that
published Methodology, which rndades
the "POTW leaf and the "industry coat
teat" The Agency selected and
evaluated two levels of technology for
toe control ot Gon^nanoouai oouut^^s^s
from petroieum refineries (i a. recycle/
resse and recyde/rm*ee pma granular
media filtration following BPT).
Incremental (beyond BPT) conveaoonai
pollutant removals and coats *T^rjjt»"<
with the candidate BCT tecaaologiea
wen calculated far aaodei plants
representative of each of the STB
petroleum refining sabcategoraea. The
resulting "oast per pound removed"
ratios failed the BCT coat test. The
Agency therefore proposed that BCT be
set equal to BPT far ail five petroleum
refining tufacategoriea.
Subaeouendy. EPA published a notice
of data availability concerning the BCT
methodology on September 20.1984 (48
FR 370*6). The Agency has reviled its
BCT coat evaluation Hat petroleum
rrfining to incorporate the updated
information referenced in the notice of
data availability. The revised coat ratios
for the recycle/reuse technology options
with 20 to 40 percent reductions in
discharge flow cange from S50.48 to A entered
a Settament Agreement, which provides
for specified revisions to the BAT
affluent mutations guidelines. Those
revisions sn set forth in today's
amended regulation.
In October 1982 EPA promulgated
BAT effluent Umiattiou for the
following poflutanta: (1)
Nonconventiooal poUutanhc chemical
oxygen demand (COO), phenolic
compounds (4AAP). ammonia (as N) and
sulfide and (Z)-toxic poflutants: total
cflromium and oexavaient cnromium-
The model technology for these
regulations wes Dow equalization, mitiaJ
oil and aoods removal advanced oil and
solids removal, biological treatment and
ffltntion or odwr final "polishing steps."
The Agency is now amending the BAT
effluent limitations guidelines for total
chromium, hexavalent chromium and
phenotic compounds (4AAP). EPA la
adding flow reduction to me model
treatment technology for the BAT
effluent limitations guidelines and is
basing the effluent Imitations for each
of these three pollutants on a more
recent data base, rather than the one it
relied upon m the October 18.1982 BAT
promulgation. That rulemaking utilized
die same data based used by the
Agency when it established best
practicable control technology currently
available (BIT) effluent limitations
guidelines for the petroleum refining
point source category. The BPT level of
control for this industry was
promulgated on May 9,1974 (39 FR
16560) and subsequently amended on
May 20.1975 (40 FR 21939). The BAT
effluent limitations guidelines for other
pollutants remain unchanged.
The BAT effluent limitations
guidelines for total chromium being
promulgated today are haa*
-------
Fgdaral Register / Vol 50. No. 134 / Friday. July 12. 1985 / Rulea and Regulations
approximately 1&300 pounds per year, a
M percent annual reduction beyond
discharge level* allowable under
existing BAT: the total allowable
discharge of phenolic compounds
(4AAP). is reduced by approximately
73,000 pounds per year, a 43 percent
annual reduction beyond discharge
level* allowable under existing BAT.
These reductions are based on data In
the Agency1* refined BAT flow model.
The refined flow model is included in
the record for this rulemaking in a report
entitled "Petroleum Refining Industry,
Refinements to 1979 Proposed Flow
Model"
SPA believes that approximately one
half of the refineries which directly
discharge pollutants to navigable waters
already are complying with the effluent
limitations being promulgated today.
Further, EPA believes that the effluent
limitations are economically achievable
for the industry.
In the preamble to the October 18,
1982 promulgated regulations for this
industry, EPA estimated that capital
costs of $112 million and $37 million
(1979 dollars) in anonalized costs would
be required in order for petroleum
refiners to comply with option 7, one of
the BAT control treatment options
considered by the Agency (47 FR 46438).
Likewise. EPA estimated that capital
coats of $77 million and annnalized
costs of $23 million (1979 dollars) would
be required in order for petroleum
refiners to comply with option 8. another
of the BAT control treatment options
considered by the Agency (47 FR 46438).
The revised limitations being
promulgated today for phenolic
compounds, hexavalent chromium and
total chromium are not based on either
option 7 or option 8 alone. The effluent
limitations for phenolic compounds are
based upon option 8. The effluent
limitations for hexavalent chromium are
based upon option 8. The effluent
limitations for hexavalent chromium are
based upon option 7. The effluent
limitations for total chromium, while
somewhat more stringent than the BAT
effluent limitations for total ''huminim,
are less stringent than those based upon
option 8.
The Agency has reeveiuated the coats
of compliance for today's changes to the
BAT effluent limitations and estimates
that the total industry costs of
compliance would not exceed those
previously calculated for option 8. EPA
estimates.that no more than 81
petroleum refineries will have to incur
aggregate capital costs no greater than
$77 million and aAnuslized costs no
greater than $23 million (1979 dollars).
These costs translate to an average
increase of no greater than one half cent
per gallon of refinery product. No
refinery closures are anticipated by that
Agency. Refinery capacity and
consumption would remain anafFected,
Given these {actors, the Agency believes
that its earlier heavy reliance on costs
aa the basis for rejecting more stringent
effluent controls in this industry was
inappropriate, and that the effluent
limitations guidelines for total
chromium, hexavalent chromium and
phenolic compounds (4AAP) being
promulgated today, rather than thai
effluent limitations guidelines
promulgated in 1982. are appropriate for
this Industry as the BAT level of controL
The revised Bat numerical limitations
and contained in the fi*"*i regulation.
3. Beat Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology Effluaat Lautatiotu
Guidelines
As part of the Settlement Agreement
EPA agreed to propose best
conventional pollutant control
technology ("BCT"] effluent limitation*
guidelines for the petroleum refining
Industry. The 1977 Amendments to the
dear Water Act ("CWA") added
section 301(b)(2)(E) of the Act
establishing BCT for discharge of
conventional pollutants from existing
industrial point sources. Conventional
pollutants are those defined la section
3O4(a)(4) (biochemical oxygen
demanding pollutants (SOU), total
suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform-
and pH], and any additional pollutants)
defined by the Administrator as
"conventional". The Administrator
designated oil and grease aa a
conventional pollutant on July 30,1979,
44 FR 44501.
BCT is not an additional limitation but
replaces BAT for the control of
conventional pollutants. In addition to
other specified in Section 3O4(b)(4)(B)
the Act requires the BCT limitations be
assessed in light of a two-part "coat
reasonableness" test American Paper
Institute v. EPA. 860 P2d 954 (4th Or.
1981). The first test compares the cost
for private industry to reduce its
conventional pollutants with the costs to
publicly owned treatment works for
similar levels of reduction in their
discharge of these pollutants. The
second test examines the cost-
effectiveness of additional Industrial
treatment beyond beat practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT). EPA must fl»H that limitations are
"reasonable1* under both tests before
establishing them as BCT. In no case)
may BCT be less stringent than BPT.
EPA published a propoeed BCT
methodology on October 29.1982. (47 FR
49178). This proposed BCT methodology
explains the details of the two part cost-
reasonableness test l.e, the "POTW
tesf* and the "Industry cost test" In
addition, the Agency published a "notice
of data availability" concerning the
proposed BCT methodology on-
September 20. 1984 (49 FR 37046).
Today's promulgated BCT effluent
limitations guidelines for the petroleum
refining industry are based on the
proposed BCT methodology. Today's
final regulations establish BCT equal to
BPT for the petroleum refining industry.
EPA considered two levels of
technology for increnmental control
beyond BPT of total suspended solids
(TSS) and oil and grease. These
technology levels are recyde/reoae and
recycle/reuse followed by granular
media filtration. These technologies are
already In use at certain sites in the
petroleum refining industry. These
technologies were selected as candidate'
BCT technonogies because the Agency
believes they represent the first levels of
control beyond BPT which could effect
reduction in conventional pollutant
loadings in this industry. Filtration alone
was not selected as a candidate BCT
technology because it is one of the
existing BPT treatment technologies.
However, the Agency decided to
consider the combination of recyciy/
reuse plus filtration aa a candidate BCT
technology. This is because the
decreased hydraulic loading resulting
from recycle/reuse results in the need
for smaller and leas costly filtration
equipment than that included in the BPT
treatment model. The BCT coat test was
then performed on the combination of
recycle/reuse and filtration as a double-
check on the effects of the leas costly
filtration step.
m order to determine whether these
candidate technologies are "cost-
reasonable'*. EPA developed one model
plant representative of a typical plant in
each of the five BPT subcategones. The
five BPT subcategories are:
A— Topping
B— Cracking
C— Petrochemical
B— integrated
Then EPA calculated the incremental
(beyond BPT) conventional pollutant
removals and the incremental costs
associated with these technologies for
each model plant. Baaed on this
Information, eost-per-pound ratios were
calcuaited far each of the five BPT
subcategoraes.
EPA evaluated reductions in total
suspended solids (TSS). biochemical
oxygen demand (BOd). and oil and
grease for seen of these technology
levels; However.- oil and grease was not
considered for the BCT calculations for
229
-------
Federal Regbtar / VHaL 50, No. 134 / Friday. July 12. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
28519
recycle/rase for tfaia industry.
Additionally. BODi was not considered
for the BCT calculations for filtration for
this industry. This is In accordance with
the proposed BCT methodology In order
to avoid "double counting" of the
amount of pollutants removed by a
candidate BCT technology.
The recycle/reuse technology option
Identified for BCT was evaluated In the
range of from 20 to 40 percent reduction
in discharge flow. The cost per pound
ranges from $41.00 to $0.77 (1977 dollars)
($50.48 to $1.38 (1977 dollars) based
upon the September 20.1984 notice of
data availability] in the first part of the
proposed BCT cost reasonableness test
(the "POTW teat"). Accordingly, the
Agency found that the addition of
recycle/reuse technology fads the first
part of the proposed BCT cost
reasonableness test in all five
subcategones (S0.30 per pound in 1977
dollars) [approximately $0.78 per pound
in 1977 dollars based upon the
September 20.1984 notice of data
availability.)
The Agency also found that the
addition of recycle/reuse plus filtration
fails the first part of the proposed BCT
cost reasonableness test in all five
subcategones. The recycle/reuse portion
of this option was evaluated in the range
offfrom 20 to 40 percent reduction in
discharge flow. The cost per pound (1977
dollars) ranges from $21.00 to $0.58.
compared to the benchmark of SO JO per
pound (1977 dollars) ($27.03 to $1.11.
compared to the benchmark of
approximately 50.78 per pound (1977
dollars) based upon the September 20. •
1984 notice of data availability].
Therefore, the Agency is promulgating
BCT equal to BPT for the five
subcategones in this industry.
A mare complete discussion of the
selection of the candidate BCT
technologies, the details of the first part
of the proposed BCT cost
reasonableness test ("POTW test"], and
the basis for decision are contained in
the administrative record of this
rulemaking.
C Effluent Limitations Guidelines for
Contaminated Storm Water Runoff
In the October 18.1982 rulemaking the
Agency withdrew storm water effluent
limitations guidelines for BPT. BAT and
N'SPS. because they were remanded by
the U.S. Court of Appeals in American
Petroleum Institute v. EPA. 540 F.2d 1023
(10th Cir. 1976).
Since that remand there has been
some confusion on the part of permit
writers and others as to whether storm
water runoff ("runoff") effluent
limitations should be contained in
permits. There are two kinds of such
runoff. La, contaminated and
uncontaminated.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to
establish BPT. BCT and BAT effluent
limitations guidelines for contaminated
storm water runoff. Today's
promulgated contaminated runoff
effluent limitations are to be included in
petroleum refinery permits in addition to
process wastewater effluent limitations.
NSPS for contaminated runoff is being _
reserved for future rulemaking.
In today's final regulations EPA is
defining contaminated runoff, for
purposes of these regulations only, to be
runoff which comes- into contact with
any raw matenai intermediate product.
finished product by-product or waste
product located on petroleum refinery
property. Any other storm water runoff
at a refinery is considered
uncontaminated. Today's final
regulations also amend the definition of
the term "runoff" currently found in 40
CFR 419.11(b) to clarify that it means the
flow of storm water resulting from
precipitation coming into contact with
petroleum refinery property.
Contaminated runoff constitutes an
additional source of pollution which
must be managed during penods of
precipitation along with process
wastewater from refinery operations.
Today's final regulations do not
establish numerical effluent limitations
for uncontaminated runoff. Effluent
limitations, including but not limited to
allocations for uncontaminated runoff
may be established by the permit writer
based on his/her best professional
judgment.
The Agency believes that the best
practicable control technology currently
available, the best conventional
pollutant control technology and the
best available technology economically
achievable for treatment of
contaminated runoff are the same as the
technologies identified for treatment of
process wastewater. The Agency has
not identified any feasible technologies
capable of achieving pollutant
reductions for contaminated runoff from
refineries to any greater degree than
those which are achievable by the
process wastewater treatment facility.
The Agency believes that the
conventional pollutant oil and grease
and the nonconventional pollutant
parameter total organic carbon (TOC)
are appropriate measures to determine
whether pollutant loadings in
contaminated runoff would be
measurably reduced by the model
treatment technologies used to develop
these final regulations. Under today's
final regulations for BPT. wastewater
consisting solely of contaminated runoff
may be discharged directly without
treatment if it does not exceed 15 mg/1
oil and grease and 110 mg/1 TOC be'
upon an analysis of any single grab
composite sample. Under today's fin.
regulations for BCT. wastewater
consisting solely of contaminated runoff
may be discharged directly without
treatment, if it does not exceed 15 mg/1
oil and grease and under the final
regulations for BAT. wastewater
consisting solely of contaminated runoff
may be discharged directly without
treatment if it does not exceed 110 mg/1
TOC. If contaminated runoff (whether or
not it exceeds 15 mg/1 oil and grease or
110 mg/1 TOC) is commingled or treated
with process wastewater. or if
wastewater consisting solely of
contaminated runoff which exceeds 15
mg/1 oil and grease or 110 mg/1 TOC is
not commingled or treated with any
other type of wastewater. then such
runoff would be subject to the
alternative BPT/BCT/BAT effluent
limitations guidelines for contaminated
runoff being promulgated today, as
appropriate. These oil and grease and
TOC numerical effluent limitations are
based on the concentrations expected
from the properly designed and operated
model treatment facilities.
The effluent limitations guidelines in
today's BPT regulation for contammatPd
runoff are based on the same
concentrations and variability factt
used to develop the Agency's existin.,
BPT process wastewater effluent
limitations guidelines.
Today's BAT regulation for
contaminated runoff is based upon the
same concentrations and variability
factors used to develop the Agency's
existing BAT process wastewater
effluent limitations guidelines, except
those for total chromium, which are
based upon the same concentrations
and variability factors used for today'9
promulgated BAT effluent limitations
guidelines for process wastewater.
Today's promulgated BAT effluent
guidelines for phenolic compounds
(4AAP) for contaminated runoff are
based on the same concentrations used
for the existing BAT effluent limitation?
guidelines for process wastewater and
die same variability factors used for the
Agency's existing BAT effluent
limitations guidelines. EPA has
determined that this approach is
appropriate because of the specifics of
each data base available to the Agency.
If EPA used the variability factors from
today's promulgated BAT effluent
limitations guidelines, less stringent
BAT contaminated runoff numerics'
effluent limitations for phenolic
compounds (4AAP) would be dem
than under today's promulgated BF1
230
-------
28520 Federal Register / VoL 50. No. 134 / Friday, [uly 12. 1985 / Rnlea and Reguiadona
contaminated runoff numerical effluent
limitations for phenolic compounds
'4AAPJ. The more stringent effluent
Imitations dearly are achievable and as
a matter of law BAT cannot be leaa
stringent than BPT.
Today's BCT regulation for
contaminated runoff a baaed on the
same concentrations and variability
factors used for today's promulgated
BCT process waatewater effluent
limitations guidelines.
The Agency believes that the costs
attributable to today's regulations will
be minimal, while providing for
reductions in refinery pollutant
discharges. This is because die Agency
believes the industry as a whole already
is (a) treating contaminated runoff with
process waste water or (b) is discharging
contaminated runoff below today's
promulgated threshold for treatment
Today's final regulations do not cover
contaminated runoff which is
commingled with nonprocess
wastewater streams. EPA believes that
such instances we infrequent, ^nd
accordingly, they are left to the permit
writer's discretion.
Unlike the rfflurnf limitations
guidelines for process wastewater for
this industry which an mass-based.
today's promulgated effluent limitation*
guidelines for contaminated runoff are
oncentration-based. This is because
toon water volumes are not related to
any measurement of refinery production.
However, under today's regulations
permit effluent limitations for
contaminated runoff are to be
established on a mass basis. The mass-
based effluent limitations for each
regulated pollutant for contaminated
runoff in a petroleum <-»fining permit are
the product of (1) the respecave effluent
guideline concentration for that
pollutant and (2) the measured or
calculated contaminated runoff volume.
Under today's regulations permit
writers an given flexibility in
determining refinery storm water
volumes on a case-by-case basu. The
following factors are among those
appropriate for permit writers to
consider in 4*!tarm'tntnfl what
contaminated runoff volume to "t* in
calculating mass-based effluent
limitations for refinery permits: (a)
Measured difference between dry
weather and wet weather discharge
flow from the treatment facility where
contaminated runoff is the only runoff
present in-the treatment facility: and (b)
volume of contaminated runoff water
calculated from the product of (1)
measurement of land area where
precipitation would become
.ontanunated. and (2) an historical
measure of preripitarinn lor the
particular refinery location.
Once the mass baaed effluent
lityijtarirm jg derived, it may be
incorporated into a refinery permit m
one of three ways. The proper choice
depends on site-tpeo&s factors, such M
local rain/all patterns and the design of
ronoff hiMi
The first method is a coamwoas
allocation. This prmmts the ptublem of
providing an allocation when ao runoff
is present and is appropriate only where
precipitation patterns are relatively
constant through the year or when
holding facilities are used to bleed
nmoff into the treatment facility over
most or all of the year. The second
method a a variable allocation based on
measurement or calculation of actual
contaminated runoff volume, While this
is the most ideal method, it may present
compliance measurement and
enforcement complexities. The third
me mod is dual wet weather/dry
weather limitations triggered by either
time of year, precipitation events, or
actual contaminated nmoff volume. The
method of determining contaminated
runoff vorume ased to calculate the
effluent limitations will vary depending
on the method used and the design of
any runoff holding facilities. Therefore.
it is left to the permit writer to select aa
appropriate method under today's
nilemaking.
These regulations do not address
unconnnunated runoff which ta
discnsrged through the process
wastewater treatment facility. This is
because the Agency believes that
inffodutling II1M •mtatmnat^n [UllOff to
the procesa wastewater treatment
system may result in the discharge of an
increased man of pollutants to the
environment compared to me mass of
pollutants discharged if no
uncontammated nmoff were present in
the process waatewater treatment
•system. Therefore, the Agency does not
want to encourage this practice on a
national basis. _
In the case of BPT, the effluent
limitations guidelines promulgated
today are for the following pollutants (1)
conventional pollutants: total suspended
solids (TSS). oil and grease, five-day
biochemical oxygen demand (BOH) **A
pH; (2) aonconventiooal pollutants:
phenolic compounds (4AAPJ. <*hgmt/-ni
oxygen demand [COD] and total organic
carbon (TOC]; and (3) toxic pollutants:
total chromium and hexavalent
rhunminm fa tha C3J45 of BAT. thfl
effluent limitations g""^»i'"»« beuig
promulgated today are for (1)
«nnrfmv»nrwinal pollutants: Phenolic
compounds (4AAPJ. rhpmical oxygen
demand (COO] and total organic carboa
(TOC): and (2) toxic polmtaoim: total
fjnw.i».m and hexavalent chromium. In
ae case of BCT. the efBaent limitations
guidelines beuig promulgated today are
for the conventional pollutants TSS. od
and grease. BOO* and pH. In the case of
COD. there may be instances where
extremely high chloride levels (greater
than 1.000 mg/1) will interfere with the
COO analytical method. In this event.
the Agency believes that TOC is an
acceptable substitute parameter for
COO. A TOC limitation shall be based
upon effluent data from die particular
refinery which correlated TOC to BOO*.
Where adequate correlation data are not
available, the glutting authority may
establish a TOC limitation on a ratio of
2.2 to 1 to the applicable BPT/BCT
effluent limitations for BOD*. This raao
is based upon efQnent data analyzed by
the Agency.
No effluent Imutaooos guidelines for
contaminated runoff are being
promulgated for the nonconventional
pollutants ammonia (as N) and sulfide
regulated under existing BPT and BAT
levels of control.
V. Environmental Impact of the
A m«»ji»JTTia»»t«
EPA's estimates of the redaction in
industry-wide direct discharges of
phenolic compoands. hexavaieot
chromium, and total chromium for
process wastewater from those allowed
under the 1982 final petroleum industry
regulation ta those allowed by today's
amendnents ore presented below.
REDUCTIOHS m ALLOWABLE OWCMAPSE
19X0
VL
to Major
The Agency encourages public
participation in the rulemaking process
and foliated comments an the proposed
amendments. Public comments were
received and considered in issuing this
firtal rnia \ attnmary Q/ all fhj
comments received and the Agency's
responses to those comments are
inrlurifd la a report titled: "Responses
to Public Comments on the Proposed
Amendments to the Effluent Limitations
Guidelines for the Petroleum
Point Source Category", which is
included in *h* rvMk? record for
regulation.
Most of the commenters expressed
'all support for the pramulgaaon of the
231
-------
Fsjdeaal Regtster / Vol. 50. No. 134 / Friday. July 12. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 28521
•mended regulations as proposed.
Although none of the'Commenters'
disagreed with the Agency's action.
tome believed it necessary to comment
on the background and development of
the proposal and to seek clarification on
the Agency's intended procedures for
applying the effluent limitations
guidelines. The major comments are
addressed below.
A. Beat Available Technology Effluent-
Limitations Guidelines (BAT)
Some of the commenters argued that
wutewater flow reduction is not an
appropriate basis upon which to base
effluent limitations guidelines for this
industry. It was claimed that other
pollutant specific control techniques will
be used, if necessary, to achieve the
proposed discharge limits for process
waatewater.
The Agency has documentation that
flow reduction is an achievable
technology for this industry. Industry
and Agency studies that con/inn this
(act are included in the rulemaking
record for this regulation. These
investigations conclusively
demonstrated thai refineries have
numerous methods available to reduce
process wastewater generation or
discharge volumes. These studies also
demonstrated that the costs and specific
methods available an heavily
dependent on site-specific factors at
each individual refinery. The Agency
has also noted that there is a substantial
downward trend in historical water
usage/discharge rates industry-wide
regardless of environmental regulatory
requirements.
There may be some refineries which
have already achieved a low flow
condition or cannot implement Sow
reduction due to site-specific factors. In
These cases, improvements to the
existing treatment system design or
operation, or in refinery operating
practices, may be necessary to meet
today's amended BAT effluent
limitations. It should be further clarified
that the regulation does not preclude the
Implementation of other control options
such as pollutant specific control
techniques or other techniques which a
refinery considers the most cost-
effective method to achieve its permit
conditions.
Clarification was sought by
commenters on the method that should
be followed to determine the
appropriate refinery production rates for
milt-iilaring BUSS effluent limita.
Questions were also raised about the
possibility of BAT pollutant limits being
less stringent than BPT levels due to
differences in the procedures for
calculating BAT and BPT permit limits.
The effluent limitations guidelines
developed for the petroleum refining
Industry are production baaed. Although
previous permits may have been issued
on- the basis of process capacities.
permit limits based on the revised BAT
regulations should be calculated on the
basis of actual production rates. For this
reason, me permit writer should
undertake a thorough review of a
refinery's historical process utilization
rates and process groupings to
determine a reasonable measure of
actual production protected for the
period the permit would be in effect.
This method of determining appropriate
process feedstock rates for use in
calculating mass effluent limits is in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.45{b). The
Individual process feedstock rates
established should be based on data
from the same time period. i.e.. all
production data for the same time
period. Generally, this time period (e.g..
calendar year) could be that for which
the sum of the crude process feedstock
rates is the greatest but is sail
representative of anticipated feedstock
rates for the duration of the NPOES
permit
The next step in this method is to
calculate a daily average feedstock rate
for each refinery process included in the
determination of effluent limitations.
These values may be calculated by
dividing an historical annual feedstock
rate for each process by the number of
days the process was in operation.
These same average daily process
feedstock rates should be used in the
calculation of both daily maximum and
30-day average BAT effluent limitations.
This method is consistent with the
procedure the Agency used to develop
the effluent limitation factors for the
amended regulations and with 40 CFR
122.45. Additionally, the daily maximum
and 30-day average variability factors.
which are components of the effluent
limitation factors used to denve permit
effluent limitations, reflect short-term
(i.a~ monthly and daily] deviations from
long-term (annual average) performance.
The amended BAT limits for phenolic
compounds, total chromium and
hexavalent chromium are based on a
flow model and daily "»•*""'""
variability factors which are different
than those used to establish the BPT
regulations. Some BAT permit
limitations could be less stringent than
the BPT limitations for a given refinery.
even though the BAT and BPT
limitations are calculated using the
some process feedstock rates
determined in accordance with the
provisions of 40 CFR 122.45. These
occurrences can be caused by the
Inclusion of additional processes and a
new process grouping in the BAT flo-
model. In such instances, the result
permit limitations would be the raoi
stringent of either the calculated BPT
limitations or calculated BAT
limitations. This is because BAT permit
limitations may not be less stringent
than BPT. In order to make a proper
comparison, the BPT limitations should
be recalculated using: (1) Production
data from the same time penod that are
used to calculate the BAT limitations:
and (2) the BPT process groupings and
tubeategonzation.
In an effort to provide guidance on the
application of the proposed amendments
to the BAT effluent limitations
guidelines, the Agency held workshops
in San Francisco and Dallas for permit
writers during November and December
1984.
B. Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology Effluent Limitations
Guidelines (3CT)
Commenters agreed with the
approach that was followed by the
Agency in its BCT cost evaluation and
that the two candidate technologies
selected are the most cost effective
beyond BPT. Even though the Agency
found that none of the four regulatory
options that were considered passer'
BCT cost test for any of the five
subcategones. commenters argued ti.
the actual cost per pound of pollutant
removed would be greater than those
estimated by EPA. It was argued that
the removal cost ratios presented in thr
Agency's original BCT cost evaluation
report were underestimated because
filtration coats were understated and
removal efficiencies were oversu ted. It
was also pointed out that the BCT
evaluation should incorporate available
updated information.
As discussed in Section III of this
preamble, the Agency has revised its
BCT cost evaluation to incorporate the
updated information referenced in the
notice of data availability publisned OR
September 20.1984 (49 FR 37046). The
Agency also believes that the filtration
costs and removal efficiencies used in
tis original evaluation are realistic.
Nonetheless, if costs were understated
and pollutant removals were overstated
as argued, then removal cost ratios
would fail the BCT cost test by an even
wider margin, which would not change
the Agency's original conclusion that
BCT should be set equal to BPT for this
industry.
C Effluent Limitations Guidelines fc
Contaminated Storm Water Runoff
Commenters supported the
reinstitution of allocations for the
232
-------
28522 Federal Register / Voi. 50. No. 134 / Friday. July 12. 1385 / Rnlea and Regulations
discharge of contaminated storm water
runoff commingled with process
'astewater and treated in a refiner's
ffluent treatment system. Commenten
recognized that storm water runoff can
hav« a significant impact on a
wastewater treatment system and
argued that allocations are appropriate
for both coatatmiLated and
uncontaminated runoff, hi addition.
clarification* were requested oo the
Agency's definition of contaminated
runoff and its intentions to include only
water which comes into direct contact
with raw materials or petroleum
products (La. exposed or spilled ad) or
to extend its coverage to runoff from
storage areas or tank farms where.
ideally, no direct contact occurs.
The Agency's intent in promulgating
storm water runoff limitations is to
provide a mechanism for the control of
storm watrr wben mis waste stream is.
or is very likely to be. contaminated by
direct contact with raw. intermediate or
final products. The collection and
treatment of storm water runoff that is
uncontaminated can be costly and
burden the refinery's wastewater
treatment system. For this reason, the
Agency wishes to encourage refineries
which segregate uncontaminated storm
water runoff from contaminated
wastewater streams (a continue this
ractice. The regulation, however, does
ot require such segregation.
One comnenter argued that the total
organic carbon (TOC) and ofl and grease
discharge criteria for the control of
contaminated runoff effectively sets
storm water runoff limitations.
The 110 mg/1 TOC and 15 mg/1 oil aad
grease applicability criteria for BAT/
BCT effluent limitations apply only to
contaminated runoff as defined at
§ 419.11(3). These varies are intended to
serve as threshold criteria for including
contaminated runoff effluent limitations
(e.g.. phenolic compounds, total
chromium, total suspended sotida) in
NPDES permits. These criteria or other
limitations may be applied to such
discharges on a case-by-caae basis at
the permitting authority's discretion. For
example, a particular stormwater muug
discharge that normally meets the
threshold criteria may be of a nature
wnere it cooid become very
contaminated by an accidental spiO. In
such situation* it may be appropriate to
impose the TOC oil and grease and/or
other value* a* effluent limitation* or to
at wast reojoire periodic sampling and
analysis for such pollutants to monitor
the nature of such discharge*.
TL Executive Order 12291
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
muat judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analyst*. This regulation is not major
because it does aot fall 'within the
criteria for major regulations established
in Excutrve Order 12291.
VIZL Regulatory FUwhiliry Analysis
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 3
US.G 901 et seq., EPA must prepare a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for ail
regulation* that harre a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entitle*. The Agency doe* not believe
that today's ralemakmg will have a
lignificant impact on any segment of th»
petroleum refining mdusoy. large or
smafl. The Agency has not. therefore,
prepared a formal analysis for ma
regulation.
DC OMB BavMw
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by Executive Order
12291. Any comments from OMB to SPA
and any EPA responses to those
comments are available for public
inspection at Room M2404. U.S. EPA.
401 M Street SW, Washington. O.C
from MO ajn. to 4:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays.
X. List of Subjects • 4fl CFR Part 43*
Petroleum water pollution control.
WastewBter treatment and disposal.
Dated: My 1. 1383.
For the reason* set out m the
preamble, EPA a am*oHmg 40 CFR Put
419 as foUow:
PART 419— PETROLEUM REFINING
POINT SOUflCC CATEGORY
1. The authority citation for Part 419
ajutmuea to read as follow*:
i (bj. (c), (•). and
(gj. 308 03) and (c). 307 (b) and (c). aad SOX
Federal Water PoOuOoa Control Act u
amended (me Act): 33 US.C 1311.1314 (b).
(c). (e|. and (g). 1318 (b) and (c}. 1317 (b) and
(c). and 1381:« Stat. ««, Poo. L 92-400: ft
Slat. 1S67. Pub. L. 9S-S7.
2. Section 419.11 Is amended by
revising paragraph (b) and adding
paragraph (gj to read as follows:
f41t.11
(b) The term "runoff" shall mean the
flow of storm waler resulting froaa
precipitation coming into cnntact with
petroleum refinery property.
(g) The term "contaminated runoff"
shall mean runoff which comes into
contact with any raw material.
intermediate product finished product.
by-product or waste product located on
petroleum i efiiiei y property.
(419.12
3. In } 419.12(8). the table is amended
as follows:
A. Under the heading "English units
(pounds per 1.000 bbl of feedstock)", in
the first column opposite "tulfide".
"O53" is revised to read "0.053".
B. Under the heading "English units
(pounds per 1.000 bbl of feedstock)".
opposite "luifide" in the second column.
•U24" is. revised to read "0.024".
C Under the heading "English units
(pounds per 1.000 bbl of feedstock)".
opposite "hexavalent chromium", m the
first column "0.10" is revised to read
"0.01".
4.4ULH
4-6. m 5419.32(a). in the second
column of the table, ander "Metric units
(Kilograms per 1.000mJ of feedstock}".
opposite "sulfide". "Q.SZ" is revised to
read "OJ2".
§41*53 [Amended]
7. The table in 5 419.S2(b](l). under
the column "1.000 barrels of feedstock
per stream day." the figures "12S.O to
1243" and "200 to 244.9" are revised to
read "T23.0 to 149.9" and "200.0 to
224.91" respectively.
H 4«Lli 41U3, 419J2, 419.43, anri 4n.«
[ Amended]
8. Sections 419.12te). 419 22{e).
419.32(e). 4l9.42(e). and 419.52te] are
amended by removing the paragraph
heading and the word "reserved" and by
adding the following text:
Ot
(e) Effhent Limitations for
CoHftintfimtcQ nitftuff. Tne following
effluent limitations corwdtnte the
quefltity and qualify of pollutants or
pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to
contaminated runoff, which may be
discharged after the applies Ban of the
best practicable control technology
currently available by a point auunje
subject to this subpart.
(1) If wastewatar consists solely of
contaminated runoff and is aot
commingled or treated with process
233
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 134 / Friday. July 12. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 28523
Mdsiewater. it may be discharged if it
does not exceed 15 mg/1 oil and grease
and 110 mg/1 total organic carbon (TOC)
based upon an analysis of any single
grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is
commingled or treated with process
wastewater. or if wastewater consisting
solely of contaminated runoff which
exceeds 15 mg/1 oil and grease or 110
mg/1 TOC is not commingled or treated
with any other type of wastewater. the
quantity of pollutants discharged shall
not exceed the quantity determined by
multiplying the flow of contaminated
runoff as determined by the permit
writer times the concentrations listed in
the following table:
Potman! v pollutant property
BPT effluent kflManons lev
contamifiBlBd runoff
Manmumtor
any 1 day
Average ol
daily values
tor 30
consecutive
dayssnai'
not aneed
Metric unts (kdograms per
1.000 m> ol How)
TSS ______
COO' -
Ol and ggeaae.- _-- —
Phenolic compounds (4AAP).
Toolcnromum ...
46
33.
360
15
035
073
0062
26
21
180
6
017
043
0026
English unts (pounds per
1.000 gallons ol nMr)
BOCX
TSK
con '
Total chromum
pH . .__ _
0.40
028
30
013
00029
0.0060
0.00052
(•)
0-22
018
1.5
0067
00014
Ojooas
O00023
m
1 In any case vi vrtuch Hie appkcant can demonstrate Inat
trie cNonde on ooncentnton n tie effluent exceeds 1000
mq'l (t 000 pom), me permitting authority may substitute
"OC is a ;*-«.T.. f m heu ol COO A TOC effluent imitation
Shan be toned on effluent data from the parbcular refinery
•rueh rore&les TOC to 8CXX II n Die (udgmeni of me
permitting autnonty. adeouale correlation data are not avail-
able the effluent kmnmna for TOC shaft be esiabisned «
a ratio ol 2 2 lo 1 to We appkcabte effluent tomaoons tor
»wmn the range ol M to 9 0
9$ 419.13, 419.23. 419.33. 419.43, and 41933
(A •ajia^anrtamari 1
Amended j
9. Sections 419.13. 419.23. 419.33.
41943. and 419.53 are amended by
removing the entries and effluent
limitations for phenolic compounds.
total chromium, and hexavalenl
chromuim from the tables in paragraph
|a|.
10. Sections 419.13. 419.23. 419.33.
419.43. and 419.53 are further amended
by redesignating paragraph (e) as (f).
redesignating paragraph (d) as (e).
redesignating paragraph (c) as (d). and
revising the redesigns ted paragraph (f|
to read as follows:
S 419.—Effluent limitation* guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet available technology economically
achievable (BAT).
• • • • •
(f) Effluent Limitations for
Contaminated Runoff. The following
effluent limitations constitute the
quantity and quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attnbutable to
contaminated runoff, which may be
discharged after the application of the
best available technology economically
achievable by a point source subject to
this subpart.
(1) If wastewater consists solely of
contaminated runoff and is not
commingled or treated with process
wastewater. it may be discharged if it
does not exceed 110 mg/1 total organic
carbon (TOC) based upon an analysis of
any single grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is
commingled or treated with process
wastewater, or if wastewater consisting
solely of contaminated runoff which
exceeds 110 mg/1 TOC is not
commingled or treated with any other
type of wastewater. the quantity of
pollutants discharged shall not exceed
the quantity determined by multiplying
the flow of contaminated runoff as
determined by the permit writer times
the concentrations listed in the
following table:
PoUutant or potutaffl property
contanMatod runoff
Maximum for
any 1 day
Averaged
devalues
lor 30
consecutive
dayssnac
noteieeed
Mate unto (Mograms par
1.000m" of flow)
Heflvaloni ctvomurn . .
COO '
035
060
0062
360
017
021
0026
iao
Total clMomsim . . _ _ .
COO ' __ -
English unts (pounds per
1.000 galons ol (tow)
00029
00050
000052
30
00014
00018
000023
IS
1 In env case in •ncn the appQcait can demonstrate that
Ine cNonde on concentration n me effluent nureerlg 1.000
mo'I (1 000 pom) the ueiiimuiiu authority may substitute
TOC as a parameter n teu of COD A TOC effluent hmtaMn
snail be based on effluent data from ma particular refinery
•ftc*) correlates TOC to BOD> II m the (udgemeni of rrv»
autnonty adequate correlation dala are not avail-
effluent limitations
for TOC shat be established •!
effluent limitations tor
abfa tfw
a ratio ol 22 lo i to me
8OIX
ll.Sections 419.23.419.33.419.43. and
419.53 are amended in newly designated
paragraph (d) by changing "419.13(c)" to
read "419.13(d)".
12. Sections 419.12 (a) and (c). 419.13
(a). 41916 (a) and (c). 419.22(a).
419.23(a). 419.26(a). 419.32(a). 419.33(a).
419.36[a). 419.42(a). 419 43(a). 419.46(a].
419.52(a). 419.53(a), and 419.56(a) are
amended by revising footnote (1) to the
table to read " ' See footnote following
table in §
§§ 419.13. 419.23, 419.33, and 419.53
[Amended]
13. Sections 419 13. 419.23. 419.33. and
419.53 are amended by adding a new
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
{ 419.— Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best available technology economically
achievable (BAT).
• • • • •
(c)(l) In addition to the provisions
contained above pertaining to COD.
ammonia and sulfide. 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
(BAT):
(i) For each of the regulated pollutant
parameters listed below, the effluent
limitation for a given refiner) is the sum
of the products of each effluent
limitation factor times the appbcable
process feedstock rate, calculated as
provided in 40 CFR 122.45(b). Applicable
production processes are presented in
Appendix A. by process type. The
process identification numbers
presented in this Appendix A are for the
convenience of the reader. They can be
cross-referenced in the Development
Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines. New Source Performance
Standards, and Pretreatment Standards
for the Petroleum Refining Point Source
Category (EPA 440/1-82/014). Table III-
7, pp. 49-54.
Pollutant or ponuunt property
end pfQGBSs lypfl
BAT etlluem imitation
factor
Mvnmuffl (Of
any i day
Average ol
darfy values
tor 30
consecutive
dayssnai!
not exceed
Metre urats (kilograms per
1000 cube mete-s ol
feedstock)
Phenolc compounds (4AAPV
Crude
Cracking and coking
Asphalt , ..._ ..„
Lube.. . _ — ...
Retomvig and slkyiation
Total chromurn
Crude _
Cracking and coking
Reforming and alkviation
nlcnronvunr
Crude
Cracking and coung
0037
0419
0.226
1055
0377
0030
0340
0163
0.855
0305
00019
00218
0003
0102
0055
0257
0092
0011
0118
0064
0297
0106
oorxx
0009.
-------
28524 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 134 / Friday. July 12. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
MUM or pomttrM property
•widpracMS typ*
Alphas
l^>?
Reforming and afcytBBon«_
Phenofc compounds (4AAP):
Craeknaandeetaig
Lubt
Tout cfwomunc
AlptMf*
i.««
RflvonrwQ md •fhytcbon ».
liifrr •
•H9HJill8l«l| •W ••iyielUUII _
BATalBMmMMon
Maximum tor
any 1 day
O0117
00549
O0198
Average*
Oa»>va*ia>
~tr3p
COHiMQUtMi)
d»yaahal
0X1053
0.0248
00088
EngWi unto (pom* par
IMO nU of faadMek)
0013
O147
0079
O3B9
O132
0011
0119
OJOB4
0289
0107
00007
00078
00041
00192
O0089
0003
Oi03S
0019
OOBO
0032
0004
0041
0022
0104
0037
00003
00034
00019
00087
0.0031
(2) See the comprehensive example in
Subpart D. { 419.43(c)(2).
14. Section 419.43 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
PMuhjnt or poMant property
and prooeaa type
Phone* compounds (4AAP):
Q ^LI •_£ eoMv1
f^ny irun*w
lubt
Ralornang and aftyej&on _
TaM enromunt
Crocking and oolong
Aaphatt
tub*
Rofornwig and akytatton «•
Craddng and eotoig
**(***
Lub*
neWonmiQ end Bfcyl8oon__
Phanofc oarnpom* t*AAPr
Cracking and ookng.
\it»
nOtafnvnQ end •fcytaoon ~~
Todl dvomuit
CnnH
•tiiriHfi
!.<.
BAT arfluent imoaHon
naor
IkBdrnumtor
A«en«eol
da»f««Mi
fcrSO
ooneacuAve
dtyaahal
MaMc unto (Mograma par
1 4)00 m'ol feedstock)
0037
0419
O228
1066
O377
0030
0340
0183
0.865
O306
00019
00218
O0117
00548
00198
0009
0.102
0065
OJS7
0092
0011
0.118
0084
O2B7
0108
00008
00098
00053
00248
00088
Eflyisn units (pounds p*y
1X100 OBI ol feedstock)
0.013
0147
0079
0.389
O132
0.011
O11B
O084
O2B9
0003
0038
0019
OOBO
0032
O.OO4
OO41
0.022
0104
RoSnary pfocaa»
8 C«t»fyite r«lr™~>(|
DtaMM**
rToceae
teedatock
nte 1.000
DBI/day-
10
10
Note: 30 day average effluent limitation for
phenolic compounds (4AAP). lb/day= (0.003)
(225) +(0.036) (45) +(0.019) (5) +(0.090)
(3)+(O032) (10)=2.98 Ib/day
15. Section 419.14 is revised to read as
follows:
(419.14 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT):
(a) Any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limits tfons
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT);
Poeutant or pooutant propoily
BCT effluent tmoaoona
Madman
tar any 1
Average ol
dairy values
tor30
oonsecuftve
not 0xcood
9419.43 Effluent limitation. guMellnea
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best available technology economically
achievaote (BAT).
(c)(l) In addition to the provisions
contained above pertaining to COD,
ammonia and sulfide. any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
eulueut reduction attainable by the
application of the best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT):
(i) For each of the regulated pollutant
pariTeters listed below, the effluent
limitation for a given refinery is the sum
of the products of each effluent
limitation factor times the applicable
process feedstock rate, calculated as
provided in 40 CFR 122.45(b). Applicable
production processes are presented in
Appendix A. by process type. The
processUentification numbers
presented in this Appendix A are for the
convenience of the reader. They can be
cross-referenced in the Development
Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, New Source Performance
Standards, and Pretnatment Standards
for the Petroleum Refining Point Source
Category (EPA 440/1-82/014). Table ffl-
7, pp. 49-64.
Wetnc unta (Mograma per
(2) Example Application of Effluent
Limitations Guidelines as Applicable to
Phenolic Compounds, Hexavalent
Chromium, and Total Chromium.
The following example presents the
derivation of a BAT phenolic compound
(4AAP) effluent limitation (30-day
average) for a petroleum refinery permit
The methodology is also applicable to
hexavalent chromium and total
chromium.
f*T>i
TSS
pM
am,
TSM
227
158
69
C)
120
101
37
C)
Engtah ma (pounds per
1.000 bbl ol feedstock)
80
68
ZS
C)
425
3.8
13
2. Crude daaaMng
I Vacuum crude dkdfe
TOM i
8. FUd cataryde on
ML HydnxraeUng.
Total OBBdUng and ooafnQ pvooaaeee
00
18. Aapnal protection
' WiOwi ON range o< 0.0 to 9.ff
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
ma 1.000
bM/dqr
1.000 Ml of known* par tnm flay
100
so
76
225
25
20
600 to 748_
100 to 124 9~
1SOO or great
Sto lector
102
1.18
1.87
48
8
(2) Process factor.
L5I0149
087
235
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 134 / Friday. July 12. 1985 / Rulea and Regulations 28525
5.Sto5_9_
60 » 649.
65»8J9_
8*1
90to949
95to999_
100 » 10 49-
10.5 to 10 99-
11X10 .148.
11 5 Mil M-
130 to 13 48.
13 5 to 13.99.
14 0 or gratar
factor
080
OJ6
107
117
1J9
151
164
179
195
2.12
2J1
2.51
Z73
298
324
353
384
418
438
(3) See the comprehensive example in
Subpart D. § 419.43(b){3).
(c) The following allocations
constitute the quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph and
attributable to ballast, which may be
discharged after the application of best
conventional pollutant control
technology by a point source subject to
this subpart. in addition to the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
The allocation allowed for ballast water
flow, as kg/cu m (lb/1000 gal), shall be
based on those ballast waters treated at
the refinery.
^OHM-_nt OF poNutmt pnpwty
BCT Effluent imnttiont tor
any Iday
MMnc uraa (Uograrm pv
m« ol flow)
r«r>,
TSS
f*
BOO>
TSS
r"
0046
0033
0015
(X028
0021
0006
P)
EngMi urau (pounda par
1.000 omnona d Bow)
040
026
0128
C)
021
017
0.067
C)
1 Witrun na range of 6.0 to 90
(d) The quantity and quality of
puiiuUnw or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph attributable
to once-through cooling water, are
excluded from-the discharge allowed by
paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) Effluent Limitations for
Contaminated Runoff. The following
effluent limitations constitute the
quantity and quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to
contaminated runoff which may be
discharged after the application of the
best conventional pollutant control
technology by a point source subject to
this subpart
(1) If wastewater consists solely of
contaminated runoff and is not
commingled or treated with process
wastewater. it may be discharged if it
does not exceed 15 mg/1 oil and grease
based upon an analysis of any single
grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is
commingled or treated with process
wastewater. or if wastewater consisting
solely of contaminated runoff which
exceeds IS mg/1 oil and grease is not
commingled or treated with any other
type of wastewater. the quantity of
pollutants discharged shall not exceed
the quantity determined by multiplying
the flow of contaminated runoff as
determined by the permit writer times
the concentrations bated in the
following table:
Poftfttnt v poHutBnf ivoporty
BCT emuant bntafiona tor
eontammatad runoff
Man-urn tor
any iday
AMragaof
(ttyviluM
tor 30
oonsoouwA
days anal
not CaTOVod
Mafnc unrla (Wtoflrama par
1.000 (m* of Now)
BOCk
TSS
C« and graaaa-
pH ______
46.
33
IS.
(1
2t
6.
n
EnQutft units (pounds pv
1.000 gUton ol toot
Mandgraaaa-
pH
0.40
028
013
022
0-18
OJ067
(1
_ • Within the range of 64 to 9A
16. Section 419.T4 is revised to read as
follows:
8419.24 Effluent Umltatlont guMeUnes
raprasentlng ttw dogra* of trTluenl
reduction attainable by the appHcatton of
tobyt
naTpa
ttw best eonvwrtlonarpoflutant control
technology (BCT).
(a) 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 conventionaLpollutant
control technology it/iL):
Poautam or penman! property
BCT affluant Imraitlo-a
tor any 1
A-angaot
dtiiyvaluaa
torso
dayatfial
not<
MaWe urUB Odograma par
1jOOO(m'oll
BOCX. .
156
PoM-nt or poOut»nt property
pM
BCTaMuani tnMaoona
Maximum
Mr any 1
day
84
n
Avaragaol
(My vakm
lorSO
eontacuava
dayaahaM
not axcaad
45
11
Engksfl unm (pounds par
1.000 bbl of laadimcli)
BOO.
TS«?
P" . ... .,
99
89
30
11
55
44
16
(T
•Within *•
of S.O to 9JX
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days
(1) Size factor.
1.000 MX of laauaiB-li par mam o-y
Laaatnan 7*9
TffQM-f 9
50 0 to 74 9
750 to 99 9
1000 to 17*9
1250 M 1-99
Soa factor
091
095
104
1 13
1.23
135
141
(2) Process factor.
•V*
Lata »»n8-9
25 to 3-9
35 to-/-9 _
- f "ff » -9 . .
*$to«a_
OOtot-9 . .. ....
f ^ tftfoa
70 to 7 -9
79 n>799
9 ni-t-f
6.5 to 899 -
90 to 9-9
PfOCUt
(actor
058
063
074
088
100
109
1 19
129
1 41
153
187
182
189
(3) See the comprehensive example in
Subpart D. 9 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The provisions of S 419.14(c) apply
to discharge of process wastewater
pollutants attributable to ballast water
by a point source subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph.
attributable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section
(e) Effluent Limitations for
Contaminated Runoff. The following
effluent limitations constitute the
quantity and quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to
contaminated runoff which may be
discharged after the application of the
236
-------
28526 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 134 / Friday. July 12. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
best conventional pollutant control
technology by a point source subject to
this subpart.
(1) If waste water consists solely of
contaminated runoff and is not
commingled or treated with process
wastewater, it may be discharged if it
does not exceed 15 mg/1 oil and grease
based upon an analysis of any single
grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is
commingled or treated with process
wastewater. or if wastewater consisting
solely of contaminated runoff which
exceeds 15 mg/1 oil and grease is not
commingled or treated with any other
type of wastewater, the quantity of
pollutants discharged shall not exceed
the quantity determined by multiplying
the flow of contaminated runoff as
determined by the permit writer times
the concentrations listed in the
following table:
PoHutant or poflufant property
BCT effluent limitations for
Gontanwtstad runoff
Maximum tor
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 30
oonseordM
days shall
not exceed
Metric ums (kaograms per
1.000 m« of fKw)
BOO.
TSS
r"
48
33
IS
O
28
21
8
(')
En0tan units (pounds por
1,000 geHona of nm>)
POC.
T«5S
pU
040
028
013
(1
022
018
0087
«
'WNhm the range of 60 to 90
17. Section 419.34 is revised to read as
fnllnws."
§ 419.34 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
(a) Any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
leuuiuun attainable by the application
of the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT):
Pollutant or poOutam property
BCT
tor any 1
day
30
cutk
days shaft
1.000 m> of feedstock)
BOD.
TSS.
346
234
PoHutant or p^nrti'M property
pM
BCT affluent irritation*
Msxmum
taany 1
day
111
0
Average o(
-W
consecutive
daysman
not exceed
58
0
EnQksti unns (pounds por
1.000 btt ol feedstock)
BQOi --.-
TSS
Ori and grease
pM
121
83
39
O
65
US
2.1
41)
1 Withm the rang* o* 6.0 to 8 0.
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1.000 DM of feedstock par stream day
lmnHM»?-«»
juatifAaa , , .
p>9'ff7*a
750 to 09 0
100 0» 1J49 .....
t?fQlp 1*90
Size teeter
0.73
076
083
091
090
108
113
(2) Process factor.
l.«f thfn A JO _
4SMS10
* 5 "0599
• nmAia
4S4499
7010740 .
7$iQ7aa
an 19 a in
pennon
aninaja
95 or jTMtar
Process
factor
073
080
091
099
106
1 17
128
139
151
1.65
172
184
14.8
(3) See the comprehensive example in
Subpart D. § 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The provisions pf fi 419J4(c) apply
to discharges of process wastewater
pollutants attributable to ballast water
by a point source subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph,
attributable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) Effluent Limitations for
Contaminated Runoff. The following
effluent limitations constitute the
quantity and quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to
contaminated runoff which may be
discharged after the application of the
best conventional pollutant control
technology by a point source subject to
this subpart.
(1) If wastewater consists solely of
contaminated runoff and is not
commingled or treated with process
wastewater. it may be discharged if it
does not exceed 15 mg/1 oil and grease
based upon an analysis of any single
grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is
commingled or treated with process
wastewater, or if wastewater consisting
solely of contaminated runoff which
exceeds 15 mg/1 oil and grease is not
commingled or treated with any other
type of wastewater, the quantity of
pollutants discharged shall not exceed
the quantity determined by multiplying
the flow of contaminated runoff as
determined by the permit writer times
the concentrations listed in the
following table:
Pollutant or pollutant property
BCT effluent hmtalions for
conuTuratGd furoff
Maximum tor
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
fa 30
consecutive
days shall
not exceed
Metric unrts (Wogrami pei
1.000 m> of flow)
BOD.-
TSS
Od and grease.
OM
BOO.
48.
33
IS
28
21
8
English urns (pounds per
1.000 gallons of flow)
> With*) the range ot 6 Olo 90
18. Section 419.44 is revised to read as
follows:
9 410.44 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
(a) 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 conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT):
BCT affluent Gmtatforts
Majomum
tor any 1
day
Average of
daily values
for 30
consecutive
daysanaU
not eiceeo
Metric unds (kHograms per
1.000 m* of I
606
3S6
258
227
237
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 134 / Friday. July 12. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 28527
PoluM or poMant property
O» nvIGnMM
fH
rXXN
TSS
pH
BCT effluent BmteBora
Maximum
lor any 1
day
1&2
(')
Average of
deity value*
_Jw30
OOnSOClltfVQ
dtysthafl
not vcowd
u
n
Engtsh unrts (pounds per
1.000 bM of feedstock)
179
12.5
5.7
«'J
9.1
80
3.0
(')
' Wlthn the range of 8 0 to 9 0
(b) Thp limits 8P» forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(l) Size factor.
l.dOu MI ol leedMocK per strain day
Less than *v 9
so 019 7i a ,
Tin m ao a
lOOOM 1MD
1KOM 1400
1"iOOiol749
1750m tea a
200.0 or group
(2) Process factor.
Sizo fftctof
071
074
081
088
097
105
1.14
1 19
Process corrtxjnixjn
it.-^l^-^BM
7?»700
astaaaa
a OK. aia
aSMDBB
momma
insnioaa
110M1IJB
11 «M 11 ao
19 nm o*a
1H « t? t-OO
-•.=-_::
Process
factor
OBI
088
1.00
109
1 19
1.29
141
153
167
182
198
2.15
2.34
2-*4
technology by a point source subject to
this subpart
(1) If wastewater consists solely of
contaminated runoff and is not
commingled or treated with process
wastewater. it may be discharged if it
does not exceed 15 mg/1 oil and grease
based upon an analysis of any single
grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is
commingled or treated with process
wastewater, or if wastewater consisting
solely of contaminated runoff which
exceeds 15 mg/1 oil and grease is not
commingled or treated with any other
type of wastewater. the quantity of
pollutants discharged shall not exceed
the quantity determined by multiplying
the flow of contaminated runoff as
determined by the permit writer times
the concentrations listed in the
following table:
BCT affluent (nutations tor
contemHisted runoff
Average o«
PoOutam or pollutant property daily values
Mcationwni for tot 30
•Viy 1 OCV QOR9GCUDV9
day* shan
ml exceed
Metric untt Odtograra per
1.000m* of flow)
BOCK ia ?*
TSS M ?1
Ol and grease .... is 8
PH .- - .. <•) (')
Engksh unta (pound* par
1.000 gallons of flow)
BOO. 040 022
TSS — 028 018
Ol and grease 013 0067
pH (i) <•)
• WWm me range ol 6 0 to 9 0
19. Section 419.54 is revised to read as
follows:
5 419.54 Effluent nmttatiora guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
PoMant or poUutsnt property
P"
am.
TSS
cm m*Hf*m
ph
BCT effluent Imitations
Msiomum
for any 1
day
171
(')
Average of
da* values
for 30
consecutive
days snail
not exceed
91
<•)
Engtati unrts (pounds pef
1.000 tab) of feedstock)
192
132
6.0
(')
10.2
84
32
I1)
1 Vttnm me range of 6 0 to 9 0
(b) The limits set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied by
the following factors to calculate the
maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1.000 bbl of feedstock par stream day
Leas than 124 9
1250(0 1499 _ _. . _.
i WO 19 i7i 9
17? 19 iea«
2000U>2249
225 0 or greater .... _.
(2) Process factor.
-
•— •
Sue factor
073
076
083
091
099
104
Process configuration
Less than 8 49 ...
6 5 to 7 49
T*b>70Q
80 to 649 ...
aftoaaa , , ,
90 10 949 ...
9 5 to 999
105101099 . -.
110 to 11 49 _ _ .
115101199
12.0 to 1249
12 5 to 12.99 . . - -
13 0 or greater „„._«... ... .
_.-L_.
•
-
Process
factor
075
082
092
100
110
120
130
142
154
168
183
199
217
228
(c) The provisions of S 419.14(c) apply
to discharges of process wastewater
pollutants attributable to ballast water
by a point source subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
(d] The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
cc.i.::wl!sd by 'Jiia paragraph,
attributable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
allowed-by paragraph (b) of this section.
{?' ?f"j"'' Limitations for
Contaminated Runoff. The following
effluent limitations constitute the
quantity and quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to
contaminated runoff which may be
discharged after the application of the
best conventional pollutant control
reduction attainable by the application of
the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
(a) Any existing point subject to this
subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT):
POittjtsfit or pOBUteVet pPDpofty
Bwi •fmUrt iiTTiilAitons
Maximum
tor any 1
day
Average of
daity value*
for 30
consecutive
dayashal
not exceed
Metric untts (Uograrna per
1JOOO m • of feedstock)
TSS.
844
37J
269
23.7
(3] See the comprehensive example in
Subpart D. 8 419.42(b)(3).
(c) The provisions of $ 419.14(c) apply
to discharges of process wastewater
pollutants attributable to ballast water
by a point source subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph,
attributable to once-through cooling
water, are excluded from the discharge
alllowed by paragraph (b) of this
section.
(e) Effluent Limitations for
Contaminated Runoff. The following
effluent limitations constitute the
quantity and quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties controlled by this
paragraph and attributable to
contaminated runoff which may be
238
-------
28528 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 134 / Friday. July 12. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
discharged after the application of the
best conventional pollutant control
technology by a point source subject to
this subpart.
(1) If wastewater consists solely of
contaminated runoff and is not
commingled or treated with process
•.vas'.ewater. it may be discharged if it
does not exceed 15 mg/1 oil and grease
based upon an analysis of any single
grab or composite sample.
(2) If contaminated runoff is
commingled or treated with process
wastewater. or if wastewater consisting
solely of contaminated runoff which
exceeds 15 mg/l oil and grease is not
cor?..T.:r.g!=d or treated with any other
type of wastewater. the quantity of
pollutants discharged shall not exceed
the quantity determined by multiplying
the flow of contaminated runoff as
determined by the permit writer times
the concentrations listed in the
following table:
Polluttnt Of pOHuf &nt property
BCT affluent Ijnitations for
conuvmralad runoff
Maximum
lor any 1
nay
Average of
dnry values
10130
consecutive
daysman
not e«ceod
Metre unrtm (tatograms per
1.000 m' ol leedstodi)
Pottutont or polutcnt property
BCT effluent UnvtAfions fof
conlBHMiaied runoff
Maximum
lor any I
day
Average of
datfy vaiues
tor 30
consecutive
days mall
not exceed
EngSsft units (pourdt per
1.000 gallons ol How)
TS3 . ..
OaandgreaK
pH --
i __ _____ _«
040
0-28
013
(')
022
018
0067
(')
> Wittn the range 0< 6 0 10 9 0
§419.46 and 419.56 (Amended]
20. In | § 419.46(c) and 419.56(c),
"419.15(c)". is revised to read
BOO _ ..
TSS .-.
CM and grease .. .
pH
46
33
15
<•)
26.
21
a.
«')
21. 40 CFR Part 419 is amended by
adding the following Appendix A:
Appendix A.— Processes Included in the
Determination of BAT Effluent Limitations
for Total Chromium, Hexavalent Chromium,
and Phenolic Compounds (4AAP)
Crude Processes
1. Atmospheric Crude Distillation
2. Crude Desalting
3. Vacuum Crude Distillation
Cracking and Coking Processes
4. Visbreaking .^
5. Thermal Cracking^
6. Fluid Cata^icCrackmg
7. Moving Bed Catalytic Cracking
10. Hydrocracking
15 Delayed Coking
16 Fluid Coking
54. Hydrotrealmg
Asphalt Processes
18. Asphalt Production
32. 200'F Softening Point Unftuxed Asphalt
43 Asphalt Oxidizing
89. Asphall Emulsifying
Lube Processes
21 Hydrofining. Hydrofimshing. Lube
Hydrofining
22. White Oil Manufacture
23. Propane Dewaxing, Propane Deasphdltmg,
Propane Fractionmg. Propane Deresining
24 Duo Sol. Solvent Treating Solvent
Extraction, Duotreating. Solvent Dewaxing.
Solvent Deasphalting
25. Lube Vac Twr. Oil Fractionation. Batch
Still (Naphtha Slripi. Bright Stock Treating
26. Centrifuge and Chilling
27. MEK Dewaxing. Kelor.e Dewaxing. MEK-
Toluene Dewaxing
28. Denilmg (wax)
29 Naphthenic Lubes Production
30. SO: Extraction
34. Wax Pressing
35. Wax Plant (with Neutral Separation)
36. Furfural Extraction
37. Clay Contacting—Percolation
38. Wax Sweating
39. Acid Treating
40. Phenol Extraction
Reforming and Alky lotion Processes
8 HjSO< Alkylation
12. Catalytic Reforming
[FR Doc. 85-16383 Filed 7-11-85. 8 45 am|
BgLLJNQ CODE 6560-50-M
239
------- |