OVERVIEW
OF THE
NATIONAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
APRIL 1985

-------
1. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
1.1	PRETREATMENT IN THE CLEAN WATER ACT
The discharge of industrial pollutants into municipal sewer systems can
result in water pollution and related problems at the local wastewater treat-
ment plant. Congress decided the most feasible solution to this problem is to
regulate discharges from industrial users and, where necessary, require pre-
treatment by these users to remove pollutants from their wastewaters prior to
discharge into municipal sewers. The Clean Water Act (PL 92-500) focuses
pretreatment requirements on the control of toxic pollutants by establishing
pretreatment standards for industrial and commercial dischargers in specific
industrial categories determined to be the most significant sources of the 65
classes of toxic pollutants referenced in Section 307(a) of the Act. In other
parts of the Act, Congress assigned the primary responsibility for enforcing
national pretreatment standards to the local publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs).
To implement this mandate, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
first issued the General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources
of Pollution (40 CFR Part 403) on June 26, 1978. After a public comment
period, followed by additional regulation development activities, the revised
regulations became final on January 28, 1981, with an effective date of March
30, 1981. The Regulations establish procedures, responsibilities, and
requirements for EPA, States, local governments, and industry.
1.2	OBJECTIVES OF THE GENERAL PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS
The goal of the National Pretreatment Program is to protect municipal
wastewater treatment plants and the environment from the damage that may occur
when hazardous or toxic wastes are discharged into a sewage system. This
protection is achieved by regulating industrial or nondomestic users of POTWs
that discharge toxic wastes or unusually strong conventional wastes. There
-1-

-------
are four major problems that can be prevented through implementation of a
local pretreatment program:
(1)	Interference with POTW operations. Since municipal wastewater
treatment systems are designed primarily to treat domestic wastes,
the introduction of nondomestic wastes may affect these systems.
For example, the bacteria in activated sludge treatment systems can
be inhibited by toxic pollutants. The result is interference with
the treatment process, which means that domestic and industrial
wastes may be improperly treated before being discharged into the
receiving stream.
(2)	Pass-through of pollutants. Even if pollutants do not interfere
with the treatment systems, they may pass through POTWs without
being adequately treated because the systems are not designed to
remove them.
(3)	Municipal sludge contamination. The removal of certain pollutants
by the POTW's treatment system can result in contamination of its
sludge. If the sludge is incinerated, these pollutants may be
released into the air. If the sludge is buried in an unsecured
landfill, these pollutants may leach out and contaminate adjacent
surface waters and groundwater. If the sludge is applied to
agricultural land, crops or pasture grasses may no longer be safe
for human or animal consumption. In general, industrial pollutants
(especially metals) can limit the POTW's sludge management alterna-
tives and increase the cost of appropriate sludge disposal methods.
(4)	Exposure of workers to chemical hazards. When combined with domes-
tic wastes, industrial wastes can produce poisonous gases, such as
hydrogen sulfide, which may be hazardous to POTW personnel.
The General Pretreatment Regulations require that any POTW (or combina-
tion of POTWs operated by the same authority) with a design flow greater than
5 million gallons per day (mgd) must establish a pretreatment program as a
condition of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. POTWs with design flows less than 5 mgd may also be required to
establish a pretreatment program if nondomestic wastes cause upsets, sludge
contamination, or violations of the POTW's NPDES permit conditions.
Currently, 1,456 of the nation's 15,000-plus POTWs must develop pretreatment
programs. The remaining municipal treatment plants are not believed to be
receiving industrial wastes of concern at this time and will probably not be
required to develop pretreatment programs unless local circumstances regarding
their industrial users change.
-2-

-------
The General Pretreatment Regulations establish prohibited discharge stan-
dards and categorical pretreatment standards to control pollutant discharges
into POTWs. Prohibited discharge standards apply to all industrial and
commercial establishments connected to POTWs. Categorical pretreatment
standards apply to users in 25 specific industrial categories determined to be
the most significant sources of toxic pollutants.* In addition, POTWs are
required to establish more stringent local limits where necessary to protect
the environment or the municipal sewage system.
Prohibited discharge standards protect the POTW treatment plant and its
operations by prohibiting Che discharge of pollutants that:
•	Create a fire or explosion hazard in the sewers or treatment works
•	Are corrosive (with a pH lower than 5.0)
•	Obstruct flow in the sewer system or interfere with operation
•	Upset the treatment processes or cause a violation of the POTW's
discharge permit
•	Increase the temperature of wastewater entering the treatment plant to
above 104°F (40°C).
Each categorical pretreatment standard is published by EPA as a separate
regulation. The standards contain limitations for pollutants commonly dis-
charged within each specific industrial category. All firms regulated by a
particular category are required to comply with these standards, no matter
where they are located in the United States. Table 1.1 lists the 25 indus-
trial categories and the status of the categorical pretreatment standards.
One hundred twenty-six toxic pollutants are being considered for regulation in
these 25 industrial categories. Table 1.2 summarizes the estimated number of
firms in each category which EPA feels are indirect dischargers and subject to
the national categorical pretreatment standards.
*Originally, there were 34 industrial categories; however, to date nine
categories have been exempted. Two industrial categories — organic chemi-
cals, and plastics and synthetic fibers — were combined to form a single
industrial category. In addition, the mechanical products category was
incorporated into the metal-finishing industry group. Another industrial
category, nonferrous metals forming, was added to the list of categories to
be regulated under categorical standards.
-3-

-------
TABLE 1.1	(Revised 1-3-85)
INDUSTRIES SUBJECT TO CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
FINAL REGULATIONS
Date Issued	PSES^
In Federal	Effective	Compliance
Industry Category	Register	Date	Date
Timber Products
1-26-81
3-30-81
1-26-84
2
Electroplating
1-28-81
3-30-81
4-27-84



(Nonintegrated)



6-30-84



(Integrated)
Iron & Steel
5-27-82
7-10-82
7-10-85
Inorganic Chemicals (Phase I)
6-29-82
8-12-82
8-12-85
Textile Mills
9-02-82
10-18-82
N/A
3
Coal Mining
10-13-82
11-26-82
N/A
Petroleum Refining
10-18-82
12-01-82
12-01-85
Pulp & Paper Mills
11-18-82
1-03-83
7-01-84
Steam Electric Power Plants
11-19-82
1-02-83
7-01-84
Leather Tanning & Finishing
11-23-82
1-06-83
11-25-85
Porcelain Enameling
11-24-82
1-07-83
11-25-85
Coil Coating
12-01-82
1-17-83
12-01-85
3
Ore Mining
12-03-82
1-17-83
N/A
Electrical & Electronic



Components (Phase I)
4-08-83
5-19-83
7-01-84



1l-08-85(As
Metal Finishing
7-15-83
8-29-83
2-15-86
Copper Forming
8-15-83
9-26-83
8-15-86
Aluminum Forming
10-24-83
12-07-83
10-24-86
Pharmaceuticals
10-27-83
12-12-83
10-27-86
Coil Coating (Canraaking)
11-17-83
1-02-84
11-17-86
Electrical & Electronic
12-14-83
1-27-84
7-14-87
Components (Phase II)



Nonferrous Metals (Phase I)
3-08-84
4-23-84
3-09-87
Battery Manufacturing
3-09-84
4-18-84
3-09-87
Inorganic Chemicals (Phase II)
8-22-84
10-5-84
8-22-87
Plastics Molding and Forming
12-17-84
1-30-85
N/A
PROPOSED REGULATIONS
Metal Molding & Casting	11-15-82
(Foundries)
Pesticides	11-30-82
Organic Chemicals and Plastics	3-21-83
and Synthetic Fibers
Nonferrous Metals Forming	3-05-84
Nonferrous Metals (Phase II)	6-27-84
^ PSES - Pretreatraent Standards for Existing Sources.
?
Existing job shop electroplaters and independent printed circuit board manu-
facturers must comply with only the electroplating regulations. All other
electroplating subcategories are now covered by both the electroplating and
metal finishing standards.
3
These two industries, to EPA's knowledge, contain only direct dischargers
(i.e., they do not discharge to POTWs) and thus no pretreatraent standards
have been developed.
-4-

-------
(Revised 4/19/85)
TABLE 1.2
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF INDIRECT DISCHARGERS SUBJECT TO
CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS1
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF
INDUSTRY CATEGORY	INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
Metal Finishing/Electroplating	10,561
Iron and Steel	162
Leather Tanning and Finishing	140
Aluminum Forming	72
Pulp and Paper Mills	261
Inorganic Chemicals (I)	21
Inorganic Chemicals (II)	10
Porcelain Enameling	88
Copper Forming	60
Organic Chemicals and Plastics	468
Textile Mills	1,406
Petroleum Refining	53
Foundries	327
Coil Coating (I)	39
Coil Coating (II) (Canmaking)	81
Electrical and Electronic Components (I)	242
Electrical and Electronic Components (II)	23
Battery Manufacturing	131
Nonferrous Metals (I)	85
Nonferrous Metals (II)	38
Coal Mining	0
Ore Mining	0
Steam Electric Power Plants	85
Pesticides	38
Timber Products	46
Pharmaceuticals	277
Plastics Forming	1 ,006
Nonferrous Metals Forming	107
TOTAL ESTIMATE	15,827
^These estimates are provided by EPA's Effluent Guidelines Division.
^Metal Finishing and Electroplating facilities are combined as one
category in this table; therefore, the number of industry categories
shown only totals 24.

-------
2. PRETREATMENT PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES
2.1 POTW RESPONSIBILITIES
POTWs have been notified by EPA or their State water pollution control
agencies that they are required to develop local pretreatment programs. A
compliance schedule is attached to the NPDES permit when the permit is re-
issued or revised which outlines milestones and dates for program completion.
Thus, the development and implementation of a pretreatment program is an in-
tegral and enforceable component of the POTW's NPDES permit. The compliance
schedule requires each POTW to develop and document the necessary authorities,
information, and procedures to implement its local program. The typical pro-
gram elements specified in the compliance schedule are:
(1)	Industrial Waste Survey - The POTW must identify and evaluate the
nondomestic dischargers to its treatment system.
(2)	Legal Authority - The POTW must operate under legal authority that
will enable it to apply and enforce the requirements of the General
Pretreatment Regulations and any other Federal, State, or local
standards and requirements needed to control nondomestic discharges.
(3)	Compliance Monitoring - The POTW must develop procedures for
monitoring its industrial users to determine compliance and
noncompliance with pretreatment standards and requirements.
(4)	Procedures - The POTW must develop administrative procedures to
implement its pretreatment program.
(5)	Resources - The POTW must have sufficient resources (funds,
equipment, and personnel) to operate an effective and ongoing
program.
The local program is developed and carried out by the POTW with guidance
and assistance from EPA or from those States that have State pretreatment
authority delegated to them by EPA. Contractor assistance is frequently used
by POTWs to develop local pretreatment programs. Program development activi-
ties have been eligible for funds under the Construction Grants Program and a
large number of municipalities have received grant funding for their local
programs. However, the pretreatment regulations specify that the costs to
implement a local program must be funded entirely from local sources.
-6-

-------
2.2	FEDERAL/STATE ROLE IN PROGRAM APPROVAL
A POTW prepares and submits its pretreatment program documentation to EPA
or the appropriate State agency for review and approval. It is the responsi-
bility of the Approval Authority (either EPA or a State with an approved
pretreatment program) to evaluate each pretreatment program submission and
ensure that:
o. All necessary legal authorities are in place
o Information is presented which demonstrates the POTW's knowledge and
understanding of the industrial community it services (including type,
size, pollutants discharged, necessary pollutant limits, operating
problems, etc.)
o Administrative, technical, and legal procedures for implementing the
pretreatment program are consistent with and adequate for the
complexity of the industrial community described
o The estimated cost of implementing the program (including manpower and
equipment), based on the procedures established, is reasonable and
revenue sources are available to ensure continued funding.
The Approval Authority retains responsibility for administering national
pretreatment standards until a POTW's pretreatment program is approved. Any
State with an approved NPDES permit program is eligible to receive pretreat-
ment delegation and act as Approval Authority for its POTWs, provided that its
State pretreatment program is approved by EPA. As of September 17, 1984, 21
States have received this formal delegation. Several other States are close
to receiving delegation or have signed Memoranda of Agreement with EPA and
thus have received partial Approval Authority responsibility. Although the
pretreatment regulations set July 1, 1983 as the deadline by which all local
programs were to be approved, only two-thirds of the approximately 1,500
required programs were approved as of April 1, 1985. However, many POTWs have
recently submitted their programs to the appropriate Approval Authority for
review. Accordingly, a large number of programs should be approved soon
without substantial modification.
2.3	INDUSTRY RESPONSIBILITIES
The primary responsibility of all nondomestic users under the National
Pretreatment Program is to comply with prohibited discharge standards and
-7-

-------
applicable categorical pretreatment standards as well as with any additional
limitations or requirements determined by the POTW to be necessary to accom-
plish the program's intent. Each industrial user is required to report on the
effectiveness of its pretreatment facilities and supply the POTW with other
technical data specified by either the POTW or Federal regulations.
The regulations establish certain requirements for industrial users in
each of the 25 industrial categories. These requirements specify compliance
with both Federally-established, technology-based limits (the categorical
standards) and reporting requirements. Industries in these categories must
come into compliance with the relevant categorical pretreatment standards no
later than three years from the effective date of the standard. It is impor-
tant to note that local or State standards for categorical industries can
supersede Federal standards but only if the former standards are more strin-
gent than the latter. At a minimum, Federal discharge limits must be enforced
by the POTW for categorical industries. The POTW is also required to control
the discharges from noncategorical industries that cause environmental prob-
lems or inhibit or upset the treatment plant's operation.
A primary reporting requirement of categorical industries detailed in the
General Pretreatment Regulations is to prepare a Baseline Monitoring Report
(BMR), which describes the firm's operation and wastestream characteristics.
These reports are submitted to the appropriate Control Authority, which is
the POTW, if its local pretreatment program is approved, or the Approval
Authority, in the absence of an approved POTW pretreatment program. The BMR
includes sampling and analysis data of the industrial user's discharge. The
BMR must be submitted within 180 days from the effective date of final cate-
gorical pretreatment standards for that industry category and must include the
user's certification that its discharge is or is not in compliance with the
applicable standards. If not in compliance, the user must develop and submit
a compliance schedule describing the steps it will take to achieve compliance.
The user must then submit periodic progress reports indicating how well it is
meeting the milestones specified in its compliance schedule. The Control
Authority tracks the industry's progress in meeting its compliance schedule
-8-

-------
milestones and takes appropriate administrative or enforcement action if com-
pliance is not achieved in a reasonable time period. In general, industries
subject to categorical pretreatment standards must achieve compliance within
three years of the promulgation date of the applicable standard. Table 1.1
lists the established compliance dates for those pretreatment standards that
have been promulgated in final form. Within 90 days of the final compliance
date of an applicable standard, a compliance date report must be submitted
detailing the nature and concentration of the industry's discharges. Indus-
tries subject to categorical standards must also, at least twice a year,
submit a report containing self-monitoring results to the Control Authority.
In addition, an industry is required to report immediately any slug loads or
significant changes in its discharge characteristics to the POTW.
-9-

-------
3. EPA/STATE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES
At this time, all POTWs required to develop local programs have been
identified. The primary tasks that EPA and Delegated States are now
addressing include:
(1)	Reviewing POTW programs for approval
(2)	Developing a strategy and procedures for effective oversight,
compliance, and enforcement of approved POTW programs
(3)	BMR notification, follow up, and review, or oversight of the POTWs
if they implement BMR requirements upon industrial users.
Specific priorities within each of these activities are discussed below.
3.1	REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF POTW PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS
A considerable number of resources will be needed during	the next year
for EPA and States to conduct timely reviews of the many POTW program
submissions now being received and expected to be submitted.	Key elements of
the review process are:
•	To set priorities for program reviews so that resources are used
efficiently
•	To ensure quality control of the review process
•	To amend POTWs' NPDES permits to incorporate approved pretreatment
programs.
3.2	STRATEGIES FOR OVERSIGHT, COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
A second important task, during the next several months will be the
development of a strategy and procedures to carry out the compliance and
enforcement responsibilites of EPA and Delegated States. Basically, there are
three issues involved:
•	Documenting a POTW's Compliance With Its Approved Program. Included
in this issue are the activities that should be conducted by the POTW
to demonstrate that its pretreatment program is actually being carried
out and the oversight activities that the Approval Authority should
undertake.
-10-

-------
•	Determining the Effectiveness of the POTW's Program. Although a POTW
may be meeting the provisions of its approved program, the results may
not be sufficient to achieve local environmental goals.
•	Ensuring Compliance and Taking Enforcement Actions Against POTWs Out
of Compliance. Defining noncompliance and identifying what sanctions
are available when a POTW is not in compliance with its program, as
well as how these sanctions should be administered are the principal
components of this issue.
-11-

-------
4. REVIEW OF REGULATORY INITIATIVES AND CHALLENGES
The General Pretreatment Regulations have been the subject of much
litigation. Following their promulgation in 1978, several parties brought
suit in Federal court challenging various aspects of the regulations. On
October 29, 1979, pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement entered into
by some of the parties, EPA published proposed amendments to the regulations
that were to become final on January 28, 1981. However, on March 27, 1981,
EPA indefinitely postponed the effective date of the amendments in order to
allow the Agency to conduct a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) required by
Executive Order 12291. On October 13, 1981, EPA terminated the indefinite
postponement of the January 1981 amendments and announced that these amend-
ments would become effective on January 31, 1982.
Most of the 1981 amendments actually did go into effect at the end of
January 1982. However, the following four provisions were further postponed:
•	The definition of interference
•	The definition of pass-through
•	The combined wastestream formula applicable to integrated industrial
facilities
•	The provisions for revising national categorical standards by applying
removal credits.
Subsequent to this effective date, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit ruled on a' suit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council
which asserted that EPA's postponement of the regulations violated the Admin-
istrative Procedures Act. The Court directed EPA to reinstate, effective
March 30, 1981, all of the amendments to the pretreatment regulations, in-
cluding those four provisions previously suspended for further study.
Consequently, these four provisions, as well as the definition of "new
source," have been subject to judicial review. In a decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [National Association of Metal
Finishers et al. vs. EPA, 719 F. 2d 624, (3rd Cir. 1983)], the Court ordered
-12-

-------
EPA to redefine pass-through, interference, and new source consistent with the
Clean Water Act and the Court's opinion. Essentially, the Court held that the
definition of interference must provide for liability by the industrial user
only when it caused inhibition or disruption of the treatment processes. The
definition of pass-through must be repromulgated according to the required
procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act; the Court did not rule on the
definition itself. The Court also held that the definition of "new source"
was too narrow under the Clean Water Act. In addition, the Court upheld the
removal credit provision and the combined wastestream formula in their current
form. In the same opinion, the Court upheld the electroplating pretreatment
standards as well. The Court also held that a provision in the Clean Water
Act prohibited the modification of toxic pollutant limitations of Categorical
Pretreatment Standards. As such, EPA could not change toxic limits based on
fundamentally different factors (FDFs) since this represents a modification of
toxic limits. The Agency petitioned the Supreme Court to review this aspect
of the Third Circuit's decision. On February 27, 1985, the Supreme Court
overruled the Third Circuit decision on FDF variances. As a result of the
Supreme Court action, EPA can grant variances for toxic pollutant limits.
On February 10, 1984, the Agency published a final rule in the Federal
Register which suspended the definitions of: new sources [403. 3(k)],
interference [403.3(1)] and pass through [403.3(n)]. The new source
definition was published as a final rule on July 10, 1984. Other changes to
the General Pretreatment Regulations (Part 403) will be published in proposed
form in the near future to reflect the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's
decision.
Final changes to the removal credit provision were published in the
Federal Register (August 3, 1984). These changes simplify the procedures for
documenting consistent removal and obtaining removal credits.
-13-

-------
5. PRETREATMENT IMPLEMENTATION
REVIEW TASK FORCE
In February 1984, William Ruckelshaus, Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, created the Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force
(PIRT). The eleven-month mission of PIRT was to assist the Agency with the
implementation of the National Pretreatment Program. The eighteen member Task
Force, representing EPA, States, POTWs, Industry, and environmental interest
groups, provided advice and divergent views to the Administrator. The product
of their intensive efforts over the eleven month mission is the "Final Report
to the Administrator" dated January 30, 1985. Among the issues addressed in
the report by PIRT are:
o The complexity of certain pretreatment program requirements
o Needs for guidance and information dissemination
o Delineation of roles and responsibilities
o Creation of enforcement policies
o Proposal for regulatory changes that would facilitate program
implementation.
The Final Report also contains recommendations to the EPA for the issuance of
guidance and the Agency has since initiated preparation and distribution of
additional guidance.
-14-

-------
6. STATUS OF THE NATIONAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
Since the beginning of the National Pretreatraent Program, over two thirds
of the POTWs required to develop local pretreatment programs have received
approval for their local programs. A summary of the current status of the
POTW Pretreatment Program approvals is presented in Table 6.1. This summary
compares each Region's program approval status with the other Region's and the
nation as a whole.
TABLE 6.1
STATUS OF PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
April 1, 1985
POTW	TOTAL
EPA	PROGRAMS	APPROVED
REGION	REQUIRED	PROGRAMS TO DATE
I	81	50
II	81	53
III	140	77
IV	387	358
V	355	108
VI	122	101
VII	75	73
VIII	51	16
IX	122	117
X		42	_42
TOTALS	1,456	995
-15-

-------
7. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
The documents listed below have been developed by EPA to assist States,
POTWs, and industry understand their roles in the development and implemen-
tation of the National Pretreatment Program.
"Guidance Manual for POTW Pretreatment Program Development," U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, October 1983.
"Procedures Manual for Reviewing a POTW Pretreatment Program Submission,"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 1983.
"Guidance Manual for Electroplating and Metal Finishing Pretreatment
Standards," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 1984.
Additional guidance is expected to be available in the near future. For
example, EPA intends to publish additional material, similar to that for the
Electroplating and Metal Finishing Standards, addressing other industrial
categories.
Inquiries for availability of the above documents may be made to:
Mr. Tim Dwyer (EN-336)
NPDES Programs Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 426-4793
FTS 426-4793
-16-

-------
'	< I \
rf.-'.	'
[It AUG 1 k 1985 j
.	,.J
pt:Hivirr st-. .
EPA, REGION

-------
yH.-38»/#14
(Revised 10/4/85)
SUMMARY STATUS AND REGULATORY CITATIONS FOR PROPOSED AND FINAL
GENERAL PRETREATHENT REGULATIONS AND CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
Regulation
General Pretreatment
Regulations
40 CFR Part
403
Aluminum Forming
467
Battery Manufacturing	461
Coal Mining
Coll Coating
(Phase I and II)
434
465
Copper Forming
468
Electrical ft Electronic
Components (Phase I)	469
Electrical ft Electronic
Components (Phase II) 469
Type
Final Rule
Deferral of Effective Dates
Final Rule
Final Rule, Postponement
of Effective Date
Correction
Final Rule
Final Rule, Deadline Change
Denial of Petitions
Final Rule
Final Regulation
Final Rule
Final Rule, Removal Credits
Proposed Regulation,
Appendix D Revision
Proposed Rule, Definition of
Interference and Pass Through
Final Rule
Final Rule
Final Rule, Correction
Subcategory Exemptions
Final Rule
Correction
Final Rule, Correction
Final Rule
Correction
Proposed Amendment
Extension of Comment Period
Final Rule (Phase I)
(Subcategories A, B, ft C)
Technical Amendment to
Recordkeeping Requirements
Final Rule, Technical Amendment
Final Rule (Phase II)
(Subcategory D)
Final Rule, Correction
Final Rule, Correction
Final Rule
Final Rule, Technical Amendment
Correction
Proposed Regulation,
Modifications to Final Rule
Amendment
Subcategory Exemptions
Final Rule, (Subcategories A ft B)
Final Rule, Technical Amendment
Interim Final Report,
Request for Comments
Final Rule
Final Rule, (Subcategories C ft D)
Correction
Final Rule, Technical Amendment
Federal Register
Date
1/28/81
4/2/81
10/13/81
2/1/82
2/5/82
9/28/82
1/21/83
6/3/83
2/10/84
5/17/84
7/10/84
8/3/84
5/9/85
6/19/85
9/25/85
10/24/83
3/27/84
1/28/81
3/9/84
4/9/84
7/9/84
10/13/82
11/1/83
5/4/84
6/13/84
12/1/82
7/8/83
9/15/83
11/17/83
4/10/84
8/24/84
8/15/83
9/15/83
11/3/83
6/24/85
8/23/85
1/28/81
4/8/83
9/15/83
10/4/83
2/16/84
12/14/83
1/9/84
9/4/84
Federal Register
Citation
46 FR 9404
46 FR 19936
46 FR 50502
47 FR
47 FR
47	FR
48	FR
48	FR
49	FR
49 FR
48	FR
49	FR
4518
5413
42688
2774
24933
5131
21024
28058
31212
50 FR 19664
50 FR 25526
50 FR 38809
48	FR 49126
49	FR 11629
46	FR	9459
49 FR	9108
49 FR	13879
49 FR	27946
47	FR 45382
48	FR 50321
49	FR 19240
49 FR 24388
47	FR 54232
48	FR 31403
48 FR 41409
48	FR 52380
49	FR 14104
49	FR 33648
48 FR 36942
48 FR 41409
48 FR 50717
50	FR 26128
50 FR 34334
46 FR 9459
48 FR 15382
48 FR 41409
48	FR 45249
49	FR 5922
48	FR 55690
49	FR 1056
49 FR 34823

-------
F/H-38«/#14
SUMMARY STATUS AND REGULATORY CITATIONS FOR PROPOSED AND FINAL
GENERAL PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS AND CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
(Continued)
Regulation
40 CFR Part
Typ«
Federal Regl-ster
Date
Federal Register
	Citation
Electroplating and
Metal Finishing
413 and 433 •	Subcategory Exemptions	1/28/81
•	Final Rule (Electroplating)	1/28/81
•	Denial of Petition	1/28/81
•	Deferral of Effective Date	2/12/81
•	Correction to Final Amendment	6/10/81
•	Calendar of Federal Regulations	6/30/81
•	Correction to Final Amendment	9/2/81
e	Final Rule, Change 1n Deadlines	1/21/83
e	Final Rule, (Metal Finishing)	7/15/83
Amendment (Electroplating)
•	Final Rule, Technical Amendment	9/15/83
e	Final Rule, Interpretation and
Correction	9/26/83
e	Correction	10/3/83
•	Final Rule, Technical Amendment	9/4/84
46 FR
46 FR
46 FR
46 FR
46 FR
46 FR
46 FR
48 FR
48 FR
9459
9462
9476
11972
30625
34055
43972
2774
32462
48 FR 41409
48 FR 43680
48	FR 45105
49	FR 34823
Inorganic Chemicals
Manufacturing
(Phase I)
Inorganic Chemicals
Manufacturing
(Phase II)
Iron and Steel
Manufacturing
415
415
420
Leather Tanning
and Finishing
425
Metal Molding
and Casting
464
•	Subcategory Exemptions	1/28/81
•	Final Rule	6/29/82
•	Final Rule, Corrections	12/8/82
•	Final Rule, Change in Deadlines	1/21/83
Final Rule	8/22/84
Final Rule, Corrections	9/25/84
Subcategory Exemptions	1/28/81
Calendar of Federal Regulations	6/30/81
Final Rule	5/27/82
Final Rule, Correction	6/7/82
Final Rule, Correction	9/22/82
Final Rule, Changes in Deadlines	1/21/83
Final and Interim Rule	10/14/83
Proposed Interim Rule, Correction	11/10/83
Final Rule	5/17/84
Final Rule, Corrections	6/15/84
Subcategory Exemptions	1/28/81
Final Rule	11/23/82
Final Rule, Correction and
Technical Amendment	6/30/83
Technical Amendment	7/8/83
Final Rule, Correction	7/15/83
Final Rule, Correction	8/5/83
Final Rule, Technical Amendment	9/15/83
Proposed Regulation	11/15/82
Extension of Conment Period	1/10/83
Notice of Availability,
Request for Conments	3/20/84
Notice of Availability,
Request for Comments	2/15/85
Extension of Conment Period	3/20/85
46	FR	9459
47	FR	28260
47	FR	55226
48	FR	2774
49 FR 33402
49 FR 37594
46 FR
46	FR
47	FR
47 FR
47	FR
48	FR
48 FR
48	FR
49	FR
49 FR
9459
34059
23258
24554
41738
2774
46942
51647
21024
24726
46	FR 9459
47	FR 52848
48	FR	30115
48 FR	31403
48 FR	32346
48 FR	35649
48 FR	41409
47	FR 51512
48	FR 1084
49	FR 10280
50	FR 6572
50 FR 11187

-------
F/H-38a/#14
SUFfWRY STATUS AND REGULATORY CITATIONS FOR PROPOSED AND FINAL
GENERAL PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS AND CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
(Continued)
Regulation
40 CFR Part
Nonferrous Metals
Forming
Nonferrous Metals
Manufacturing
(Phase I)
Nonferrous Metals
Manufacturing
(Phase II)
Ore Mining and
Dressing
Organic Chemicals.
Plastics, and
Synthetic Fibers
421
421
440
414 and 416
Pesticides
Petroleum Refining
Pharmaceuticals
Manufacturing
45b
419
439
Plastics Molding
and Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard
463
466
430 and 431
Type
471	• Subcategory Exemptions
• Final Rule
•	Subcategory Exemptions
•	Final Rule
•	Correction
•	Final Rule, Correction
•	Final Rule, Correction
•	Final Rule
•	Final Rule
Proposed Rule
Extension of Comment Period,
Notice of Public Hearing
Extension of Comment Period
Notice of Availability,
Request for Comments
•	Final	Rule
•	Final	Rule
•	Final	Rule
•	Final	Rule, Correction
•	Final Rule
e	Proposed Rule, NSPS
•	Notice of Availability
•	Extension of Comment Period
•	Notice of Availability
•	Technical Amendment
•	Notice of Availability,
Request for Comments
•	Final Rule
•	Final Rule, Correction
•	Final Rule
•	Technical Amendment
•	Final Rule, Technical Amendment
•	Proposed Amendment
•	Final Regulation
•	Subcategory Exemptions
•	Calendar of Federal Regulations
•	Final Rule
•	Proposed Rule, PCB Limits
•	Extension of Comment Period
a	Final Rule, Correction
•	Technical Amendment
•	Notice of Petition Denial-Alaska
•Federal Register
Date .
1/28/81
8/23/85
1/28/81
3/8/84
6/29/84
7/24/84
3/28/85
9/20/85
12/3/82
3/21/83
5/31/83
8/5/83
7/17/85
10/4/85
10/18/82
7/12/85
8/12/85
10/27/83
10/27/83
3/9/84
4/26/84
7/2/84
5/1/85
9/9/85
12/17/84
4/30/85
11/24/82
7/8/83
9/15/83
4/27/84
9/6/95
1/28/81
6/30/81
11/18/82
11/18/82
1/21/83
3/30/83
7/8/83
10/16/84
Federal Register
Citation
46 FR 9459
50 FR 34242
46 FR 9459
49 FR 8742
49 FR 26738
49	FR 29792
50	FR 12252
50 FR 38276
47 FR 54598
48 FR 11828
48 FR 24138
48 FR 35674
50 FR 29068
50 FR 40672
47 FR 46434
50 FR 28516
50 FR 32414
48 FR 49808
48	FR 49832
49	FR 8967
49 FR 17978
49	FR 27145
50	FR 18486
50 FR 36638
49	FR 49026
50	FR 18248
47	FR 53172
48	FR 31403
48	FR 41409
49	FR 18226
50	FR 36540
46 FR 9459
46	FR 34057
47	FR 52006
47	FR 52066
48	FR 2804
48 FR 13176
48	FR 31403
49	FR 40546

-------
G/H-38a/#14
SUMMARY STATUS AND RE6ULAT0RY CITATIONS FOR PROPOSED AND FINAL
GENERAL PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS AND CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
(Continued)
Regulation
Steam Electric Power
40 CFR Part
Type
Federal Register
Date
Federal Register
Citat ion
Generation
423
•
Calendar of Federal Regulations
6/30/81
46
FR
34063


•
Final Rule
11/19/82
47
FR
52290


•
Technical Amendment
7/8/83
48
FR
31403
Texti le Mi 11 s
410
•
Subcategory Exemptions
1/28/81
46
FR
9459


•
Final Rule
9/2/82
47
FR
38810


•
Notice of Availabi1lty
1/14/83
48
FR
1722


•
Final Rule, Correction
9/1/83
48
FR
39624
Timber Products
Processing
429
Subcategory Exemptions	1/28/81
Final Rule	1/26/81
Deferral of Effective Date	2/12/81
Technical Amendment and Correction	11/23/81
46
FR
9459
46
FR
8260
46
FR
11972
46
FR
57286
I

-------
Effluent Guidelines — Post Promulgation Support Litigation/Petitions
ACTIVITY
STATUS .
ISSUES
Aluminum Forming
Settlement Agreement was
signed on 4/1/85; the
proposed amendment sche-
duled for 12/85 is in
OGC for review.
Flow allowance in 2 of 6
subcategories alternate
Oil and Grease limit increased
Battery Manufacturing
Settlement Agreement has
been reached — proposed
changes to rule are in
draft form. Secheduled
for 11/85.
Water use allowance increased
in lead battery subcategory.
Guidance language on evaluating
shower water discharges
Coil Coating
(Phase II)
On May 1, 1985 the 4th
Circuit Court decided
in the Agency favor.
On May 14-15, 1985 new
petition were filed
requesting that the
entire court review the
decision of the panel.
TTO limits arid whether to
regulate metals (pass-through
question and cost-effectiveness)
Copper Forming
Settlement Agreement
(one issue) — proposed
amendment was published
6/24/85 (50 FR 26128).
Final Amendment scheduled
for 4/86
The Court has ruled in
favor of the Agency on a
separate issue.
Beryllium/Copper alloys not
covered;
Court upheld limits
Electrical and
Electronic Components
(Phase II)
The 3rd Circuit Court has
ruled in favor of the
Agency.
Treatability due to chelating
agents
Leather Tanning and
Finishing
Settlement Agreement
signed — proposed
changes to rule will
be issued 10/85.
Water use allowance changed
slightly in several subcategories
Sulfide analytical procedure
change; clarifying language added

-------
Effluent Guidelines — Post Promulgation Support Litigation/Petitions (Cont'd)
ACTIVITY
STATUS
ISSUES
Metal Finishing
All major petitioners
dropped case. One company
remaining petitioned a
rule change; the petition
was settled on 5/17/85 in
favor of the Agency.
Court dismissed case.
Complexed metals due to different
processes. Now looking for a
FDF variance.
Nonferrous Metals
(Phase I)
All but 3 of the 13 peti-
tions filed have been
settled to the stage of
tentative agreements —
proposed changes to rule
are expected.
The' Agency has filed its
Brief in response to the
remaining petitions.
Industry's reply is
expected 7/15/85; Oral
arguments will probably
be in October.
Primary Aluminum no pretreat-
ment — storm runoff issue;
Secondary Alumiunum - increased
flow allowances; Tungsten -
ammonia limit
Petroleum Refining
Settlement Agreement -
Final amendments were
signed on 7/1/85; Federal
Register publishing
7/12/85 (50 FR 28516)
No effects on PSES or PSNS;
stormwater control section may
be helpful and is being included
in pretreatraent guidance document
Forceiain Enameling
Final amendments to the
regulation promulgated
11/82 are pending signa-
ture; scheduled for 8/85
Nickel and Iron bases for limits
increased
Flow allowance in one of the
processes increased

-------

-------
10/31/84
COMPLIANCE DATES FOR PROMULGATED CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
Estimate of
Total Industries Covered
1984

Category
Region V
Nati ona1
3-11-34
1.
Timber Products
30
47

2.
Electroplat i ng
4,000
10,561
4-27-84

° Non-integrated


6-30-84

° Integrated


7-1-34
3.
Pulp, Paper, Paperboard
100
250
7-1-34
4.
Steam Electric
65
93
7-1-34
5.
Electrical Phase I
175
240


TOTAL
4,622
11,191
1985




7-10-35
6.
Iron and Steel
70
96
3-12-85
7.
Inorganic Chemical Phase I
25
44
11-25-85
8.
Leather Tanning
100
140
11-25-85
9.
Porcelain Enameling
65
89
12-1-85
10.
Petroleum Refining
20
53
12-1-85
11.
Coil Coating Phase I
20
32


TOTAL
300
454
1 986




2-15-85
12.
Metal Finishing
4,000
10,561
7-14-86
13.
Electrical Phase II
175
240
8-15-86
14.
Copper Forming
20
32
10-24-86
15.
Aluminum Forming
25
59
10-27-86
16.
Pharmaceuti cals
175
270
11-17-86
17.
Coil Coating (canmaking)
20
32


TOTAL
4,415
11,194
1987




3-9-87
18.
Battery Manufacturing
100
190
3-9-87
19.
Nonferrous Metals Phase I
40
63


TOTAL
140
253

-------
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES DIVISION (EGD)
PROGRAM INFORMATION AND STAFF REFERENCE
OFFICE
PERSONNEL --
FUNCTION
ROOM NUMBER .,
(East Tower)
(Area Code 202)
0 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 	


Rm. 911


Jeffery D. Denlt
Deveraux Barnes
Harold Coughlln
Maureen Treacy
-	Director
-	Deputy Director
-	Environmental
Protection Specialist
-	Secretary


° OFFICE OF QUALITY REIVEW &
GUIDELINES IMPLEMENTATION BRANCH


Rm. 913


Marvin Rubin
Murray Strler
Peggy Mlchell
-	Chief
-	Chemist
-	Secretary


- QUALITY REVIEW AND POLICY
IMPLEMENTATION SECTION 	


Rm. 911


Linda Wilbur
Deborah Seal
S1d Jackson
Joe Vital Is
Deborah Hedrlck
-	Chief
-	Program Analysis and
Project Accountability
-	Regional Desk
-	Program Assistance
-	Office Assistance Clerk


- BUDGET & CONTRACTS SECTION ...


Rm. 911


Rexford Gile
John Golueke
-	Chief
-	Budget Accountability


- ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 	


Rm. 911
382-7145

Miriam Rhomblad
Denise Beverly
Angela Thompson
-	Administrative Officer
-	Distribution Clerk
-	Office Assistance Clerk


- WORD PROCESSING 	


Rm. 932
382-7169

Carol Swann
Pearl Smith
Glenda Nesby
-	Acting Supervisor
-	Operator
-	Operator


° OFFICE OF ANALYTICAL PROGRAMS ....


Rm. 935
382-7162
William TelHard - Acting Chief
Lynn Beasley - Analytical and Sampling
Support
William Smith - Clerk-typist

-------
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES DIVISION (EGD)
PROGRAM INFORMATION AND STAFF REFERENCE
OFFICE
PERSONNEL —
FUNCTION
ROOM NUMBER ,
(Ea'it Tower)
(Area Code 202)
0 WOOD PRODUCTS AND FIBERS BRANCH .


Rm. 911


Robert Del linger
Richard Williams
Wendy Smith
Gregory Aveni
Glenda Colvin
"Connie" OK
-	Chief
-	Project Officer
-	Project Officer
-	Project Officer
-	Secretary
-	Office Assistant Clerk


° ORGANIC CHEMICALS BRANCH 	


Rm. 935


Deveraux Barnes
Elwood Forsht
Hugh Wise
Joseph Vital 1s
George Jett
Maria Irlzarry
-	Acting Chief
-	Project Officer
-	Project Officer
-	Project Officer
-	Project Officer
-	Project Officer


Carol Lindsay
Emily Koo
Teresa Barnes
Renee Young
Project Officer Assistant
Project Officer Assistant
Secretary
Clerk -Typi st
0 FOOD INDUSTRIES BRANCH
Rm. 917
382-7140
Robert Crim
Donald Anderson
Robert Southworth
Cynthia Monts
Chief
Project Officer
Project Officer
Secretary
"RGY AND MINING BRANCH
° METALS AND MACHINERY BRANCH
° INORGANIC CHEMICALS & SERVICES BRANCH
William Tellliard	- Chief
Dennis Ruddy	- Project Officer
Matthew Jarrett	- Project Officer
Ronald Kirby	- Project Officer
Allison Phillips	- Project Officer
Nancy Christenson - Secretary
Rm. 937 	 382-71 31
Rm. 907 	 382-7126
Rm. 909 	 382-7124
Ernst P. Hall
Edward Dulaney
James Berlow
Ben Honaker
Mary Bel efski
Janet Goodwin
Terry Eby
Lynee Kukler
Jay Von Hemert
Romona Wilson
Claudette Holland
Linda Jennings
Chief
Project Officer
Project Officer
Project Officer
Project Officer
Project Officer
Project Officer Assistant
Project Officer Assistant
Project Officer Assistant
Project Officer Assistant
Secretary
Office Assistant Clerk
Edward Stigall
Richard Kinch
John Newbrough
Thomas F1el di ng
David Pepson
Belinda Jones
Chief
Project
Officer
Project Officer
Project Officer
Project Officer
Secretary

-------
EFFLUENT GUlDELItCS DIVISION (EGD)
PROGRAM INFORMATION AND STAFF REFERENCE
INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
BRANCH OFFICE
CONTACT
TELEPHONE NUMBER
(Area Code 20?)
Adhesive and Sealants
A1cohol
Aluminum Forming
Aluminum Manufacturing
Asbestos
Auto and Other Laundries
Battery Manufacturing
BTU Gasification
- low, medium, and high
Builders Paper and Board Mills
Carbon Black
Cement
Clay, Gypsum, Refractory
and Ceramic Products
Coal Mining
Coil Coating
Copper Forming
per Manufacturing
Concrete Products
Converted Paper
Dairy Products Processing
Deep Sea Mining
Electrical and Electronic
Components (Phase I)
Electrical and Electronic
Components (Phase II)
Electroplating
Explosives
Feedlots
Organic Chemicals
Energy and Mining
Metals and Machinery
Metals and Machinery
Inorganic Chemicals
Inorganic Chemicals
Metals and Machinery
Energy and Mining
Wood Products and Fibers
Organic Chemicals
Inorganic Chemicals
Energy and Mini ng
Energy and Mining
Metals and Machinery
Metals and Machinery
Metals and Machinery
Inorganic Chemicals
Wood Products and Fibers
Food Products
Energy and Mining
Inorganic Chemicals
Inorganic Chemicals
Inorganic Chemicals
Inorganic Chemicals
Food Products
Elwood Forsht
Allison Phillips
Jan Goodwin
Jan Goodwin
Tom Fielding
Dave Pepson
Mary Belefski
Allison Phillips
Robert Del linger
George Jett
Tom F1 el di ng
Ron Kirby
Allison Phillips
Mary Belefski
Dave Pepson
Dave Pepson
Tom Fielding
Robert Del 1 inger
Donald Anderson
Ron Kirby
Dave Pepson
John Newbrough
Richard Kinch
Tom Fielding
Donald Anderson
382-7190
382-7167
382-7152
382-7152
382-7156
382-7157
382-7153
382-7167
382-7137
382-7180
382-7156
382-7161
382-7167
382-7153
382-7157
382-7157
382-7156
382-71 37
382-7189
382-7161
382-7157
382-7158
382-7159
382-7156
382-7189

-------
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES DIVISION (EGD)
PROGRAM INFORMATION A NO STAFF REFERENCE
INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
BRANCH OFFICE
CONTACT
TELEPHONE NUMBER
(Area Code 202)
Ferroalloy
Fertilizer
Fish Hatcheries
Foundries
Fruits and Vegetables
(canned and preserved)
Gasohol
Glass Manufacturing
-	Flat Glass
-	Insulation Glass
Grain M11Is
Gum and Wood
Hospitals
Ink Formulation
>rganic Chemicals
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Machinery and Mechanical Products
Meat Products and Rendering
Mechanical Products
Metal Finishing
Mineral Mining
Miscellaneous Chemicals
Miscelleanous Foods and Beverages
-	Edible Oils
-	Beverages
-	Bakeries and Confectioneries
-	Miscellaneous Specialty
Metals and Machinery
Inorganic Chemicals
Food Products
Metals and Machinery
Food Industry
Energy and Mining
Inorganic Chemicals
Food Products
Wood Products and Fibers
Inorganic Chemicals
Wood Products and Fibers
Inorganic Chemicals
Metals and Machinery
Food Products
Inorganic Chemicals
Food Products
Inorganic Chemicals
Inorganic Chemicals
Energy and Mining
Organic Chemicals
Food Products
Ernst P. Hall
Tom Fielding
Donal d Anderson
Edward Dulaney/
Donald Anderson
Donald Anderson
Allison Phillips
Tom Fielding
Donal d Anderson
Richard Williams
Tom Fielding
Greg Aveni/
Richard Williams
Tom Fielding
Edward Dulaney
Donald Anderson
Richard Kinch
Donald Anderson
Richard Kinch
Richard Kinch
Ron Kirby
Elwood Forsht
Donald Anderson
382-7126
382-7156
382-7189
382-7149
382-7189
382-7189
382-7167
382-7156
382-7189
382-7137
382-7156
382-7185
382-7137
382-7156
382-7149
382-7189
382-7159
382-7189
382-7159
382-7159
382-7161
382-7190
382-7189
Nonferrous Manufacturing
Metals and Machinery
Jim Berlow
382-7151

-------
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES DIVISION (EGD)
PROGRAM INFORMATION AND STAFF REFERENCE
*U1USTRIAL POINT SOURCE CATEGORY	BRANCH OFFICE	CONTACT	TELEPHONE NUMBER
(Area Code 202)
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Inorganic Chemicals
Tom Fielding
382-7156
Ocean Thermal Energy Conservation
Energy and Mining
Ron K1rby
382-7161
Oil (Petroleum) and Gas Extraction
-	Offshore
-	Onshore
Energy and Mining
Dennis Ruddy
382-7165
Oil Shale
Energy and Mining
Ron Kirby
382-7161
Ore Mining and Dressing
Energy and Mining
Matthew Jarrett
382-7164
Organic Chemicals
Organic Chemicals
Elwood Forsht
382-7190
Paint Formulation
Wood Products and Fibers
Greg Aveni
382-7185
Paving and Roofing
Energy and Mining
Dennis Ruddy
382-7165
Pesticides (* Agricultural Products)
Organic Chemicals
George Jett
382-7180
Petroleum Refining
Energy and Mining
Dennis Ruddy
382-7165
Pharmaceuticals
Wood Products and Fibers
Frank Hund
382-7182
Phosphate Manufacturing
Inorganic Chemicals
Tom Fiel di ng
382-7156
Photographic Equipment and Supplies
Inorganic Chemicals
John Newbrough
382-7158
Photographic Processing
Inorganic Chemicals
John Newbrough
382-7158
--tic and Synthetic Fibers
Organic Chemicals
Elwood Forsht
382-7190
r idStic Molding and Forming
Food Products
Robert Southworth
382-7150
Porcelain Enameling
Metals and Machinery
Ben Honaker
382-7154
POTW Pilot Study (Pretreatment)
Food Products
Robert Southworth
382-7150
Poultry Processing
Food Products
Donald Anderson
382-7189
Pretreatment for Oil and Grease
Energy and Mining
William Tel Hard
382-7131
Printing and Publishing
Wood Products and Fibers
Greg Aveni
382-7185
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Wood Products and Fibers
Robert Del linger/
Wendy Smith
382-7137
382-7184
Rubber
Organic Chemicals
Joe Vitalis
382-7172
Soaps and Detergents Manufacturing
Organic Chemicals
Elwood Forsht
382-7190
Seafood Processing
(canned and preserved)
Food Products
Donald Anderson
382-7189

-------
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES DIVISION (EGD)
PROGRAM INFORMATION AND STAFF REFERENCE
'"1USTRIAL POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
BRANCH OFFICE
CONTACT
TELEPHONE NUMBER
(Area Code 202)
Section 404(c)
Shipbuilding
Shore Receptor and Bulk Terminals
Steam Electric Powerplants
-	Cooling Water Intake Structures
Steam Supply
-	Non-contact Cooling Water
Sugar Processing
-	Beet
-	Cane
-	Raw Cane
Synfuels
Textile Manufacturing
Timber Processing
Transportation
Water Supply
Food Products
Metals and Machinery
Energy and Mining
Energy and Mining
Energy and Minlg
Food Products
Energy and Mining
Wood Products and Fibers
Wood Products and Fibers
Inorganic Chemicals
Inorganic Chemicals
Robert Southworth
Ernst P. Hall
Dennis Ruddy
Dennis Ruddy
Dennis Ruddy
Donald Anderson
Allison Phillips/
Dennis Ruddy
Richard Williams
Richard Williams
Tom Fielding
Tom Fielding
382-7150
382-7126
382-7165
382-7165
382-7165
382-7189
382-7167
382-7165
382-7137
382-7137
382-7156
382-7156

-------
v
i£
<

-------
9618	Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1986 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 467
(OW-FRL-2942-2]
Aluminum Forming Point Source
Category Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards,
and New Source Performance
Standards
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
action: Proposed rule.
summary: EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR Part 467 which limits effluent
discharges to waters of the United
States and the introduction of pollutants
into publicly owned treatment works by
existing and new sources that form
aluminum and aluminum alloys. EPA
agreed to propose these amendments in
a settlement agreement to resolve a
lawsuit challenging the final aluminum
forming regulation promulgated by EPA
on October 24.1983 (48 FR 49126).
After considering comments received
in response to this proposal, EPA will
take final action.
dates: Comments on this proposal must
be submitted on or before April 18,1986.
address: Send comments to Ms. Janet
K. Goodwin, Industrial Technology
Division (WH-552), Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
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) (EPA Library)
401 M Street, SW„ Washington, D.C.
The EPA information regulation
provides that a reasonable fee may be
charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions regarding this notice may be
addressed to Mr. Ernst P. Hall at (202)
382-7126.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Organization of This Notice
I.	Legal Authority
II.	Background
III.	Proposed Amendments to the Aluminum
Forming Regulation
IV.	Environmental Impact of the Proposed
Amendments to the Aluminum Forming
Regulation
V.	Economic Impact of the Proposed
Amendments
VI.	Solicitation of Comments
VII.	Executive Order 12291
VIII.	Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
IX.	OMB Review
X.	List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 467
L Legal Authority
The regulation described in this notice
is proposed under authority of sections
301, 304, 306, 307, 308 and 501 of the
Clean Water Act (the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as amended
by the Clean Water Act of 1977, Pub. L
92-217).
II. Background
A. Rulemaking and Settlement
Agreement. On November 22,1982, EPA
proposed a regulation to establish
effluent limitations guidelines for
existing direct dischargers based on the
best practicable control technology
currently achievable ("BPT") and the
best available technology economically
achievable ("BAT'); new source
performance standards ("NSPS'T for
new direct dischargers: and
pretreatment standards for existing
sources and new sources that are
indirect discharges ("PSES" and
"PSNS", respectively) for the aluminum
forming point source category (47 FR
52626). EPA published final effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for
the aluminum forming category on
October 24,1983 (40 CFR Part 467; 48 FR
49126) and made technical corrections to
the final rule on March 27,1984 (49 FR
11029). This regulation applies to all
wastewater discharges resulting from
the forming of aluminum and aluminum
alloys. See, 40 CFR 467.01. The preamble
to the final aluminum forming effluent
limitations guidelines and standards
promulgated on October 24,1983,
contains a complete discussion of the
development of the regulation.
Following promulgation of the
aluminum forming regulation. The
Aluminum Association Inc., et al., and
the Aluminum Extruders Council, Inc., et
al. filed petitions to review the -
regulation. These challenges were
consolidated into one lawsuit by the
United States Court of Appeals for the ¦
Sixth Circuit [The Aluminum
Association, Inc., et al. v. EPA, No. 84-
3090; and Aluminum Extruders Council,
Inc., et al. v. EPA, No. 84-3101.)
On April 1,1985, EPA and the
Petitioners executed a Settlement
Agreement to resolve all issues raised
with respect to the aluminum forming
effluent limitations guidelines and -
standards. The parties to the litigation
filed this agreement with the Court and
requested a stay of the effectiveness of
those portions of the aluminum forming
regulation affected by the Settlement
Agreement. On October 15,1985 the
Court granted a stay of the portions of .
the regulation that EPA agreed to •
propose to amend.
B. Effect of the Settlement Agreement.
Under the Settlement Agreement, EPA
has agreed to propose to amend portions
of the Auminum forming regulation or to
add preamble language relating to (1)
nonscope waters (2) discharge
allowance for hot water seal. (3) the
BAT and PSES pollutant discharge
allowances for the cleaning or etching
rinse in the extrusion and forging
subcategories (Subparts C and D,
respectively); (4) the discharge
allowance for the alternative monitoring
parameter of oil and grease for PSES; (5)
the BPT and NSPS requirement for pH in
the direct chill casting contact cooling
water ancillary operation; and (6) the
addition of a definition for hot water
seal to the general definitions of 40 CFR
Part 467. If, after EPA has taken final
action under the Settlement Agreement,
the provisions of the aluminum forming
amendments are consistent with the
Settlement Agreement, the Petitioners
will voluntarily dismiss their petitions
for review. Petitioners have also agreed
not to seek judicial review of any final
amendments that are consistent with the
Settlement Agreement.
The Settlement Agreement provides
that the parties will treat each proposed
amendment and preamble provision as
the applicable effluent limitations
guidelines and standards or
interpretation after the stay of the
existing provisions by the U.S. Court of
Appeals.
III. Proposed Amendments to the
Aluminum Forming Regulation
Below is a list of those sections of the
aluminum forming regulation subject to
the proposed amendments. All
limitations and standards contained in
the final aluminum forming regulation
published on October 24,1983 and
corrected on March 27,1984 which are
not specifically listed below are not
affected by the proposed amendments.
EPA is not proposing to delete or amend
any of the limitations and standards not
specifically addressed in this proposal.
- A. Sections 467.33 and 467.35 (Subpart
C), and Section 467.45 (Subpart D), Flow
Allowances for the Cleaning or Etching
Rinse: EPA is proposing to revise the
BAT and PSES flow bases for the
limitations and standards for the
Cleaning or Etching Rinse for the
extrusion Subcategory (Subpart C) and
the Forging Subcategory (Subpart D).
Petitioners claimed thdt 90 percent flow
reduction was not attainable for rinsing
irregular shapes but that 72 percent flow
. reduction could be attained with two-
stage countercurrent cascade rinse. The
Agency has agreed to propose to revise
the BAT flow allowance for cleaning or

-------
F&MRegiflier / Vol.
etching rinses based ohtwo-aftfce1
countercurrent cascade'rlnaic^'Uiat -
achieves 72 percent flow redtuSflon,-'
instead of 90 percent, to ensurt'lf- j - -
adequate rinsing for irregular shapes.
This change will increase the lithitations
and standards for these waste streams.
B.	Sections 467.15 (Subpart A), 467.25
(Subpart B), 467.35 (Subpart C). 467.45
(Subpart D), 467.55 (Subpart E) and
467.65 (Subpart F) "Oil and Grease
(alternate monitoring parameter)". EPA
is proposing to change the oil and grease
alternate monitoring parameter for total
toxic organics for PSES. The
concentrations of oil and grease on
which the alternate monitoring1
parameter for the promulgated PSES
was based were 20 mg/1 for the daily
maximum and 12 mg/1 for the monthly
average. Petitioners asserted that EPA
should amend these concentrations to 52
mg/1 for the daily maximum and 20 mg/1
for the monthly average. The Agency
agreed to propose this revision because
it will not change the TTO standard.
C.	Sections 467.22, 467.24. 467.32 and
467.34 pH Limits for Direct Chill Casting
Contact Cooling Water. EPA is •
proposing to change pH requirement
from 7.0-10.0 to 6.0-10.0 when certain
conditions are met for Direct Chill
Casting Contact Cooling Water in each
provision. The requirement which, at
present, states that "the pH shall be
within 7.0 to 10.0 at all times," is revised
to state that "the pH shall be maintained
within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all
times except for those situations when
this waste stream is discharged
separately and without commingling
with any other wastewater iri which
case the pH shall be within the range of
6.0 to 10.0 at all times." The petitioners
argued that the effluent limitations for
the other pollutant parameters for this
waste stream can be met when the pH is
in the range of 0.0 to 10.0. The data the
Agency collected from this waste stream
indicates that it may sometimes be
relatively clean and compliance with the
BAT limitations may be possible
without adjusting the pH. Accordingly,
the Agency has agreed to propose a
broader pH requirement for direct chill
casting contact cooling.water if it is
discharged separately without ¦
commingling with any other wastewater.
D.	Section 467.02 (Definitions). The
Agency is proposing to add a definition
of "hot water seal". A hot water seal is
defined as a heated water bath (heated
to approximately 180° F) used to seal the
surface coating on formed aluminum
which has been anodized and coated. In
establishing an effluent allowance for
this operation, the hot water seal shall
be classified as a cleaning or etching
51. No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19,
rinse. This reflects the fact that the hot
water seal bath has wastewater
characteristics more similar to cleaning
or etching rinses than to other baths.
E. Preamble Language to 40 CFR Part
467.—l. Nonscope waters. Waste
streams not given flow allowances in
the regulation (such as noncontact
cooling water) do not warrant national
effluent limitations or standards
because they are generally not
contaminated or occur at only one or
two plants. EPA has agreed to include
the following language clarifying the
discussion of nonscope waters that was
included in the final preamble (48 FR
49140).
"To account for site-specific
wastewater sources for which the
permit writer in his best professional
judgment determines that co-treatment
with process wastewater is appropriate,
the permit writer must quantify the
discharge rate of the waste stream. The
mass allowance provided for the waste
stream is then obtained from the product
of the discharge rate and treatment
performance of the technology basis of
the promulgated regulation. For
example, if the permit writer determines
that contaminated ground water seepage
requires treatment, he must determine
the flow rate of contaminated water to
be treated. He then can determine the
appropriate model treatment technology
by referring to the technical
development document. Treatment
effectiveness values are presented in
Section VII of the Development
Document. The product of the discharge
rate and treatment performance is then
the allowed mass discharge. This
quantity can then be added to the other
building blocks (i.e., mass discharge for
the regulated streams) to determine total
allowed mass discharge."
2. Discharge Allowance for Hot Water
Seal. EPA is proposing to clarify the BPT
discussion of miscellaneous waste
streams (Section V. C. of the October 24,
1983 preamble) by adding a phrase to a
sentence which appeared at the end of
the bottom paragraph, middle column 48
FR 49131 of the final preamble. This
sentence at present reads: "The
miscellaneous nondescript wastewater
flow allowance is production
normalized to a plant's core production
and covers waste streams generated by
maintenance, clean-up. ultrasonic ingot
scalping, processing area scrubbers, and
dye solution baths and seal baths (along
with any other cleaning or etching bath)
when not followed by a rinse." The
Agency proposes to clarify this sentence
as follows: "The miscellaneous
nondescript wastewater flow allowance
is production normalized to a plant's
1986 I Proposed Rules	9619
core production and covers waste
streams generated by maintenance,
clean-up, ultrasonic testing, roll grinding
of caster rolls, ingot scalping, processing
area scrubbers, and dye solution baths
and seal baths (along with any other
cleaning or etching bath, except a hot
water seal) when not followed by a
rinse."
EPA also proposes to clarify the
response to comment number 7 in
section IX of the October 24,1983
preamble (48 FR 49141) by including the
following sentence in the preamble:
"The hot water seal bath has high
flow and, therefore, is not included in
the miscellaneous wastewater sources
allowance, but is considered as an etch
line rinse for the purpose of calculating
pollutant discharge allowances."
IV.	Environmental Impact of the
Proposed Amendments to the Aluminum
Forming Regulation
EPA estimates that U2 to 132 plants
will be affected by this proposed rule.
The Agency estimates that this
amendment would result in the
discharge of an additional 500 kg/yr of
toxic metal pollutants and cyanide. This
is an increase of 3 percent of the
estimated mass that would be
discharged by existing sources in
accordance with the existing regulation.
V.	Economic Impact of the Proposed
Amendments
The proposed amendment will not
alter the recommended technologies for
complying with the aluminum forming
regulation. The Agency considered the
economic impact of the regulation when
the final regulation was promulgated
(see 48 FR 49134). These proposed
amendments will not alter the
determinations with respect to the
economic Impact on aluminum formers.
VI.	Solicitation of Comments
EPA invites public participation in
this rulemaking and requests comments
on the proposed amendments discussed
or set out in this notice. The Agency
asks that comments be as specific as
possible and that suggested revisions or
corrections be supported by data.
VII.	Executive Order 12291
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. Major rules are defined as
rules that impose an annual cost to the
economy of $100 million or more, or
meet other economic criteria. This
proposed regulation, like the regulation
promulgated October 24,1983, is not

-------
9620	Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1986 / Proposed Rules
major because it does not fall within the
criteria for major regulations established
in Executive Order 12291.
VIIL Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Public Law 96-354 requires that EPA
prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis for regulations that have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. In the
preamble to the October 24,1983 final
Aluminum fanning regulation, the
Agency concluded that there would not
be a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities (48 FR 49133).
For that reason, the Agency determined
that a formal regulatory flexibility
analysis was not required. That
conclusion is equally applicable to these
proposed amendments, since the
amendments would not alter the
economic impact of the regulation. The
Agency is not, therefore, preparing a
formal analysis for this regulation.
IX. OMB Review
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by Executive Order
12291. Any comments from OMB to
EPA and any EPA response to those
comments are available for public
inspection at Room M2404, U.S. EPA,
401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C.
20460 from 9:00 a.qi. to 4:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 467
Aluminum forming, Water pollution
control, Waste treatment and disposal.
Dated: March 6.1988.
Lee M. Thomas,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated above, EPA is
proposing to amend 40 CFR Part 467 as
follows:
PART 467—ALUMINUM FORMING
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
1.	The authority citation continues to
read as follows:
Authority: Sections 301, 304(b), (c), (e), and
(g). 306(b) and (c). 307(b) and (c), 308 and 501
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 (g), 1316(b) and (c), 1317(b) and (c), 1318
and 1361: 88 Stat. 818, Pub. L 92-500; 91 Stat.
1507, Pub. L 95-217.
§467.02 [Amended]
2.	Section 467.02: general definitions,
is amended to add a definition of "hot
water seal." Paragraphs (m) through (z)
are redesignated (n) through (aa)
respectively. A new Paragraph (m) is
added to read as follows:
* * • • *
(m) Hot water seal is a heated water
bath (heated to approximately 180 °F)
used to seal the surface coating on
formed aluminum which has been
anodized and coated. In establishing an
effluent allowance for this operation, the
hot water seal shall be classified as a
cleaning or etching rinse.
* • « « •
3. Section 467.15 is amended by
revising the values for "Oil and grease
(alternate monitoring parameter)" m all
of the following tables in this section to
read as follows:
§ 467.1S Pretreatment standard! (or
existing sources.
Subpart A.—Core With an Annealing
Furnace Scrubber
pses
Pollutant of pollutant property Magnum ^ Maximum for
¦	«***>
mg/ofl-kg (pounds per rnil-
ton olf-pounds) of aftro-
y	rum rolled with neat oris
Oil and grease (alternate mon-
itoring parameter) 		
O
Subpart A.— Core Without an
Annealing Furnace Scrubber
pses
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Msjnmum for
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (pounds per mU
taon ofl-pounds) of akinr*.
num rolled with neat (Ms
Ol and grease (alternate morv
itonng parameter). ..
Subpart A —Continuous Sheet Casting
Lubricant
Poiutant or polluiim property Manmum for Mamnum tor
•"V'*" ESS
mg/oft-kg (pounds per mtl-
taon otl-pound!) ot
num cast
Oil and grease (alternate mon-
itormg parameter)
§§ 467.15, 467.25, 467.35, 467.45, 467.55 and
467.65 [ Amended l
4. Sections 467.15, 407.25, 467.35,
467.45, 467.55 and 467.65 are amended
by revising the values for "Oil and
grease (alternate monitoring
parameter!" for the tables titled
"Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water" to read as follows:
SoumcM Heat Treatment Com act
Cooling Wato*
Pdhjtam or pofefent mupertj
MvrHjm
tor any t
Manrrusffl
tor monthly
ag/c*-kg (pounds per mri-
(tor ofl-poundsl alumi-
num quenched
Oil and grease (a
tonng parameter)..
§§467.15, 467.25, <67.35,467.45, 467.55 and
487.65s (AmendedI
*	*	«	i
5. Sections 467.15, 467.25. 487.35,
467.45, 467.55 end 487.65 are amended
by revising the values for "Oil and
grease (alternate monitoring
parameter)" for the tables titled
"Cleaning or Etching Bath" to read as
follows:
Cleaning or Etching Bath
PSES
Pollutant or poCuttnt
Maumum Maximum
tor any 1 tor morrttily
day	average
mg/off-kg (pound* per rrni-
tton oft-pounds) of aK/rw-
num cleaned or et cfwd
OH and grease (attentate mon*.
tonrfl parameters) _ . -. .
§§ 467.15, 467.25, 467.55 and 467.65
I Amended]
6. Sections 487.15,467.25, 467.55 and
467.65 are amended by revising the
values for "Oil and grease (alternate
monitoring parameter)" for the tables
titled "Cleaning at Etching Rinse" to
read as follows:
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
pses
Pollutant or poflufent property Mnimum ManrTvjfn
tor arty t fc rnonthiy
'	day	average
mg/eff-kg (pounds per mil-
lion oft-poundg) ol alumi-
num cleaned or etctod
Oil and greeee (alternate caont-
tormg parameters)	 	

-------
Federal Registej / Vol. 51, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1986 / Proposed Rules
9621
§§ 467.15, 467.25, 467.35, 467.45, 467.55 and
467.65 (Amended]
7. Sections 467.15, 467.25, 467.3^
467.45, 467.55 and 467.65 are amended
by revising the values for "Oil and :
grease (alternate monitoring
parameter)" for the tables titled
"Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor"
to read as follows:
*****
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor
Subpart B.—Core
Subpart C.—Cleaning or Etching Rinse
pses
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum Maximum
for Wf 1 for monthly
day	. -average
mg/ofl4g (pounds per mt
Bon oti-pounds) ol alums
num cleaned or etched
Oil artf grease (alternate moni-
toring parameter)	...
PSES
PottuUrrt or poHutant property
Maximum Maximum
lor any I for monthly
day	average
mg/off-kg (pounds per mil-
lion oil-pounds) ol alumi-
num rolled with emul*
sions
Qri «nd grease (alternate moni-
toring parameter) . ...
8. Section 467.22, is amended to.revise
Ihe footnote for the table entitled -
"Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling
Water" to read as follows:	r
§ 467.22 Effluent Limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
• • • * *
Subpart B.—Direct Chill Casting Contact
Cooling Water
1 The pH shall be maintained wrttan the range ol 7.0 to
10 0 at all times except for those situations when this waste
stream is discharged separately and without commingling
wtih any other wastewater m which ease the pH shad be
within the range of 6 0 to 10.0 at all ttmea.
§ 467.24 [Amended|
9. Section 467.24, is amended to revise
the footnote for the table entitled
"Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling
Water" to read as follows:
1 The pH shall be maintained within the
range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times except for
those situations when this waste stream is
discharged separately and without
commingling with any other wastewater in
which case the pH shall be within the range
of 6.0 to 10 0 at all times.
• * * * *
§ 467.25 [Amended]
10. Section 467.25 is amended by
revising the values for "Oil and grease
(alternate monitoring parameter)" in the
table titled "Core" in this section to read
as follows:
§§ 467.25 and 467.35 [ Amended 1
11. Sections 467.25 and 467.35 are
amended by revising the values for "Oil
and grease (alternate monitoring
parameter)" in the tables titled "Direct
Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water" to
read as follows:
Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling
Water
PSES
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum Maximum
for any t tor monthly
day	average
04 and grease (alternate moni-
tonng parameters)
§467.32 [Amended!
12.	Section 467.32, is amended to
revise the footnote for the table entitled
"Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling
Water" to read as follows:
*****
1 The pH shall be maintained within the
range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times except for
those situations when this waste stream is
discharged separately and without
commingling with any other wastewater in
which case the pH shall be within the range
of 6.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*****
13.	Section 467.33 is amended by
revising the table entitled "Cleaning or
Etching Rinse" to read as follows:
§ 467.33 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable.

BAT effluent limitations
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum lor
any 1 day
Maximum tor
monthly
average

mg/oN kg (pounds per mil-

lion oil-pounds) ol alumi-

num cleaned or etcned
Chromium
1 7
0 7
Cyanide
1 2
05
Zinc
5 7
2 4
Aluminum
25
13
mg/otf-kg (pounds per mo-
tion otl-pounda) ol alumi-
num cast
14. Section 467.34, is amended to
revise the footnote for the table entitled
"Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling
Water" to read as follows :
§ 467.34 New service performance
standards, direct chill casting contact
cooling water.
* * * * *
1 The pH shall be maintained within the
range of 7.0 to 10 0 at all times except for
those situations when this waste stream is
discharged separately and without
commingling with any other wastewater in
which case the pH shall be within the range
of 6 0 to 10 0 at all times.
*****
15. Section 467.35 is amended by
revising the table entitled "Cleaning or
Etching Rinse" to read as follows:
§ 467.35 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Subpart C.—Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Pollutant or pollutant property
PSES
Maximum tor
arty t day
Maximum for
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (pounds per mil-
lion off-pounds) of alumi-
num cleaned or etched
Chrormim
1 7
0 7
Cyantde .
t 2
0 5
Zinc
5 7
24
TTO. . ...
27

Oil and grease (alternate mon-


itoring parameter) .
200
too
16. Section 467.35 is amended by
revising the values for "Oil and grease
(alternate monitoring parameter)" for
the following tables to read as follows:

-------
9622
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1986 / Proposed Rules
Subpart C.—Core
PSES
Pollutant of pollutant property
Maximum
for any 1
day
Maximum
for monthly
average
mg/off-kg (pounds per mil-
lion off-pounds) of alumi-
num extruded
Oil and grease (alternate moni-
toring parameter) 	
Subpart D.—Forging Scrubber Liquor
PSES
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for Mannum lor
monthty
average
any 1 day
mg/ofl-ka (pounds per mil-
lion ofi-pounds) erf alum*
num forged
Oil and grease (altemato mon-
ktonng pacameter)
"Continuous Rod Casting Lubricant" lo
read as follows:
* • • • *
Continuous Rod Casting lubricant
PSES
Pollutant or pollutant property Maxmjm fCf
average
any 1 day
mg/off-kg (pounds per mr-
Uon oH-poundsl 0< alumi-
num rod cast
Subpart C.—Extrusion Press Leakage
PSES
Pollutant of pollutant property
Maximum
lor any 1
day
Maximum
for monthly
average
mg/off-kg (pounds per mil-
ton off pounds) of alumi-
num extiuoed
Od and grease (alternate mor*-
toring parameter)
Subpart C.—Press Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water
pses
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum lor
any l day
Maximum for
monthly
average
mg/oH-kg (pounds per mil-
lion oil-pounds) of alumi-
num quenched
Oil and grease (alternate mon-
itoring parameter)
§ 465.45 [Amended]
17. Section 465.45 is amended by
revising the values for "Oil nnd grease
(alternate monitoring parameter)" for
the following tables to read as follows:
Subpart D —Core
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
arty 1 day
mg/off-kg (pounds per mil-
lion ott-pounds) ol alumi-
num forged
Oil and grease (alternate mon-
itoring parameter)
26
1 3
18. Section 467.45 is amended by
revising the table entitled "Cleaning or
Etching Rinse" to read as follows:
§ 467.45 Pretreatment Standards For
Existing Sources.
Subpart D.—Cleaning or Etching Rinse
pses
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Maximum (or
monthty
average
mg/off-kg (pounds per mtf-
Uon oti-pounds) of alumi-
num cleaned or etched
Chromium	t 7
Cyanide . ^ ...	12
Ztnc 	 		 . .	5 7
TTO	2 7
Oil and grease (alternate mon-
ttonng parameter) ..	200
07
05
24
too
§467.55 [Amended]
19. Section 467.55 is amended by
revising the values for "Oil and grease
(alternate monitoring parameter)" for
the tabled titled "Core" to read as
follows:
Subpart E.—Core
pses
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any t day
Maximum for
monthly
avorage
mg/off-kg (pounds per md-
Uon off-pounds) of alumi-
num drawn with neat otis
Maximum 'or
monthly
average
Oil and grease (alternate mon-
itonng parameter)	
1 3
§§ 467.55 and 467.65 . (Amended]
20. Section 467.55 and 467.65 are
amended by revising the value9 for "Oil
and grease (alternate monitoring
parameter)" for the tables titled
Od and grease (alternate morv
domg parameter)			
0 10
21. Sections 467.55 and 467.65 are
amended by revising the values for "Oil
and grease (alternate monitoring
parameter)" for the tables titled
"Continuous Rod Casting Contact
Cooling Water" to read as follows:
* * * * - *
Continuous Rod Casting Contact Cooung
Water
PSES
PoOutant or poOutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Maximum for
monthly
average
mg/ofl-kg (pounds per mri-
hon off-pounds) at alumi-
num rod cast
Oil and grease (alternate rr
itonng parameter)			
§ 467.65 [Amended]
22. Section 467.65 is amended by
revising the values for "Oil and grease
(alternate monitoring parameter)" for
the table titled "Core" to read as
follows:
Subpart F.—Core
PSES
Pollutant or pollutant
Maximum for
any i day
Maximum ^or
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (pound* per mil-
ton off-pounds) of akim*-
num (frawn with emul-
sions or soaps
Oil and pease (alternate mon-
itoring parameter)		
(FR Doc. 88-5747 Filed 3-18-66; 8:45 am)
BILUNQ cooc ueo-so-y

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
11629
setting performance standards for
owners and operators of facilities -that
treat, store, and dispose of hazardous
wastes. 40 CFR Part 205 addresses the
standards applicable to owners and
operators of interim status facilities,
while 40 CFR Part 264 regulates new and
existing facilities.
Both 40 CFR Parts 264 and 205
prescribe performance standards with
which owners and operators must
comply. In order to facilitate
implementation of these standards, the
EPA has developed a series of guidance
documents. There are three types of
documents including-Technical
Guidance Documents, Permit Guidance
Manuals, and Technical Resource
Documents. The latter present
technologies and evaluation techniques
which the F.PA staff views as good
engineering designs, practices, and
procedures. Their focus is broad in
scope, as they do not specifically
interpret the design requirements as set
forth in the regulations. The engineering
techniques presented are merely
suggestions.
Availability announcements of eight
Technical Resources Documents were
made in the May 6,1983 Federal
Register (40 FR 20440). Today's notice
announces the availability of two
additional Technical Resource
Documents for public comment.
A Solid Waste Leaching Procedure
Monjal is a technical guide analyzing a
oatch leaching procedure for laboratory
use with various kinds of waste that will
help io predict the quality and
composition of leachate from certain
wastes under field conditions. Soil
Properties, Classification and Hydraulic
Conductivity Testing is a compilation of
16 available laboratory and field testing
methods for the measurement of
hydraulic coridactivity (permeability) of
both saturated and unsaturated soils
ar.d includes background information on
soil classification, soil water, and soil
compaction. The Technical Resource
Document is intended to supplement
Method 9100 The Agency requests
comment on the accuracy and
completeness oi" ihe information
presented and encourages commenters
to suggest remedies and alternatives
should inaccuracy or incompleteness be
identified.
DhIuiI. February 22, 1984.
Jack McGrow,
Ouputy Assistant Administrator for Solid
VVi'str1 and Emergency Response.
|I'J< Due U4-H144 l il.-d 3-26-64. 8 45 dm|
BILLING CODE 8SSO-5C-M
40 CFR Part 467
IWH-FRL-2539-71
Aluminum Forming Point Source
Category, Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards
and New Source Performance
Standards; Correction
AGENCY: Enviornmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
SUMMARY: EPA is correcting several
errors in the effluent limitations
guidelines, pretreatment standards and
new source performance standards for
the aluminum forming point source
category which appeared in the Federal
Register on October 24,1983 (48 FR
49126). This document corrects errors in
both the preamble and 40 CFR part 467
including the compliance date for
pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 27, 1984.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Janet K. Goodwin at (202) 382-7126.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
October 24.1983, EPA published final
effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for the aluminum forming
point source category (40 CFR Part 467;
48 FR 49126). Both the preamble and
regulation contained several errors.
These errors' are discussed briefly below
and are corrected by this notice.
A typographical error was made in the
compliance date for Pretreatment
Standards, for Existing Source^fPSES):^
the correct compliance date is October
24. 1986^Both the "DATES" sfiction.of-the
¦preamble and 40 CFR 467.04 are
corrected by this notice
An omission was made in the
"Applicability" section of the final rule,
40 CFR 467.01(a) which states, in
pertinent part, that surface treatment of
aluminum is excluded from regulation
under the metal finishing guidelines in
40 CFR Part 433 when performed as an
integral part of aluminum forming This
sentence should indicate that surface
treatment of aluminum is also excluded
from the electroplating regulations at 40
CFR Part 413. Although the proposed
rule specifically stated that these
operations were excluded from 40 CFR
Part 413 (see 47 FR 52648; November 22,
19B2), the reference to 40 CFR part 413
was inadvertently dropped in ihe final
aluminum forming regulation at 40 CFR
467.01(a). This error is corrected by this
notice. Thus, the EPA ha3 excluded from
Part 413 and included under Part 4S7 any
surface treatment of aluminum if
performed as an integral part of the
aluminum forming process.
This notice adds a new section, 40
CFR 407.05, that states that removal
allowances pursuant to 40 CFR 403.7(a)
may be granted for toxic metals limited
in 40 CFR 467 when used as indicator
pollutants. The Agency's intent
regarding the granting of stich removal
allowances was explicitly stated m the
preamble to the final rule (see, 48 FR
49133; October 24,19B4); however,
regulatory language to this effect was
inadvertently omitted from the final rule
This omission is corrected bv this
notice.
The Best Practicable Technology
(BPT) and Best Available Technology
(BAT) monthly average limitations fur
the pollutant aluminum are incorrect in
some subparts. Shortly before
promulgation a correction was made in
the calculation of the treatment
effectiveness concentration value used
to determine the maximum for monthly
average limitations for the pollutant
aluminum. It in no way affects the
technology basis of the regulations und
only slightly affects the stringency of Ihe
regulation This correction was reflected
in some but not all of the limitations
before promulgation. This notice
corrects the maximum for monthly
average values for the pollutant
aluminum for BPT and BAT.
The core allowances for the Rolling
with Neat Oils Subcategory were
improperly identified. The limitations
and standards for the Core With an
Annealing Furnace Scrubber were listed
as the limitations and standards for the
Core Without an Annealing Furnare
Scrubber. Likewise, the limitations anil
standards for the Core Without an
Annealing Furnace Scrubber were listed
as the limitations and standards for the
Core With an Annealing Furnace
Scrubber. This notice corrects ihe error
Appendices D, C. D, F„ and F which
list pollutants excluded from regulation
for specific reasons contained several
errors; in many instances, the errors
consist of misspelled pollutant listings
or inaccurate numerical identifications
In a few cases, pollutants were properly
listed as excluded from regulation but
were improperly listed in a particular
Appendix or were listed twice. These
errors are corrected by this notice
Also, the pollutant "vinyl chloride"
was inadvertantly included in the list of
orgdnic pollutants considered for
regulation and in the definition of Total
Toxic Organics flTO) at 40 CFR
§ 467.02(p). This pollutant was not
detected in any wastewater sample and
is thus excluded from regulation
pursuant to Paragraph fl(a)(iii) of the
Settlement Agreement in NRDC v
Train, ft KRC 2120 (D.D C 197(5).

-------
11630 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
modified, 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979) Dy
Ihe notice, the pollutant is deleted from
the definition of TTO and listed in
Appendix B as excluded from regulation
because it was not detected. This
correction in no way affects the mass
standards for TTO because vinyl
chloride was not detected and thus not
included 111 the data used to calculate
TTO
A typographical error caused the units
i:i the regulation to be printed as Mg/off-
kg with a capital letter m rather than
nig/off-kg with a lower case letter m.
Similarly a typographical error caused
Ihe use of a number one instead of lower
case letter 1 in many cases where Ihe
expression l/kkg was used This notice
cnirects ihese typographical eiTors.
Dated February 29.1984
pick E Rovan,
Assistant Administrator for Wuter
The following corrections are made to
FR Doc 83-2H157, the Aluminum Forming
Point Source Category; Effluent
Limitations Guidelines; Pretreatment
Standards and New Source Performance
Standards published in the Federal
Register on October 24, 1983 (40 FR
40126).
1.	On page 49126, column one, the
second paragraph under dates, in the
last sentence, "The compliance date for
pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES) is October 24,1933" is
corrected to read, "The compliance date
for pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES) is October 24, 19(16".
2.	On page 49128, column two, in the
second complete paragraph, the ninth
line, "(47 FR 34079, July 27,1983)" is
corrected to read, "(48 FR 34079, luly 27,
1983)".
3.	On page 49130, column three, the
first complete paragraph, the first
sentence, "porcelain enameling" is
corrected to read, "porcelain enameling
wastewaters".
4.	On page 49131, column one, the
second complete paragraph, the first
sentence, "BTP" is corrected to read,
"DPT".
5.	On page 49131, column one, in the
third complete paragraph, the last
sentence, "The limitation" is corrected
to read, "The limitations".
6.	On page 49131, column two, on the
sixth line from the top, "the available
data including data including the
preproposal data and is 179 l/kkg (43
gal/ton)" is corrected to read, "the
available data including the preproposal
data and is 179 l/kkg (43 gal/ton)".
7.	On page 49131, column two, in the
first complete paragraph, the last
sentence, "13,912 l/kkg" is corrected to
read, "13,912 l/kkg".
8.	On page 49131, column two, in the
second complete paragraph, the second
sentence, "15,900 l/kkg" is corrected to
read. "15,900 l/kkg".
9.	On page 49131, column two, in the
third complete paragraph, on line
sixteen, "The BPT regulatory flow of
1,478 l/kkg" is corrected to read, "The.
BPr regulatory flow of 1,478 l/kkg".
10.	On page 49131, column two, in the
fourth complete paragraph, on line five,
"45 l/kkg" is corrected to read, "45 1/
kkg".
11.	On page 49131, column three, in
the first complete paragraph, the last
sentence, "5.5 l/kkg" is corrected to
read, "5.5 l/kkg".
12.	On page 49131, column three, in
the second complete paragraph, the first
sentence, "1.964 l/kkg" is corrected to
read, "1.964 l/kkg".
13.	On page 49131, column three, in
the third complete paragraph, last
sentence, "1,555 l/kkg" is corrected to
read, "1,555 l/kkg".
14.	On page 49131, column three, in
the fourth complete paragraph, first
sentence, "1.329 l/kkg (298 gal/ton)" is
corrected to read, "1,329 l/kkg (319 gal/
ton)".
15 On page 49131, column three, in
the fourth complete paragraph, on line
thirteen, "1329 1 /kkg (319 gal/ton)" is
corrected to read, "2,609 l/kkg (626 gal/
ton)".
16.	On page 49132, column one, the
second line, "$84.4 million" is corrected
to read. "$48.4 million".
17.	On page 49132, column one, in the
second complete paragraph, the last
sentence, "179 l/kkg" is corrected to
read, "179 l/kkg".
18.	On page 49132, column one, in the
third complete paragraph, the last
sentence, "1,391 l/kkg" is corrected to
read, "1,391 l/kkg".
19.	On page 49132, column one, in the
fourth complete paragraph, the last
sentence, "193.9 l/kkg" is corrected to
read, "193.9 l/kkg".
20.	On page 49132, column two, in the
fourth line, "45 l/kkg (11 gal/ton), 1,230
l/kkg (295 gal/ton). 1,964 l/kkg (0.471
gal/ton) and 5.5 l/kkg (1.3 gal/ton)" is
corrected to read, "45 l/kkg (11 gal/ton),
1,478 l/kkg (355 gal/ton), 1.964 l/kkg
(0.471 gal/ton) and 5.5 l/kkg (1.3 gal/
ton)".
21.	On page 49132, column three,
paragraph two, on line four "29.000 kg/
yr" is corrected to read, "29,000 kg/yr".
22.	On page 49132, column three, in
the second complete paragraph, on line
fifteen, "pollutants discharged after
BPT" is corrected to read, "pollutants
discharged after BAT'. On line twenty
of the same paragraph, "removal of
approximately 1 kg (2.2 lb)" is corrected
to read, "removal of approximately 0.3
kg (0.6 lb)".
23.	On page 49133, column one. on line
six. "298 l/kkg" is corrected to read,
"298 l/kkg". In the same paragraph, on
line twenty-seven, the last sentence,
"allow installation of small end-of-pipe"
is corrected to read, "allow installation
of smaller end-of-pipe".
24.	On page 49133. column two, line
one. "109 kg per year Ib/yr) of
aluminum" is corrected to read. "109 kg
per year [240 lb/yr) of aluminum".
25.	Ori page 49133. column two. in the
first complete paragraph, line five,
"POTW The" is corrected to read.
"POTW. The".
26.	On page 49133, column three, in
the first complete paragraph, line seven.
"0.01 mg/l" is corrected to read. "0 01
mg/l".
27.	On page 49134, column one, on line
twenty-eight, "drawing with emulsions
or soaps subcategory less than" is
corrected to read, "drawing with
emulsions or soaps subcategory that
manufacture less than".
28.	On page 49134, column two. in the
second complete paragraph, line ten,
"$1 039 million for PSNS" is corrected to
reud, "$1,039 million for PSF.S" In the
same paragraph, last sentence, "Since
PSES costs are approximately the same
as the PSES costs" is corrected to read.
"Since PSNS costs are approximately
the same as the PSES costs".
29.	On page 49134, column two. in the
fourth complete paragraph, last
sentence. "There are" is removed.
30.	On page 49135, column three, on
the fifth line, "that NSPS and PSNS will
continue a barrier" is corrected to read,
"that NSPS and PSNS will constitute a
barrier".
31.	On page 49137, column two. in the
third complete paragraph, last sentence,
"not" is corrected to read, "no".
32.	On page 49138, column one, on line
three, "(1) The data i9 too small" is
corrected to read, "(1) The data base is
too small".
33.	On page 49140, column one, in the
fourth complete paragraph, first
sentence, "plans" is corrected to read,
"plants".
34.	On page 49140, column two, in the
fourth complete paragraph, last
sentence, "4.45 (ig/1 to 0-43 /xg/1" is
corrected to read, "4.5 mg/l to 6.43 mg/
I".
35.	On page 49141, column three, in
the first complete paragraph, line
eighteen, "$284,200 per year" is
corrected to read, "$283,200 per year".
36.	In Appendix B which hegins on
page 49145, "080 vinyl chloride" is
inserted to follow, "063 N-nitrosodi-n-
propylamine" in the lists for Subparts A

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. HO j Tuesday, M.irch 27. 19(14 / Rules und Regulations
mid B in column one, Subpart D in
column two, Subpart Ein column three,
find Subpart F in column ono. page
49140.
37. On page 49145, column one,
\ppendix 3, in the list for Subpart A,
041 -bromophenyl phenyl ether" is
corrected to read "041 4-bromophenyl
phenyl ether".
3.1 On page 49145. column two.
Appendix B, m the list for Subpart C,
"036 2,8-dinitrotolune" is corrected to
read, "036 2,6-dinitrotoluene".
39.	On page"49145, column two,
Appendix B, in the list for Subpart D.
"000 carbon tetrachloride" t9 removed.
40.	On page 49145, column two,
Appendix B, in the list for Subpart D,
"028 3.3'-diehlorobenzene" is corrected
to read. "028 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine".
41.	On page 49145, column two,
Appendix B, in the list for Subpart D.
"033 1,3-dichloropropoylene" is
corrected to read, "0331,3-
dichloropropylene".
42.	On page 49146, column one,
Appendix C, in the list for Subpart C,
"037 1,2-diphenythydrazine" is removed.
43.	On page 49146, column two,
Appendix C. in the list for Subpart C.
"072 benzo(a)anthracene (1,2-
beiixanlhraoene)" is inserted to follow,
«"057 2-nilrophenol".
44.	On page 49146, column two,
Ap])3ndix C, in the list for Subpart D.
"072 benzo(a)anthracene (1,2-
benzanthracene)" is inserted to follow.
"057 2-nitrophenol".
45.	On page 49146, column two.
ppendix C, in the list for Subpart E,
"015 1.1.2,2-trichloroethane", is
corrected to read, "015 1,1,2.2-
tetrdchlorocthanc".
40. On page 49146, column two.
Appendix C in the list for Subpart E.
"029 1,-dichloroethylene" is corrected to
read. "029 1,1-dichloroethylene".
. 47. On page 49146, column two.
Appendix C, in the list for Subpart E.
"037 1,2-diphenjlhydrazine" is removed.
4fi Appendix D which begins on page
49140, in the list for Subpart F on page
49147 column two, "067 butyl benzyl
phlholale" is corrected to read. "067
butyl benzyl phlhalate".
49.	On page 49147, column two.
Appendix E, in the list for Subpart F..
"004 benzene" is removed.
50.	On page 49147, column two,
Appendix E, in the list for Subpart E,
"034 2,4-dimethylephenol" is corrected
>o rord "034 2,4-dimethylphenol".
51	On page 49147, column three,
Appendix K. in the list for Subpart F.
"051 chlofodibromomethane" is
corrected to read, "051
i.hlorodibromomethane".
52	In Appendix G which begins on
page 49148 "080 vinyl chloride" is
removed from the following lists:
Subparts A and B in column one and
two respectively, Subparts C and D in
column two and three respectively, and
Subpart E in column three.
53.	On page 49148. Appendix G, "072
benzo(a)pyrone" is corrected to read
"073 benzp(a)pyrene" in the following
lists: Subparts A and B in column one.
Subparts C and D in column two and
three respectively, and Subpart E in
column three.
54.	Also in Appendix G, on page
49149, column one, in the list for Subpart
F, "037 1.2-diphenylhydrazine" is
inserted to follow, "035 2,4-
dinitrotoluene".
55.	On page 49149, column one.
Appendix G. in the list for Subpart F.
"073 benzo(a)pyrene" i» inserted to
follow. "070 diethyl phthalate", and "OHO
vinyl chloride" is removed.
PART 467-1 CORRECTED]
56.	In 40 CFR 467.01(a) on page 49150.
column one, line 13, "under the Metal
Finishing provisions of 40 CFR Part 433"
is corrected to read, "under the
Electroplating and Metal Finishing
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 413 and 433".
57.	In 40 CFR 467.01, the note which
follows paragraph c in the first column
of page 49150, "This paragraph is
promulgated as an Interim P.ule" is
corrected to read, 'This paragraph is
promulgated as an Interim Final Rule".
58.	In 40 CFR 467.02, on page 49150,
column three, paragraph (p) is corrected
with the removal of "vinyl chloride"
from the list of organic pollutants.
59.	In 40 CFR 407.03(a)(2), on page
49151, column one, "will not be used in
the aluminum process" is corrected to
read, "will not be used in the aluminum
forming process".
60.	In 40 CFR 467.03(b), on page 49151.
column one, "As an alternative to
monitoring" is corrected to read, "As an
alternative monitoring".
61.	In 40 CFR 467.03(c). on page 49151.
column one, "discharge limits in direct
discharge" is corrected to read,
"discharge limits in direct discharge
permits and for pretreatment standards.
Compliance with the monthly discharge
limit is required regardless of the
number of samples analyzed and
averaged."
02.	In 40 CFR 467.04, on page 49151.
column one, the compliance date for
PSF.S is corrected to read. "October 24,
1966".
03.	On page 49151, column one.
following 40 CFR 467.04, add a new
section. 40 CFR 467.05 to read as
follows:
1 467.05 Removal Allowances for
Pretreatment Standards.
11631
— ¦¦¦¦¦ —
Removal allowances pursuant to 41)
CFR Part 403.7(a) may be granted for the
toxic metals limited in 40 CFR Part 4li7
when used as indicator pollutants
64.	In 40 CFR 467.12, oil page 49151.
column two, under Core Without an
Annealing Furnace Scrubber. "Mg/olT-
kg (pounds per/million off-pounds)" is
corrected to read, "Mg/off-kg (lb/nnllion
off-lbs)".
65.	In 40 CFR 467.12, on page 49151.
column two, the table heading. "Cora
Without an Annealing Furnace
Scrubber" is corrected to read, "Core
With an Annealing Furnace Scrubber"
66 In 40 CFR 467.12, page 49151. the
term "Mg/off-kg (pounds per/million oil-
pound)" is replaced with, "mg/off-kg
(lb/million off-lbs)" each time it
appears. This term appears in the tables
labelled: Cora With an Annealing
¦Furnace Scrubber. Continuous Sheet
Casting Spent Lubricant, Solution Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling Water, and
Cleaning or Etching Batli.
67. In 40 CFR 467.12. on page 49151.
column two, the table heading. "Core
With an Annealing Furnace Scrubber"
is corrected to read. "Core Without an
Annealing Furnace Scrubber".
08. In 40 CFR 467.12, on page 49151,
column three, under Continuous Sheet
Casting Spent Lubricant, the maximum
for monthly average for aluminum.
"0.0062" is corrected to read, "0 0063"
69.	In 40 CFR 467.12, on page 49151.
column three, under Solution Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling Water, the
maximum for monthly average for
aluminum. "24 20" is corrected to read
"24.66".
70.	In 40 CFR 467.12, on page 49151,
column three, under Cleaning or Etching
bath, the maximum for monthly average
for aluminum, "0.562" is corrected to
lead, "0.573".
71.	The term, "Mg/off-kg (pounds per
million off-pounds)" is replaced with,
"mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs)" each
time it appears.
This term appears in the following
Tables:
Pa&j*.
Col-
umn
Title of taDl'i
49152

Clounc


LiQuor
49152
l
Cote Without an Antionh\%> Fur


nace Scrubtw

2
Core With an Annojkng Furn.ico


Scrubber

2
Continuous Snout Casing Sfcnt


Lubricant

2
Solution Heat rroatiitcn: Cos'MCf


Coo/trig Water

2
Cleaning 0/ Etching Batn

3
Cfeamng 01 Etching fitnsc

3
Clearnng ot Ftrfing ScruMc


Liquor
49102
3
Core Without an Annoafmq F t.v-


nace Scrubbor

-------
11632
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
Pages
Col-
umn
49155
49156
Core With an Annoshng furnace
Scrubber.
Continuous Sheet Casting Spent
Lubricant
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Coohng Water
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching R/r.so
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber
LiQ'/or.
Core Without an Annen'.rg Fur-
nace Scrubber
Core *tth an Annealing Furnace
Scmbii«>•
Cor>tiriLOif5 Sh-?et Cflsting Lubri-
cant
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Coohng Water
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
C:e3n,ng ct Etching Sciubber
Liquor
Core Without on Annoa'¦••'•g Fur-
naco frcrubbor.
Core With an Anncabng Furnace
Scrubber
Continuous Sheaf Casting Lubn-
cant
Sol. •t/on Hoat Treatment Contact
Coohng iYa'er
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning ot Etching Soubber
Core
Direct CMI Casting Contact
Cooling Water
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Coohng Water
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Hinse
Ctoatvng or Etching Scrubber
Liquor
Cote
Chtcct Ch,U Casting Contect
Coohng Wafer
Soluton Heat Treatment Contact
Coohng Water
Cleaning or Efch.ng Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rm$e
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber
Liquor
Core
Diroct Chill Casting Contact
Cooling Water
Solution Heat heatr.wns Contact
Coohng Watar
Cleaning or f.tchmg Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rime
Cleaning or Etching Scooter
hQ>iOr
Core
Direct Ch,',s Casting Contact
Coohng Water.
Solution flea! Treatment Contact
Coo'tng Water
Cleaning or Etching Fteih
Cleaning ot etching funna
Clearing or Etching ScruLhftr
Core
Direct Chill Casting Contact
Coohng Water
Solution Heat Treatment Co.'•tact
Coohng Water
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber
Core
Extrusion Picss leakage
C.rect Chill Casting Contact
Coohng Water
Press Hoot Troatmont Contact
Coohng Water
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Chng Water
Cleaning or Etch.,:g Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Ckrtmng or Etching Scrubber
Liquor
Degassing Sciubbot Liquor
Core
Extrusion Press Leatagn
72.	In 40 CFR 487.12, on page 49152,
column one, under Cleaning or Etching
Rinse, the maximum for monthly
avmage for aluminum, "43.69" is
corrected to read, "44 52".
73.	In 40 CFR 467.12, on page 49152,
column one, under Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor, the maximum for
monthly average for aluminum, "49.93"
is corrected to read, "50.88".
74.	In 40 CFR 467.13, on page 49152,
column one, the table heading, "Care
Without an Annealing Furnace
Scrubber" is corrected to read, "Core
With an Annealing Furnace Scrubber".
75.	In 40 CFR 467.13, on page 49152,
column two, the table heading, "Core
With an Annealing Furnace Scrubber"
is corrected to read, "Core Without an
Annealing Furnace Scrubber".
76.	In 40 CFR 467.13, on page 49152,
column two, under Solution Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling Water, the
maximum for monthly average for
aluminum, "6.396" is corrected to read,
"6.510".
77.	In 40 CFR 467.13, on page 49152,
column two, under Cleaning or Etching
Rath, the maximum for monthly average
for aluminum, "0 562" is corrected to
read, "0.573".
78.	In 40 CFR 407.13, on page 49152,
column three, under Cleaning or Etching
Rmsc, the maximum for monthly
average for aluminum, "4.368" is
corrected to read, "4.45".
79.	In 40 CFR 467.13, on page 49152,
column three, under Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor, the maximum for
monthly average for aluminum, "6.070"
is corrected to read, "6.186".
80.	In 40 CFR 467.14, on page 49152,
column three, the table heading, "Core
Without an Annealing Furnace
Scrubber" is corrected to read, "Core
With an Annealing Furnace Scrubber".
81.	In 40 CFR 467.14, on page 49153,
column one, the table heading, "Core
With an Annealing Furnace Scrubber"
is corrected to read, "Core Without an
Annealing Furnace Scrubber".
82.	In 40 CFR 467.15, on page 49153,
column three, the table heading, "Core
Without an Annealing Furnace
Scrubber" is corrected to read, "Core
With an Annealing Furnace Scrubber".
83.	Ill 40 CFR 467.15, on page 49153,
column three, the table heading. "Core
With an Annealing Furnace Scrubber"
is corrected to read, "Core Without an
Annealing Furnace Scrubber".
84.	In 40 CFR 467.15, on page 49153,
column three, under Solution Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling Water, the
maximum for any one day for chromium,
"0.090" is corrected to read, "0.90".
85.	The tables titled, "Cleuning or
Etching Scrubber" are corrected to read,
"Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor"
wherever they appear. This title appears
in the following sections:
Socuon
Pagj
Column
467 15 	
49154
t
<67 16	
49154
3
467 25
49157
2
467.26	
49158
1
467 35 	
49161
3
467 36 . 	
49162
2
467 45 	 	
<".9163
3
467 46 	
49^64
2
467 55 	
49167
2
467 56. . 		
49168
\
467 65. . .
49171
1
467,06 	
49171
3
86.	In 40 CFR 467.16, on page 49154,
column two, the table heading, "Core
Without an Annealing Furnace
Scrubber" is corrected to read, "Core
With an Annealing Furnace Scrubber".
87.	In 40 CFR 467.16, on p^ge 49154,
column two. the table heading, "Core
With an Annealing Furnace Scrubber"
is corrected to read, "Cure Without an
Annealing Furnace Scrubber".
88.	In 40 CFR 467.16, on page 49154,
column three, under Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber, the maximum for monthly
average for cyanide, "0.15" is corrected
to read, "0.16".
89.	In 40 CFR 467.22, on page 49155.
column one, under Core, the maximum
for monthly average for aluminum,
"0.408" is corrected to read, "0.410".
90.	In 40 CFR 467.22, on page 49155,
column two, under Direct Chill Casting
Contact Cooling Water, the maximum
for monthly average for aluminum,
"4.18" is corrected to read, "4.26".
91.	In 40 CFR 467.22, on page 49155.
column two, under Solution Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling Water, the
maximum for monthly average for
aluminum, "24.20" is corrected to read,
"24.06".
92.	In 40 CFR 467.22, on page 49155,
column two, under Cleaning or Etching
Bath, the maximum for monthly average
for aluminum, "0.562" is corrected to
read, "0.573".
93.	In 40 CFR 467.22, on page 49155,
column two, under Cleaning or Etching
Rinse, the maximum for monthly
aveiage for aluminum appearing near
the top of the third column, "43.69" is
corrected to read, "44.52".
94.	In 40 Cre 467.22, on page 49155.
column three, under Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor, the maximum for any
one day for aluminum, "103.24" is
corrected to read, "102.24".
95.	In 40 CFR 467.22, on page 49155,
column three, under Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor, the maximum for
monthly average for aluminum, "49.93"
is corrected to read, "50.88".

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 27, 1984 / Rules and Rf.-gulations
11633
96.	In 40 CFR 407.23, on page 49155,
column three, under Core, the maximum
for monthly average for aluminum,
"0.41" is corrected to read, "0.42".
97.	In 40 CFR 467.23, on page 49150,
column one, under Direct Chill Casting
Contact Cooling Water, the maximum
for monthly average for aluminum,
"4.10" i9 corrected to read, "4.26".
98.	In 40 CFR 467.23, on page 49156,
column one, under Solution Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling Water, the
maximum for monthly average for
aluminum, "6.40" is corrected to read,
"6.52".
99.	In 40 CFR 467.23, on page 49156,
column one, under Cleaning or Etching
Rinse, the maximum for monthly
average for aluminum, "4.37" is
corrected to read, "4.45".
100.	In 40 CFR 467.23, on page 49150,
column two, under Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor, the maximum for
monthly average for aluminum. "6.07" is
corrected to read, "6.19".
101.	In 40 CFR 467.24 on page 49156,
column two, under, Core, the maximum
for monthly average for cyanide, "0.010"
is corrected to read, "0.011".
102.	In 40 CFR 467.25 on page 49157,
column two, under* Solution Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling Water, the
maximum for any one day for cyanide,
"0.50" Is corrected to read, "0.59".
103.	In 40 CFR 467.25, on page 49157.
column two. under Solution Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling Water, the
maximum for monthly average for zinc,
1.24" is corrected to read, "1.25".
104.	In 40 CFR 467.32, on page 4915U.
column two, the OPT effluent limitations
under Core are corrected to read, as
follows:
The maximum for any one day for oil
and grease, "7.28" is corrected to read,
"7.32".
The maximum for monthly average for
oil iind grease, "4.37" is corrected to
rend, "4.39".
The maximum for any one day for
suspended solids, "14.92" is corrected to
read. "15.0".
Tin! maximum for monthly average for
suspended solids, "7.10" is corrected to
read, ' 7 13".
105.	In 40 CFR 467.32, on page 49158.
column two, under Extrusion Press
Leakage, the maximum for monthly
average for aluminum, "4.64" is
correcied to read, "4.73".
106.	In 40 CFR 467.32, on page 49159.
column three, the BPT effluent
limitations for Direct Chill Casting
Can tact Cooling Water are corrected to
read as follows:
The maximum for monthly average for
chromium, "0.27" is corrected to read.
'0 24".
The maximum for monthly aveiage for
cyanide, "0.18" is corrected to read.
"0.16".
The maximum for monthly average for
zinc, "0.90" is corrected to read, "0.81".
The maximum for monthly average for
aluminum, "4.64" is corrected to read,
"4.26".
The maximum for monthly average for
oil und grease, "17.74" is corrected to
read. "15.95".	•
The maximum for monthly average for
suspended solids, "28.82" is corrected to
read "25.92".
The maximum for any one day for
suspended solids, "60.60" is corrected to
read, "54.49".
107. In 40 CFR 467.32, on page 49158,
column three, under Press Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling Water, the
maximum for monthly average for
aluminum, "24.20" is corrected to read,
"24.66".
100. In 40 CFR 467.32, on page 49158,
column three, under Solution Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling Water, the
maximum for monthly average for
aluminum, "24.20" 13 corrected to road.
"24.60".
109.	In 40 CFR 407.32, on page 49159,
column one, under Cleaning or Etching
Bath, the maximum for monthly average
for aluminum, "0.562" is corrected to
read, "0.573".
110.	In 40 CFR 407.32, on page 49159,
column one. under Cleaning or Etching
Rinse, the maximum for monthly
average for aluminum, "43.69" is
corrected to read, "44.52".
111.	In 40 CFR 467.32. on page 49159.
column one, under Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor, the maximum for any
one day for aluminum, "103.24" is
corrected to read. "102.24".
112.	In 40 CFR 467.32, on page 49159.
column one, under Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor, the maximum for
monthly average for aluminum, "49.93"
is corrected to read, "50.80".
113.	In 40 CFR 467.32, on page 49159,
column two, under Degassing Scrubber
Liquor, ihe maximum for monthly
average for aluminum, "8.20" is
corrected to read, "8.35".
114.	In 40 CFR 467.33(b) which
appears on page 49159, column two.
"There shall be no discharge of
wastewater pollutants from the
degassing operation" is corrected to
read. "There shall be no discharge
allowance for wastewater pollutants
from the degassing operation".
115.	In 40 CFR 467.33(c), on page
49159, column two. in the table labelled
Core, "BPT effluent limitations" is
correcied to read, "BAT effluent
limitations".
116.	In 40 CFR 467.33(c), on page
¦19159. column two, under Core, the
maximum for any one day for aluminum.
"2.18" is corrected to read. "2.19"
117. In 40 CFR 467.33(c), on page
49I59, column Iwo, under Core, the
maximum for monthly average for
aluminum, "1.08" is corrected to read.
"1.09".
110. In 40 CFR 467.33(c), oil page
49159. column Iwo, in the table labelled
Extrusion Press Leakage, "BPT effluent
limitations" is corrected to read. "HAT
effluent limitations".
119. The term, "Mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-ibs)" is replaced with "mg/off-kg (lb/
million off-lbs)" each time it appears in •
the following tables:
•16/ XJici
Pages
Col-
umn
/IS 161
4b!6<'
Contact
Diicct Cfi/ll
Cooling Water
Press Heat Treatment Com net
Coding water
SohfoOt> Heal 7rpjtm,u>i Compel
Cooling Water
Cleaning or Etching Bit'.h
Cleaning or Etching R.n^e
Cleaning or Etching Scf.-bnor
Liquor
Core
E ft fusion Press L tidkago
Direct Chill Cfist'ng Contact
Cooling Water
PtQSS Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Wa'cr
So'ution Heal Trodtnrent Contact
Cooling Water
Clowning or Etching Bt>
Diicct Chill Castmg Ci.mt.tct
Cooling W^tor
Pross I font Treatment Contact
Cooling Water
Sr-'uficn Mont Treatment Cont.tci
Cochng Water
Clearvng cm Etch-rug Pn'h
2	j Clean ng or Etching Rmse
3	j Cleaning ir Etching Scrul)ler
Liquor
Core
Forging Scrubber i njuo<
Solution Heat Truatmu.t Contact
Coohnq Wa'or
Cleaning or Etching Bat!)
Cleaning or Etching Rim,*
Ctearvrxj or t'tcning Scrufnc
Core
Forging 'Scrunot-4 aq-.O'
Solution Host Treatment Contact
Coding Water
Cfanning o> Etchu.g 9ji/>
Cloan>ng or Etching Fi'tisc
Cleanng or Etching Scrubber
Co^e
Continuous Rod casting Contnc!
Cool-ng Water

-------
11634	Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 27, 19134 / Rules and Regulations
Pages
S3
¦16/' 54
46/ 64
46" v»5
49106
Col-
umn
491b8
49l'±8
49170
AO 170
SO'Ot'O/i Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Wator
Cleaning or Fleming Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rmso
Cleaning ot Etching Scrubber
LKjunr
Co'o
Continuous Rod Casting Sp^jnt
Lubn-c.wt
Continuous Rod Casting Co-nact
Cooling Water
Solution Host Treatment Contact
Coohng Water
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cloxrnt
Lubncant
Continuous Rod Casting Contact
Coohng Water
Solution Host Treatment Co ->tact
Coo'.ng Wr.tot.
Cican ng or Etching Oath
Clt-'arunn or Etching Rmso
Cleaning or Etching S< rubb-y
Uquor
Core
Continuous Hod Cns'mg Spent
Lubricant
CorVnuojs Rod Cas'irg Contact
Coohng Water
Solution Heat Troatmcnt Contact
Cooling Wflfor
Cleaning or Etching 3ath
Cleaning ot Etching Pinso
Cleaning or Etching Sen hticn
Liquor
Core
Continuous Rod Cas'mg Spent
/ ubn^nl
Conhnt.ous nod Casting Contact
Coding Wator,
Cle3n
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. CO / Tuesday, March 27, 1904 / Rules and Regulations 11635
parameter), "139.10" is corrected to
read, "13.91". In the same table, the
maximum for monthly average for oil
and grease (alternate monitoring
parameter), "139.10" is corrected to
read, "13.91".
135.	In 40 CFR 467.44, on page 49162,
-column three, under Forging Scrubber
Liquor, the maximum for monthly
average for zinc, "0.40" is corrected to
read, "0.04".
136.	In 40 CFR 467.44, on page 49163,
column one, the new source
pel forma nee standards for Cleaning or
Etching Bath are corrected as follows:
The maximum for any one day for
aluminum, "0.772" is corrected to read,
"1.094".
The maximum for monthly average for
aluminum "0.376" is corrected to read,
'0.405".
The maximum for any one day for
suspended solids, "—" is corrected to
read, "2.69".
The maximum for tnonlhly average for
suspended solids "—" is corrected to
read, "2.15".
137 in 40 CFR 467.44, on page 49163,
column one, under Cleaning or Etching
Rinse, the maximum for any one day for
aluminum, "8.00" is corrected to read.
"8 5". In the same table, the maximum
for monthly average for aluminum,
"2.92" is corrected to read, "3.77".
13(1 In 40 CFR 467.44, on page 49163,
column one, under Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor, the maximum for any
one d?y for aluminum, "8.33" is
corrected to read. "11.01". In the same
Lie, the maximum for monthly average
.or aluminum, "4.C6" is corrected to
read, "5.24". Aiso, in the came table, the
footnote references are removed from
the entry for suspended solids and
inserted in the entry for pi I.
139. In 40 Cl'R 467.45, on page 49163,
column two, under Solution Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling Water, the
maximum for any one day for chromium,
' 0.096" is corrected to read, "0.897".
110 In 40 CFR 467.45, on page 49163,
column three, under Cleaning or Etching
But!:, the maximum for any one day for
T1 O, "1 23" is corrected to read, "0.123".
lit. In 40 CT'R 467.46. on page 49164,
column one. Solution Hccit Treatment
Contact Cooiing Water, the maximum
for monthly average for TTO, "0.06" is
corrected to read, "—".
1-12. In 40 CFR 467.52, on page 49164,
column three, under Core, the maximum
for monthly average for suspended
solids. "0 971" is corrected to read,
"0 972".
143 In 40 CFR 467.52. on page 49164,
column three, under Continuous Rod
Casting Spent Lubricant. "Mg/off-kg
(lbs/million off-lbs)" is corrected to
read, "mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs)".
144. In 40 CFR 467.52, on page 49164,
column three, the BPT limitations for
Continuous Rod Casting Spent
Lubricant are corrected to road us
follows:

BPT effluent limitations
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum lor
any \ day
Maximum for
monthly
avorago

mg/olf-kg (lbs/million off-
ibs) of aluminum rod cast
Chromium
Cyanido . , . ,
Zinc
Aluminum ....
CHI and Gfeaso . . .
Suspended Solids
pH
0 00086
0 00057
0 00287
00127
0 0333
0 0805
<')
0 00035
0 00024
00012
oooea
0 0230
0 0383
(')
1 Within tho range ol 7 0 lo 10 0 a\ a" times
145. In 40 CFR 467.52, on page 49165,
column one, under Solution Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling Water, the
maximum for monthly average for
aluminum, "24.20" is corrected to read,
"24.06".
14C. In 40 CFR 467.52, on page 49165,
column one, under Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor, the maximum for
monthly average for oil and grease,
"198.80" is corrected to read, "190.8".
147. The term "Mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs" is replaced by "mg/off-kg [lb/
million off-lbs)" each time it appears in
the following tables:
S Etching Bath


3
Ctonning ot Etching fhnse


3
Clojmng or Etching Scruhbor



I tquot
*67 54
49166
1
Coro
140. In 40 CFR 467.53, oil page 49165,
column two. tinder Continuous Rod
Casting Contact Cooling Water, the
maximum for monthly average for
cyanide. "0.023" is corrected to read,
"0.024".
149.	In 40 CFR 467.54, on page 49166.
column one, under Continuous Rod
Casting Spent Lubricant, the maximum
for any one day for zinc, "0 0002" is
corrected to read, "0 002" In the same
table, the maximum for monthly average
for suspended solids. "0.03" is collected
k> read, "0.024".
150.	In 40 CFR 467.54, on page 49166,
column two, under Cleaning or Etching
Rinse, the maximum for any one day for
suspended solids, "20.67" is corrected to
read, "20 87".
151.	In 40 CFR 467 55, on page 49167,
column one, under Continuous Rod
Casting Contact Cooling Water, the
maximum for any one day for chromium,
"0.B53" is corrected to read, "0 006". In
the same table the maximum for any one
day for cyanide, "0 562" is corrected to
read, ."0 057".
152.	In 40 CFR 467.55, on page 49167.
column one, under Cleaning or Etching
Ruth, the maximum for any one day for
1TO, "0.13" is corrected to read, "0.124".
153 In 40 CFR 467.55, on page 49167,
column two, under Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber, the maximum"for any one day
for 1TO, "1.33" is corrected to read,
"1.34".
154.	In 40 CFR 467.56, on page '19167,
column two, under Core, "Mg/off-kg (lb/
per million off-lbs)" is corrected to read,
"mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs)".
155.	In 40 CFR 467.56, on page 49167.
column three, the pretreatment
standards for new sources for
Continuous Hod Casting Contact
Cooling Water, are corrected to read as
follows:

PSNS
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum lor
any \ day
Maximum fo»
monthly
c
mg/ofl-kq (lbs/million off-
lbs) of diufmnum icd cct*ii
Chromium
0 C72
0 Q?9
Cyanide
0 039
0 016
Zmc
0 198
C 00?
T10

0 13-1
Oil and Groa^o (alternate


monitoimg parameter)
I 91
• 1 fi-i
156 In 40 CFR 467.62, on page 49100.
column two, under Core the maximum
for monthly average for aluminum,
"1.47" is corrected to read, "1 50".
157. In 40 CFR 467 62, on page 49160,
column two, under Continuous Rod
Casting Spent Lubricant, the maximum
Tor monthly average for cyanide,
"0.0002" is corrected to read, "0.00(13".
150. In 40 CFR 467.62, on page 49160.
column two. under Continuous Hoc!
Canting Spent Lubricant, the "'.aximuin
for monthly average for alunrn:1;-;.
"0 006" is corrected to read. "0.007". In
the same table, the entry for suspended
solids, "0.038" is corrected to read.
"0.039".
159.	In 40 CFR 467 62, on page 49160,
column three, undei Solution Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling Water, the
maximum fot any one day for aluminum.
"49.54" is corrected to read, "49.55". In
the same table, the maximum foi
monthly average for aluminum, "24 19"
is corrected to read. "24.66".
160.	In 40 CFR 467 63, on page 49169.
column one, under Continuous Hod
Costing Contact Cooling Water, the
-------
1!o36	Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 00 / Tuesday, March 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
uiimnmrny.'wiMB-				
mHxir.iuiii for any cm; day for chromium,
"0.005" is corrected to read, "0.086". In
the same table the maximum for
monthly average for cyanide of "0.023"
is corrected to read, "0.024".
161.	In 40 CFR 407.63, on page 49169,
column two, under Solution Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling Water, the
maximum for any one day for chromium,
"0 806" is corrected to rend, "0.897".
162.	In 40 CFR 467.64, on page 49169,
i o'.umn three, under the Cure, the
maximum for any one day for cyanide,
0.093"	is corrected to read, "0.094". In
ihi: same table, the maximum for
rr.onthly average for aluminum, "1 26" is
'.:>rrectr;d So read, "1.27".
163 In 40 CFR 467.64, on page 49169,
column three, under Continuous Roil
Ccu'tmy, Spent Lubricant, the maximum
ior monthly average for aluminum,
"0 0051" is coireeled to read, "0.0053".
164. In 40 CI'K 407.64, on page 49170,
. -jlunm one, under Solution llvnt
'i'rvntment Contact Cooling Water, the
maximum for any one day for chromium,
"0 700" is corrected to read, "0 754".
iG5 In -iO CFR 467.64, on page 49I70,
colirnn one, under Solution Ileal
7, cci/ment Contact Cooling Water, the
: :a.\:mani ."oi any one day for cyanide.
405'' is cc.-iucted to read, "0.408 '.
160 In 40 CFR 467.64, on page 49)70,
column one. under Cleaning or Etching
ii:i:se, "USPS'' is corrected to lead,
"NSl-'S". In the same table, the
::ia\imum for any one day for oil and
r.i ease, "13.911" is corrected to read,
'13.91".
167.	In 40 CFR 467.64, on page 49170,
' oiiwnn one, under Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor, "mMg/off-kg (lb/
million off-lbs)" is corrected to read,
"mg/off kg (lb/milhon off lbs)".
168.	In 40 CFR 467.65. on page 49170.
column two, under Continuous Rod
Casting Contact Cooling Water, the
maximum for any one day for chromium,
"0 is corrected to read. "0.086". In
the samr: table, the maximum for
monthly average for cyanide, "0.023" is
cm i; road, "0.024". Also in the
sum," t./'.'e, the maximum for monthly
average fc< /.inc, "U.'l 18" is corrected to
lead, "0.1 i;r
169.	In 4U CS'R 467 65, on page 49170,
colinim three, under Solution Heat
rn-atiucn! Contact Cooling Water, the
maximum [or monthly average for zinc.
"1.24" is corrected to read, "1.25".
I'.'O. In •!() CFR 467.65, on page 49171,
1.uiumn	one, under Cleaning or Etching
Sc rubber, the maximum for any one day
for TTO, "1.33 ' is corrected to read.
"1 ;i4 '
171 III <10 CF'R 467.66, on page 49171,
column two. the pretreatment standards
lor new sources for Continuous Rod
Casting Contact Cooling Water are
corrected to read as follows:

PSN3
Pollutant ck pollutnnt p'epo-ty
Maximum for
an/ 1 day
Maximum for
monthly
average

Mg/off-kg (Ibs/millton olf-
tbs) of cuminum rod cast
Chromium
Cyenicie . .
Zinc
no
Oil and Groasd (altornalo
moniicnng parornti.or) .
0 072
0 03Q
0 198
0	134
1	9-'.
0 029
0 016
0	082
1	94
172 hi 40 CFR 467.65, oil page 49170,
column two, under Care, the maximum
for monthly uverage for chromium,
"0 84" is corrected to read "0.084".
|l-'R D.»:	r.bri 3 -20-1M, I) IT. iim|
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
I Circular No. 25421
43 CFR Parts 3100, 3200, 34C0 end
3EG0
Oil and Gas Loosing; Geothermal
Resources Leasing; Coal Management;
and Leasing of Minerals Other Ttian Oil
and Gas; Amendment Changing the
Collection Process for Mineral Leases
agency: Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
action: Final rulemaking.
SUMMARY: This final rulemaking will
amend the existing regulations covering
the procedures for collection of bonus
and rental payments required in
connection with mineral leases issued
by the Bureau of Land Management. The
final rulemaking will transfer most
bonus and rental collections after the
payment fur the initial lease year to the
Minerals Management Service. This
final rulemaking is being issued to
comply with the requiremenis of the
Federal Oil and Gas Royally
Management Act of 1982 and a
Memorandum of Understanding
between the Bureau of Land
Management and the Minerals
Management Service.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 26, 1984.
ADDRESS: Any inquiries or suggestions
should be sent to: Director (140), Bureau
of Land Management, 1800 C Street,
NVV., Washington, D.C. 20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert C. Bruce, (202) 343-8735.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
final rulemaking will implement the
provisions of the Federal Oil and Gas
Royalty Management Act oh 1982 (30
U.S.C. 1701-1757) and a Memorandum of
Understanding between the Bureau of
Land Management and the Minerals
Management Service dealing with the
question of remittances in connection
with mineral leases issued by the
Bureau of Land Management. Basically,
the final rulemaking changes the
provisions in the existing regulations
requiring that all bonus and rental
remittances made in connection with
mineral leases be made to the Bureau of
Land Management. Under this final
rulemaking, normally only the initial
bonus, first year's rental and all required
fees will be remitted to the Bureau of
Land Management, with all subsequent
payments being remitted to the Minerals
Management Service. The change made
by the final rulemaking will permit the
Minerals Management Service to better
meet its responsibility of pro\ idmg the
highest possible icturn from mineral
leases granted by the United Stales.
The change is being issurd as a final
rulemaking because it is an
administrative change, one that imposes
no new burdens on the public. Holders
of mineral leases will continue to have
to remit required payments, bat with the
amendment being made by this final
rulemaking, most post-lease issuance
bonus and rental remittances will be
made to the Minerals Management
Service, rather than to the Bureau of
Land Management. The final rulemaking
excepts leases on six categories of lands
from the requirement that most post-
lease issuance bonus and rental
remittances be paid to the Service, but
will continue to be paid to the Bureau.
The holders of the approximately 3,000
leases covered by this exception have
been notified that they will continue to
make their payments to the Bureau.
The principal author of this proposed
rulemaking is Robert C. Bruce, Office of
Legislation and Regulatory
Management, Bureau of Land
Management, assisted by the staff of the
Deputy Director for Energy and Mineral
Resources, Bureau of Land Management.
It is hereby determined that this
rulemaking does not constitute a major
Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment and
that no detailed statement pursuant to
section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C]] is required.
The Department of the Interior has
determined that this document is not a
major rule under Executive Order 12291
and will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
-------
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 21 / Thursday. January 31, 1985^/)Rules and Regulations	4513
40 CFR Parts 86, 122, 171, 264, 265,
434, 433, 465, 467, and 469
lFRL-2766-6!
rmation Requirements; OMB
Approval; Technical Amendments
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency.
action: Final rule; technical
amendments.
summary: In the preambles to the
following regulations, EPA noted that
the information collection requirements
were under review at the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). In
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 ct
scq., those provisions are not effective
until OMB approval has been obtained.
The Agency is announcing today the
approval of these information
requirements by OMB. In conformance
with this approval, the Agency will
include the OMB control number in the
body of tlip.rule-^	
tfJEECTlVE_DATE: January.31, 1905.^
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION COflfACT:
Eric Strassler, Regulation and
Information Management Division (PM-
223), Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C.
20460, or by calling (202) 302-2706.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1 t he
following table summarizes the
regulations affected by today's
amendment.
Titto
Co*wol of po'ldtnn from rv« motor vehcl6S and no* motor vehicle engines smoke
cm.s^icns Irom 1954 arid Iflt f modol year drosol hoavy-duty onginos
Cont/oi of air po'luiicn from new motor vehicles ar>d new motor vehicle engines; high altitjde
cmi&ston standards for 1984 and later model year light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks
Control of air pollution from new motof vehtci&s and now motor vohicle onginos. high altitude
emission standards for 1982 and later model ^oar motor vehicles
Control o! po'lut-on from new motor vehicles and new motor v6htcle engines, averaging of
parturiate em. ..ons from 1905 and later model year diesel-tueled light-duty vehicles and
light-duty trucks
Nat-onol PotM**-! Discharge Elmination System (NPDES)
Appl'ca'cn tor pprrMl to discharge wastewater—form 1 (general information).
Applice'icn tor permit to discharge wastowator—form 2c ..		
Application for pam't to dscharge waste*ator—form 2t> .... 	
Notice ot construction pnor to wastewater permit issuance...		
Report of planned changea to pormittod facility ...		
Report of discnargo exceeding spoctfiod levels		
Nol.ce of acual prcdutton level— automotive manufacturing industries
Revest for modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination of p**rmit 	
wti!ica?-on of pesticido applicators recordkeeping and reporting requirements 	
Ciunb'jl hazardous waste facli^ standards	
G : nor a I hararrtous waste facility requirements for ignjtable. reactive or incompatible wastes
(•^riGral hazardous wa>te facility location standards	 	
Lontirxjoncy plan tor hazardous waste management facilities		
Emergency procedures for hazardous waste management factlities	
Man-fey discrepancies for hizardous waste management facilities	
Op< rating rocord lor hazardous waste managomont facilities		
1-j.fjnnk.l report tor hazardous wasto management facilities	
v iVsted was»e report for hazardous wasto management facilities	
3 »ator protection btandards		... .. , .
so end post c'osure for h.uardouc wasto managomont facilities	 	
Ho/i-jtom ol clo'.uro cost ostimatos		...
R'-viCuoi.s ol pest closure cost ostimntos 	
Su1 ijco impour fuvnt requ remants 		. , , .
V«uMe pilci. r*r..remor.!«. 	 ....
LsimMk atn.cMi requnrmen's		 			
L indfiii roqj"d'j onts 	 	
Unsaturated ;ono mc tonng requirements			
'nonoralor »f q:«rumcnt3	.., 	 	
General hazardous was'e facility general waste analysis during intorim status	
Grnorf.i ha' udi js waste facility secunty requirements dunng intorim status	
Contingency plan lor h«izardoui wasto management lacilitios dunng mienm status
emergency procedures lor hazardous waste managomont facilities during interim status . .
Operntu c, f(< :vj lor h„-i7ardous waste management facilities dunng interim status
Avuilan :y. retjnicn and cfcspos'tion of records tor hazardous waste management lacilitios
nunng iMonm siptus
ManiftV syst rn lor hazardous wane management facilities during interim status	
Zi' nr, » repen for haz^'itous waste management faclitios dunng mtonm status 	
Jnmar fasted waste report for hazardous wasto management facilities dunng interim status .
Ground wa.er rnonrtonng dunng interim status	
Closure arj post-closuro reqjiromonls tor hazardous waste managomont facilities dunng
interim status
Revisions of closure cost ostjrrates dunng interim status	
fiev s.iOfiS of post closu'e requirements dunng mtonm status		...
Coal n img e'Mjcnt giiirtr lines 			
Pharmaceutical rr.ir, jtactjr.ng effluent guidelin03 		...
Do						
Do			. ...	. , . .
Do		
Do .		
Do					...
Do				
Do		
Do	. .	...		
0
.. do ,.
Jan, 12. 1981 .
Apr 7, 1982.
do
Oct 13. 1982
Oct 27, 1983 .
do .
, do
. do
do .. , .
do
do
. do .
. do
Nov i/, 1983
Oct 24. 1983
April 8. 1983
do
I
I 49 FR
' 49 FR
! 49 HR
I 49 FR
| 48 FR
I 45 FR
¦ 46 cn
46	FR
45 FR
I 45 FR
I 45 FR
| 45 FH
45 FR
45	FR
47	FR
46	FR
47	FR
47 FR
47 FR
4/ FR
47 FR
47 FR
47 FR
46 FR
45 FR
45 FR
45 FR
45	FR
46	FR
45 FR
33424
38046
33444
30040
30049
38049
38049
38051
539/4
33221
2848
?R48
33221
33221
33221
33221
33221
33221
32357
2849
1 £047
15047
32357
32357
32357
32357
32357
7670
33232
33232
33232
33232
7600
33232
45 FR 33232
' 48 TR 39G2
45 FR 33232
45	FR 33232
46	FR 2875
47 FR
47 FR
47	FR
48	FR
40 FR
40 I R
40 FR
40 FR
48 FR
40 FR
40 FR
48 FR
40 F-R
48 FR
48 FR
48 FR
1C0G4
li-064
4D393
49822
49U23
49524
49525
49026
49827
49828.
49829
49030
52399
49151
15394
15396
Thi; Agency is announcing today the
.ipprovul of these information
- 'demerits by OMB. In conformance
ibis ;ippro\.;iI, the Agency will
include the OMB control number in the
body of the rule. The regulations tire
amended as follows:
PART 86—[AMENDED!
1. At the end of 40 CFR 80.084-2;*, the
following language is inserted:
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 1985 / Rules and Regulations 4515
439.36, 439.37, 439.42, 439,44, 439.45,
cfi3^48, and 439.47, the following
language is inserted: "(Information
collection requirements in paragraph (a)
were approved by the Office of
snagement and Budget under control
.jmber 2040-0033)".
PART 465—[AMENDED]
36.	At the end of 40 CFR 465.03, the
following language is inserted:
"(Approved by (he Office of
Management and Budget under control
number 2040-0033)".
PART 467-f AMENDED]
37.	At the end of 40 CFR 467.03, the
following language is inserted:
"(Information collection requirements in
paragraph (a) were approved by the
Office of Management and Budget under
control number 2040-0033)".
PART 469—r AMENDED]
38.	At the end of 40 CFR 469.13, the
following language is inserted:
"(Approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under control
number 2040-0074)".
39.	At the end of 40 CFR 469.23, the
following language is inserted:
"(Approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under control
number 2040-0074)".
Dated: January 23.1985.
' ":Iton Russell,
listant A dmmistrator for Policy, Planning
and Evaluation.
|FR Doc. 85-2323 Filed 1-30-85. 8:45 ;im|
BILLING CODE GbSO-JO-M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land 'vlanogement
43 CFR Public Land Order 6585
|OR-19614(WASH), OR-19650 (WASH), OR-
19651(WASH), OR- 19654
-------
/Monday
^October 24, 1983
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
Aluminum Forming Point Source
Category; Effluent Limitations Guidelines,
Effluent Limitations Guidelines,
Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards; Interim Rule and
Request for Comments
-------
49126
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday. October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 467
[WH-FRL 2440-4]
Aluminum Forming Point Source
Category; Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, Pretreatinenl Standards,
and New Source Performance
Standards
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
action: Final rule: interim rule and
request for comment.
summary: This regulation establishes
effluent limitations guidelines and
standards limiting the discharge of
pollutants into navigable waters and
into publicly owned treatment works
(POTW) by existing and new sources
that conduct aluminum forming
operations. The Clean Water Act-and a
consent decree require EPA to issue this
regulation.
This regulation establishes effluent
limitations guidelines based on "best
practicable technology" (BPT) and "best
available technology" (BAT], new
source performance standards (NSPS)
based on "best demonstrated
technology", and pretreatment
¦>tandards for existing and new indirect
jchargers (PSES and PSNS,
.rfspectively).
Section 467.01(c) which applies to
PSES for plants that extrude lesa than
1.360.000 kg (3 million pounds) of
aluminum per year or draw with
emulsions or soaps plants producing
less than 453,333 kg (1 million pounds) of
aluminum per year is promulgated as an
interim rule.
DATES: In accordance with 40 CFR
100.01 (45 FR 26048), this regulation shall
be considered issued for purposes of
judicial review at 1:00 p.m. Eastern time
on November 7,1983. This regulation
shall become effective December 7,1983.
The compliance date for the BAT
regulations is as soon as possible, but in
any event no later than July 1,1984. The
•compliance date for new source
performance standards (NSPS) and
pretreatment standards for new sources
(PSNS) is the date the new source
^begins operations. The compliance date
for pretreatment standardsjor existing
^3ources.(PSES)^ is October 2471983.
The informatiorrrequirements-^'
contained in 40 CFR 467.03 have not
been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and
they are not effective until OMB has
approved them.
Under Section 509(b)(1) of the Clean
Uer Act. judicial review of this
regulation can be made only by filing a
petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals within 90 days after
the regulation is considered issued for
purposes of judicial review. Under
Section 509(b)(2) of the Clean Water
Act the requirements in this regulation
may not be challenged later in civil or
criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
Comments on the interim rule
(S 467.01(c)) must be submitted by
December 23,1963.
Aoonasses: Send comments on the
interim final rule to Ms. Janet K.
Goodwin. Effluent Guidelines Division
(WH-552), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW„
Washington. D.C. 20460. Attention EGD
Docket Clerk, Aluminum Forming Rule»
(WH-552). The supporting information
and all comments on the interim final
rule will be available for inspection and
copying at the EPA Public Information
Reference Unit Room 2404, (EPA
Library Rear] (PM-213). The basis for
this regulation is detailed in four major
documents. See Supplementary
Information (under "XIV. Availability of
Technical Information") for a
description of each document Copies of
the technical and economic documents
may be obtained from the National
Technical Information Service.
Springfield, Virginia 22181 (703/487-
4800). Technical information may be
obtained by writing Ms. Janet Goodwin.
Effluent Guidelines Division (WH-552),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401M Street SW„ Washington. D.C
20460 or by calling (202) 382-71281
Additional economic information may
be obtained by writing Ms. Ellen Warhit
Economic Analysis Staff (WH-588), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW„ Washington. D.C. 20460 or
by calling (202) 382-5381.
The record for the final rule will be
available for public review not later
than December 28,1983 in EPA's Public
Information Reference Unit. Room 2904
(Rear) (EPA Library), 401 M Street SW_
Washington. D.C. The EPA public
information regulation (40 CFR Part 2)
provides that a reasonable fee may be
charged for copying.
FOR FTJRTHEH INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ernst P. Hall. (202) 382-7128.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Organization of This Notice
I.	Legal Authority
II.	Scope of This Rulemaking
III.	Summary of Legal Background
IV.	Methodology and Data Gathering Efforts
V.	Control Treatment Options and
Technology Basis for Final Regulations
A.	Summary of Category
B.	Control and Treatment Options
C Technology Basis for Final Regulations
VL Economic Consideration
A.	Costs and Economic Impact
B.	Executive Order 12291
C Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
0. SBA Loans
VTL Nonwater Quality Environmental
Impacts
A. Air Pollution
E Solid Waste
C.	Consumptive Water Loss
O. Energy Requirements
VOL Pollutants and Subcategories Not
Regulated
A. Exclusion of Pollutants
& Exclusion of Subcategories
IX Public Participation and Response to
Major Comments
X. Best Management Practices
XL Upset and Bypass Provisions
XIL Variances and Modifications
Xm. Implementation of Limitations and
Standards
A Relationship to NPDES Permits
a Indirect Dischargers
XIV.	Availability of Technical Information
XV.	List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 468
XVI.	Appendices
A Abbreviations. Acronyms, and Other
Terms Used in This Notice
& Toxic Pollutants Not Detected in
Aluminum Forming Wastewater
C.	Toxic Pollutants Detected Below the
Analytical Quantification Limit
D.	Toxic Pollutants Detected in the Effluent
From Only a Small Number of Sources
E.	Toxic Pollutants Detected in Amounts
Too Small To Be Effectively Treated
F.	Toxic Metal Pollutants Effectively
Controlled by BAT. PSES. and PSNS
Even Though They Are Not Specifically
Regulated
G.	Toxic Organic Pollutants Which Are Not
Regulated at BAT and NSPS Because
They Are Effectively Controlled by Other
Limitations and Standards
L Legal Authority
This regulation is being promulgated
under the authority of Sections 301. 304,
308, 307, 308. ancT501 of the Clean Water
Act (the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251
etseq.. as amended by the Clean Water
Act of 1977. Pub L 95-217). also called
"the Act". It is also being promulgated
in response to the Settlement Agreement
in Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc. v. Train. 8 ERC 2120 (D.C.C. 1976).
modified. 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979).
modified by Orders dated October 26,
1982 and August 2. 1983.
II. Scope of This Rulemaking
This regulation, which was proposed
on November 22, 1982 (47 FR 52626).
establishes effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for existing
and new aluminum forming facilities.
Aluminum forming is the deformation of
aluminum or aluminum alloys into
specific shapes by hot or cold working
such as rolling, extrusion, forging, and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday. October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations 49127
drawing. Also included are a number of
ancillary operations such as casting,
heat treatment and surface treatment
that are an integral part of aluminum
forming processes and that can
contribute significantly to the
wastewaters discharged from aluminum
forming plants. The manufacture of
aluminum powders and the forming of
parts from aluminum or aluminum alloy
powders are regulated under the
nonferrous metals forming regulation.
Casting of aluminum is frequently
done prior to forming at aluminum
forming plants: it is also performed as
the final step in the manufacture of
primary and secondary aluminum. The
equipment and methods of casting used
at aluminum forming plants are the
same as those employed by primary and
secondary plants and the water
requirements and waste characteristics
are very similar. Casting done at a plant
which manufactures aluminum and also
does aluminum forming is subject to the
casting limitations for the aluminum
manufacturing subcategories of the
nonferrous metals category if they cast
the aluminum without cooling. If the
aluminum is a remelted primary
aluminum product and is cast at a
facility also forming aluminum, then the
casting subsequent to the remelting is
subject to the aluminum forming
limitations. (The limitations for casting
in the primary and secondary aluminum
subcategories of the nonferrous metals
manufacturing category will be
promulgated early in 1984.)
Surface treatment of aluminum is any
chemical or electrochemical treatment
applied to the surface of aluminum. Such
surface treatment is considered to be a
part of aluminum forming whenever it is
performed as an integral part of
aluminum forming. For the purposes of
this regulation, surface treatment of
aluminum is considered to be an integral
part of aluminum forming whenever it is
performed at the same plant site at
which aluminum is formed. When
surface treatment operations are
covered under the aluminum forming
category they are covered by the
limitations and standards for cleaning or
etching baths, rinses, and scrubbers, and
are not subject to regulation under the
provisions of 40 CFR Part 433. Metal
Finishing. See 40 CFR 433.10(b]. 48 FR
32485 (July 15.1983).
EPA is promulgating BPT. BAT. NSPS.
PSES. and PSNS for the aluminum
forming category. EPA is promulgating
as an interim final rule 5 487.01(c).
which applies to PSES for plants
manufacturing less than 1.380.000
kilograms (3 million pounds) in the
extrusion subcategory and for plants
manufacturing less than 453.333
kilograms (1 millon pounds) in the
drawing with emulsions or soaps
subcategory.
III. Summary of Legal Background
The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 established a
comprehensive program to 'restore and
maintain the chemicaL physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's
waters" [Section 101(a)], To implement
the Act EPA was to issue effluent
limitations guidelines, 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 "Settlement
Agreement" which was approved by the
court. This Agreement required EPA to
develop a program and adhere to a
schedule in promulgating effluent
limitations guidelines, new source
performance standards, and
pretreatment standards for 65 "priority"
pollutants and classes pollutants for 21
major industries. See Natural Resources
Defense Council. Inc. v. Train. 8 ERC
2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified. 12 ERC
1833 (D.D.C. 1979). modified by Orders
dated October 26.1982 and August 2.
1983.
Many of the basic elements of the
Settlement Agreement 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
material storage associated with, or
ancillary to. the manufacturing or
treatment process.
Under the Act. the EPA is to set a
number of different kinds of effluent
limitations. These are discussed in
detail in the preamble to the proposed
regulation and in the Development
Document. They are summarized briefly
below:
1. Best Practicable Control Technology
IBPT,)
BPT limitations are generally based
on the average of the best existing
performance by plants of various sizes,
ages, and unit processes within the
category or subcategory.
In establishing DPT limitations. EPA
considers the total cost in relation to (he
age of equipment and facilities involved,
the processes employed, process
changes required, engineering aspects of
the control technologies, and nonwater
quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements). We
balance the total cost of applying the
technology against the effluent
reduction.
2. Best Available Technology (BAT]
BAT limitations, in generaL represent
the best existing performance 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 the
control technologies, process changes,
the cost of achieving such effluent
reduction, and nonwater quality
environmental impacts. The Agency
retains consideiable discretion in
assigning the weight to be accorded
these factors.
3• Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT)
The 1977 Amendments to the Clean
Water Act added Section 301(b)(2)|E).
establishing "best conventional
pollutant control techonoiogy" (BCT) for
discharge of conventional pollutants
from existing industrial point sources.
Section 304(a)(4) designated the
following as conventional pollutants:
BOD. TSS. fecal coliform. pH. and any
additional pollutants defined by the
Administrator as conventional. The
Administrator designated oil and grease
"conventional'" 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 factors specified in Section
304(b)(4)(B). the Act requires that BCT
limitations be assessed in light of a two
part "cost-reasonablenesS" test.
American Paper Institute v. EPA. 660
F 2d 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
-------
49128 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 206 / Monday. October 24, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
BCT. In no case may BCT be less
stringent 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
ordered EPA to correct date errors
underlying EPA's calculation of the first
test, and to apply the second cost test.
(EPA argued that a second cost test was
not required.)
A revised methodology for the general
development of BCT limitations was
proposed on October 29,1982 (47 FR
49176). BCT limits for this industry are
accordingly deferred until promulgation
of the final methodology for BCT
development.
4.	New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS)
NSPS are based on the best available
demonstrated technology (BDT). New
plants have the opportunity to install the
best and most efficient production
processes and wastewater treatment
technologies.
5.	Pretreatwent 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
lublicly owned treatment works
'OTW). They must be achieved within
three years of promulgation. The Clean
Water Act of 1977 requires pretreatment
from 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 chosgh 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 pollutants pass through
POTW if the nationwide average
percentage 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 serve
 s 1978 data collection effort with
regard to plants which perform
anodizing and conversion coating. These
data were used to characterize
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday, October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations 49129
wastewater flows and subsequently
perform cost of compliance estimates for
these plants.
Since proposal, the Agency made
engineering visits to six aluminum
forming plants to determine the flow
characteristics of 12 wastewater
streams (sawing spent lubricant, roll
grinding spent lubricant, die cleaning
baths, extrusion press hydraulic fluid
leakage, detergent cleaning baths and
rinses, anodizing baths and rinses, dye
baths and rinses, and sealing baths and
rinses). Additionally, we collected
samples for chemical analysis at five of
these plants to determine the nature of
the above wastewater streams and the
effectiveness of end-of-pipe treatment in
removing pollutants, primarily the
pollutant aluminum. In addition to the
wastewater streams listed above, we
sampled a variety of process
wastewaters to characterize treatment
effectiveness.
New data obtained by the Agency
since proposal have been carefully
analyzed and. where appropriate,
changes have been made to the
regulation. Flow allowances for a
number of waste streams have been
revised as discussed in Section V. The
treatment effectiveness value for the
pollutant aluminum and the pH range
have also been revised.
In response to comments on the
proposed regulation, the Agency revised
the compliance costs and economic
impact analyses, which resulted in
revised plant closure estimates. The
Agency reviewed the compliance cost
estimates and recosted 12 inaccurately
costed plants. Compliance costs were
slso estimated for an additional 27
plants that were not costed prior to
proposal. The costing methodology used
to estimate plant compliance costs is
discussed in Section VIII of the
Development Document The economic
impact analysis was also revised by
reducing the return on investment for
each subcategory based on comments
and by revising the market rate of return
to include a small risk premium. The
economic Tiethodology used to estimate
economic impacts is discussed in
Chapter Two and Appendix B and C of
the Economic Impact Analysis of
Effluent Standards and Limitations for
the Aluminum Forming Industry, EPA
(EPA 440/2-83-010).
V. Control Treatment Options and
Technology Basis for Final Regulations
A. Summary of Category
The aluminum forming industry is
grnerally included within SIC 3353, 3354.
3355, and 34S3 of the Standard Industrial
Classification Manual, prepared in 1972
and supplemented in 1977 by the Office
of Management and Budget Executive
Office of the President
There are approximately 271
aluminum forming facilities distributed
throughout the United States, with the
majority located east of the Mississippi
River. There are 59 direct dischargers. 72
indirect dischargers, and 140 plants that
do not discharge wastewater. Most of
the zero discharge plants employ a
combination of forming and ancillary
operations which do not generate
process wastewater. The aluminum
forming category employs an estimated
31.200 people with a total production
estimated at 5.000,000 kkg (11 billion
pounds) per year, with individual
production ranging from less than lOkkg
(22.000 pounds] to more than 259.000 kkg
(570 million pounds) per year.
Aluminum forming has become more
widespread since the commercial
development of aluminum in the 1880s.
The demand for formed aluminum
products has increased greatly in the
past 30 years. Two of the larger markets
for aluminum formed products are in the
manufacturing of aeronautical and
automobile components where
aluminum reduces weight and increases
fuel efficiency.
Aluminum forming is the deformation
of aluminum into specific shapes by hot
or cold working. Many of the products
manufactured at aluminum forming
facilities are sold to other manufacturers
for farther fabrication or incorporation
into consumer goods. The aluminum
forming operations covered by this
regulation are rolling, extruding, forging,
and drawing of aluminum. Associated
operations, such as the casting of
aluminum for subsequent forming, heat
treatment and all surface treatment
operations performed as an integral part
of aluminum forming (called cleaning or
etching for the purpose of this
regulation), are also included. These
operations are discussed in substantial
detail in the preamble to the proposed
regulation (47 FR 52826).
Aluminum forming operations
generate a variety of different waste
streams. Lubricants consisting of neat
oils, oil-water emulsions, or soap
solutions are used for lubrication and
cooling in roiling and drawing
operations as well as sawing and
casting. Contact cooling water is
commonly used to quench aluminum
products after casting, forming
operations, or heat treatment
Wastewater is also generated by the
discharge of the baths and rinses used
for the cleaning and etching of
aluminum products.
The most significant pollutants or
pollutant parameters found in
wastewater generated by aluminum
forming facilities are:
(1)	Toxic pollutants—Cadmium,
chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, nickel,
selenium, and zinc:
(2)	Conventional pollutants—Oil and
grease, suspended solids, and pH; and
(3)	Nonconventional pollutants—
aluminum.
Toxic organics were found at very
significant concentrations in
concentrated oily waste streams, in *
forging air pollution scrubber
wastewater, and in other waste streams
In developing this regulation, it was
necessary to determine whether
different effluent limitations guidelines
and standards were appropriate for
different segments (subcategories) of the
industry. The major factors considered
in assessing the need for
subcategorization and in identifying
subcategories included: waste
characteristics, raw materials,
manufacturing processes, products
manufactured, water use, water
pollution control technology, treatment
costs, solid waste generation, size of
plant, age of plant number of
employees, total energy requirements,
nonwater quality characteristics, and
unique plant characteristics. Section IV
of the Development Document contains
a detailed discussion of these factors
and the rationale for subcategorization.
The aluminum forming manufacturing
processes of rolling, extruding, forging,
and drawing are universally recognized
in the industry. They also provide a
convenient basis for normalizing
limitations from one plant to another
based on mass of aluminum passed
through the processes. EPA has
subcategorized the aluminum forming
industry based primarily on these
manufacturing processes. The
subcategories are defined as: (1) Rolling
with neat oils. (2) rolling with emulsions.
(3) extrusion. (4) forging. (5) drawing
with neat oils, and (8) drawing with
emulsions or soaps.
Each subcategory consists of two
segments. The first segment is called the
core and includes the specific forming
operation and related operations that
almost always occur in conjunction with
the forming operation. The core also
includes operations that are not always
found in conjunction with the forming
operation, but do not discharge
wastewater. The effluent flow from the
core for each of the subcategories is
production normalized, and the
limitations are based on the effluent
flow and the treatment effectiveness of
the model treatment technology.
The second segment of each
subcategory consists of ancillary
-------
49130 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 206 / Monday, October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
operations that generate wastewater
and are performed as part of the
iluminum forming process. These
ancillary operations, such as solution
heat treatment, cleaning or etching, and
casting, are performed to achieve
desired characteristics or finishes on the
aluminum products and are
characterized by the generation of
substantial volumes of wastewater.
Because they are not found at every
plant in a subcategory and they are not
always unique to a specific subcategory,
they are not included in the core.
Instead, a separate limitation is
established for ancillary operations
based on the waste streams generated
by these operations and normalized by
the mass (off-kilogram) of aluminum
processed through the ancillary
operation. An aluminum forming plant
would be permitted to discharge a mass
of pollutants equivalent to the sum of
the mass limitations established for the
core and the individual ancillary
operation(s) that are practiced at the
plant.
The production normalizing parameter
selected for aluminum forming is the off-
kilogram (off-pound) of aluminum from
an operation. The Agency has found that
the generation of pollutants is most
closely related to the off-kilograms of
aluminum processed. Further, members
of the aluminum forming category
tally maintain production records in
.,mis of the mass of aluminum
produced, thus, this production
normalizing parameter is most
appropriate from industry's perspective.
B. Control and Treatment Technologies
Prior to proposal of the aluminum
forming regulation. EPA considered a
wide range of control and treatment
options including both in-process
changes and end-of-pipe treatment.
These options are discussed in detail in
the preamble to the proposed aluminum
forming regulation (47 FR 52626). The
Agency is promulgating limitations and
standards based on the same end-of-
pipe model treatment technology used
as a basis for the proposed rule. The
control and treatment technologies used
as the basis for the final limitations and
standards are described below.
In-process controls include a variety
uf flow reduction techniques and
process changes such as recycle,
countercurrent cascade rinsing, and
alternate degassing methods. The
regeneration technology included as
part of the model treatment technology
of the proposed rule has been eliminated
from the model treatment technology of
the final rule.
End-of-pipe treatment included:
ruemical reduction of chromium.
cyanide precipitation, chemical
emulsion breaking, where applicable: oil
skimming, chemical precipitation of
metal ions using hydroxides or
carbonates, removal of precipitated
metals by settling (lime and settle), pH
control, and filtration. These treatment
technologies are described in detail in
Section VII of the Development
Document.
The treatment effectiveness of the
above technologies has been evaluated
by observing the performance of these
technologies on aluminum forming and
other similar wastewaters. The data
base for the performance of fime and
settle technology is a composite of data
drawn from EPA protocol sampling and
analysis of aluminum forming, copper
forming, battery manufacturing,
porcelain enameling, and coil coating
wastewaters. These data, collectively
called the combined metals data base,
report influent and effluent
concentrations for nine pollutants. The
wastewaters are judged to be similar in
all material respects for treatment
because they contain a range of
dissolved metals which can be removed
by precipitation and solids removal.
We regard the combined metals data
base as the best available measure for
establishing the concentrations of
pollutants attainable with lime and
settle. Our determination is based on the
similarity of the raw and treated
wastewaters among the different
categories as determined generally by
engineering hypothesis and supported
by statistical analysis for homogeneity
(a separate study of statistical
homogeneity of these wastewaters is
part of the record of this rulemaking).
The combined metals data base
provides a larger quantity of data that
are similar from both technical and
statistical standpoints than would be
available from any one category alone.
The larger quantity of data in the
combined metals data enhances the
Agency's ability to estimate long-term
performance and variability through
statistical analysis.
The treatment effectiveness of lime
and settle technology on the pollutant
aluminum was derived from an analysis
of the effluent concentrations of the
pollutant aluminum at three aluminum
forming plants and one aluminum coil
coating plant with lime and settle
wastewater treatment. (The
wastewaters from aluminum coil coating
are similar in all material respects to ~
wastewaters from aluminum forming.) A
total of 11 data points were available
which were used to establish the
treatment effectiveness value for the
pollutant aluminum. The aluminum
limitations were determined on the
basis of aluminum measurements taken
in wastewater with pH in the range of
7.0 to 10.0 to be consistent with pH
requirements on the combined metals
data base and limitations.
The Agency also examined the
performance of lime, settle, and filter
technology based on the performance of
full-scale commercial systems treating
porcelain enameling. Two aluminum
forming plants reported that they are
using a filter thus, this technology is
demonstrated on aluminum forming
wastewaters. Since no data were
available on these systems the Agency
examined wastewaters from porcelain
enameling and aluminum forming and
determined that they are similar in all
material respects based on the analysis
of the raw waste values in the combined
metals data set for lime and settle
treatment. Therefore, the performance of
lime, settle, and filter can be applied to
the aluminum forming wastewaters.
Lime, settle and filter data were also
obtained from a primary zinc smelter in
the nonferrous metals manufacturing
category. The treatment effectiveness
values derived from the zinc smelter
when compared with the values from
the porcelain enameling plants
confirmed the appropriateness of these
values.
The combined metals data are
discussed in more detail in Section IX.
Public Participation and Response to
Comments, in Section VII of the
Development Document and in the
document "A Statistical Analysis of the
Combined Metals Industries Effluent
Data" in the administrative record for
this rulemaking.
Flow reduction is a significant part of
the overall pollutant reduction
technology for this category, ranging
from 75 to 82 percent from raw waste
flows. The Agency is promulgating
mass-based limitations and standards
which account for the significant
pollutant removal achieved by flow
reduction model technology. Mdss-
based limits ensure reduction of the
total quantity of pollutant discharge.
The mass-based limitations and
standards established for this category
are derived as the product of the
regulatory flow and the overall
treatment effectiveness. The regulatory
flows are based on flow data,
normalized to production, which were
supplied by the industry.
The monitoring provisions of the final
rule are the same as those contained in
the proposed rule.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday. October 24, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 49131
C. Technology Basis for Final
Regulation
A brief summary of the technology
basis for the regulation is presented
below. A more detailed discussion is
presented in the "Preamble to the
Proposed Aluminum Forming Point
Source Category Effluent Limitations
Guidelines. Pretreatment Standards, and
New Source Performance Standards" (47
FR 52626 (November 22. 1982)) and the
Development Document for Etfluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Aluminum Forming Point Source
Category.
BPT- EPA is promulgating BTP mass
limitations based on end-of-pipe
treatment, which consists of oil
skinming and lime precipitation and
settling, and. where necessary,
preliminary treatment consisting of
chemical emulsion breaking, and
hexavalent chromium reduction.
Cyanide removal, where applicable, is
also included in the model BPT
technology. The cyanide limitations are
based on the application of cyanide
precipitation technology which is
transferred from the coil coating
category. Section VII of the
Development document contains a
complete discussion of the transfer of
this technology. However, the Agency
recommends product substitution as the
most effective means of cyanide control.
The end-of-pipe treatment technology
basis for the BPT limitations being
promulgated is the same as that for the
proposed limitations.
In developing BPT limitations, the
Agency considered the amount of water
used per unit of production (liters per
kkg or metric ton) for each wastewater
stream. The flow allowances for BPT
remain the same as those proposed with
the exception of the regulatory flow
allowances for cleaning or etching
baths, rinses, and scrubbers:
miscellaneous waste streams: roll
grinding spent lubricant: continuous
sheet and rod casting spent lubricant;
continuous rod casting contact cooling
water: degassing scrubber liquor and
direct chill casting contact cooling
water. In addition, we are adding a
separate flow allowance for extrusion
press leakage. These flow allowances
are discussed briefly below and in more
detail in Section IX of this preamble and
in Section IX of the Development
Document. The limitation presented in
the final BPT regulation reflect these
changes.
The cleaning or etching bath flow
allowance decreased by 12 percent as a
result of additional information obtained
from four sampled plants and one
company that submitted written
information. The new data added five
data points to the middle of the range of
existing flow data. These flows are
presented in the Development Document
and the BPT regulatory flow is based on
the average of all the available data
including data including the pre-
proposal data and is 179 1/kkg (43 gal/
ton).
The cleaning or etching nnse flow
allowance decreased by 17.5 percent
with the addition of data obtained from
four sampied plants. The rinse flows
reported by these plants were in all
cases less than the proposed flow
allowance. These flows are presented in
the Development Document and the BPT
regulatory flow is based on the average
of all of the available data including the
pre-proposal data and is 13.912 1/kkg
(3,341 gal/ton).
Additional flow data for cleaning or
etching scrubbers were obtained from
one sampled plant. These data were
combined with the pre-proposal data to
develop the BPT reguatory flow of 15.900
1 /kkg (3.819 gal/ton). This flow
allowance represents a 7.7 percent
decrease from the proposed flow
allowance.
The AgenGy has determined, based on
comments and engineering plant visits,
that the waste streams generated from
extrusion press hydraulic fluid leakage
are of sufficient volume to warrant a
separate flow and discharge allowance.
Five companies submitted data on
extrusion press hydraulic fluid leakage
in presses that use oil-water emulsions
for hydraulic fluid instead of the more
common use of pure oil hydraulic fluids.
Data and information indicate that a
flow allowance for this wastewater
source is necessary because emulsion
hydraulic fluids tend to leak thereby
generating a wastewater source. The
BPT reguatory flow of 1.478 1/kkg (355
gal/ton) for this waste stream is based
on the average of the production
normalized flow data for the three
plants that did not perform recycle, and
has been included as an ancillary waste
stream in the extrusion subcategory.
Three companies submitted data on
miscellaneous wastewater streams. The
BPT regulatory allowance for
miscellaneous nondescript wastewater
sources has been increased to 45 1/kkg
(11 gal/ton) and is based on the average
of the data submitted. The
miscellaneous nondescript wastewater
flow allowance is production
normalized to a plant's core production
and covers waste streams generated by
maintenance, clean-up. ultrasonic
testing, roll grinding of caster rolls, ingot
scalping, processing area scrubbers, and
dye solution baths and seal baths (along
with any other cleaning or etching bath)
when not followed by a rinse.
Flow and wastewater characteristics
data were obtained from two sampled
plants for the roll grinding spent
lubricant flow aMowance. These new
flow data were averaged with the flow
data used to calculate the proposed flow
allowance resulting in a slight decrease
in the regulatory flow to 5.51/kkg (1.3
gal/ton).
The flow allowance for continuous
sheet casting spent lubricant has been
increased b> 7 percent to 1.964 1/kkg
(0.471 gal/ton) due to the addition of a
production normalized flow for this
str?am submitted after proposal. A
corresponding change has been made in
the continous rod casting spent lubricant
flow allowance.
Updated flow and production data
were submitted on the continuous rod
casting contact cooling water flow
allowance. The BPT flow is based on
this new data resulting in a 33 percent
increase from that of the proposed rule
and is 1.555 1/kkg.
The flow allowance for direct chill
casting has been decreased by 34
percent from that of the proposed rule-
and is 1,329 l/kkg (298 gal/ton). This
flow allowance has been changed as a
result of the Agency correcting errors in
transcription of direct chill casting flow
data from dcp's in the primary aluminun
and secondary aluminum subcategories
of the nonferrous metals manufacturing
category. The flow allowance for the
degassing scrubber liquor has been
increased to 1329 1/kkg (319 gal/ton)
based on changes to the normalized
flow data base of the primary aluminum
subcategory of the nonferrous metals
manufacturing category.
The pollutants selected for limitation
at BP"f are: chromium, cyanide, zinc,
aluminum, oil and grease, total
suspended solids (TSS), and pH. These
are the same pollutants that were
selected for regulation in the proposed
rule. Additionally, the special
monitoring provision for cyanide that
allows the owner or operator of a plant
to forego periodic analyses for cyanide
if certain conditions are met is retained
in the final rule.
On the basis of additional information
collected during post-proposal sampling
efforts, the treatment effectiveness value
used to calculate limitations and -
standards for the pollutant aluminum
has been changed. The Agency has also
revised the regulatory pH requirements
from a range of 7.5 to 10.0 in the
proposed rule to 7.0 to 10.0 in the final
rule.
Fifty-nine plants are direct
dischargers. The Agency estimates that
-------
49132 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday, October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
investment costs in 1982 dollars for
'hese plants would be S84.4 million and
.iat total annual costs would be $37.9
million. Removal of toxic pollutants over
estimates of current removals would be
94.250 kg/yr (207,350 lbs/yr). In addition.
BPT will result in the removal of l&Jl
million kg/yr (34J million lbs/yr) of
total pollutants including 1.73 million
kg/yr (3.8 million lbs/yr) of the pollutant
aluminum. The Agency has determined
that the efDuent redaction benefits
associated with compliance with BPT
limitations justify the costs.
BAT: EPA is promulgating BAT mass
limitations based on the BPT model end-
of-pipe common treatment plus flow
reduction through the application of
recycle,- countercuirent cascade rinsing,
and alternate degassing methods. The
Agency is promulgating BAT limitations
based on the same end-of-pipe
treatment technology as that of the
proposed limitations.
In developing BAT limitations, the
Agency considered the amount of water
used per unit of production (liters per
metric ton or gallons per ton) for each
wastewater stream. Regeneration of
cleaning or etching baths has been
eliminated from the model treatment
technology and a discharge allowance
equal to BPT is made for these baths.
The Agency received numerous
nments and new information
.icating that regeneration technology
is not a proven technology for a number
of aluminum forming cleaning or etching
baths and that even if the technology is
applied, it cannot achieve zero
discharge as proposed. Accordingly, the
Agency has eliminated regeneration
from the model BAT technology and is
establishing a BAT regulatory flow
allowance equivalent to the BPT
regulatory flow allowance of 1791/kkg
(43 gal/ton) for this waste stream.
The cleaning or etching rinse final
BAT regulatory flow is based on flow
reduction by the application of two-
stage countercurrent cascade rinsing.
Application of countercurrent cascade
rinsing will reduce the BPT flow by 90
percent. Thus the BAT flow is based on
the reduction of the revised BPT flow
and is 1.391 l/kkg (334 gal/tonj.
The BAT flow allowance for
continuous rod casting contact cooling
water has been reevaluated to include
the updated data submitted after
proposal and also incorporates data
from two primary aluminum plants. The
BAT flow allowance based on the
application of recycle is increased by 46
percent from the proposed allowance to
193.9 l/kkg (56.4 gal/ton).
The BAT flow allowances for
miscellaneous nondescript waste
Nams. extrusion press hydraulic fluid
leakage, continuous sheet or rod casting
lubricant, and roll grinding are
equivalent to the BPT allowances and
are 45 l/kkg (11 gal/ton), 1.230 l/kkg
(295 gal/ton), 1.964 l/kkg (0.471 gal/ton)
and 5.5 l/kkg (1.3 gal/ton), respectively.
These flow allowances are based on
current reported industry practice and
are not based on in-process flow
reduction controls. For the extrusion
press hydraulic fluid leakage, the
Agency considered basing the flow
allowance at BAT on the collection and
recycle of hydraulic Quid leakage.
However, conversion of existing presses
to include recycle requires rebuilding of
the entire system. These streams have
low flows and will only increase the
BAT flow allowance above the proposed
levels by less than 15 percent. Further
flow reduction would not significantly
affect pollutant removal. Therefore BAT
flows for these streams are equivalent to
BPT. The limitations presented in the
final BAT regulation reflect these
changes.
The pollutants selected for regulation
are: chromium, cyanide, zinc, and
aluminum. These are the same
pollutants that were selected for
regulation in the proposed rule. Toxic
organics are not regulated at BAT
because the oil and grease limitation at
BPT will provide effective removal
(approximately 97 percent). As
discussed below, the toxic metals
cadmium, copper, lead nickel. and
selenium which are not specifically
regulated, will be effectively controlled
when the regulated toxic metals and
aluminum are treated to the levels
achievable by the modertxeatment
technology.
The complexity and cost of analyses
for toxic pollutants found in the
aluminum forming category wastewaters
has prompted EPA to develop an
alternative method of controlling toxic
pollutants. Instead of establishing
specific effluent limitations for each of
the seven toxic metals found in the
category's raw wastewaters above
treatability levels, the Agency is
establishing effluent limitations for
chromium, zinc, and aluminum as
"indicator" pollutants. The data
available to EPA show that control of
the selected "indicator" pollutants will
result in the substantial removal of
cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and
selenium found in the wastewaters but
not specifically limited. By establishing
specific limitations and standards for
only the "indicator" pollutants, the
Agency will reduce the difficulty, cost,
and delays of pollutant monitoring and
analyses that would result if pollutant
limitations were established for each
toxic pollutant.
Implementation of the BAT limitations
will remove annually an estimated
124.500 kg of toxic metal and organic
pollutants (from estimated current
discharge) at a capital cost, above
equipment in place, of $48^ million and
a total annual cost of $25.1 million. BAT
will remove 18.000 kg/yr of toxic
pollutants (metals and organics) and
19.400 kg/yr of aluminum incrementally
above BPT.
The Agency has decided not to
include filtration as part of the model
BAT treatment technology. EPA
estimates that 29.000 kg/yr (64.000 lb/yr)«
of toxic metal pollutants will be
discharged after the installation of BPT
treatment technology; the model BAT
treatment technology is estimated to
remove an additional 15.000 kg/yr
(33.000 lb) of toxic metals. The total
removal after BAT is 91 percent of the.
total current discharge. The addition of
filtration would remove approximately
4.300 kg/yr (9.500 Ib/yr) of toxic
pollutants discharged after BPT or a
total removal of 94 percent of the total
current discharge. This additional
removal of 4.300 kg per year achieved by
filtration is equal to an additional
removal of approximately 1 kg (2.2 lb) of
toxic pollutants per day per discharger.
The incremental costs of these effluent
reductions are $8.2 million in capital
cost and $2.5 mrilion in total annual
costs for all direct dischargers. In
addition. 18 aluminum forming plants
also perform coil coating. The Agency
has structured the aluminum forming
regulation and coil coating regulation to
allow cotreatment of wastewaters at
integrated facilities. The BAT limitations
for the coil coating category are based
on technology not including filtration.
Eastablishing aluminum forming
limitations based-on polishing filters
would have the effect of requiring such
integrated facilities to install polishing
filters. The Agency believes that given
all of these factors, the costs involved
do not warrant selection of filtration as
a part of the BAT model treatment
technology.
NSPS: EPA is promulgating NSPS
based on the same technology selected
in the proposed rule. This technology
consists of flow reduction and end-of-
pipe treatment including oil skimming,
lime precipitation, settling, and
filtration, and, where necessary,
preliminary treatment consisting of
chemical emulsion breaking, chromium
reduction, and cyanide removal. This is
identical to BAT end-of-pipe treatment
technology with the addition of a
polishing filter.
In developing NSPS, the Agency
considered the amount of water used
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 206 / Monday. October 24, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 49133
per unit of production for each
wastewater stream. All new source flow
allowances are equivalent to the BAT
allowance with the exception of
extrusion press hydraulic fluid leakage.
The NSPS flow allowance of 298 l/kkg
is based on the flows reported by two
plants in which the presses have been
designed and built to allow for
recirculation of the hydraulic press fluid
leakage. The NSPS standards presented
in the final regulation reflect this
regulatory flow. Filtration has been
retained in the NSPS model treatment
technology because new plants and
major modifications to existing plants
have the opportunity to design the most
efficient process water use and
wastewater reduction within their
processes, thereby reducing the size and
cost of filtration equipment. Economies
are available for installation in new
plants and in major modifications to
existing plants since they will not have
to retrofit flow reduction technology and
reduced flows will correspondingly
allow installation of small end-of-pipe
treatment systems.
The pollutants selected for regulation
are: chromium, cyanide, zinc, aluminum,
oil and grease. TSS, and pH. These are
the same pollutants that were selected
for regulation in the proposed rule.
Toxic organics are not regulated at
NSPS because the oil and grease
limitation at NSPS will provide effective
removal (approximately 97 percent).
Similarly, the toxic metals cadmium,
copper, iead. nickel, and selenium will
be adequately controlled when the
regulated toxic metals and aluminum
are treated to the levels achievable by
the model treatment technology.
In order to estimate pollutant
removals and costs for new sources, the
Agency developed a "normal" plant for
each of the six subcategories. A normal
plant is a theoretical plant which has the
core and each ancillary operation
covered by the subcategory and
production that is the average level of
production in the subcategory. Section
VIII of the development document
presents in detail the composition of the
aluminum forming "normal" plants. The
results of the calculations for each
subcategory were combined by a
production-weighting technique to
produce values representative of an
"total category" normal plant.
The total category normal plant
described above would generate a raw
waste load of 10.615 kg per year (23.300
lb/yr) of toxic metal and 236.021 kg per
year (519.200 lb/yr) of aluminum. The
NSPS technology is expected to reduce
these pollutant levels to 150 kg per year
(330 lb/yr) of toxic metal pollutants and
109 kg per year lb/yr) of aluminum. The
total capital investment cost for the
normal plant to install NSPS treatment
technology is estimated at S1.151
million, compared with investment costs
of $1,085 million for an existing plant of
the same composition to install
technology equivalent to BAT.
Corresponding figures for total annual
costs are $1,089 million for NSPS and
$1,039 million for BAT. Since the NSPS
costs are approximately the same as the
BAT costs which would be incurred by
this plant, the new source performance
standards will not pose a barrier to
entry.
PSES: In the aluminum forming
category, the Agency has concluded that
the toxic metals regulated under these
standards (chromium, cyanide, and zinc)
pass through the POTW The nationwide
average percentage of these same toxic
metals removed by a well operated
POTW meeting secondary treatment
requirements is about 50 percent
(ranging from 20 to 65 percent), whereas
the percentage that can be removed by
an aluminum forming direct discharger
applying the best available technology
economically achievable is about 91
percent (ranging from 79 to 97 percent).
Accordingly, these pollutants pass
through a POTW and are being
regulated at PSES.
In addition to pass through of toxic
metals, the Agency has concluded that
there will be pass through of toxic
organic pollutants associated with oil
waste streams. The BPT oil skimming
technology will remove 97 percent of the
toxic organics, whereas the POTW
national average removal of these same
toxic organics by a well operated POTW
meeting secondary treatment
requirements is 71 percent. Accordingly,
EPA is promulgating a-pretreatment
standard for toxic organics.
EPA is promulgating PSES based on
the application of technology equivalent
to BAT, which consists of end-of-pipe
treatment comprised of oil skimming
and lime precipitation and settling, and
preliminary treatment, where necessary,
consisting on hexavalent chromium
reduction, chemical emulsion breaking,
and cyanide removal. In the proposed
rule the Agency stated that if BAT was
promulgated with filters, then PSES
would include filtration to prevent "pass
through." BAT model treatment
technology does not include filtration for
the reasons discussed earlier in this
section, and. therefore PSES model
treatment technology also does not
include filtration.
In developing these standards, the
amount of water used per unit of
production is considered for each waste
stream. The flow allowances
established for PSES are the same as
those established for BAT based on the
same flow reduction technologies.
The final rule retains the approach
used in the proposed rule and regulates
as total toxic organics (TTO) all those
toxic organics that were found to be
present in sampled aluminum forming
wastewaters at concentrations greater
than the quantification level of 0.01 gig/
1. Section 487.02 of this regulation
presents a list of the toxic organics
included in the TTO standard.
The analysis of wastewaters for toxic
organics is costly and requires
sophisticated equipment, therefore the
Agency has retained in the final rule the
proposed alternate monitoring
parameter for TTO. Data indicate that
the toxic organics are much more
soluble in oil and grease than in water
and that the removal of the oil and
grease will substantially remove the
toxic organics. The TTO standard is
based on the application of oil and
grease removal thus if oil and grease is
monitored at the given level, compliance
with the TTO standard is ensured.
The pollutants selected for regulation
are: chromium, cyanide, zinc, and TTO.
Aluminum is not limited because
aluminum may be used by a POTW as a
flocculant to aid in the settling and
removal of suspended solids. Because
chromium and zinc are used as indicator
pollutants for the toxic pollutants
cadmium, copper, lead, nickel and
selenium removal credits for these toxic
pollutants pursuant to 40 CFR 403.7(a)(1)
may be granted.
The PSES set forth in this final rule
are expressed in terms of mass per unit
of production rather than concentration
standards. Regulation on the basis of
concentration is not appropriate for this
category because flow reduction is a
significant part of the model treatment
technology for pretreatment. Mass-
based standards are necessary to reflect
the total quantity of pollutants removed
by the model treatment technology. For
this reason, alternative concentration
standards are not being promulgated for
indirect dischargers.
Implementation of the PSES will
remove annually an estimated 119,500
kg/yr (263.000 lb/yr) of toxic metal and
organic pollutants (from estimated
current discharge) at a capital cost,
above equipment in place, of S26.1
million and a total annual cost of $18.7
million. The Agency has'concluded that
PSES is economically achievable.
In the preamble to the proposed
regulation, the Agency explained that in
order to avoid adverse economic affects,
it was proposing to exclude from
-------
49134 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday. October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
compliance with these categorical
pretreatment standards, plants in the
extrusion subcategory that manufacture
less than 1.360JXX) kilograms (3 million
pounds) per year and plants in the
drawing with emulsions subcategory
that manufacture less than 453,333
kilograms (1 million pounds) per year. In
light of comments of the estimated
compliance costs and economic impact
analysis, the Agency reconsidered the
costs and impacts of this regulation on
these smaller facilities in the catetory
and found that the facilities covered by
the proposed exemption are no longer
expected to experience disproportionate
adverse economic impacts. Thus the
exemption does not appear to be
warranted. Therefore, these categorical
pretreatment standards are applicable
to extrusion and drawing plants of all
sizes. However, the Agency is
promulgating the categorical
pretreatment standards for existing
plants in the extrusion subcategory that
manufacture less than 1.360.000
kilograms (3 million pounds) and plants
in the drawing with emulsions or soaps
subcategory less than 453.333 kilograms
(1 million pounds) per year as in interim
final rule. The Agency invites comments
from small facilities on the
appropriateness of applying these
categorical pretreatment standards to
them. AD comments received before
member 23.1983 will be considered
.iid the Agency will promulgate a final
rule as soon as possible.
The Agency has considered the time
for compliance for PSES. Few of the
indirect discharge aluminum forming
plants have installed and are properly
operating the treatment technology for
PSES. Many plants in this and other
industries will be installing the
treatment equipment suggested as model
technologies for this regulation and this
may result in delays in engineering,
ordering, installing, and operating this
equipment For these reasons, the
Agency has decided to establish the
PSES compliance date for all facilities at
three years after promulgation of this
regulation.
PSA'S/ EPA is promulgating PSNS
based on end-of-pipe treatment and in-
process controls equivalent to that used
as the basis for NSPS. The flow
allowances for PSNS are also the same
as those for NSPS. As discussed under
PSES. pass through of the regulated
pollutants will occur without adequate
pretreatment and. therefore,
pretreatment standards are required.
The pollutants regulated under PSNS
are chromium, cyanide, zinc and TTO-
Aluminum is not limited because
aluminum may be used by a POTW as a
flocculant to aid in the settling and
removal of suspended solids. Monitoring
for oil and grease has been established
as an alternative to monitoring for TTO
as discussed under PSES.
In order to estimate costs and
pollutant removals for new sources, the
Agency used the "normal plant"
approach as discussed in this preamble
under NSPS. The normal plant described
above would generate a raw waste load
of 10.600 kg per year (23.300 lb/yr) of
toxic metals. The PSNS technology is
expected to reduce these pollutant
levels to 150 kg per year (330 lb/yr) of
toxic pollutants.
The total capital investment cost for
the normal plant to install PSNS
treatment technology is estimated at
$1,151 million, compared with
investment costs of $1,085 million for an
existing plant of this same composition
to install technology equivalent to PSES
Corresponding figures for total annual
costs are $1,089 million for PSNS and
$1,039 million for PSNS. Since PSES
costs are approximately the same as the
PSES costs which would be incurred by
this plant, the new source pretreatment
standards will not pose a barrier to
entry.
VI. Economic Consideration
A. Cost and Economic Impact
EPA's economic impact assessment is
set forth in Economic Impact Analysis
of Effluent Standards and Limitations
for the Aluminum Forming Industry,
EPA (EPA-440/2-83-010). This report
details the investment and annual costs
for the industry as a whole and for
plants covered by the aluminum forming
regulation. The report also estimates the
probable economic effect of compliance
costs in terms of plant closures,
production changes, price changes,
employment changes, local community
impacts, and imports and exports of
aluminum forming products.
EPA has identified 271 plants that
perform aluminum forming. Of these 271
plants, 140 do not discharge process
wastewater. 59 are direct dischargers,
and 72 are indirect dischargers. Total
investment for BAT and PSES is
projected to be S74.3 million with annual
costs of S41.8 million, including
depreciation and interest These costs
are in 1982 dollars and are based on the
determination that plants will build on
existing treatment There are
The costs of implementing the
regulations were estimated on a plant-
by-plant basis for a sample of 266 plants
including 126 dischargers. The cost
estimates were derived by a
computerized costing program using
1977 plant data resulting in 1978 dollar
estimates which have been updated to
1982. The costing program accounted for
plant size and for treatment-in-place to
develop an estimate of capital and
annual costs, which were grouped by
subcategory and summed. For purposes
of measuring the economic impacts, the
industry was sobcategorized by the type
of product The economic impacts were
estimated through a microeconomic
model which projects the price and
output behavior of each major industry
segment It is used, in conjunction with
compliance cost estimates, to determine
postcompliance price and production
levels for each industry segment and for
each regulatory option.
A financial profile was developed for
each of the plants based on average
financial ratios for the industry segment
in which the plant competes. The
primary variables of interest in
analyzing individual plants were
profitability, as measured by return on
sales and return on investment; and the
ability of individual plants to raise
capital, as measured by the after
compliance fixed charge coverage ratio.
The fixed charge coverage ratio is
defined as earnings before interest and
taxes over interest payments. Other
factors considered in judging the
likelihood of closure include the degree
of integration, and market
characteristics such as the degree of
competition and the existence of
specialty markets. Given the plant-
specific compliance cost estimates, the
industry-segment-specific financial
ratios, and other factors, the effect on
industrial plants was projected.
There are five potential plant closures
projected as a result of this regulation.
The potential closures are spread over
three different subcategories, including
two direct discharging plants and three
indirect discharging plants. Both small
and medium sized plants are included as
potential closures. The production loss
for these plants range from 100,000
pounds per year to 12.8 million pounds
per year. The Agency does not estimate
any disproportionate impact on any
specific group of plants. Price increases
differ somewhat among the product
groups ranging from 0 percent for foil to
0.8 percent for forging. Balance of trade
effects are insignificant
The Economic Impact Analysis
assumed a reasonable rate of
monitoring, varying by size of plant and
flow. However, since the regulatory
limits are based on monitoring 10 times
a month, we performed a sensitivity
analysis including costs associated with
the increased monitoring activity. The
results showed no significant
incremental economic impacts.
-------
Federal Register / Vo!. 48. No. 206 / Monday, October 24, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 49135
In addition. EPA has conducted an
analysis of the incremental removal cost
per pound equivalent for each of the
proposed technology-based options. A
pound equivalent is calculated by
multiplying the number of pounds of
pollutant discharged by a weighting
factor for that-pollulant. The weighting
factor is equal to the water qual'ty
criterion for standard pollutant (copper),
divided by the water qualify criterion
for the pollutant being evaluated. The
use of "pound equivalent" £nes
relatively more weight to removal of
more toxic pollutants. Thus, for a given
expenditure, the cost per pound-
equivalent removed would be lower
when a highly toxic pollutant is removed
than if a less toxic pollutant is removed.
This analysis is included in the record of
this rulemaking, and is entitled Cast-
Effectiveness Analysis of Effluent
Standards and Limitations for the
Aluminum Forming Industry
BPT: Fifty-nine plants are direct
dischargers. The cost estimates are
based on the regulatory flows and take
into account treatment in-place.
Since the BPT regulatory flow is on
.the whole larger than the BAT flow, and
the in-process controls tend to be
relatively inexpensive, the cost of BAT
was less than BPT for a number of
plants. Thus, for the purpose of
evaluating the economic impacts it was
assumed that the plants would install
the least expensive treatment to meet
the requirements of BPT Hence, in those
cases where the cost of BAT was less
than BPT. it was assumed that the lower
BAT costs would be incurred to meet
the BPT limits and no incremental cost
would be incurred in meeting the BAT
limits. For this reason, the costs shown
here will be different than those shown
in the technical section of the preamble.
The BPT regulation is projected to cost
$37.6 million in investment costs and
$21.2 million in annual costs for these
plants. The analysis of economic impact
concluded that there are two potential
plant closures and 221 job losses
associated wrth »he BPT treatment
option. Total loss in industry production
is expected to be about 0.1 percent wth
the cost of production increasing about
0.3 percent. If average compliance costs
incurred by the plants in the industry
were passed on to consumers, price
increases would range from 0 to 0.7
percent.
BAT: Compliance costs and resulting
impacts discussed below are based on
the total effects of going from the BPT
costs to the costs incurred to install
BAT. Total investment costs are
estimated to be S48.2 million, with
annual costs of S25.1 million, including
depreciation and interest. The
incremental costs over BPT are
estimated to be $10.6 million in
investment costs and S3.9 million in
annual costs. BAT would not result in
any additional closures. If the average
compliance cost incurred by the plant9
in the industry were passed on to
consumers, price increases would range
from 0 to 0.8 percent, not significantly
greater than the BPT increases. Thus
EPA has determined that BAT is
economically achievable.
PSES. Seventy-two plants are
identified as indirect dischargers. The
pollution control technology for the
pretxeatment standards is identical to
the BAT treatment technology.
Investment costs for the 72 indirect
dischargees are estimated to be $28.1
million and annual costs are estimated
at $16.7 million. The Agency's estimate
of potential plant closures in indicates
that there are three potential closures
associated with PSES. In terms of
unemployment, these potential closures
couid affect approximately 276
employees. Total loss in industry
production is expected to be abo\il 0-2
percent with the'eoat of production'
increasing about one percent. Thus the
Agency has determined that PSES is .
economically achievable.
NSPS-PSNS: Aluminum formed
, products have been available for many
years. The versatility of the product has
been responsible for its long-term
growth. Recent trends in the U.S.
economy, especially the increase in
energy prices, have increased the use of
aluminum formed products. This is
especially true in the transportation
business. The current recession and the
downturn in the automotive industry
have reduced the demand for aluminum
formed products. However, aluminum's
versatility and light wei^it makes its
use desirable for can and for
transportation products in general. EPA
believes that this slump in demand is a
temporary condition, and that demand
for aluminum formed products will
continue to increase in the years ahead.
Tins projected increase in demand
should result in the opening of new
plants.
EPA is promulgating NSPS and PSNS
based on the same technologies as for
BAT and PSES. plus filters. We
analyzed a "normal" plant in each of the
six technical subcategories, comparing
estimated costs for the treatment
technologies to expected revenues. The
incremental costs over the cost
estimates for the BAT and PSES
technologies are less than 0.1 percent of
expected revenues for the normal plant.
The total costs for NSPS and PSNS
range from 0.2 percent of expected
revenues for rolling with neat oils to 0.9
percent of expected revenues for
drawing w;ih emulsions. EPA does not
believe that NSPS and PSNS will
continue a barrier to entry for new
sources or, prevent major modifications
to existing sources or produce other
adverse economic effects.
B. Executive Order 12291
Executive Order 12291 requires EPA
and other agencies to perform regulatory
impacts analyses of major regulations.
Major rules are those which impose a
cost on the economy of S100 million a
year or more or have certain other
economic impacts. This regulation is not
a major rule because its annualized cost
of $41.8 million is less than $100 million
and it meets none of the other criteria
specified in Section I paragraph (b) of
the Executive Order. The economic
impact analysis prepared for this
rulemaking meets the requirements for
non-major rules.
Q. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pub. L. 96-354 requires EPA to prepare
anlnitial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
for all proposed regulations that have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This analysis
may be done in conjunction with or as a
part of any other analysis conducted by
the Agency. The economic impact
analysis described above indicates that
there will not be s significant impact on
any segment of the regulated population,
large or small. Therefore, a formal
regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
D. SBA Loans
The Agency is continuing to
encourage aluminum formers to use
Small Business Administration (SBA)
financing as needed for pollution control
equipment The three basic programs
are: (1) The Guaranteed Pollution
Control Bond Program, (2) the Section
503 Program, and (3) the Regular
Guarantee Program. All the SBA loan
programs are only open to businesses
that have: fa) net assets less than $6
million, (b) an average annual after-tax
income of less than $2 million, and (c)
fewer than 250 employees. The
estimated economic impacts for this
category do not include consideration of
financing available through these
programs.
The Section 503 Program, as amended
in July 1980, allows long-term loans to
small and medium sized businesses.
These loans are made by SBA approved
local development companies. For the
first time, these companies are
-------
49136 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 200 / Monday, October 24, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
authorized to issue Government-backed
debentures that are bought by the
federal Financing Bank, an arm of the
J.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 Desselle
who may be reached at (202) 382-5373.
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.
VII. Nonwater Quality Environmental
Impacts
Eliminating or reducing one form of
pollution may cause other
environmental problems. Sections 304(b)
and 306 of the Act require EPA to
consider the nonwater 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.
^ter scarcity, and energy consumption,
s regulation was circulated to and
reviewed by EPA personnel responsible
for nonwater 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 nonwater 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.
<4. Air Pollution
Imposition of BPT, BAT. NSPS. PSES.
and PSNS will not create any
substantial air pollution problems
because the wastewater treatment
technologies required to meet these
limitations and standards do not cause
air pollution.
B. Solid Waste
EPA estimates that aluminum forming
facilities generated 79.000 kkg (87,000
tons) of solid wastes (wet basis) in 1977
due to the treatment of wastewater.
These wastes were comprised of
treatment system sludges containing
toxic metals, including chromium, zinc.
and cyanide; aluminum: and oil removed
during oil skimming and chemical
emulsion breaking that contains toxic
organics.
EPA estimates that BPT will
contribute an additional 52 kkg (57 tons)
per year of solid wastes over that which
is currently being generated by the
aluminum forming industry. BAT and
PSES will increase these wastes by
approximately 77 kkg (85 tons) per year
beyond BPT levels. These sludges will
necessarily contain additional quantities
(and concentrations) of toxic metal
pollutants. The normal plant was used
to estimate the sludge generated at
NSPS and PSNS and is estimated to be a
3 percent increase over BAT and PSES.
The Agency considered the solid
wastes that would be generated at
aluminum forming plants by lime and
settle treatment technologies and
believes that they are not hazardous
under Section 3001 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). This judgment is made based
on the recommended technology of lime
precipitation. By the addition of a small
excess of lime during treatment, similar
sludges, specifically toxic metal bearing
sludges generated by other industries
such as the iron and steel industry,
passed the EP toxicity test. See 40 CFR
281.24 (45 FR 33084 (May 19.1980)).
The Agency requested specific data
and information in response to
comments from three companies that
claimed that aluminum forming lime and
settle treatment sludges should be
classified as hazardous. The responses
did not support their comments that
solid wastes generated by treatment of
aluminum forming wastewater would be
classified as hazardous under RCRA.
The Agency believes that the proper
treatment of this wastewater through
the recommended lime and settle
treatment technology would create a
nonhazardoua sludge. Since these
aluminum forming solid wastes are not
believed to be hazardous, no estimates
were made of costs for disposing of
them as hazardous wastes in
accordance with RCRA requirements.
Wastes which are not hazardous must
be disposed of in a manner that will not
violate the open dumping prohibition of
Section 4005 of RCRA. The Agency has
calculated as part of the costs for
wastewater treatment the cost of
hauling and disposing of additional
wastes generated as a result of these
requirements. For more details, see
Section VIII of the technical
development document.
Only wastewater treatment sludge
generated by cyanide precipitation
technology is likely to be hazardous
under the regulations implementing
subtitle C of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). Under those
regulations generators of these wastes
must test the wastes to determine if the
wastes meet any of the characteristics
of hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 262.11,
45 FR 33142-33143. May 19,1980).
Wastewater sludge generated by
cyanide precipitation treatment of
aluminum forming solution heat
treatment contact cooling water may
contain cyanides and may exhibit
extraction procedure (EP) toxicity.
Therefore, these wastes may require
disposal as a hazardous waste.
Wastewater treatment sludge from
cyanide precipitation of a process waste
stream is generated separately from lime
and settle sludge and may be disposed
of separately. We estimate that five
plants in the category may need to have
cyanide precipitation, generating an
estimated 3.200 kkg of potentially
hazardous sludge. The additional total
annual disposal cost for this sludge is
$283,200.
C.	Consumptive Water Loss
Treatment and control technologies
that require extensive recycling and
reuse of water may require cooling
mechanisms. Evaporative cooling
mechanisms can cause water loss and
contribute to water scarcity problems—
a primary concern in arid and semi-arid
regions. While this regulation assumes
water reuse, the overall amount of reuse
through evaporative cooling
mechanisms is low and the quantity of
water involved is not significant. In
addition, most aluminum forming plants
are located east of the Mississippi
where water scarcity is not a problem.
We conclude that the consumptive
water loss is insignificant and that the
pollution reduction benefits of recycle
technologies outweigh their impact on
consumptive water loss.
D.	Energy Requirements
EPA estimates that the achievement
of BPT effluent limitations will result in
a net increase in electrical energy
consumption of approximately 65
million kilowatt-hours per year. The
BAT effluent technology should not
substantially increase the energy
requirements of BPT because reducing
the flow reduces the pumping
requirements, the agitation requirement
for mixing wastewater, and other
volume-related energy requirements.
Therefore, the BAT limitations are
assumed to require an equivalent energy
consumption to that of the BPT
limitations. To achieve the BPT and BAT
effluent limitations, a typical direct
discharger will increase total energy
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 206 i Monday. October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations 49137
consumption by less than 1 percent of
the energy consumed for production
purposes.
The Agency estimates that PSES will
result in a net increase in electrical
energy consumption of approximately 50
million killowatt-hours per year. To
achieve PSES, a typical existing indirect
discharger will increase energy
consumption by less than 1 percent of
the total energy consumed for
production purposes.
NSPS will not significantly add to
total energy consumption of the
industry. A normal plant for each
subcategory was used to estimate the
energy requirements for new sources. A
new source wastewater treatment
system will add approximately 1 million
kilowatt-hours per year to the total
industry energy requirements. PSNS.
like NSPS, will not significantly add to
total energy consumption.
VIII. Pollutants and Subcategories Not
Regulated
The Settlement Agreement in WRDC
v. Train, supra contains provisions
authorizing the exclusion from
regulation in certain instances of toxic
pollutants and industry subcategories.
These provisions have been rewritten in
a Revised Settlement Agreement which
was approved by the District Court for
the District of Columbia on March 9.
1979. See NRDC v. Costle. 12 ERC 1833
(D.D.C. 1979).
A. Exclusion of Pollutants
The Agency has deleted the following
three pollutants from the toxic pollutant
list: (49) trichlorofluoromethane and (50)
dichlorofluoromethane, 46 FR 79692
(January 8,1981); and (17)
bis(chloromethyl)ether. 46 FR 10723
(February 4.1981).
Paragraph 8(a)(iii) of the 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. The toxic pollutants not
detected and therefore, excluded from
regulation are listed in Appendix B to
this notice—first those excluded from all
subcategories, then by subcategory
those not excluded in all subcategories.
Paragraph 8(a)(iii) also allows the
Administrator to exclude from
regulation toxic pollutants detected in
amounts too small to be effectively
reduced by technologies known to the
Administrator. Appendix C to this
notice lists the toxic pollutants in each
subcategory which were detected in the
effluent in amounts at or below the
nominal limit of analytical
quantification, which are too small to be
effectively reduced by technologies
known to the Administrator and which,
therefore, are excluded from regulation.
Paragraph 3(a)(iii) also allows the
Administrator to exclude from
regulation toxic pollutants detectable in
the eQIuent from only a small number of
sources within the subcategory because
they axe uniquely related to those
sources. Appendix D to this notice lists
for each subcategory the toxic pollutants
which were detected in the effluents of
only a small number of plants, are
uniquely related to those plants, and are
not related to the manufacturing
processes under study.
Paragraph 8(a)(iii) also allows the
Administrator to exclude from
regulation toxic pollutants present in
amounts too small to be effectively
reduced by technologies known to the
administrator. Appendix E lists those
toxic pullutants which are above the
level of analytical quantification but not
treatable using technologies considered
applicable to the category. Paragraph
8(a](iii] also allows the Administrator to
exclude from regulation toxic pollutants
which will be effectively controlled by
the technologies upon which are based
other effluent limitations and guidelines,
or pretreatment standards. Appendix F
lists those metal toxic pollutants which
will be effectivley controlled by other
regulated pollutants in BAT and NSPS.
PSES. and PSNS. even though they are
not specifically regulated. Appendix G
lists those toxic organic pollutants
which are not regulated at BAT because
they are effectively controlled by BPT
limitations and are not regulated at
NSPS because they are effectively
controlled by a regulated pollutant
parameter.
B. Exclusion of Subcategories
Additionally. Paragraph 8(a)(ir) of the
Settlement Agreement authorizes the
exclusion of subcategories in which the
amount and toxicity of each pollutant in
the discharge do not justify developing
national regulations. The forging
subcategory has no direct discharging
plants and therefore, meets the
requirement of paragraph 8(a)(iv) for
direct discharges. Accordingly, not BPT
and BAT limitations are established for
the forging subcategory.
IX. Public Participation and Response to
Major Comments
Industry, government and
environmental groups have participated
during the development of these effluent
guidelines and standards. Following the
publication of the proposed rule on
November 22.1982 in the Federal
Register, we provided the development
document and the economic impact
analysis supporting the proposed rule to
industry, government agencies, and the
public sector. The public record
supporting this regulation was available
for public use on November 23,1982.
The comment period ended on February
8,1983. A permit writers workshop was
held on the aluminum forming
rulemaking in Dallas. Texas on January
14,1983. On January 17,1983 in
Washington. D.C, a public hearing was
held on the proposed pretreatment .
standards at which one person
presented testimony. A notice of data
availability and a request for comment
on data obtained after proposal was
published in the Federal Register on July
27.1983 with the comment penod ending
on August 11.1983.
Since proposal. 24 comment ere
submitted approximately 1,000
individual comments on the proposed
regulation. Comments were received
from Reynolds Aluminum: Howmet
Aluminum Corporation; the Aluminum
Association: Cardinal Aluminum:
General Extrusion: General Motors
Corporation; County Sanitation Districts
of Los Angeles County: Hoover
Universal: ALCOA: Peerless of America,
Inc.: Ethyl Corporation: National Steel
Corporation: RJR Archer Walgren
Company. Belden Corporation: Penn
Central Corporation: Kaiser Aluminum:
Easco Aluminum (Carolina Alumi/ium
Company); Village of Obetz. Ohio:
ARCO Metals Company: Resource
Consultants: Natural Resources Defense
Council. Inc.: General Electric: and the
Aluminum Extruders Council.
All comments received have been
carefulljBonsidered and appropriate
changes in the regulation have been
made whenever data and information
supported those changes. Major issues
raised-by the comments are addressed
in this section of the preamble. All
comments received and our detailed
responses to these comments are
included in a document entitled
Response to Public Comments, Proposed
Aluminum Forming Effluent Limitations
and Standards which has been placed in
the public record for this regulation.
The following is a discussion of the
Agency's responses to the principal
comments.
1. Combined Metals Data Base
Comment Several commenters object
to the use of data from other categories
to establish the treatment effectiveness
of the major technologies. Commenters
argue that the primary metals being
treated are different and therefore the
data cannot be transferred for treatment
of metals found in aluminum forming
wastewaters.
-------
49138 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 206 / Monday, October 24, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
Comments specifically directed to the
combined metals data base (CMDB)
ontend that: (1) The data is too small .
.2) data were included improperly (3)
data not representative of lime and
settle technology were included, and (4)
the data used to establish the metal
finishing limits should be used instead
of the combined metals data base.
Response: The CMDB (revised
following proposal of the aluminum
forming regulation) includes 162 data
points from 20 plants in five industrial
categories with similar wastewaters. All
plants in the data base have the
recommended end-of-pipe treatment
technology. Six of the plants in the data
base are aluminum forming plants.
These data were evaluated and
analyzed to establish effluent limitations
on the basis of data that represent good
operation of the recommended
technology. The use of comparable data
from several categories enhances the
estimates of treatment effectiveness and
variability over those that would be
obtained from data from any one
category alone. The statistical methods
used to assess homogeneity among the
categories in the CMDB and to
determine limitations are appropriate
and are well known to statisticians.
(1) The methods used to analyze
homogeneity are known generally as
--alysis of variance. Effluent limitations
re determined by fitting the data to a
lugnormal distribution and using
estimation techniques that possess
desirable statistical properties. These
methods are described in detail in the
document entided "A Statistical
Analysis of the Combined Metals
Industries Effluent Data" which includes
appropriate references to statistical
texts, journal articles, and monographs.
Following proposal of the aluminum
forming rule data were reviewed. This
resulted in minor additions, deletions
and corrections to the data base. The
analyses performed prior to proposal
were repeated with the result that the
earlier conclusions regarding
homogeneity were unchanged. The
changes in the data base resulted in
slight changes in the final limitations.
The revisions to the data base and
analysis are described in the record of
this rulemaking.
To supplement existing data regarding
treatment-in-place and the long-term
Performance of the treatment we
collected discharge monitoring report
(DMR) data from state or EPA Regional
offices for direct discharges. DMR data
are self-monitoring data supplied by
permit holders to meet state or EPA
permit requirements. These data were
available from 30 aluminum farming
plants; however, the data vary widely in
character and nature due to the
dissimilar nature of the monitoring and
reporting requirements placed on
aluminum forming plants by the NPDES
permit issuing authority. These data
were not used in the actual development
of the final limitations but DMR data
from 11 plants that have lime and settle
treatment were used as a check on the
achievability of the treatment
effectiveness values used to establish
limitations and standards. The results
show the limitations values are being
achieved consistently at these 11 plants.
A discussion on these DMR data and a
comparison of them to the treatment
effectiveness values used in this
regulation is in the administrative record
to this rulemaking.
(2) The Agency carefully re-examined
the specific data points that commenters
identified as being improperly included
in the combined metals data base. These
data points fall into two categories,
effluent points associated with low pH
readings and effluent points associated
with larger influent measurements made
on the same day [so called "inverted
values"). Detailed responses to each
data point referred to by commenters
are provided in the response to
comments documents. In eliminating
data from use in the data base, EPA
used a pH editing rule which generally
excludes data in cases where the pH is
below 7.0 for extended periods of time
(i.e. over two hours). The rationale for
this rule was that low pH over a long
period of time often indicates improper
functioning of the treatment system. The
time periods of low pH for the points in
question cannot be determined from
existing data; however, because large
amounts of metals were removed and
low effluent concentrations were being
achieved, the pH at the point of
precipitation necessarily had to be well
above pH 7.0. The reason for the effluent
pH falling below 7.0 cannot be
determined from the available data, but
it is resumed to be a pH rebound. This
phenomenon is often encountered when
a slow reacting acidic material is
neutralized or reacts late in the
treatment cycle. The Agency believes
that the data in question are
representative of a lime and settle
treatment process which is being
operated in an acceptable manner.
Accordingly, the data have been
retained in the CMDB.
The occurrence of an influent value
less than an effluent value measured on
the same day may be an indication of
system malfunction. However, such
values can also occur in the course of
normal operation. In general, where
there was no indication of treatment
malfunction or mislabelling of the
sample the values were retained in the
data base.
(3)	The Agency carefully re-examined
the specific data points indentified in
comments as being from plants without
appropriate lime and settle technology.
Each plant identified was reviewed
carefully to ensure all data used came
from plants with treatment that qualified
as lime and settle technology. Detailed
discussions on each plant referred to in
the comments are provided in the
response to comments document.
(4)	The Agency at one time considered
including metal finishing data in the
CMDB, however, statistical analysis
indicated that these data were not
homogeneous with other metals
industries' data including aluminum
forming data. Differences between
electroplating and the other categories
were suspected on the basis of
engineering assessment. The results of
the analysis showed there were
statistically discernible differences
among electroplating and the other
categories. Therefore, metal finishing
data were removed from the CMDB.
Consistent with this analysis, the use of
-the electroplating data alone is not an
appropriate means of determining lime
and settle treatment effectiveness for
the aluminum forming category.
Z Anodizing Wastewaters
Comment: Several commenters
contend that since anodizing is
regulated under the metal finishing
category and, as these effluent
limitations are less stringent than the
proposed aluminum forming limits, free
standing facilities will have a
competitive advantage over those
anodizing operations integrated with
aluminum forming facilities.
Commenters also questioned the use of
the CMDB to set anodizing limits when
both electroplating data and metal
finishing data which include anodizing,
were eliminated from the data base used
to establish aluminum forming
guidelines.
Response: Wastewater discharges
from aluminum forming operations are
specifically excluded from the metal
finishing regulation (40 CFR 433.10(b); 48
FR 32485. July 15,1983). The aluminum
forming regulation specifically includes
surface treatment operations such as
cleaning, etching, anodizing, and
conversion coating when performed at
the same plant site at which aluminum
is formed.
The Clean Water Act directs EPA to
establish effluent limitations guidelines
and standards for specific industrial
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday, October 24, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 49139
categories of point source discharges. In
several instances, particular types of
discharges could fall within two or more
categories, as anodizing falls within the
definition of both the metal finishing
and aluminum forming categories. Thus,
for the purpose of regulatory coverage,
the Agency must determine which
discharge lim.is are most appropriate for
each open.uon. The Agency has
included under the aluminum forming
regulation (Part 467) those anodizing
operations performed as an integral part
of aluminum forming. The inclusion of
anodizing in Part 467 is appropriate
because aluminum anodizing
wastewaters display pollutant
characteristics similar to other
aluminum forming process wastewaters
and are effectively treated by
technologies found applicable to the
aluminum forming category as a whole.
In addition, the Agency has considered
the economic and practical impacts on
those anodizing facilities covered by the
aluminum forming regulation as
compared to those covered by the metal
finishing regulation. As discussed
below, the Agency concludes that no
significant economic effects will be
caused by this regulatory allocation of
anodizing operations common to both
the aluminum forming and metal
finishing categories.
Although the treatment effectiveness
concentrations are different for
aluminum forming and metal finishing,
the aluminum forming regulation, like
the metal finishing regulation, is based
on lime and settle end-of-pipe treatment.
Since model treatment technologies with
similar costs are the basis for both
guidelines. EPA believes that plants
regulated under the aluminum forming
guidelines would not be placed at a
significant competitive disadvantage.
The aluminum forming model BAT-PSES
technology also includes flow reduction
through countercurrent rinsing. Many
aluminum formers that anodize now
have countercurrent cascade rinsing
installed: more are planning to install
this technology and. during post-
proposal plant visits we observed
countercurrent cascade rinse tanks
awaiting installation. After a careful
examination of all available data, we
have concluded that the installation of
this technology is technically feasible
and will not cause a competitive
hardship.
For new plants or plants that do not
have treatment in place, the costs of the
flow reduction technologies are often
more than balanced by a reduced cost
for smaller end-of-pipe treatment
equipment. The available data clearly
indicate that aluminum forming
anodizers will not be at a competitive
disadvantage to those anodizers
covered by the metal finishing
regulation.
Two aluminum forming plants that
perform anodizing are included in the
combined metals data base. The raw
and treated wastewaters from these
plants have been found to be
homogeneous with the other raw and
treated wastewaters in the combined
metals data base. Thus it has been
demonstrated that anodizing facilities
can comply with the limitations and
standards derived from the combined
metals data base.
3.	Filtration
Comment: Several commenters
objected to the inclusion of filtration in
the model technology used as a basis for
BAT and PSES. They stated that the
addition of filtration to the treatment
train would not substantially reduce the
metals content of the effluent and that
the cost of filtration is not justified by
the additional pollutant removal it
provides. One commenter, however,
supports the inclusion of filtration in
BAT model treatment technology
because it will provide additional
pollutant removals and is not -
anticipated to inflict any significant
economic hardships on the industry.
Response: The Agency is not
promulgating BAT and PSES based on
model treatment technology including
filtration for the reasons stated earlier in
Section V of this preamble.
4.	Countercurrent Cascade Rinsing
Space Limitations
Comment: Several comments were
made on the issue of space limitations
for countercurrent cascade rinsing. The
commenters contend that the majority of
existing facilities do not have enough
space to install multiple stage
countercurrent cascade rinsing which is
a technology basis for the BAT flow
allowances on cleaning and etching
rinses. In addition to simple lack of
space, severe retrofitting problems are
claimed to occur due to limitations in
crane height and the configurations of
existing tanks. Also, installation will
interrupt production as the related
operations are not truly intermittent.
Several commenters took the position
that the Agency lacked sufficient
documentation or support for the
contention that space is available and
that installation will not cause
interruptions in production.
Response: After the close of the
comment period, the Agency requested
specific information from commenters as
to space limitations, and made plant
visits to assess particular problems
asserted to be caused by space
limitations. The additional information
indicates that only one existing facility
in the Agency's data base does not have
sufficient space to install countercurrent
rinsing on one etch line. However, this
plant currently meets the BAT
regulatory flow and will not need to
install countercurrent cascade rinsing
technology. On this basis and after
review of all applicable data we
conclude that the installation of
countercurrent cascade rinse technology
and the reduction of process flows to the
BAT regulatory levels can be achieved
by existing facilities.
For the plants that have not installed
countercurrent cascade rinsing, process
interruptions are primarily a matter of
engineering planning and scheduling.
Survey information and information
solicited after receipt of comments
indicates that these surface treatment
lines are usually in operation one shift
per day. five days per week. Thus
preliminary work can be done during the
regularly scheduled non-operational
periods such as weekends and evenings.
Final installation can be accomplished
during weekends or scheduled
maintenance or vacation shutdowns.
Properly planned and scheduled, the
installation of countercurrent cascade
rinsing should not result in any serious
interruptions in production.
The Agency estimated costs for the
additional tanks and plumbing
necessary to install two-stage
countercurrent cascade rinsing. Plant
layout and other site-specific factors
were not addressed on a plant-by-plant
basis in the estimation of compliance
costs: however, the Agency's overall
compliance costs include a reasonable
estimate of the costs that aluminum
forming plants will incur to install this
technology.
5. Limitations and Standards for
Cyanide
Comment: Several commenters object
to the regulation of cyanide in the
aluminum forming category. The
commenters contend that this compound
is not present at significant
concentrations in aluminum forming
wastewaters. Additionally, it is asserted
that the complexed cyanides which are
present in these waste streams are not
toxic.
It is asserted that transfer of cyanide
precipitation treatment data from the
aluminum subcategory of the coil
coating category is inappropriate
because wastewater matrix differences
exist between the two categories.
Further commenters contend that the
Agency has overestimated the
-------
49140 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 206 / Monday, October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
capability of cyanide precipitation
technology Tor removing the complexed
"°rro/ferri cyanides found in aluminum
jrming wastewaters. Commenters have
submitted laboratory and full-scale
performance data from the coil coating
category and the primary aluminum
subcategory of the nonferrous metals
manufacturing category in support of
their contention that the cyanide limits
are too stringent and unachievable by
the proposed technology.
Response: Limitations and standards
for cyanide are included in the
aluminum forming regulation because
cyanide was found in the raw
wastewater of two sampled plants in
significant concentrations.The Agency is
regulating total cyanide because it is
well known and widely demonstrated
that all cyanides, even the most stable,
revert to highly toxic free cyanide when
exposed to sunlight
Although cyanide was found and is
known to be present, the Agency does
not believe that it is a necessary process
chemical in aluminum forming
operations. Therefore, the Agency
suggests that the most effective way to
control cyanide is to employ process
chemical substitution. This will
eliminate the need for any preliminary
treatment for cyanide.
The model treatment technology used
develop limitations on cyanide is
.nide precipitation. No aluminum
arming facility currendy practices
cyanide removal. Thus it is necessary to
transfer this technology from the
aluminum subcategory of the coil
coating category as described in Section
VII of the development document.
Wastewaters from the aluminum coil
coating operations have the same
pollutants and species of ions in the
same concentration ranges as aluminum
forming wastewaters. Since these two
waste streams have similar
characteristics, the Agency believes that
this technology can be transferred from
the coil coating category and that it will
perform as indicated in the aluminum
forming category.
The cyanide concentration values
were derived from cyanide removal data
from three coil coating plans. The coil
coating data submitted by commenters
to support their contention that the
cyanide limits cannot be achieved were
previously submitted for the coil coating
regulation. These data were found to be
unreliable for the reasons discussed in
Section VU of the Development
Document for the Coil Coating Point
Source Category. The data submitted on
cyanide removal from primary
aluminum cannot be applied to
aluminum forming wastewaters because
of significant wastewater matrix
differences between the two categories.
ft Treatment Effectiveness for the
Pollutant Aluminum
Comment: Several comments were
received objecting to the establishment
of effluent limitations for the pollutant
aluminum because: (1) Aluminum is not
a toxic or conventional pollutant: (2)
control of aluminum is assured by
control of chromium and zinc: (3) the
aluminum limit is unachievable by the
proposed technology especially when
operated for removal of the other
regulated metals.
Response: (l) The Agency is
regulating the pollutant aluminum
because it was found in significant
concentrations (ranging up to 70.000 mg/
1) in nearly every aluminum forming
wastewater stream. Aluminum is a
nonconventional pollutant and is
appropriately regulated at BAT since
BAT limitations are the principal
national means of controlling
nonconventional pollutants. In that the
Clean Water Act is a technology based
statute and the model treatment
technologies remove aluminum, the
Agency is regulating the discharge of
aluminum.
[2) Control of aluminum is not
necessarily assured by the control of
chromium and zinc which are the only
two toxic metals specifically limited in
this regulation. Nearly every aluminum
forming waste stream contains
aluminum in significant concentrations.
However, a particular waste stream may
not necessarily contain chromium and
zinc at treatable levels and may contain
treatable levels of the other non-
regulated toxic metals, if such a waste
stream is treated for aluminum removal
in the pH range suggested, the other
toxic metals that may be present will be
effectively treated. Further, when
aluminum is removed it acts as an
excellent co-precipitant and increases
the level of removal achievable for the
other metal hydroxides.
(3J The Agency visited and sampled
four aluminum forming plants since
proposal which employ lime and settle
treatment technology. The additional
effluent concentration data for the
pollutant aluminum were combined with
the sampling data used at proposal to
derive new treatment effectiveness
values for aluminum removal. The
Agency has increased the allowable
discharge levels of aluminum from 4.45
fig/1 to 6.43 ng/1 maximum for any one
day.
7. Additional Wastewater Streams
Comment: Several comments were
received claiming that the Agency had
failed to include flow and discharge
allowances for significant wastewater
sources. The commenters' position is
that flow and discharge allowances
should be established for the following
wastewater sources:
(a)	Extrusion press hydraulic svstem
leakage:
(b)	Boiler blowdown:
(cj Stormwater runoff:
(d)	Noncontact cooling water
(e)	Deiomzed water systems:
(t] Ultrasonic testing: and
(g) Others —vulcanizing and plastics
wastewaters, grinding caster rolls, etch
baths when not followed by a rinse,
maintenance shop wastewaters, wet
scrubbers associated with bright dip
anodizing, dye solution tanks and seal
tanks.
The commenters indicate that uniform
flow allowances cannot be established
for many of these flows, particularly
stormwater runoff, and hence, the
Agency should identify these sources
and provide for flow allowances on a
case-by-case basis.
Response: After proposal the Agency
collected additional information and
data on some of the wastewater sources
listed above. The additional data
support the commenters contentions
that a separate discharge allowance
should be provided for extrusion press
hydraulic leakage trom hydraulic
systems which use an oil emulsion. The
flow allowance for this stream at BPT.
BAT. and PSES is based on the average
of all the data supplied by plants not
emoloying recycle. The flow allowance
for new sources (N'SPS and PSNS) is
based on the average of all the data
supplied by plants employing recycle.
the Agency has decided not to
regulate waste streams such as boiler
blowdown. noncontact cooling water,
and stormwater run-off. These
wastewaters are not process
wastewaters and do not have a direct
relationship to the production
operations. Also, they occur only
intermittently and vary from plnnt-to-
plar.t. Thus, the Agency believes these
wastewater sources must be regulated
on a case-by-case basis at the permit
writing stage.
The Agency has reevaluated the flow
allowance for miscellaneous
wastewater sources that is included in
the core allowance for each
subcategory. Additional data support an
increase in the discharge allowance
from thfrproposed allowance of 3 l/kkg
to 45 l/kkg. This allowance applies to
discharges from maintenance and
miscellaneous cleanup, ultrasonic
testing bath, process area scrubber ingot
scalping, roll grinding for caster rolls.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday, October 24, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 49141
and dye solution and seal baths when
not followed by a rinse. These
wastewater sources are charcterized by
low flows and occur only intermittently
at some plants in the category, thus they
are appropriately grouped in a single
allowance which the permit writer will
include in each core allowance.
Plastics wastewaters are covered
under the plastics molding and forming
point source category. Vulcanizing
wastewaters are covered under the
Rubber Processing Category (40 CFR
428). Wet scrubbers associated with
bright dip anodizing are considered to
'be etch line scrubbers and are covered
by that allowance. Deionized water
systems, when used to treat a plant's
service water (fresh water coming into
the plant), do not have any relation to
the amount of production or to the
amounts or types of pollutants
generated by the forming process.
Therefore, the wastewater resulting
from regeneration of these systems is
not covered by this regulation and may
be regulated by the permit writer on a
case-by-case basis.
tt. Mass-Based Limitations and
Standards-
Comment- Several commenters
oppose mass-based limitations and
standards and recommend that, as it did
for other industries, the Agency should
establish concentration-based limits
instead. It is contended that production
normalized flows, necessary for mass-
based limits, have not and cannot be
properly established and that, the
standards should therefore be based on
concentration. Additionally, mass-based
limits make compliance determinations
unnecessarily complex, if not
impossible. One commenter
recommends that representative values
for flow and production be used in
setting permit limits with revision for
major process changes only: this would
alleviate the problem of noncompliance
due to minor variations in production
and flow. One commenter supports the
mass-based limitations as the best
method to ensure a total reduction of
pollutants and to prevent dilution as an
alternative to compliance.
For pretreatment standards,
commenters contend that mass-based
limits are especially inappropriate as
most POTW sewer ordinances are
concentration-based and as compliance
determinations will depend on industry
supplied data.
Response: The Agency is
promulgating mass-based limitations
and standards because flow reduction is
an important part of the model
treatment technology. In developing the
aluminum forming regulation, the
Agency examined the sources and
amounts of water used in the various
manufacturing operations. EPA found
that for all process operations a
significant number of plants used more
waste than the process required, and
further, that for a number of processes,
water was being recycled by many
plants in the category. Accordingly, flow
reduction was incorporated as part of
the model treatment technology for
aluminum forming. (The total BPT flow
is reduced by 60 percent at BAT.) Mass-
based limitations are necessary for this
category to adequately control the total
discharge of pollutants and reflect the
total pollutant removal achieved by the
model treatment technology.
The production normalized flows are
based on industry flow and production
data which were then used to calculate
mass-based limitations. In determining
an individual plants discharge
allowances, the facility will provide
historical production information. The
permitting or municipal authority will
apply the mass limitations presented in
the regulation using an average rate of
production as reported by the facilities.
The average rateof production should
represent a reasonable measure of
actual operation production.
¦ The permit writer or control authority
establishes production levels once, at
the time the limitation and standards
are calculated for the facility. A
facility's limitations or standards may
be revised if the average rate of
production as reported by the facility no
longer represents a reasonable measure
of actual production for that operation
due to substantial changes in
production. The other two parameters
necessary to calculate limitations, i.e.
production normalized flow and
treatment effectiveness concentration,
are established by this regulation.
9. Classification of Solid Waste
Comment- The commenters contend
that the Agency has underestimated the
quantity of solid wastes generated as a
result of this regulation. Additionally,
the commenters challenge the
assumption that solid wastes generated
by the model treatment technologies are
not hazardous under RCRA. The
commenters's major concern is the
impact that these assumptions have on
compliance cost estimates.
Response: The Agency has based
estimates of the quantity of sludge
generation on the assumption that the
sludge will be dewatered to 20 percent
solids. This value is lower than what
many metal processing plants are
achieving, but the Agency believes it is
a reasonable estimate to apply to a
variety of situations. Because we have
assumed that the sludge contains a large
amount of water, our estimates of its
volume and weight will be. if not
accurate, slightly high.
As discussed in Section VII of this
preamble one wastewater treatment
sludge from aluminum forming might be
considered hazardous under the
regulations implementing subtitle C of
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Wastewater
sludge generated from cyanide
precipitation treatment of aluminum
forming solution heat treatment contact
cooling water may contain cyanide and
may exhibit extraction procedure (EP)
toxicity. Therefore, these wastes may
require disposal as a hazardous waste.
We have estimated the added cost
above the cost of disposing an
equivalent mass of nonhazardous waste
at $284,200 per year. This added cost
does not change conclusions reached
regarding the economic impact of this
regulation.
The Agency collected additional data
and information from the industry on
sludges generated by lime and settle
treatment. The new data and
information support the Agency's
determination that these solid wastes
will not be considered hazardous under
RCRA. Thus the disposal cost of $.40 per
gallon ($1982) used by the Agency for
costing this type of sludge is
appropriate.
10. Limitations and Standards for pH
Comment- Several commenters have
expressed concern that the regulatory
range for pH and the metals limitations
are incompatible. Optimum operating
levels in lime and setde treatment are
different for the various metals
regulated. Therefore, if the system is
operated within the proposed range of
optimum metals removal, individual
metals will not be removed to the same
extent as if the system were operated
for removal of a single metal uniquely.
The commenters express concern that
the performance data used by the
Agency to establish these limits have
not been documented as actually having
a pH within the proposed regulatory
range.
Additionally, commenters contend
that a more reasonable range of pH
control is within 3 units as opposed to
the 2.5 units proposed. They recommend
that the limits be changed to 7 to 10.
Some commenters state that since most
industries have a lower pH limit of 6.0
and because some facilities do not
employ lime and settle technology, the
pH limits should be changed to 6 to 10 o
handled on a case-by-case basis.
-------
49142 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 208 / Monday, October 24, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
Response: The Agency has revised the
nH range from 7.5 to 10 to 7.0 to 10.0.
mments and additional sampling data
u~chered after proposal indicate that the
optimum pH level for ahiminum removal
is lower than the regulated toxic metals.
The revised pH range of 7.0 to 10.0 will
facilitate meeting the aluminum limits
and ensure the removal of other toxic
metals. Since die limitations were
derived from actual performance data at
treatment plants that were operating
their treatment systems within the range
set forth as indicative of proper
operation, we believe the limits are
achievable using the recommended
technology. The Agency is not
establishing a pH range of 0 to 10
because data indicate that metals are
present in all aluminum forming
wastestreams and effective metals
removal will not occur at a pH of 8.
11. Regeneration of Cleaning or Etch
Baths
Comment: Several commenters object
to the zero discharge limit for cleaning
or etching baths based on regeneration
or hauling of the wastes. It is contended
that (1) Regeneration processes have not
been proven or demonstrated effective
for aluminum forming wastewaters and
cannot be universally applied, and (2)
even when regeneration processes are
employed, some wastewater is
y -ated due to the recovery process
11.	. or to periodic dumping of the baths
due to pollutant buildups.
Response: The comments and data
provided concerning regeneration
technology for cleaning or etching baths
indicate that this technology is not at
present a proven technology with which
to achieve zero discharge. Therefore, the
Agency is allowing a discharge from this
wastewater source at BAT, PSES, PSNS,
and NSPS that is equivalent to the
allowance at BPT.
12.	Economic impacts
Comment' Some commenters stated
that the economic analysis understated
the economic impacts for the following
reasons: (1) EPA overestimated baseline
profits by omitting General
Administration and Selling Expenses
and. in particular, overestimated the
profit for the extrusion subcategory
which they characterized as very
competitive: (2) EPA assumed a market
rate of return which was too low. thus
understating the return available from
alternative investments: (3) EPA
neglected to consider the depressed
state of the industry.
Response: EPA has revised the
economic analysis, using a profit
estimate based on the Federal Trade
Commission Line of Business reports
which take full account of General
Administrative and Selling Expenses. A
single rate of return on assets is used for
all aluminum forming product segments.
This estimate is lower than the profit
rates estimated in the proposal,
considerably so for extrusion.
EPA revised the market rate of return
in the proposal, basing it on the lower
bond rates forecast for 1977 instead of
forecasts for the 1983 to 1984 periods.
We also included a small risk premium
based, on experienced returns.
In response to the comment on the
depressed state of the industry in 1982,
the Agency has performed a business
cycle analysis. Based on the capacity
utilization in the industry, 1977 appears
to be a normal year for earnings and we
anticipate that the industry will have
recovered to a normal rate of capacity
utilization and earnings by 1985 to 1988.
A copy of the business cycle analysis,
"Macroeconomic Conditions and
Performance of Regulated Industries," is
in the public record for this rulemaking.
EPA believes that the revised
Economic Impact Analysis shows that
both BAT and PSES are economically
achievable.
X.	Best Management Practices
Section 304(e) of the Clean Water Act
gives the Administrator authority to
prescribe "best management practices"
(BMP). EPA is not promulgating BMP
specific to aluminum forming.
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 in EPA's effluent
limitations is necessary 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 exercise of
EPA's enforcement discretion. Compare
Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA. 584 F.2d 1253
(9th Cir. 1977) with Wayerhaeuser Co. v.
Costle. supra, and Corn Refiners
Association, et al. v. Costle. No. 78-1069
(8th Cir.. April 2,1979). See also
American Petroleum Institute v. EPA.
540 F-2d 1023 (10th Cir. 1976); CPC
international. Inc. v. Train, 540 F-2d 1320
(8th Cir. 1976); FMC Corp. v. Train. 539
F.2d 973 (4th Cir. 1976).
An upset is an unintentional episode
during which effluent limits are
exceeded: a bypass, however, is an act
of intentional noncompliance during
which waste treatment facilities are
circumvented in emergency situations.
We have, in the past, included bypass
provisions in NPDES permits.
We determined that both upset and
bypass provisions should be included in
NPDES permits and have promulgated
permit regulations that include upset
and bypass permit provisions. See 40
CFR 122.41. 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
permittees in the aluminum forming
industry will be entitled to upset and
bypass provisions in NPDES permits,
this final regulation does not address
these issues.
XII. Variances and Modifications
Upon the promulgation of this
regulation, the appropriate effluent
limitations must be applied in all
Federal and State NPDES permits
thereafter issued to direct dischargers in
the aluminum forming industry. In
addition, on promulgation, the
pretreatment limitations are directly
applicable to any indirect dischargers.
For the BPT effluent limitations, the
only exception to the binding limitations
is EPA's "fundamentally different
factors" variance. See E I. duPont
deNemours & 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.
However, the economic ability of the
individual operator to meet the
compliance cost for BPT standards is
not a consideration for granting a
variance. See National Crushed Stone
Association v. EPA. 449 U.S. 64 (1980).
Although this variance clause was set
forth in EPA's 1973 to 1976 industry
regulations, it is now included in the
NPDES regulations and will not be
included in the aluminum forming or
other industry regulations. See the
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR Part 125.
Subpart D.
The BAT limitations in this regulation
also are subject to EPA's
"fundamentally different factors
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday, October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations 49143
variance. In addition. 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)(1)(B).
applications for these modifications
must be filed within 270 days after
promulgation of final effluent limitations
guidelines.
The economic modification section of
the Act (Section 301(c)) gives the
Administrator authority to modify BAT
requirements for nonconventional
pollutants for dischargers who file a
permit application after July 1.1978.
upon a showing that such modified
requirements will (1) represent the
maximum use of technology within the
economic capability of the owner or
operator and (2) result in reasonable
further progress toward the elimination
of the discharge of pollutants. The
environmental modification section (301
(g)} allows the Administrator, with the
concurrence of the State, to modify BAT
limitations for nonconventional
pollutants from any point source upon a
showing by the owner or operator of
such point source Satisfactory to the
Administrator that:
(a)	Such modified requirements will
result at a minimum in compliance with
BPT limitations or any more stringent
limitations necessary to meet water
quality standards;
(b)	Such modified requirements will
not result in any additional
requirements on any other point or
nonpoint source: and
(c)	Such modification will not interfere
with the attainment or maintenance of
that water quality which shall assure
protection of public water supplies, and
the protection and propagation of a
balanced population of shellfish, fish,
and wildlife, and allow recreational
activities, in and on the water and such
modification will not result in the
discharge of pollutants m quantities
which may reasonably be anticipated to
pose an unacceptable risk to human
health or the environment because of
bioaccumulation. persistency in the
environment, acute toxicity, chronic
toxicity (including carcinogenicity,
mutagenicity or teratogenicity), or
synergistic propensities.
Section 301(j)(l)(B) of the Act requires
that application for modifications under
Section 301 (c) or (g) must be filed
within 270 days after the promulgation
of an applicable effluent guideline.
Initial applications must be filed with
the Regional Administrator and. in those
States that participate in the NPDES
Program, a copy must be sent to the
Director of the State program. Initial
applications to comply with 301(j) must
include the name of the permittee, the
permit and outfall number, the
applicable effluent guideline, and
whether the permittee is applying for a
301(c) or 301(g) modification or both.
Indirect dischargers subject to PSES
and PSNS are eligible for credits for
toxic pollutants removed by POTW. See
40 CFR § 403.7 48 FR 9404 (January 28,
1981) New sources subject to NSPS are
not eligible for any other statutory or
regulatory modifications See, £ /.
duPont de Nemours Sr Co v. Tram.
supra.
Indirect dischargers subject to PSES
have, in the past, been eligible for the
"fundamentally different factors"
variance. See 40 CFR 403.13. However,
on September 20.19S3. the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
held that "FDF variances for toxic
pollutants are forbidden by the Act,"
and remanded 5 403.13 to EPA. NAMF el
al v. EPA. Nos. 79-2256 et al. (3rd Cir.,
September 20.1983). EPA is considering
the effect of that decision.
In a few cases, information which
would affect these PSES may not have
been available to EPA or affected
parties in the course of this rulemaking.
As a result it may be appropriate to
issue specific categorical standards for
such facilities, treating them as a
separate subcategory with more, or less,
stringent standards as appropriate. This
will only be done if a different standard
is appropriate because of unique aspects
of the factors listed in Section
304(b)(2)(B) of the Act: the age of
equipment and facilities involved, the
process employed, the engineering
aspects of applying control techniques,
nonwater quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements) or the
cost of required effluent reductions (but
not of ability to pay that cost).
Indirect dischargers and other
affected parties may petition the
Administrator to examine those factors
and determine whether these PSES are
properly applicable in specific cases or
should be revised. Such petitions must
contain specific and detailed support
data, documentation, and evidence
indicating why the relevant factors
justify a more, or less, stringent
standard, and mast also indicate why
those factors could not have been
brought to the attention of the Agency in
the course of this rulemaking. The
Administrator will consider such
rulemaking petitions and determine
whether a rulemaking should be
initiated.
XIU. Implementation of Limitations and
Standards
A.	Relationship to NPDES Permits
The BPT/BAT limitations and NSPS in
this regulation will be applied to
individual aluminum forming plants
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 the extent that variances and
modifications are expressly authorized.
Other aspects of the interaction between
these limitations and NPDES permits are
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
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 hy the
permit issuing authority.
A second topic that warrants
discussion is the operation of EPA's
NDPES enforcement program, many
aspects of which were considered in
developing this regulation. We
emphasize that although the Clean
Water-Act is a strict liability statute, the
initiation of enforcement proceedings by
EPA is discretionary. We have exercised
and intend to exercise that discretion in
a manner that recognizes and promotes
good-faith compliance efforts.
B.	Indirect Dischargers
For indirect dischargers. PSES and
PSNS are implemented under National
Pretreatment Program procedures
outlined in 40 CFR Part 403. The table
below may be of assistance in resolving
questions about the operation of that
program. A brief explanation of some of
the submissions indicated on the table
follows:
A "request for category
determination" is a written request,
submitted by an indirect discharger or
its POTW, for a determination of which
categorical pretreatment standard
-------
49144 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 206 / Monday, October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
applies to the indirect discharger. This
assists the indirect discharger in
knowing which PSES or PSNS limits it
will be required to meet. See 40 CFR
403.6(a).
A "baseline monitoring report" is the
First report an indirect discharger must
file following promulgation of an
applicable standard. The baseline report
includes: an identification of the indirect
discharger a description of its
operation; a report on the flows of
regulated streams and the results of
sampling analyses to determine levels of
regulated pollutants in those streams: a
statement of the discharger's
compliance or noncompliance with the
standard; and a description of any
additional steps required to achieve
compliance. See 40 CFR 403.12(b).
A "report on compliance" is required
of each indirect discharger within 90
days following the date for compliance
with an applicable categorical
pretreatment standard. The report must
indicate the concentration of all
regulated pollutants in the facility's
regulated process wastestreams; the
average and maximum daily flows of the
regulated stream; and a statement of
whether compliance is consistently
being achieved, and if not, what
additional operation and maintenance
or pretreatment is necessary to achieve
compliance. See 40 CFR 403.12(d).
A "periodic compliance report" is a
report on continuing compliance with all
applicable categorical pretreatment
standards. It is submitted twice per year
(]une and December) by indirect
dischargers subject to the standards.
The report shall provide the
concentrations of the regulated
pollutants in its discharge to the POTW;
the average and maximum daily flow
rates of the facility; the methods used by
the indirect discharger to sample and
analyze the data, and a certification that
these methods conform to the methods
outlined in the regulations. See 40 CFR
403.12(e).
Inoirect Dischargers Schedule for Submittal ano Compliance
Item
AppdCSM
source*
Oate or ome period
Maaiurad from
Suommed to
Request 'or category deter-
Bosong^....
60 days or	....
From effective data of standard.	
Brector1
mination.
New	
60 mf%	-	
Prior to
commencement
of dBCfUTQO to
POTW
Prom Federal Re^star Development
Document AvaaaOtoy.

Saseane monaonng	
A*_
180 days 			
From effective data of standard of
final daemon or category deisms-
naoon.
Control authority*
Report on compaance.	
Exisang .
New
90 days		
90 days	
From date for Anal comptenca	
From commencement of Ascftsrge to
POTW
Control authorrty •
PenoOc compliance reports....
A*..	
June and

Control authority'


December

Lwector «= (a) wwei Adnwwrauve Officer of a state «ater pottoon control agency wflft an approved pretreatment pi
or (b) EPA Regnnaj Water Division ©rector. rt slate oon not nave an aocrovea pretreatment program.
¦ Control Authority = (ai POTW if rts pretreatment program n«a been approved or 
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday. October 24, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 4914b
Appendix B—Toxic Pollutants not
Detected in Aluminum Forming
Wastewater
(a)	Subpart A—Rolling With Neat Oils
Subcategory.
003	acrylonitrile
005	benzidine
008	1.2,4.-trichlorobenzene
009	hexachlorobenzene
012	hexachloroethane
013	l.l-dichloroethane
016	chloroethane
017	deleted
018	bis(chloroethyl) ether
019	2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
020	2-chloronaphthaiene
025	1.2-dichlorobenzene
026	1,3-dichlorobenzene
027	1.4-dichlorobenzene
028	3,3'-dichlorobenzidene
032	l.2-dichloropropane
033	1.3-dichloropropylene
036	2.6-dinitrotoluene
040	4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
041	-bromophenyl phenyl ether
042	bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
043	bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
045	methyl chloride
046	methyl bromide
049	deleted
050	deleted.
052	hexachlorobutadiene
053	hexachlorocyclopentadiene
056	Nitrobenzene
060	4.6-dinitro-o-cresol
061	N-nitrosodimethylamine
063	N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
113	toxaphene
116	asbestos
129	2,3.7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(b)	Subpart B—Rolling With
Emulsions Subcategory.
003	acylonitrile
005	benzidene
008	1.2,4.-tnchlorobenzene
009	hexachlorobenzene
012	hexachloroethane
013	l.l-dichloroethane
016	chloroethane
017	deleted
018	bis(chloroethyl) ether
019	2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
020	2-chloronaphthalene
025	1.2-dichlorobenzene
026	1,3-dichlorobenzene
027	1,4-dichloro benzene
028	3.3'-dichlorobenzidene
032	1.2-dichloropropane
033	1.3-dichloropropylene
036	2.6-dinitrotoluene
040	4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
041	4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
042	bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
043	bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
045	methyl chloride
046	methyl bromide
049	deleted
050	deleted
052	hexachlorobutadiene
053	hexachlorocyclopentadiene
056	nitrobenzene
061	N-nitrosodimethylamine
063	N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
113	toxaphene
116	asbestos
129	2.3.7.8.-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(c)	Subpart C—Extrusion
Subcategory.
003	acrylonitrile
005	benzidine
008	1.2.4,-trichlorobenzene
009	hexachlorobenzene
012	hexachloroethane
013	l.l-dichloroethane
016	chloroethane
017	deleted
018	bis(chloroethyl) ether
019	2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
020	2-chloronaphthalene
025	1,2-dichlorobenzene
026	1,3-dichlorobenzene
027	1.4-dichlorobenzene
028	3.3'-dichlorobenzidene
032	1,2-dichloropropane
033	1,3-dichloropropylene
036	2.6-dinitrotolune
040	4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
041	4-bromophenyl phenyl ether 1
042	bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
043	bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
045	methyl chloride
046	' methyl bromide
049	deleted
050	deleted
052	hexachlorobutadiene
053	hexachlorocyclopentadiene
056	nitrobenzene
061	N-nitrosodimethylamine
063	N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
086	vinyl chlonde
113	toxaphene
116	asbestos
129	2.3,7,8,-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin.
(d)	Subpart D—Forging Subcategory.
003	acrylonitrile
005	benzidine
008	carbon tetrachloride
008	1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
009	hexachlorobenzene
012	hexachloroethane
013	l.l-dichloroethane
016	chloroethane
017	deleted
018	bis(chloroethyl] ether
019	2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
020	2-chloronaphthalene
025	1.2-dichlorobenzene
026	1.3-dichlorobenzene
027	1.4-dichlorobenzene
028	3J '-dichlorobenzene
032	1.2-dichloropropane
033	l.3-dichloropropoylene
036	2.6-dinitrotoluene
040	4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
041	4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
042	bis(2-chloroisopropyl] ether
043	bis(2-ch)oroethoxy) methane
045	methyl chloride
046	methyl bromide
049	deleted
050	deleted
052	hexachlorobutadiene
053	hexachlorocyclopentadiene
056	nitrobenzene
060	4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
061	N-nitrosodimethylamine
063	N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
113	toxaphene
116	asbestos
129	2.3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(e)	Subpart E—Drawing With Neat
Oils Subcategory.
003	acrylonitrile
005	benzidine
008	1.2.4-tnchlorobenzene
009	hexachlorobenzene
012	hexachloroethane
013	l.l-dichloroethane
016	chloroethane
017	deleted
018	bis(chloroethyl) ether
019	2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
020	2-chloronaphthalene
025	1,2-dichlorobenzene
026	' 1,3-dichlorobenzene
027	1.4-dichlorobenzene
028	3.3'-dichlorobenzidene
032	1.2-dichloropropane
033	1.3-dichloropropylene
036	2.6-dinitrotoluene
040	4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
041	4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
042	bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
043	bi9(2-chloroethoxy) methane
045	methyl chlonde
046	methyl bromide
049	deleted
050	deleted
052	hexachlorobutadiene
053	hexachlorocyclopentadiene
056	nitrobenzene
061	N-nitrosodimethylamine
063	N-mtrosodi-n-propylamine
113	toxaphene
116	asbestos
129	2.3.7,ft-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(f)	Subpart F—Drawing With
Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory.
003	acrylonitrile
005	benzidine
008	1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
009	hexachlorobenzene
012	hexachloroethane
013	l.l-dichloroethane
019	chloroethane
017	deleted
018	bis(chloroethyl) ether
019	2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
020	2-chloronaphthalene
025	1,2-dichlorobenzene
026	1,3-dichlorobenzene
027	1.4-dichlorobenzene
-------
49146 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday, October 24, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
028	3.3'-dichlorobenzidene
032	1.2-dichloropropane
'33	1.3-dichloropropylene
036	2.6-dinitrotoluene
040	4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
041	4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
042	bia(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
043	bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
045	methyl chloride
046	methyl bromide
049	deleted
050	deleted
052	hexachlorobutadiene
053	hexachlorocyclopentadiene
056	nitrobenzene
061	N-nitrosodimethylamine
063	N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
113	toxaphene
116	asbestos
129	2.3.7,3-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Appendix C—Toxic Pollutants Detected
Below the Analytical Quantification
Limit
(a)	Subpart A—Rolling With Neat Oils
Subcategory.
006 carbon tetrachloride
010 1.2-dichloroethane
014	1.1.2-tnchloroethane
015	1.1.2,2-tetrachloroethane
029	l.l-dichloroethylene
¦031 2,4-dichlorophenol
057	2-nitrophenol
072 benzo(a)anthracene (1,2-
benzanthracene)
) aldrin
uM dieldrin
092 4,4'-DDT
094 4.4'-DDD
104	gamma-BHC
105	delta-BHC
127 thallium
(b)	Subpart B—Rolling With
Emulsions Subcategory.
006 carbon tetrachloride
010 l.2-dichloroethane
014	1,1,2-trichloroethane
015	1.1.2.2-tetrachloroethane
029 l.l-dichloroethylene
031 2.4-dichlorophenol
057 2-nitrophenol
072 benzo(a]anthracene (1,2-
benzanthracene)
089	aidrin
090	dieldrin
092 4,4'-DDT
094 4.4'-DDD
104	gamma-BHC
105	delta-BHC
127 thallium
(c)	Subpart C—Extrusion Subcategory.
006 carbon tetrachloride
010 1.2-dichloroethane
014	1.1.2-trichloroethane
015	-1.1.2.2-tetrachloroethane
029 l.l-dichloroethylene
031 2.4-dichlorophenol
1.2-diphenylhydrazine
057 2-nitrophenol
089	aldrin
090	dieldrin
092 4.4-DDT
094 4,4-DDD
104	gamma-BHC
105	delta-BHC
127 .thallium
(d)	Subpart D—Forging Subcategory.
006 carbon tetrachloride
010 1.2-dichloroethane
014	1.1,2-trichloroethane
015	1,1.2.2-tetrachloroethane
029 l.l-dichloroethylene
031 2,4-dichlorophenol
057 2-nitrophenol
089	aldrin
090	dieldrin
092 4.4-DDT
094 4.4'-DDD
104	gamma-BHC
105	delta-BHC
127 thallium
(e)	Subpart E—Drawing With Neat
Oils Subcategory.
006 carbon tetrachloride
010 1.2-dichloroethane
014	1.1,2-trichloroethane
015	1.1.2,2-trichloroethane
029 l.-dichloroethylene
031 2.4-dichlorophenol
037 1.2-diphenylhydrazine
057 2-nitrophenol
072 benzo(a)anthracene (1,2-
benzanthracene)
089	aldrin
090	dieldrin
092 4.4'-DDT
094 4,4-DDD
104	gamma-BHC
105	delta-BHC
127 thallium
(0 Subpart F—Drawing With
Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory.
008 carbon tetrachloride
010 1,2-dichloroethane
014	1.1,2-trichloroethane
015	1.1.2.2-tetrachloroethane
029 l.l-dichloroethylene
031 2.4-dichlorophenol
057 2-nitrophenol
072 benzo(a)anthracene (1.2-
benzanthracene)
089	aldrin
090	dieldrin
092 4.4-DDT
094 4.4-DDD
104	gamma-BHC
105	delta-BHC
127 thallium
Appendix D—Toxic Pollutants Detected
in the Effluent From Only a Small
Number of Sources
(a) Subpart A—Rolling With Neat Oils
Subcategory
004 benzene
Oil
1.1.1-trichloroethane
023
chloroform
030
1.2-frans-dichloroethylene
047
bromoform
048
dichlorobromomethane
058
4-nitrophenol
059
2.4-dinifrophenol
064
pentachlorophenol
067
butyl benzyl phthalate
069
di-n-octyl phthalate
071
dimethyl phthalate
091
chlordane
093
4.4'-DDE
095
alpha-endosulfan
096
beta-endosulfan
100
heptachlor
101
heptachlor epoxide
102
alpha-BHC
103
beta-BHC
114
antimony
115
arsenic
117
beryllium
126
silver
(b)	Subpart B—Rolling With
Emulsions Subcategory.
004	benzene
O'.l	1,1.1-trichloroethane
023	chloroform
030	l,2-/ro/7s-dichloroethylene
047	bromoform
048	dichlorobromomethane
058	4-nitrophenol
059	2.4-dinitrophenol
060	4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
064	pentachlorophenol
067	butyl benzyl phthalatey
069	di-n-octyl phthalate
071	dimethyl phthalate
091	chlordane
093	4.4'-DDE
095	alpha-endosulfan
096	beta-endosulfan
100	heptachlor
101	heptachlor epoxide
102	alpha-BHC
103	beta-BHC '
114	antimony
115	arsenic
117	beryllium
126	silver
(c)	Subpart C—Extrusion Subcategory
0C4	bnezene
011	1.1,1-tnchloroethane
023	chloroform
030	1.2-f/wis-dichloroethylene
047	bromoform
048	dichlorobromomethane
058	4-nitrophenol
059	2.4-dimtrophenol
060	4.6-dmitro-o-cresol
064	pentachlorophenol
067	butyl benzyl phthalate
069	di-n-octyl phthalate
071	dimethyl phthalate
091	chlordane
093	4.4-DDE
095	alpha-endosulfan
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 206 / Monday, October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulatiflns 49147
096 beta-endosulfan
100	heptachlor
101	heptachlor epoxide
102	alpha-BHC
103	beta-BHC
114	antimony
115	arsenic
117 beryllium
126 silver
(d)	Subpart D—Forging Subcategory.
004 benzene
Oil 1.1.1-tnchloroethane
023 chloroform
030 1.2-frans-dichloroethylene
047	bromoform
048	dichlorobromomethane
058	4-nitrophenol
059	2,4-dinitrophenol
064 pentachlorophenol
067 butyl benzyl phthalate
069 di-n-octyl phthalate
071 dimethyl phthalate
091 chlordane
093 4.4'-DDE
095	alpha-endosulfan
096	beta-endosulfan
100	heptachlor
101	heptachlor epoxide
102	alpha-BHC
103	beta-BHC
114	antimony
115	arsenic
117 beryllium
126 silver
(e)Subpart	E—Drawing With Neat
Oils Subcategory.
004 benzene
Oil 1.1.1-trichloroeihane
023 chloroform
030 1.2-f/wis-dichloroethylene
047	bromoform
048	dichlorobromomethane
058	4-nitrophenol
059	2.4-dinitrophenol
060	4.6-dinitro-o-cresol
064 pentachlorophenol
067 butyl benzyl phthalate
069 di-n-octyl phthalate
071 dimethyl phthalate
091 chlordane
093 4.4'-DDE
095	alpha-endosulfan
096	beta-endosulfan
100	heptachlor
101	heptachlor epoxide
102	alpha-BHC
103	beta-BHC
114	antimony
115	arsenic
117 beryllium
126 silver
If) Subpart F-Drawing With Emulsio
or Soaps Subcategory.
004 benzene
Oil 1.1.1-tnchloroethane
023 chloroform
030 1.2-/rons-dichloroethylene
047
bromoform
048
dichlorobromomethane
058
4-nitrophenol
059
2.4-dinitrophenol
060
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
064
pentachlorophenol
067
butyl benzyl phtholate
069
di-n-octyl phthalate
071
dimethyl phthalate
091
chlordane
093
4,4'-DDE
095
alpha-endosulfan
096
beta-endosulfan
100
heptachlor
101
heptachlor epoxide
102
alpha-BHC
103
beta-BHC
114
antimony
115
arsenic
117
beryllium
126
silver
Appendix E—Toxic Pollutants Detected
in Amount too Small To Be Effectively
Treated by Technologies Considered in
Preparing This Guideline
(a)	Subpart A—Rolling With Neat Oils
Subcategory.
002 acrolein
007 chlorobenzene
021 2.4.6-trichlorophenol
034 2^4-dimethylphenol
044 methylene chloride
051 chlorodibromomethane
123 mercury
(b)	Subpart B—Rolling With
Emulsions Subcategory.
002	acrolein
007	chlorobenzene
021	2.4.6-tnchlorophenol
034	2.4-dimethylphenol
044	methylene chloride
051	chlorodibromomethane
123	mercury
(c)	Subpart C—Extrusion Subcategory.
002	acrolein
007	chlorobenzene
021	2.4.6-trichlorophenol
034	2.4-dimethylphenol
044	methylene chloride
051	chlorodibromomethane
123	mercury
(d)	Subpart D—Forging Subcategory.
002	acrolein
007 chlorobenzene
021 2.4.6-trichlorophenol
034 2,4-dimethylphenol
044 methylene chloride
051 chlorodibromomethane
123 mercury
(e)	Subpart E—Drawing With Neat
Oils Subcategory.
002	acrolein
004	benzene
007	chlorobenzene
021	2.4.6-trichlorophenol
034 2.4-dimethylephenol
044 methylene chloride
051 chlorodibromomethane
123 mercury
(f) Subpart F—Drawing With
Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory.
002 acrolein
007 chlorobenzene
021 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
034 2.4-dimethylphenol
044 methylene chloride
051 chlofodibromomethane
123	mercury
Appendix F—Toxic Pollutants
Effectively Controlled by BAT, PSES.
K'SPS. und PSNS Even Though They Are
Not Specifically Regulated Limitations
and Guidelines
(a)	Subpart A—Rolling With Neat Oils
Subcategory.
118	cadmium
120	copper
122	lead
124	nickel
125	selenium
(b)	Subpart B—Rolling With
Emulsions Subcategory.
118	cadmium
120	copper
122	lead
124	nickel
125	selenium
(c)	Subpart C—Extrusion Subcategory.
118	cadmium
120 copper
122 lead
124	nickel
125	selenium
(d)	Subpart D—Forging Subcategory.
118 cadmium
120	copper
122	lead
124	nickel
125	selenium
(e)	Subpart E—Drawing With Neat
Oils Subcategory.
118	cadmium
120	copper
122	lead
124	nickel
125	selenium
(f)	Subpart F—Drawing With
Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory.
118 cadmium
120	copper
122	lead
124	nickel
125	selenium
-------
49148 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday, October 24, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
Appendix G—Toxic Organic Pollutants
Which Are Not Regulated at BAT and
iVSPS Because They Are Effectively
Controlled by Other Limitations and
Standards
(a)	Subpart A—Rolling With Neat Oils
Subcategory.
001	acenaphthene
022	p-chloro-m-cresol
024	2-chlorophenol
035	2.4-dinitrotoluene
037	1.2-diphenylhydrazine
038	ethylbenzene
039	fluoranthene
054	isophorone
055	naphthalene
062	N-nitrosodiphenylamine
065	phenol
066	bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
068	di-n-butyl phthalate
070	diethyl phthalate
073	benzo(a)pyrene
074	3.4-benzofluoranthene
075	benzo(k)fluoranthene
076	chrysene
077	acenaphthylene
078	anthracene
079	benzo(ghi)perylene
080	fluorene
081	phenanthrene
.082	dibenzo(a.h)anthracene
083	inder.o(1.2.3-c.d)pyrene
084	pyrene
085	tetrachloroethvlene
086	toluene
187	trichloroethylene
088	vinyl chloride
097	endosulfan sulfate
098	endrin
099	endnn aldehvde
106	PCB-1242
107	PCB-1254
108	PCB-1221
109	PC3-1232
110	PCB-1248
111	PCB-1260
112	PCB-1016
(b)	Subpart B—Rolling With
Emulsions.
001	acenaphthene
022	p-chloro-m-cresol
024	2-chlorophenol
035	2.4-dinitrotoluene
037	l.2-diphenylhydrazine
038	ethylbenzene
039	fluoranthene
054	isophorone
055	naphthalene
062	N-nitrosodiphenvlamme
065	phenol
066	bis(2-ethylhexyl]phthalate
068	di-n-butvl phthalate
070	diethyl phthalate
072	benzofa)pyrene
074	~ 3.4-benzofluoranthene
075	benzo(k)fluoranthene
076	chrysene
077	acenaphthylene.
078	anthracene
079	benzo(ghi)perylene
060	fluorene
081	phenanthrene
082	dibenzo(a.h)anthracene
083	indeno(1.2.3-c.d)pyrene
084	pyrene
085	tetrachloroethylene
086	toluene
087	trichloroethylene
088	vinyl chloride
097	endosulfan sulfate
098	endrin
099	endrin aldehyde
108	PCB-1242
107	PCB-1254
108	PCB-1221
109	PCB-1232
110	PCB-1248
111	PCB-1260
112	PCB-1018
(c)	Subpart C—Extrusion Subcategory.
001	acenaphthene
022	p-chloro-m-cresol
024	2-chlorophenol
035	2,4-dimtrotoluene
037	1,2-diphenylhydrazine
038	ethylbenzene
039	fluoranthene
054	isophorone
055	naphthalene
062	N-nitrosodiphenylamine
065	phenol
066	bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
068	di-n-butyl phthalate
070	diethyl phthalate
072	benzo(a)pyrene
074	3,4-benzofluoranthene
075	benzo(k)fluoranthene
076	chrysene
077	acenaphthylene
078	anthracene
079	benzo(ghi)perylene
080	fluorene
081	phenanthrene
082	dibenzo(a.h)anthracene
083	indeno(1.2.3-c.d]pyrene
084	pyrene
085	tetrachloroethylene
086	toluene
087	trichloroethylene
088	vinyl chloride
097	endosulfan sulfate
098	endrin
099	endnn aldehyde
106	PCB-1242
107	PCB-1254
108	PCB-1221
109	PCB-1232
110	PCB-1248
111	PCB-1260
112	PCB-1016
(d)	Subpart D—Forging Subcategory.
001	acenaphthene
022	p-chloro-m-cresol
024	2-chlorophenol
035	2.4-dinitrotoluene
037	1.2-diphenylhydrazine
038	ethylbenzene
039	fluoranthene
054	isophorone
055	naphthalene
062	N-nitrosodiphenylamine
065	phenol
066	bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
068	di-n-butyl phthalate
070	diethyl phthalate
072	benzo(a)pyrene
074	3.4-benzofluoranthene
075	benzo(k)fluoranthene
076	chrysene
077	acenaphthylene
078	anthracene
079	benzo(ghi)perylene
080	fluorene
081	phenanthrene'
082	dibenzo(a.h)anthracene
083	indeno(1.2,3-c.d)pyrene
084	pyrene
085	tetrachloroethylene
086	toluene
087	trichloroethylene
088	vinyl chloride
097	endosulfan sulfate
098	endrin
099	endnn aldehyde
106	PCB-1242
107	PCB-1254
108	PCB-1221
109	PCB-1232
110	PCB-1248
111	PCB-1260
112	PCB-1016
(e) Subpart E—Drawing With Neat
Oils Subcategory.
001	acenaphthene
022	p-chloro-m-cresol
024	2-chlorophenol
035	2.4-dinitrotoluene
037	1.2-diphenylhydrazine
038	ethylbenzene
039	fluoranthene
054	isophorone
055	naphthale'ne
062	N-nitrosodiphenylamine
065	phenol
066	bis(2-ethvlhexy!]phthalate
068	di-n-butyl phthalate
070	diethyl phthalate
072	benzo(a)pyrene
074	3.4-benzofluoranthene
075	benzo(k)fluoranthene
076	chrysene
077	acenaphthylene
078	anthracene
079	benzofghijperylene
080	fluorene
081	phenanthrene
082	dibenzo(a.h)anthracene
083	indeno(1.2.3-c.d)pyrene
084	pyrene
085	tetrachloroethylene
086	toluene
087	trichloroethylene
088	vinyl chloride
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 40, No. 206 / Monday. October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations 49149
097	endosulfan sulfate
098	endrin
099	endrin aldehyde
106	PCB-1242
107	PCB-1254
108	PCB-1221
109	PCB-1232
110	PCB-1248
111	PCB-1260
112	PCB-1016
(f)	Subpart F—Drawing With
Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory.
001	acenaphthene
022	p-chloro-m-cresol
024	2-chlorophenol
035	2.4-dinitrotoluene
038	ethylbenzene
039	fluoranthene
054	isophorone
055	naphthalene
062	N-nitrosodiphenylamine
065	phenol
06fl	bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
068	di-n-butyl phthalate
070	diethyl phthalate
074	3.4-benzofluoranthene
075	benzo(k)fluoranthene
076	chrysene
077	acenaphthylene
078	anthracene
079	benzo(ght)perylene
080	fluorene
081	phenanthrene
082	dibenzo(a.h)anthracene
083	indeno(1.2,3-c.d)pyrene
084	pvrene
085	tetrachloroethyiene
086	toluene
087	trichloroethylene
088	vinyl chloride
097	endosulfan sulfate
098	endrin
099	endrin aldehvde
106	PCB-1242
107	PCB-1254
108	PCB-1221
109	PCB-1232
110	PCB-1248
111	PCB-1260
112	PCB-1016
A	new Part 467 is added to 40 CFR to
read	as follows:
PART 467—ALUMINUM FORMING
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
General Provisions
St'C
467 l Applicability.
467 2 General definitions
467 3 Monitoring and reporting
requirements.
467.4 Compliance date for PSF.S
Subpart A—Rolling With Neat Oils
Subcategory
407 10 Applicability, description of thv
rolling with neat oils subcategory.
467.11 Specialized definitions
Sec.
467 12 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
467.13	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
467.14	New source performance standards.
467.15	Pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
467.16	Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
467.17	Effluent limitations representating
the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control
technology |Reserved|.
Subpart B—Rolling With Emulsions
Subcategory
467.20	Applicability: description of the
rolling with emulsions subcategory.
467.21	Specialized definitions.
467.22	Effluent'limitetions representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
467.23	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
467.24	New source performance standards.
467.25	Pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
467.26	Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
467 27 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the appiicaton of the best conventional
pollutant control technology [Reservedj.
Subpart C— Extrusion subcategory.
467 30 Applicability: description of the
extrusion subcategory.
467 31 Specialized definitions.
467.32	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
467.33	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
467.34	New source performance standards.
467.35	Pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
467.36	Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
467 37 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology |Reserved|.
Subpart D—Forging Subcategory
467 40 Applicability: description of forging
subcategory.
467.41	Specialized definitions.
467.42	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
|Reserved|.
467 43 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable
jReserved).
Sec.
467.44	New source performance standards.
467.45	Pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
467 46 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
467 47 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology [Reserved].
Subpart E—Drawing With Neat OUs
Subcategory
467,50 Applicability, description of the
drawing with neat oils subcategory.
467 51 Specialized definitions.
467.52	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the'application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
467.53	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
467 54 New source performance standards.
467.55	Pretreatment standards for existing
sources.		
467.56	Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
487.57	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology [Reserved].
Subpart F—Drawing With Emulsions or
Soaps Subcategory
467 60 Applicability; description of the
drawing with emulsions or soaps
subcategory.
467 61 Specialized definitions.
467 62 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
467 63 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
467.64	New source performance standards.
467.65	Pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
467.66	Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
467 67 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology |Reserved],
Authority: Sees. 301. 304 (b). (c). (e). and
(g). 306 (bl and (c), 307 and 501. Clean Water
Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972. as amended by Clean
Water Act of 1977 (the "Acf): 33 U.S.C. 131]
1314 (b). (c). (e). and (g). 1316 (b) and (c). 1317
(b) and (c). and 1361: 88 Stat. 816. Pub. L. 92-
500. 91 Stat. 1567. Pub. L 95-217.
General Provisions
§ 467.01 Applicability.
(a) Aluminum forming includes
commonly recognized forming
operations such as rolling, drawing,
extruding, and forging and related
operations such as heat treatment,
casting, and surface treatments. Surface
-treatment of aluminum is any chemical
7^2 - %
1
-------
49150 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 206 / Monday, October 24. 1983 / Rules and regulations
or electrochemical treatment applied to
the surface of aluminum. Such surface
reatment is considered to be a part of
aluminum forming whenever it ia
performed as an integral part of
aluminum forming. For the purposes of
this regulation, surface treatment of
aluminum is considered to be an integral
part of aluminum forming whenever it is
performed at the same plant site at
which aluminum is formed and such
operations are not considered for
regulation under the Metal Finishing
provisions of 40 CFR Part 433. Casting
aluminum when performed as an
integral part of aluminum forming and
located on-site at an aluminum forming
plant is considered an aluminum
forming operation and is covered under
these guidelines. When aluminum
forming is performed on the same site as
primary aluminum reduction the casting
shall be regulated by the nonferrous
metals guidelines if there is no cooling
of the aluminum prior to casting. If the
aluminum is cooled prior to casting then
the casting shall be regulated by the
aluminum forming guidelines.
fb) This part applies to any aluminum
forming facility, except for plants
identified under paragraph (c) of this
section, which discharges or may
discharge pollutants to waters of the
United States or which introduces or
may introduce pollutants into a publicly
Tied treatment works.
.c) This part is applicable to indirect
discharging aluminum forming plants
that extrude less than 3 million pounds
of product per year and draw, with
emulsions or soaps, less than 1 million
pounds per year.
Note.—This paragraph is promulgated as
an Interim Rule.
§ 467.02 General definitions.
In addition to the definitions set forth
in 40 CFR Part 401. the following
definitions apply to this part:
(a)	Aluminum forming is a set of
manufacturing operations in which
alummum and aluminum alloys are
made into semifinished products by hot
or cold working.
(b)	Ancillary operation is a
manufacturing operation that has a large
flow, discharges significant amounts of
pollutants, and may not be present at
every plant in a subcategory, but when
present is an integral part of the
aluminum forming process.
(c)	Contact cooling water is any
wastewater which contacts the
alummum workpiece or the raw
materials used in forming aluminum.
(d>-Confj'.nuous casting is the
production of sheet, rod. or other long
shapes by solidifying the metal while it
is Heing poured through an open-ended
mold using little or no contact cooling
water. Continuous casting of rod and
sheet generates spent lubricants and rod
casting also generates contact cooling
water.
(e)	Degassing is the removal of
dissolved hydrogen from the molten
aluminum prior to casting. Chemicals
are added and gases are bubbled
through the molten aluminum.
Sometimes a wet scrubber is used to
remove excess chlorine gas.
(f)	Direct chill casting is the pouring
of molten aluminum into a water-cooled
mold. Contact cooling water is sprayed
onto the aluminum as it is dropped into
the mold, and the aluminum ingot falls
into a water bath at the end of the
casting process.
(g)	Drawing is the process of pulling
metal through a die or succession of dies
to reduce the metal's diameter or alter
its shape. There are two aluminum
forming subcategories based on the
drawing process. In the drawing with
neat oils subcategory, the drawing
process uses a pure or neat oil as a
lubricant. In the drawing with emulsions
or soaps subcategory, the drawing
process uses an emulsion or soap
solution as a lubricant
(h)	Emulsions are stable dispersions
of two immiscible liquids. In the
aluminum forming category this is
usually an oil and water mixture.
(i)	Cleaning or etching is a chemical
solution bath and a rinse or series of
rinses designed to produce a desired
surface finish on the workpiece. This
term includes air pollution control
scrubbers which are sometimes used to
control fumes from chemical solution
baths. Conversion coating and anodizing
when performed as an integral part of
the aluminum forming operations are
considered cleaning or etching
operations. When conversion coating or
anodizing are covered here they are not
subject to regulation under the
provisions of 40 CFR Part 433, Metal
Finishing.
(j) Extrusion is the application of
pressure to a billet of aluminum, forcing
the aluminum to flow through a die
orifice. The extrusion subcategory is
based on the extrusion process.
(k) Forging is the exertion of pressure
on dies or rolls surrounding heated
aluminum stock, forcing the stock to
change shape and in the case where dies
are used to take the shape of the die.
The forging subcategory is based on the
forging process.
(1) Heat treatment is the application of
heat of specified temperature and
duration to change the physical
properties of the metal.
(m) In-process control technology is
the conservation of chemicals and water
throughout the production operations to
reduce the amount of wastewater to be
discharged.
(n) Neat oil is a pure oil with no or
few impurities added. In aluminum
forming its use is mostly as a lubncant.
(o) Rolling is the reduction in
thickness or diameter of a workpiece by
passing it between lubricated steel
rollers. There are two subcategories
based on the rolling process. In the
rolling with neat oils subcategory, pure
or neat oils are used as lubricants for
the rolling process. In the rolling with
emulsions subcategory, emulsions are
used as lubricants for the rolling
process.
(p) The term Total Toxic Organics
(TTO] shall mean the sum of the masses
or concentrations of each of the
following toxic organic compounds
which is found in the discharge at a
concentration greater than 0.010 mg/1:
p-chloro-m-cresol
2-chlorophenol
2.4-dim'rotoluene
1.2-diphenyihydraarxe
ethybienxene
fluoranthene
isophorone
napihalene
N-mtrosodipHenylamine
phenol
benzo(a|pyrene
benzo(ghi)perylene
(luorene
phenanthrene
dibenzo(a.h)anthracene
tndeno(l,Z.3-c.d)pyrene
pyrene
letrachloroethylene
toluene
tnchloroethyiene
vinyl chloride
endosulfan sulfate
bis(2-«thyl
hexyDphthalate
diethylpmhaJate
3.4-benzoPiuoranthen*
bento(k)fluoranrhene
chryiene
aeenaphtbyiene
anthracene
di-n-butyl phihaUie
endrin
endnn aldehyde
PCB-1242. 1254. 1221
PCB-1232. 124A. 126a
1019
acenaphthene
(q) Stationary casting is the pouring of
molten aluminum into molds and
allowing the metal to air cool.
(r) Wet scrubbers are air pollution
control devices used to remove
particulates and fumes from air by
entraining the pollutants in a water
spray.
(s) BPT means the best practicable
control technology currently available
under Section 304(b)(1) of the Act.
ft) BAT means the best available
technology economically achievable
under Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act.
(u) BCT means the best conventional
pollutant control technology, under
Section 304(b)(4) of the Act.
(v) NSPS means new source
performance standards under Section
306 of the Act,
(w) PSES means pretreatment
standards for existing sources, under
Section 307(b) of the Act.
(x) PSiMS means pretreatment
standards for new sources, under
Section 307(c) of the Act.
(y) The production normalizing mass
(/kkg) for each core or ancillary
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday, October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations 49151
operation is the mass (off-kkg or off-lb)
processed through that operation.
(z) The term off-kilogram (off-pound)
shall mean the mass of aluminum or
aiurrunum alloy removed from a forming
or ancillary operation at the end of a
process cycle for transfer to a different
machine or process.
9 467.03 Monitoring and reporting
requirements.
The following special monitoring and
reporting requirements apply to all
facilities controlled by this regulation.
(a)	Periodic analyses for cyanide as
may be required under Part 122 or 403 of
tLis chapter are not required when both
of the foiiow'ng conditions are met:
(1)	The f.r;t wastewater sample of
each calender year has been analy-ed
and found to contain less than 0.07 mg/1
cyanide.
(2)	The owner or operator of the
aluminum forming plant certifies in
writing to the POTW authority or permit
issuing authority that cyanide is not and
will not be used in the aluminum
process.
(b)	As an alternative to monitoring
procedure for pretreatment, the POTW
user may measure and limit oil ar.d
grease to the levels shown in
pretreatment standards in lieu of
measuring and regulating total toxic
organics (TTO).
(c)	The "month'y averagp" regulatory
values shall be the basis for the monthly
average discharge limits in direct
discharge
§ 467.04 Compliance date for PSES.
The compliance date for Pretreatment
Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) is
October 24. '983.
Subpart A—Rolling With Neat Oils
Subcategory
| 467.10 Applicability, description ot the
rolling with neat oils subcategory.
This subpart applies to d'schargss of
pollutants to waters cf the United
States, and introductions of pollutants
into pu'oiiciv owned tre^ment v\oiks
from the core and the anc !!a-y
operations of the rolling vw:h neat oils
subcategory.
§467.11 Specialized defir.'tions
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) The "core" of the rolling with neat
oils subcategory shall include rolling
using neat oils, roll grinding, sawing,
annealing, stationary casting,
homogenizing artificial aging,
degreasing. and stamping.
(b) The term "ancillary operation"
shall mean any operation not previously
included in the core, performed on-site,
following or preceding the rolling
operation. The ancillary operations shall
include continuous rod casting,
continuous sheet casting, solution heat
treatment, cleaning or etching.
§467.12 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations far the
core operation and for the ancillary
operations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available:
Subpart A
Core Without an Annealing Furnace
Scrubber
Poikjiant or pollutant property
1 BPT effluent wwiatiens
(Of !

Mgyoii-kg (pounds per/m*

l«on oH-pcunds> of a'urm*

num routed r««i oils
Cfi'omium
0 0360! 0 0U7
Cyanide
! 0 0237 0 0096
Zinc
I 0 119 i 0 0496
Aluminum
, 0 525 ' 0 2*7
Oil and Grease
i 1 634 ' 0 980
Solids
i 3M i 1 W3
P* . .
(') (M
W'thin the rt»n$t uf ? 0 » 10 at ail rimes
Subpart A
Core With on Annealing Furnace
Scrubber
EPT effluent nm'tauona
?ckita«» or poihittm property
Maximum 'or
any 1 day

Mg/ott-hg (pounds per/mil.

won ott*ocufld)
ot mum*

num roiled wttn
neat orfs
Chronium
,i 0 0244
0010
Cvantde
. . . ; Q 0161 I
0,0067
Zmc
.. - a0606 i
0 0338
Aluminum
! 0 356 !
0 174
Oil and Greese
... I 111 |
0664
Suspended So"ds
2 27 |
1 079
pH ...
-i (¦) ;
r j
Wiihtn the mage of
: 0 to 10 ai all timet

Subpart A
Continuous Sheet Casting Spent
Lubricant
9PT effluent brniiaoons
Pc<*j«f* or DOUutant property
Maximum fa
any 1 flay
Max«mum »o»
montn'y
i average
Mg/off-kg (pounds per/mu-
won 0*-oound) of tiumi
num sneet cast by'sort-
tmuou* metroes
Cmomum
Cyanide
Zinc
Kkjmn.j*>
Oil and Grease
Suaoenoeo $o*ot
pH
0 00006
000057
0 0029
0 0127
0 0393
00605
(')
0 00035
QOOOii
C 0012
0 006?
0 0236
0 0383
O
' Vt itrun the ranjje o' " 0 io 10 «t dll times
Subpart A
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water
B^T effluent iimitat-ons
Ptfbtan or pottbnm property
i Maximum tor
| any i day
1 Maximum for
j monthly
I average
Wyott-kg (pounds per/md-
bon of-pound) ot aturro-
Chrorwum
Cyanioe
Zmc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
Suspended Sotos
pn
Within the range of 7 0 to 10
Subpart A
Cleaning or Etching Bath
num quenched
3 39 '
1 39
2.2 4 1
0 93
M 25 .
4.70
49 55
24 20
>S4 10
92.46
31591 .
150 25
(M
i! hU nmti
SPT effluent limitations
"sn-um or ponuiari wooerty MjJ1|Tm ^
any 1 oay
Maximum for
mo ntly
average
Ug/oN-kg (pounds permit-
non ort-oouno)
rvn
of afurm-
v eterwd
Maximum 'or
mon:niy
average
Chromium
0 079
0 032
Cyanide
0 052
0.022
Zinc
0 262 I
0 HQ
Aluminum
1 15 l
0 £62
Chi anc Grease
3 58 :
2 15
Susoerroea So'-as
7 34
3 49
DM . .
(')
0)
1 \Suhtn 'he range of * 0 to 10 4t <
-------
49152 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday. October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart A
'eaning or Etching Rinse

8PT effluent fcwfeone
Poauont or poflutant property
Mawnum for
Maxnon for

any i day
average

Mg/oftkg (pounda par

Bon off-poundat of dun»

num cleaned or ecned

6 12
2.51
Cyarwde . 			...
4.04
1.67
Zinc -				
20 31
6.49
Aiumnum	..	„	
69 46
43.60
Oi and Qreeae				
27S24
166 99
Suspended Soads 			
570 39
271 29
PH 		 	
n
(l>
1 WKfw in* rang* <* 7 0 <0 10 it «J unci.
Subpart A
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor
8PT	jmwinoni
Poiluiam or pofcitant property
Mannmm for
any t day
Clvomun		
Cyanide		 		
Zinc -			I
Atunwum 					 . I
(X and Grease				.[
SuaperxM Sofada	..	
PH 			
700 I
23 22
102 2*1
319 00 {
65t 30 i
n I
<* 7 0 10 10 U 0 MTWS.
s ^/.13 Effluent limitation* representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by me application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
Except as provided in 40 CFR
§§ 125.30-125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
The mass of pollutants m the core and
ancillary operations' process
wastewater shall not exceed the
following values:
Subpart A
Core Without an Annealing Furnace
Scrubber
9AT eHhjett
uftromivtfn ..
Cvamoe " .
Zinc
Subpart A
Core With an Annealing Furnace
Scrubber
Subpart A
Continuous Sheet Casting Spent
Lubricant
Mumun tor
Poautant or poflutawt property
Mg/off-kg (pounds par
ikon oH-poundai of awn-
nun* cieened or etcfled
BAT affluent imtaoona.
Maxirrum for
any 1 day
2.86
1 91
970
49 93
190.60
31005
o
Chnrmunt	
Cy**de	...	
Zinc	
AJurwtum	
1
1
000066 |
000057 |
000267 !
0.0127
Subpart A
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water
BAT affluent ivmuaons
Oomun .
Cyanide. .
Zsrc . ...
AJumnum
r
0 097 !
0 591 [
2 974 I
13 10 I

Subpart A
Chaning or Etching Bath
8>T effluent 'imitations
°o«u!ant or pollutant proo®^y : Ma,lfniim t3f ^axtmum for
• anv t oav . rT>omf>*
.	* average
Mg/o« hg ipounot per m*
uo*i oM oeunos) of afurra-
num roiled «*n neal ode
?? lutant or ootMarn prowry
1 Maximum for
any 1 day
0 C36 i	0.0^5
0 024!	00096
0 119'	0C50
0 525,	0.257
Qvomum
Cyanide
Zinc
AJuninum ,
0 079	I
0	052	|
0262	!
1	i5l	i
0 032
0 022
0 109
0 562
Subpart A
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Mg/off-kg (peurali par n»
ton ofl-ooundu at im
num DMd wm mm om

SAT effluent Hmtasons
Poflutam or po
num rolled neat ods
i Mwnum (or
montnty
average
Mg/ort-kg (pounoa oer m*
ion off-poundsi of aiurv-
num cleaned y etcr*d
Cnrorrwjm
0 030
00:23
Crtmde
0016
0CO65
Zirc .
0064
0 0343
Aiummum
0 499
0 221
Oil an4 /ease
0017
0317
Susoenoed ootids .
t 225
0 960
pH
VI
Vi
',vi»r.»n ranQe of ? 0 to 10 at a# amee.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday. October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations 49153
Subpart A
Core With an Annealing Furnace
Scrubber
I	NSPS
PoUuunt or pahjam property j	lQ) ; Maximum tor
	! 'n»id^ ! as
Mg'off-kg (pounds per mil-
lion off-ocunos) of aturv
num rotted with mm <#%
Chromium . . . —!
C/anide 	
Lnc
Aluminum ..
0*1 and grease.
Suspended sobd* - _ ..... i
PH		
0 021 !
0011
0 057
0338 '
0 553 t
0630
(')
0.0063
00044
0 023
0 150
0 553
0664
(')
1 wnftn the range of 7 0 to 10 at a» times.

Subpart A


Continuous Sheet Casting Spent
Lubricant

NSPS
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any i day
Maximum for
momny
average

Mg/ofl4g (pounds per ny.
ton off-poundal of aium*
num cast
C!vom»jm .
Cyanide	 _
Zinc	 	
Alymmum
Oti and grease. . ..
Suspended soitos				
pH 				
0 00073
0.00039
0.0020
0012
0 0197
0 0295
(')
000029
0.00C16
0 00062
00053
0019
0 022
V)
1 Within the range ot 7 Q to 10 at afl times

Subpart A


Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water

NSPS
Poflutant or pollutant property
Mavmum for
artf \ day
Maximum for
momny
average

Mg/otf-kg (pounds per mrf-
ton off-pounds) of aturm-
o^encned
Chromium 		 	 	
Cyarxse 	... .
^ 	-	-•••
Alumnum 		
OI and grease		
Suapended 		_
P« 		 -	r
0 76
0 41
2.06
1i45
20 37
30.S6
0.31
0.17
066
5 52
20 37
24 45
(»)
»Witrw) the range o< 7 0 to to at atf mun
Subpart A
Cleaning or Etching Beth
NSPS
Poiiutaru o( poiluurt proexny
fix
any i day
Mawmum for
morthy
average
Mg/oM-Kg (pounds par ma-
lion otf-oounus) of aiuriv
run
Chromium . . .
Cyar»oe
Zee 	
Mmnim .
CM a no grease ...,
Suspended sows
PH _ .......
0.066
0 036
0	I S3
1	094
1	79
2	69
(M
0 027
0015
0075
0 465
t 79
2.15
0)
1 \Mmin tne raage of 7 0 to 1C at aH br
Subpart A
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Po*UUnt o* poflutsnt property
Manmum for
any 1 day
Chromium 		]
0 52
0.21
r.yanrta ,
0.28
0 11
Zinc		 -		j
1 42
0.59
Ai^r»nyin ... , |
850
370
Orf and grease 		 .... 1
1391
13.91
ed
Clwmufl
0715
029
C.ymnhm
0 367
0 16
Zcnc	
1 97
0.81
Akjrr^tjm 	 			
11 81
SJ4
na Tti grM* .
1933
10.33
Suapenrtefl toMt
29.00
23^0
^ 				-
<¦)
(')
1 Wittwi me range of 7 0 to 10 at a* omee.
§ 467.15 Pre treatment standard* for
existing sources.
Except as provided in 40 CFR § § 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart which introduces
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
CFR Part 403 and achieve the following
pretreatment standards far existing
sources. The mass of wastewater
pollutants in aluminum forming process
wastewater introduced into a POTW
shall not exceed the following values:

PSES
Pollutant or pottutant property
Manmum for
any 1 day
Uwaia tor
monfftfy
average
Mg/off-fcg (pounda per tnd-
Sen off-pounds) oi atun*
num cast
Chrofiaun. 	
0.00066
000035
Cyaride		 ..
0.00057
000024
Zinc. 			 						 .
00029
0.0012
TTO	 	
00014

Off and grease (aflamate morv


itonng parameter) 	
0.040
0 024
Subpart A
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water

PSES
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum tor
¦r»y l day
Maamum for
etonO^y
average
MQJoa fcnn* p«r it*.
ton efteouiW ot
num quancMd
Oremum	acao >	0.37
Cytnot		0 59 J	Oi*
Zinc			2 96 l	t.
TTO...	141 I	
-------
49154 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday. October 24, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

PSES
tutaffl or potlutani propany
Maximum for
any day
Manmum for
ftaraja
CM tnd gnaw (altama* man-
Kormg [unman	
4Q74
24.48
SubpartA


Cleaning or Etching Bath


PSES
PoAitan or pa«utara propany
Manmum for
any 1 day
Manmum lor
montWy
average

Mg/oft-kg (poimii par ma-
Hon off-pounds) ol atun»>
num cleaned or etcfted


0.032
0.022
0109
Cymtw* . .
0 052
0.263
a 124

rm
OH tnd grease (attamata mon-
itoring ptfurmgf)	 ....
3 58
113
Subpart A


Cleaning or Etching Rinse


PSES
Pollutant or poButant propany
Manmum (or
* day
Manmun for
montNy
average

Mg/oM-kg (pounds par m4»
tort ott-potfida) at akjn*>
nun cleaned or atcfted
L «KTI				
Cyarade				
Zinc 		
TTO	-		
O and graaaa (alternate mon.
itonng paramaten	
061
0 41
203
096
27 32
0.29
017
085
16.69
Subpart A


Cleaning or Etching Scrubber


PSES
Pollutant or poflutam property
Maximum for
any day
Manmum for
montrty
aweraga

Mg/off-fcg (pounds par mi-
ton off-pounds) of Hun*
num cleaned or etched
Chronwum		
Cyanide		
Zmc » 		
TTO			
Ql and grease (alternate mon*
•tonng parameter)	
0	85
056
Z82
1	34
36/
0.35
023
1 16
23.20
§467.16 Pretroatment standard* for new
sources.
Except as provided in 40 CFR § 403.7.
any new source subject to this subpart
which introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for new sources. The mass of
v ->water pollutants in aluminum
forming process wastewater introduced
into a POTW shall not exceed the
following values:
Subpart A
Core Without an Annealing Furnace
Scrubber
PSNS
Pollutant or pollutant property
Manmum for
any day
Manmum for
monthly
average

Mg/ofMtg (poundi par ma»
ton off-pounds) oi aton*
num rotted naat oifa
Chromum		
0.030
0017
0013
0 007
0.03S
0.617


Oil and graaaa (alternate mon-
rtonng parameter)..........,,.... ..
0097
0617
Subpart A
Core With an Annealing Furnace
Scrubber

PSNS
PoButant or poeutam property
Mammum for
Manmum for

any i day
auerege
Mg/off-kg (pound! par n*-
ton oft-pounda) of but*
num roaea neat oris
nftrtmum
0021
0.009
nyaMrt*
0011
0009
7ifits
0.097
0.024
TTO
0.038
_	_
04 and gratsa (aRamate moiv


itonng parameter)	 		
0.54
0.54
Subpart A
Continuous Sheet Casting Lubricant

PSNS
PoOutant or pofcrtant pioparTy
Manmum for
Manmum for

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 208 / Monday, October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations 49155
§ 467.17 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the beat conventional
pollutant control technology [Reserved!.
Subpart B—Rolling With Emulsions
Subcategory
§ 467JO Applicability; description of the
rolling with emulsions subcategory.
This subpart applies to dischargers of
pollutants to waters of the United States
and introductions of pollutants into
publicly owned treatment works from
the core and the ancillary operations of
the rolling with emulsions subcategory.
5 467.21 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart
(a)	The "core" of the rolling with
emulsions subcategory shall include
rolling using emulsions, roil grinding,
stationary casting, homogenizing,
artificial aging, annealing, and sawing.
(b)	The term "ancillary operation"
shall mean any operation not previously
included in the core, performed on-site,
following or preceding the rolling
operation. The ancillary operations shall
include direct chill casting, solution heat
treatment, cleaning or etching, and
degassing.
5 467.22 Effluent (imitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
Subpart B
Core
Pollutant or ooMuunt property
OPT effluent tamtasons
Maiomum for
«ny 1 day
Chromium 	
0057
0.024
C/antde 	-	
0.038
0018
Zinc 	-	
019
0.079
Aiuminum 	
OS*
0 408
Oil and grease		 ...
260
1 58
Suspended sofcds	-	
5.33
2.53
PH .
<')
V\
1 Wtftm the rang* ol70tci00aiaH times
Subpart B
Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling
Water

BPT effluent hmtaftoRS
PoMant or poNutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Maxvnum for
monthly
oarage
Mg/otMig (pounds per md-
fcon o*

1 Wthn the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at ad Ma.
Subpart B
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water

8PT eMuem Hmtaoona
Poflutant or poOutant piupeny
Maiomum for
Maximum for

any 1 day
average
Mg/off-fcg tpounda par
ion off-pow*Js) of
num quenched
		
3.39
139
Cyanide 	
224
093
7Wv
11 25
4.70
Uiwun
49.55
24 20
OH and grease..			
164 10
92.46
Suapended solids...—
315.91
150-25
pH _
<')
(')
1 Witftn tha range of 7 0 to 100 at ail bmes.
Subpart B
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Maximum tor
monthfy
average
Mg/off*g (pounds per mri-
fcon off-pounds) of alum*-
nurn retted iwth emuis«>ns

BPT effluent kraiations
Poautant or poiutant property
Maximum for
Maximum tor

any i day
average

Mg/off-kg (pounda per m*.

hon off-pounds) of aium*

rum oeani
id or etched
Chromum 		 	
0 079
0 032
Cyande		.	
0052
0.022
r«c		....		
0.262
0 109
AhtfTWXBTl	..	
1 15
0.562
Od and grease .. 	 ...
356
2.15
Suspended sows.				
734
349
PH 				
(')
(')
1 Wrtfrn me range of70toi0 0ttall ttmes.
Subpart B
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Pollutant or poMutant property
SPT effluent twmaoona
Maximum for
•ny 1 day
PoUuttni or poflutant property
BPT effluent Hmrta&ons
Manmum for
any day
Maximum tor
montMy
average
Cyande 			 —•
404
1 67
Zinc-	..		—
20 31
8 49
AJumnum . 		
69.48
43 69
Oi and greaae ..... • —
278 24
166 95
Suspended sohds.	
570 39
27129
PH 	........			
C)
(')
' Wrtfw the range of 7 0 to 10 0 al a« omes. *
Subpart B
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor
Potk/tam or potfutanf property
BPT efttvent limtationa
Mazorum for
mt 1 day
! Majnmum tor
1 monthfy
I average
Mg/ort-ng (pounds per me-
fcon off-pounds) of aturrw-
num
Chromwm...
Cyande..
Zinc..
Ataninum
OH
Suspended
pH	
7.00
266
4.61
1 91
23.22
9 70
103 24
49 93
916 00
190.80
661 90
310.05
<»>
{')
of 7 0 to 10.0 at all
S 487.23 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the beet available
technology economically achievable.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best available technology
economically achievable. The discharge
of process wastewater pollutants from
the core shall not exceed the values set
forth below:
Subpart B
Core
Pooutam or potfmant property
BAT effluent kmrtaoon*
Maximum tor
any 1 day
Maximum lor
montnty
| average
Mg/off-kg (pounds per mi-
kon off-pounds) of alumi-
num rotted with emutMyrt
Chromajm. . .. 		_	
0057
0024
Cyanide 	 -			
0038
0 016
Zinc 		
0 19
0079
AJumnum ... 		
084
041
Maximum for
monthfy
average
Mg/off-kg (pounds per mrt-
hon off-pounds) of alum*
num cleaned or etched
6.12 I
2 51
-------
49156 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 206 / Monday, October 24, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart B
ect Chill Casting Contact Cooling
Water

BAT effluent Nmrtations
Podutant or poiuanl propaity
Maximum for
any 1 day
Maarman lor
monthly
avaraga
C*rOJrvum.
Cyanide	
Ztnc . .
Alunvnum
0 59
0 24
039
0.19
1 94
0.81
855
4 18
Subpart B
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor
Mg/ofMq (pound* par md-
lion ofl-pounds) of akat*>
num cast

BAT «fftuent Bmitaoone
Pollutant or poOutant property
Uaomum for
Mawmum for

any day
avaraga

Mg/otWtg (pounds par m*.

Bon off-pounds) at slum*

num cleaned or etched
Oromgm ... 		
0.89
0.3S

056
0.23
Tine
282
1.18
Akanmm
12.43
8.07
Subparts
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water

BAT Effluent Limuaaona
Pollutant or podutant property
Maximum (or
any day
Maxtmum for
monthly
s>araga
Mg/ofUtg (pounds per mi-
Bon pounds) of atumrum
quenched
S. ^art B
Cleaning or Etching Bath

BAT affluent Hmrtaoona
PoUutamor pollutant property

Maximum for

any 1 day
inuiBtj!
average
Chromum 	 . 	
0 079
0.032
Cvarode . . 	 	 .
0 052
0.022
Zinc 	 		
028
0 109
Aluminum 			
1 15
0 573
Subpart B
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
BAT effluent limitation*
Pollutant or poOutant property
Maximum tor
•ny 1 day

Mg/off-Kg (pounds oe
r md-

ton otf-pounds) of
slur*

fun cleaned or «
itched
Ovocrmim 			
0 81 |
0.25
Cyartda 				....	
041 \
0 17
Zinc . 			 .. .
203 I
0.89
Aiummum	 			
895 |
4 37
§ 467.24 N«w aourc* performance
standards.
Any new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the fallowing
performance standards. The discharge
of process wastewater pollutants from
the core shall not exceed the values set
forth below;
Subpart B
Core

NSPS
PoOutant or poOutant pioperty
Mcamum for
any 1 day
Manmum tar
monthly
avaraga
Mg/ofl-kg (pounds par md-
ton oH

bon off-pounds) ot stun*

num dear*
Kt or etched
Chromum		....
0 52
0 21
Cyantde..~			
028
0,11
zlnc	
1 42
059
Aluminum 			
850
3 77
Od and grease			
13.91
13.91
Suspended scale 	
20 87
18.70
pH .... - 	 . 		
H
n
'Wiihio the rang* of 7 0 to 10 0 tl all timet
Subpart B
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor

NSPS
Pollutant or pollutant property
Manmum for
any 1 day
Maximum for
monthly
average
Mg/ofM
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 206 / Monday. October 24, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 49157
NSPS
Poftrtant or poflutant p»werty
Maximum for
any t fey
Ufiomum for
monthly
Mfiqi
Alunwn..
Oil «nd grease.
Suspended soads...
pM 		
11 81
1933
29.00
O
5.24
1933
23 20
n
'Wutua lh» range of 74) to 10J5 •» all time*
9 467.25 Pretreatment ttandards (or
existing sources.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13. any existing source subject
to this subpart which introduces
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
CFR Part 403 and achieve the following
pretreatment standards for existing
sources. The mass of wastewater
pollutants in aluminum forming process
wastewater introduced into a POTW
shall not exceed the following values:
Subpart B
Core

PSES
Poitutom or podutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Maxmum lor
monthly
average
Ownum 					
0057
0 024
Cyantde	..	...
0 038 !
0.016
Zinc 			
0190
0 079
TTO 	
0090 L

0<> and grease (alternate morv
I

Konng parameter)		
2.50 !
1 56
Subpart B
Diract Chill Casting Contact Cooling
Water
PSES
Poflutant or pedant property
Maximum for
any i day
CJwomwm 	
059 I
024
Cyartde 	
039 j
0 16
Z*>c		...»	... .
1 94
0B1
TTO 	
092 \

Od and grease (alternate mon-


rtonng pffameter) 			
26 58 |
1535
Subpart B
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water

PSES
Poflutant or poflutant gruperry
Manmurn for
Manmum for

any 1 day
average

Mg/ofMtg (pounds per mil-

Ion oM-pounds) of aJumr-

run quenched
Orrjm"* 	
0.90
037
Cyantfe			
056
0.25
zmc		
2.98
1.24
TTO 	..~	 	
1 41
	..	
0* and yaaae (anemata morv



num deansd or
Mg/oft-kg (pounds per
ton off-pourds) of alumi.
num rolled wrtfi emuteon*
Chromrum ...	 -
0.079
0.032
Cyanide	
0052
0.022
7inc ,, 	
0.262
0109
TTO			_	
0.124
		
OH and grease {aftemste morw


(tonng persmeter)— 	
158
ZM
Chromajm . . ..			
0 04fl|
0 020
Cyweda		
0.029
0011
Zinc		
0 133)
0 055
TTO	 -		 -
0.0901. -

OH and graaaa (alternate mon-


itoring parameter)	« 		
1 30
Ijq
Subpart B
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Subpart B
Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling
Water
PoUutant or poflutant property
Pottutam or pollutant property
PSNS
t<. 1t,,.IIT1| Maximum 'o*
Majormim for rTU_Lf1,KK.
an* 1 OM monthly
| Mrage
Mmmim for
•ny 1 <3*f
I Maximum for
I morttr.fy
! average
Mg/off4*g (pounds per ft»f-
Mg/off-kg (pounds per rmU
ton oft-pounds) of alum*-
nun cast Dy semconttn-
uous method!
Max«num for
montrty
I eve^ge
Mg/o*f4q (pounds par m4-
ton oft-pounos| of amir*
num cast Dy sem«on.
onuous methods

ton oft-pounds) oI ahimv



num cfeerw
id or etcftad Chromtum 	
0 49
020



0 27

ftwyrwim 	
0.61
0^5 -	—
1 36
056
Cyande 	
a4i
017 no..-	-	
0.92

Ztnc	
2 03
0 85 OH end grease (alternate morv


TTO		 			
0.96
rtonng partmatar)		...
1329
13 29





ttortng parameter)	
27 82
16 69
Subpart B
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber
Subpart B
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water

PSES

PSNS
Pofluant or podutam property
Maximum for
any 1 oay
Mcnmum for
monWy
average
Pollutant or podutam property
Maamum for
any 1 day
Majrjmuffl fo*
mortnv
ave^a^e
Mg/off-lig (pounds per tt**-
ton ofl'poundt) of alumi-
num eleansd 9 etcned
Ug/off-kg (pounds per ni-
ton oft-pouids) oil atom*
num quenched
Chromum..
Cyande	
Zsnc	
TTO.	
OH and graase (j
Honnq parameter)-
065
0-S6
2.83
1 34
38.68
035
QZi
1 16

076
031


0.17
Zinc		-

2.06
0 66
TTO	

Ml

OH and pease (al
ten iata morv

(tonng par smew
*)	
20 37
20
-------
49158 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 206 / Monday. October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart B
waning or Etching Bath

PSNS
Pollutant or poiuM property
hW:« !

mm i gey monuwy
j average
Mg/ort-fcg {pounds per mi-
ton off-pounds* of alum-
num cleaned or efehed
	
0 067
0 027
CyarwJe. .....	j
0.036
0015
/, nr
0 'S3
0075
7TO 				|
0 124
...
CM and grease (attamata morv


¦tonng parameter) 	
1 79
1 79
Subpart B
Cleaning or Etching Rinse

PSNS
Potkrtanf or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Maximum for
monthly
average
Mg/ofM*9 (pounds per mrt.
bon off-pounds) of sum*
num cleaned <
C*»omwm 			
052
021
Cyarkde 		
0.28
011
2»nc .. 					 ._j
1 42
0.59
rro			 „j
096
		 		
OH and grease (alternate mon-


itoring parameter) 			
13.91
1391
? art B
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber
PSNS
PoMutant or poftutanl property
Maximum 'or
any i day
j Maximum tor
I monthly
average
Mg/off-kg (pounds per mrt.
ton eff-pounos) of alumi-
num cleaned or etched
CJvomtum
Cva»wle . . 	
£mc .			...„ ..
rro ... ..........
Oti and grease (alternate r
itormg parameter) - •
0 72 .
0	39 |
1	97 |
t 34 1
l
19 33 :
§ 467.27 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology. (ReservedI
Subpart C—Extrusion Subcategory
$ 467JO Applicability; description of the
extrusion subcategory.
This subpart applies to discharges of
pollutants to waters of the United States
and introductions of pollutants into
publicly owned treatment works from
the core and the ancillary operations of
the extrusion subcategory.
§ 467.31 Specialized definitions.
• the purpose of this subpart:
(a)	The "core" of the extrusion
subcategory shall include extrusion die
cleaning, dummy block cooling,
stationary casting, artificial aging,
annealing, degreasing, and sawing.
(b)	The term "extrusion die cleaning"
shall mean the process by which the
steel dies used in extrusion of aluminum
are cleaned. The term includes a dip into
a concentrated caustic bath to dissolve
the aluminum followed by a water rinse.
It also includes the use of a wet
scrubber with the die cleaning
operation.
(c)	The term "ancillary operation"
shall mean any operation not previously
included in the core, performed on-site,
following or preceding the extrusion
operation. The ancillary operations shall
include direct chill casting, press or
solution heat treatment cleaning or
etching, degassing, and extrusion press
hydraulic fluid leakage.
§ 467.32 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 12S.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available:
Subpart C
Core
8PT effluent kmrtanons
029
9.16
0.81
1933
Chronsum . 			
0 16
0066
Cyande					
0.11
0 044
Zinc
053
022
Aiummum	
234
1 16
04 and veaae...—.		
728
4 37
Susoended soads.			
1492
7 t0
pH 	...... ..
(')
(')
1 Wrtfun trie range of 7 0 to 10 0 at ail tin
Subpart C
Extrusion Press Leakage
| BPT affluent hmrtauons
Pollutant or poUjtara property I
I Maximum tor
any 1 day
Crwommm 	
	 J
069
027
Cyanide .. .....
	- J
043
0 16
Zinc	- ...
-	J

090
Alwwtum
		J
951
464
Pollutant or pofiuiani property
] 0PT effluent limitations
1 Mumyn (or
On and grease . . •
1 j
j 29 56 |
17 74
Suspended sofeda....
60 60 i
28 82
PH 	
1 (,) 1
(')
1 Wrtti the range of 7 o to 10 0 at ad (vnea.
Subpart C
Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling
Water
Pouulam or pollutant property
BPT affluent kmitawa
Mftamum for
any 1 day
' Maximum for
monthly
avsraga
Mg/off-kg (pounds per mrt-
hon off-pounds) of elurw-
num cot
Chromwn. ...	

0 59
027
Cyinbt	— 	

0.39
0.16


1.94
090
Aluminum 		 ... .

055
464
(X and grease	

26 56
17 74
Suspended sohds	
.. . ...
60 60
26 62
pH 	
	
C)
(')
1 Within me range of70tof0 0atail times-
Subpart C
Press Heat Treatment Contact Cooling
Water
I 9PT effluent krmtatons
PoMuunt or potiutant property
	r
Manmum for I
vrf 1 day |
Magnum for
monthly
overage
Mg/off-kg (pounds per m*
ton off-pounds) of alum*
num Quenched
Mmjomum tor
I EES
Mg/off-kg (pounds per ma-
ton off-pounds) of aJun*.
num extruded
Chromwm . .
Cyamde
Zinc ... . . .
Aluminum 				
O and grease
Suspended sobds..
PH	 -	
3 39
2 24
U 25
49 55
154 to
315 91
(')
t 39
093
4 70
24 20
92 46
150 25
(')
> Witnm the range of 7 o to 10 0 at all rimes
Subpart C
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water
| BPT effluent limitations
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any i day
Maxsnum for
| monthfy
average
t Maximum for
monthly
| average
Mg/off-kg (pounds per mil*
lion off-pounds) of alum*
num quenched
Mg/off-kg (pounds per mil*
ton otf-oounds) of alumi-
num extruded
Chromkjm
3.39
1 39
Cyanrde
... | 2.24
0 93
Zinc	
	1 11 25
4 70
AJummum ...
-..! 49 55
24 20
0«i and grease	
' 154 tO
92 46
Suspended soads	
...J 315 91
150 25
PH 	- -	-
	1 «'»
C)
1 Wtthai the range of70tol00siaii time a.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday. October 24, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
49159
Subpart C
Cleaning or Etching Bath
3PT otfi.jM toruunoni Subpart C
BP7	limitations
Pollutant of DOUutint property ! MlaimurT1 tor Maximum tor
I any i aay 1 montm,
! T	averaoe

Mq'on-kg ,ooundS
OGf nvl>

l«r 3«-OC-ncSl
ol aiumi-

nun c'ea-ied or etched
Chromium
0 079
0 032
CvanKJc
0 052
0 022
Zinc
0 26
0 109
Alumirym
1 15
0 562
C-i ax! oisa&e
3 56 r
2 :5
Susoenoed joiuu.
7 34
3 49
P H
(M
(')
' Withtn tne 'a^ge 01 7 0 to 10 C dt alt times
Subpart C
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
BPT effluent limitations
Pollutant ot pollutant Drooerry Maximum tor ^*WTIum fo«
; •"»"«« j 3

Mg/oft-kg (pounds
oar r.rt-

nXi of1-pOunos>
Ol alurr>»-

num cleaned or atcned
Chromium
6 12
251
Cyaruoe .
4 04
f 67
Zinc
2031
e 49
Aluminum
89 46
<3 69
Ol and grea&e
, 278 24
ib€ 95
Suspended «oi*os
570 39
271 29
pH
CI i
(')
1 Withtn me range of 7 o ic i0 0 ai ad limes
Subpart C
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor
9PT *tt>uent limitations
Palatini or polluu.ni OroOSOy	lQ,
any 1 dfty
Maximum for
montfi'v
average

Ug/0H4g (pounds DftJ fT*l-

icn ofl-pounail 01
: alumt-

num cleaned or
etched
Chromium
7 00 ;
2e6
Cyanide
, 461 '
1 91
Zinc
23 22
970
Atuminum
103.24 •
49 93
Oil and grease
318 00
190 50
Suspended soirds
651 90 ,
31005
PH
(')
(')
1 Witnm tne range ot 7 0 10 10 0 at an times

Supart C


Degassing Scrubber Liquor

I any i aay
average
Poi'tjtant or poi'utant ?'C'0rl"*v
Maximum tc'
any a* y
Maximum for
mcr>tr.iy
average
Cvanioe
0 '6
0 32
Zinc
28^
159
Alunnnu/n
'6 7o
8 20
Cri and grease
52 19
3i 3i
Su&oe~dec so.ias
106 97
SO 88
pH
I11
I')
Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling
Vt'a:er
8A~ eittueiM wmwons
Poiiuiar. o' ccl'uiant property
*ny t day
averace
1 W.tmn trie range ot 7 0 to 10 C at at' nmromrum
Cyarwie
Zinc
Aluminum
C 90
0 59 1
298-1
13 10 i
0 37
0	25
1	25
6 40
Pottuiant or pollutant propeny
Uarmum for i
any t aay
Maximum for
monrhfy
average
Subpart C
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water
3AT	HrTntaoc^s
Poildtar: or pofortam property
Mwrmim Majumum
for any 1 for momr.y
day | av*ago
BPT etfluem limitations
Pollutant or pollutant property ;	(£y , Ma»mum lor
momriiy
Mg/oH-*g (pounds par mil.
taon off-pounds) of akimt-
num degassed

Mg/off-hg tpounos per mil-
lion off-oounos) of alumi-
num extruded

Mg'ort-kg (iD/miUiOn off
rosi o< alumtnum ouencned
Chromium
Cvanioe
Zir»c
Aiummum
; -0 15 '
: 0 098
049
2 18
0061
0041
021
108
Chromum
Cyarnoe
Zinc
Aluminum
090 037
0 59 0 25
2 96 125
t3 10 , 4.40
Subpart C


Subpart C

Extrusion Press Leakcge

Cleaning or Etching
Bath

8PT ernuent Wmtafions

&^T effluent limnat'c^s
Pollutant or pollutant property
Mwmumtor M^X,,0f
' "ny i Bty | ^
PoMani or poftutar.t orooeny
ttomum (or ,

Mg/o«-hg (pounds per mrf.
Hon oftsjouncsj ot aiunu*
num extruded

Mg/off-k^ (fe/miibon oft-ibs)
ot tiumirtum eieaneo or
atoned
Chromium
Cyanide ...
Zinc	 .. .
Aluminum
055 i
0 43 i
216 I
: 951;
0 27
0.16
0 90
4 73
Chromium - 	
Cyanice ... . ...
Zinc
Aluminum ....
. .! 0 079 | 0 033
-1 0.052 | ' 0.022
1 0.262 1 0 109
. | 1.15 | 056
0.47
-------
49160 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 206 / Monday, October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart C
Cleaning or Etching Rinse

BAT effluent hnmttaa
PoMutartor poMutant property
Maxrman
Mwrun

tor any i
for tnonthfy

<3*
¦wiajt
Subpart C
Extrusion Press Leakage

NSPS
PofciUrt or pofManf croperty
Maarun lor
Majomum for

any t dty
awaiage
Pofiutant or pofetant property
NSPS
Maximum tor
any day
Maximum lor
morty»r
average
AJumnum 	
12.45
5.52
CM and greaae. . 		.....
20 37
20 37
Suspended aoma		
3059
24 45
pH			
(')
(M
Mg/off4g (ib/rrwMon oft
ibtf of
cleaned or etched
rjmiwum M1-, 	
061
0-25
Cywada ... ...... 	 . .
0 41
2.03
0.17
0.06
ak -	- - -				

6.99
4J7

Subpart C
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor

BAT affluent nmrtaflona
PoNutam or poHutwM prooany
Maxanum
MajUTTMW

for any 1
for inumwy


toai of
cleaned or etched

NSPS
Poautant or pollutant propeity
Maomwn
Manmun

for any 1
for mgnthfy

<»y
average
' *67.34 New aoures performance
andante.
Any new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following
performance standards.
(a)	There shall be no discharge of
wastewater pollutants from the
degassing operation.
(b)	The discharge of wastewater
pollutants from the core shall not exceed
the values set forth below:
Subpart C
Core
CftromMit..
Cyai*de„
Zinc
Aluflwn..
0* and greaee	
Suspended aoada...
PH	
0.49
0.20
027
0.11
1 36
096
8.12
360
1329
tX29
1994
1595
C)
(M
1 Withui the range of 7 0 to 10.0 at nil urnee
Subpart C
Press Heat Treatment Contact Cooling
Water
Maximum tor
monthly
average
Mg/ott'fcg (lt>/m*on oH-fesi
ot aluminum extruded

NSP9
^ottutant or poautarft property
MjUCfTArffl
MaoTHjm

for any 1
for monthly

 si all ttme*.
Subpart C
Cleaning or Etching Bath
PoHutant or poMwtant pMoarty
	NSPS	
| ess
Mg'oft-kg (Tb/mrih©n otl-tbst
Of aJurranun cleaned or
Cftronaum 	
0 067
0 027
Cyande 	 	
0 036
0 015
Zinc	 .
0.183
0 075
AJumnum	 . _ 		
1 094
0 485
Of and grease		 .. ...
1 79
1 79
Suspended aokda.	
2.69
2 15
prt		-	-	
(M
(' >
Mg/ofMtg (to/mOon off*
bs) of afunwum cast by
of 70 to <00 at ail erne*.
Subpart C
Cleaning or Etching Rinse

NSPS
Pottuiam or poltutanf property
Maximum Maximum

for any
i | 'of mommy

day
j average
Mg/off-kg ((b/rrbfiton ot-
itis) ot atummvn
cleaned or etcned
Ovorrttum .. .
052
021
Cyande . . 		
028
on
Zinc
1 42
0 59
Aluminum	
850
3 77
O and grease	
13 91
1391
Suspended sotxtt.	
20 07
18 70
pH 			
(M
(• l
1 Wfttwi me range of70toi0 0atatl times.

Subpart C


Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor
NSPS
PoUuiant or oodutam oooery
Maximum
Maximum

'or any i
'or Ttonihly

oay
average
Mg'ofMtg (ttj/millcn off*
ibsi ot aluminum
deaneo or etcned
' Ma«tm*^n for
i rrwyitnty
I average
Qvof'um
Cwanioe	. .
2'oc	. ...
itunirtum
Oi" and areata
Suspended safes .
ot* . ..
r
0 72 i
0	39 I
1	97 j
it 01 j
19 33 j
29 00 I
<*>
0 29
0 16
081
5 24
19 33
23 20
1' 1
• w
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday. October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations 49161
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. The mass of wastewater
pollutants in aluminum forming process
wastewater introduced into a POTW
shall not exceed the following values:
Subpart C
Core
PSES
Pottutant or pollutant property
Max*mjm to
any 1 day
Mg/ott-fcg (tt>/mtfton otl-fis)
erf extruded
Chromium . ...
CyeflKJe 	
Zinc		
TTO . . 		
Oil and grease (art•mat# r
ftonng {
0 15
0.001
0030
0041
0 49
0 21
023

0.70
4 07
Subpart C
Press Hear Treatment Contact Cooling
Water
!	PSES
Pollutant of pollutant property \	(0f j Majnmum tor
j any 1 day I monlw>'
average
Mg/of*-hg (Ib/rmihoo otl-lbs)
of atumoum quenched
I Maximum tar
monthly
Chromium
Cyan*)* .
ZkK
TTO-	-.
0* and grata# (anamata morv
ftormg parameter).
090
0 s®
2.90 I
",L
40.74
0	37
025
1	25
_L
Subpart C
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water

PSES
Potfutam or podutanl property
Majnmum for
any \ day
Mammum tor
monthly
average
Subpart C
Extrusion Press Leakage

PSES
Poflutant or podutam property
Maximum
Masmum

tor any 1
tor monthly


average
Mg/OfMrg (Ib/maiton off-
to) of ertruded
Chromium . .. .
065
0 27
Cyanide		
043
0.10
Zinc 	
2 10
090
TTO			
1 02

OH and greaae (alternate mor*


tormg parameter) . 	
29.56
17.74
Subpart C
Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling
Water

PSES
Pollutant or poMent prooerty
Mcnmum
Mnnvn

toe anti
lor mommy


average
Mg/off-fcg (fc/mtflot CftT-fbS)
ol aiurrwn quenched
Owmnjm		~		
0.90
OJJ7
Cyarade......			...
0 59
029
Zinc		 	
290
1.29
TTO. 	i. 		
1 41

OH and greaae (alternate mon-


itoring parameter)		
40.74
24.45
Subpart C


Cleaning or Etching Bath


PSES
Potiutam or poflutant property
Mamn tar
Mionun tor

any day
average
Mg/ofl m flb/maaon off-fee)
at afumnwn cleaned or
Chromum
Cyarade
Zknc
»the range of 7.0 to to.o at atf Wwaa,
Mg/ofMig Ob/mAon off-
be) of afunerum cam
Chronvum 			
0J9
C-24
Cyanide				
0.39
0 10
Zinc	—		..	
1 94
0.01
TTO 	- -	- .
0.92
			
Ofl and greaae (Anamata mont-


ttvtng pmmrtari
20 58
15.95
Subpart C
Cleaning or Etching Rinse

PSES
Poltutam or polutant properly
Majnmum
Maanmum

tor any 1
lor moncrtfy

<*y
«»eiage
Mg/oft-fcg (b/mMen o«-
toe) of afarrmun
JaaiiaJ or etcned

041
041
2.03
0.94
0-25
0 17
0J8
Cyvada	
Zbc	
TTO			....
04 and greaae (
alternate morv
tonng perameti
tr)		
27.02
10 60
Subpart C
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber
PSES
Pottutam or podutam property
Maximum
1 Maximum

tor any i
1 tor momrwy

Oay
| average
Mg/otf4g (lb/miihon oft.
Iba) of iummum
cleaned or etched
Chromium	 	
0 95
0 35
Cyerwje 	
056
023
Zinc 			-	
2 82
1 18
TTO 		
1 34

Oi and greeee (alternate morv


tonng parameter) 		 .
30 06
23 20
} 467.38 PretreatiiMnt standards for new
sourc—.
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. The mass of
wastewater pollutants in the aluminum
forming process wastewater shall not
exceed the values set forth below:
Subpart C
Core

PSNS
PoUutam or poiutant property
Mcomum
Majnmum

tor any 1
for monthly

oav
average

Mg/ofl-tcg (Ib/mfhon ort-

toe) of «
nrtruded
Overman				
0.13
005
Cyenoe 				
0 07
003
Zinc .. -				
0 35
0 14
TTO 		
023

OI and Greaae (eftomaf morv


tonng parameter).. 		
340
340
Subpart C


Extrusion Press Leakage


PSNS
Pollutant or potiutam property
Maximum
Maximum

tor any 1
tor monQtty

day
average

Mg/ofMig (fe/m«ton off-

Iba) of herd alloy afum-

num eatud
ad
Ovomwm			
0 11
005
Cyande 	-	—		
006
0 03
Zinc	 	
031
0.13
TTO
0.21

QU and Greaae (aftemate morv

tonng parameter)		
Z96
296
-------
49162 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 208 / Monday. October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart C
n
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday, October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations 49163

NSPS
Pollutant or ooautant orooerty
Maximum
Maximum lor

(or any i
montnty

<*y
average
Suawtted SoMt 			
30.56
24 40
OH ... 		
V)
W
¦ Witrwi tna rang* at 7 0 to 10 « at una*
Subpart D
Cleaning or Etching Bath
NSPS
Pollutant or ootlutam property
i Magnum for
S "v"**! ass
Mg/off-kg (tt^mdion otMbe)
of afunnum cfaeneo or
Ovomum			
0.066
0 027
Cyanide 		
0.036
Q 015
Zmc 	_ ..
0 163
0 075
Aluminum 	
0 772
0 376
O and Greesa 	
1 79
1 79
Suspended Sot**	


PH	

(')
1 Wttftn (ho rang* of 7 0 to 10 at an tvna*
Subpart 0
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
NSPS
Pollutant or potfutant property
Maximum
Maximum

for any 1
for montNy

day
average
C^rormjm -		......
. ! 0 52
0 21
Cyanide 	
; 0-28
0 11
Z*>c - ...... ..
. 1 1 42
059
Aluminum 		
...; 9 oo
2.92
04 and grease 		
. -! 1391
13 91
Suspended solids	
...; 20 87
16 69
PH 		 .... . 		 	
¦ - (')
I1)
1 Wrtftm me range of 7 0 to >0 at a# omea.

Subpart D


Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor
NSPS
Pollutant or pottutant prooeny
Maximum
tor any 1
<3»y
Qvomwm ....
0 72
029
Cyarade	
0 39
0 155
Zinc 		
1 97
0312
Aiummum		.. .
833
406
CM and grease			
19 33
19 33
Suspended sofcds	_	
'29 00
1 23.20
PH 	.... ...	


1 Wrtfrn tf>e range of 7 0 lo 10 at ail emes
9 467.45 Pr«tr*atni«nt standards for
existing soutcm.
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. The mass of wastewater
pollutants in aluminum forming process
wastewater introduced into a POTW
shall not exceed the values set forth
below:
Subpart D
Core

pses
pQtatant or potfutam property
Maximum for
Maximum for

any i day
avarage

Mg/off-fcg flb/mdhon oft-tos)

of aturwum torged
Ctoomum		
0 022
0009
Cyande				
0 CIS
0 006
Zinc 	
0 073
0.031
TTO 	-		
0.095
			
OS and greeee (alternate morv


earwig parameter)		
1 00
060
Subpart D
Forging Scrubber Liquor
Mg/o*f-kg Ob/rrvffcon off>
it») of aiumnum
cteaneo or etcfted

PSES
PoOutant or podutam property
Manmum for
Majarrujn for

any 1 dey
montltdy
average

Mg/off-tig nb/m*ort off-Jbs)

of aajmnum torged
CNomMn ... 		
0042
0017
Cyande .. 			
0.028
0011
Ztnc 		
0f4
0.058
TTO 	 			
0065

0* and greeee (alternate mon-




1.13

i Minrwn for
| monthly
Subpart D
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water
Mg/off-hg {fe/mrfl»on oft*
lb*) of abmnum fleered
or atcned

PSES
PoSutant or poautant orocwrty
Masnwn ror
any day
Manmum for
montfwy
average
Chromwm		
0 896
0 37
Cyanide			
0 591
0-25
Zmc		
2.96
1.24
TTO 	
1 41
	
OH and grease (alternate mo*v


(tonng parameter)	 -
40 74
24 45
Subpart D
Cleaning or Etching Bath
PSES
PoKutam or pouutant property
U. Manmum for
W| ZS
Mg/ot14g (to'rrrifcon o*1-*»)
of amnwwm cleaned or
etcfted
Chromium 	
Cyande 		
Zinc . 		
TTO	
CM and grease (alternate mocv
tonrig parameter) 	
0.079
0052
0.26
1.23
3.58
0.032
0022
0 11
2.15
Subpart 0
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Poautant or pouutani property
PSES
Murnum
for any i
day
Manmwi
for montftfy
average

Mg/ofMig Ob/moon otu
fee) of aiurvwn
cleaned or iicfM

061
0.40
2.09
096
27.62
0.25
0.17
065
16 70
Cyande		—		
zmc	-		 ........
TTO			
Oil and grease (emmets mora*
tormg parameter!		
Subpart O
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber
Ufl/ofl-Hfl 
-------
49164 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday, October 24, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart D
Core
Subpart 0
Cleaning or Etching Rinse

PSNS


MUQ
nMW
Poftjtmt or poflutant property
MBamm for
any t day
moi
>ve
un tar
iWy
rage
PolMant or peflutant property
Mgtfnuw
tar any 1
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 206 / Monday, October 24, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 49165
Subpart E
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water

9PT effluent Bmrtabons
Poflutant or poflutani property
Msxvnum
Maximum

tor arty t
for momnfy

day
average
Mg/otf-fcg (ib/mcNon ofl-
lbs) of aJumaium Quencned
Chromium 	
3 39
1 39
Cyanoe 	
224
0.93
Zinc	
11-25
4 70
Aluminum 	
.. I 49 55
24 20
Od and Grease	
. I 15410
92 46
Suspended Soiids . ...
....1 315 91
150.25
PH	
-I n
(')
1 WRftn me range oi 7 0 to 10 at ail tomes
Subpart E
Cleaning or Etching Bath
|	 9PT effluent hmtations
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
eny t day
Maximum for
monthly
Mg/ott-*g flb/mrfkon oft-fee)
of ahimeium cleaned or
etcftad
Chron*um . .
0 079
0032
Cyanide 	
0 052
0.022
Zinc	
026
011
Aluminum ....
1 150
0 57
CM and Grease
356
2.15
Suspended Sows
734
349
pH
(M
P)
1 Wimtn the range of 7 0 to to at a» times
Subpart E
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Poautam or pooutant property
8PT effluent tarrataeona
Maxvnum
for any 1
Ma»mum
for montnty
average
04 and Graaaa	
318.00
198 80
Suspended SoMs 	 	
661 90
310.05
PH 		
(')
0)
' Wiflvi ma range of 7 o to to at as tvnea.
§ 467.53 Efflutnt limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32. any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best available technology
economically achievable. The discharge
of wastewater pollutants from the core
and ancillary operations shall not
exceed the values set forth below:
Subpart E
Core

BAT effluent,(rotations
Poikrtant or poirvta/u property
Maiomum
Maamum for

for any i
momMy

day
average

Mg/off-kg (Rj/mdhon off-

lbs) of aktmtnum drawn

won neat ott%
Chroruum 	
0 022
0009
Cyanide 	
0015
0 006
2inc 	
0 073
0 031
Alurrwtum
0.321
0 16

BAT effluent bmnaiions
PoNutant or oooutant property
Mawyn for
any 1 day
Maximum lor
monmiy
average
Zinc . 	
0.263
1 247
0 116
0 621

Subpart E


Solution Heat Treatment Contact .
Cooling Water

SAT effluent Umtatons
Poitutant or poxutam property
Maamum tor
any i day
Maximum
tor mommy
average
Mg/off-kg (tb/mAon ofl-Jbt
pounds of awnnum
qjencfted
CTvoffuum. 	
0.696
0.367
Cyanide 	
0591
0245
Zinc			
2.974
1 243
Aluminum 	
13 10
6519
Subpart E
Cleaning or Etching Bath

BAT effluent limitations
Pollutant or ootfutant prooerry
Maamum
Maxnum

for any i
tor montrey

<*y
average
Mg/off-*g (D/mrikon off-
ft* pounds of alurnou
oeanad cs etctied
Chromium.
Cyanide .
Zinc
Atummum
0	079 ;
0052 '
0.2S2 :
1	15» ,
0 032
0 022
0.109
0563
0PT effiuent bmrtauons Subpart E
Poltutam or po
-------
49166 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 206 / Monday. October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
BAT ertH-em ^m^attons

NSPS

3oituiant or pollutant propeny Maxvnun tor
! »nv 1 day moom,y
Y ' average
Pofeum or ooiiutani property
MaDonwn ; Maxan^n
for any t lor montniy
day average
Aiumtnun 		 . . 12 43 6.19
Zinc . .
AJwrwium
CM and Grease
Suspended Sonds ¦
0 196 [
165 [
939 1
2 909 !
0 062
0 526
939
2 327
§ 467.54 New source performance
standards.
pH . . -
n(
C)
VVithin (he r.ingt of TO to 10 
Withm the ran^e of 7j) to 10 it .ill limes
Subpart E
Cleaning or Etching Bath
PoUutant or podwtant property
Maximvn for
any \ day
Majtrmum tor
monthly
average
MQ/0tt>tag OO/rrwMion oTMm
of aluminum rod cast
0 0003
0 0002
00008
0006
0 02
003
(')
Cnromum
C/anide . . _
Zinc 	
Atumtnum
0*1 and Grease	
Suspended Sofcda...
PH 	
0066 t
0036 |
0	183 {
1	094 j
1 79 !
269 ¦
c> i
' Within rha ranat oi 7 o to 10 dt all times
Subpart E
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Pollutant or ooautam property
Maximum for
1 S
0029
0018
Cftrpmwn	
Cyarade	
Zinc — — . -
AHjmnuni - —
O wid Grease- ..
Suspended Sotaa
pH			
' Within the range of 7 0 to 10 nt dll time*.
Subpart E
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor
USPS
°otkitam or aorfutam property
Maximum tor
any 1 3ay
MaaiiT-j.— 'C
,-^C-tnfV
Mg/o^^g ;tb/million ort 'psl
of aluminum cleans y
etcned
Chrommm
07^5 ;
0 290
Cyanae
0 387 '
0 }55
Zinc
i 97
0912
Aluminum
M 81
5 24
Oi ano Gieiae
-.9 33
\9 33
Suspended Soeds
; 29 00 •
23 20
DH
- , (')

| Maumun for
I mcntJVy
I average
' V\ ''run the rang# of ? 0 'o in «»t nil fine*
§ 467.55 Pretreatment standards (or
existing sources.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13. any existing source sub]ect
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. The mass of wastewater
pollutants.Jn aluminum forming process
wastewater introduced into a POTW
shall not exceed the values set forth
below:
Subpart E
Core
Mg/off Kg tlb/rrmhort otl-fes)
of aluminum cleaned or
etcfted
PS6S
PpMuiani or popular* property
0 027
0 015
0.075
0	485
1	79
2.15
(M
Maximum tor
any 1 say
Mftiimtjm for
monthly
average
Mg/ott-hg (ib/owhon oft lbs)
o< atumnum 3rawn with
-•eat om
0 009
'J 006
0 031
Dvormjm -	i-	0 022 t
Cva ntde	0 015
Zinc,. . 				0 073
TTQ_				0 035',
OA and Grease (alternate
morvtormg parameter) .	'< 00 ;
Subpart E
Continuous Rod Casting Lubricant
PSES
Mg/off-*g (Ib/nwiion cfMOSi
o# afcannuni oeened or
etched
Pollutant of pollutant property
Maximum lor
any 1 day
Maximum (or
montnty
average
Mg/off-kg (tt)/mtik>o off-ibs)
of awmnum rod cast
CJvomtum-.„	
CVanrte	 	
Zjnc
TTO		.... 	I
Oi and Grease (alternate '
mpntonng parameter) . ..!
00009 1
00006 1
00029 .
00014 ;
0 040 1
00004
0 0003
00012
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday, October 24, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 49167
Subpart E
Continuous Rod Casting Contact
Cooling Water
Pollutant or potutant property
PSES
Maximum
~or any i
Maximum
•or monmty
(IC'mmton of
KM) o* alunwium rod cast

0 562
0 283 i
0 *33 |
0023
o tie
Zinc 	...	 	
TTO	_			
Oil and Greeae (aoamai
a mon-
ttrng parameter)	
* 	
3 878 j
2.327
Subpart E
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber
PS6S
PoMamor paMMm emwty
_L
Maxim iir: for
any i aay
Manmum tor
monmry
aneraQe
(b/mtllton oft-tt»)
of aluminum ctoaned or
etened
Gvtyreum ...		
0 861
OM
CyvNda 	
0 561
0232

2.62
1.16
rrn
1.33
CM and Grea» (aftamaia

mornoring parameter} ...... J
30.66
2X20
Subpart E
Continuous Rod Casting Contact
Cooling Water

PSNS
Pofetvtt or oortutani property
Maximum for
any day
Maximum for
morufvy
average

Mg/ofMig nb/mtbon o«4ba>
of aJumwxjm rod cast
Cfronwum 		„		
Cyerade. 	
Zinc	
TTO 		... _
Ori and Grease (aftamaia
u*onny parameter)	
40 74
24.45
Subpart E
Cleaning or Etching Bath
PSES
Pollutant or pottutam property
Maxtfnum for
•ny 1 
-------
49168 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday, October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
SubpartE
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber
PcOutant or pototar* property
Msmin
ear any >
<*»
Majdmum tar
montotf
average

Mg/oft-*g (b/meon off-
*M) ot amnwun MM
or olchad

0.72
0J»
1 »
134
19.33
020
0.16
0.612

Ttr*
TTCi
O* tnd ^mn |Mmn mon-
tonng p
1W3
3 437.57 Effluent limitations repreaenting
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology. [Reserved]
Subpart F—Drawing With Emulsions or
Soaps Subcategory
§ 467.60 Applicability; description of the
drawing with emulsions or soaps
subcategory.
This subpart applies to discharges of
pollutants to waters of the United States
and introduction of pollutants into
publicly owned treatment works from
the core and the ancillary operations of
the drawing with emulsions or soaps
subcategory.
-87.81 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a)	The "core" of the drawing with
emulsions or soaps subcategory shall
include drawing using emulsions or
soaps, stationary casting, artificial
aging, annealing, degreasing, sawing,
and swaging.
(b)	The term "ancillary operation"
shall mean any operation not previously
included in the core, performed cn-site.
following or preceding the drawing
operation. The ancillary operations shall
include continuous rod casting, solution
heat treatment and cleaning or etching.
§ 467.62 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of best practicable
control technology currently available.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available:
Subpart P
Core

BPT aAjant >i«aUu»a
PaauM* or pMUM prapany
Umrwalar
Maoarun tar


averaga
Mg/off-kfl (B/mffon o**a)
of akmnum drm wth
•muaom or aoepe
0.203
0.064
0.135
0.066
0.690
0269
3.00
1.47
9-33
560
19.12
9.10
01
VI
'Wtovn tne rang* of 7.0 to 10 at ai amaa.
Subpart F
Continuous Rod Casting Spent
Lubricant

BPT effluent iimaaoona
PokMrt or poflutaM property
Mawmum lor
Manrnum lor

•ny 1 day
xanji
Mg/ofMtg (to/mWon ofMbaj
of I
Chroflttjru
Cyarade~_
Zinc	
Alumnum
Oa a
Suspended i
pH —
00009
00006
0.0029
0.013
0040
0.061
(')
0.0004
<3 00Q2
0.001
0 006
0.024
0.038
(')
'Wittw ftm rxnge of 7 0 to 10 at lit time*
Subpart F
Continuous Rod Casting Contact
Cooling Water
PoUutars or pollutant proparty
BPT affluant taftaoooa
Maximum for
any 1 day
uajnmun for
monthly
average

Mg/ofUcg (to/mtton ofMba)
of aJutnnum caal

0664
0450
2.27
10.00
31 10
63 76
026
0 107
0949
4 976
16.06
30323
O

Tine
Alunwiun)	 	
Od and jraaee			
Suapandad arnwl* 	...
PM iii

'Wftrwt rne range of 7C io 10 at «U omaa.
Subpart F
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water
Poautam or podutam propany
BPT elftueiu iwmtaUona
Macmum
tor any i
*ay
Uaxmun
for montftfy
average
Mg/ofUig (fe/mribon oft»
iba| of aMTvwn quenened
Chronwum-
Cyanda	
2nc	
339
22*
11.23
139
0.93
4.70
BPT affluent BnMlMia
Podutant or poflmart proparty
Majomum
tor any 1
<*V
Uanmum
tor muntttty
average

4954
154.10
310.91
l1)
24.19
92.46
150.23
I1)
CM and rmm	
Smpandad r?**t
pM

¦Wltfw ff*a range of 7.0 to 10 at afl ttnaa.
Subpart F
Cleaning or Etching Bath

BPT affluent Ifaftattmia
PofluM or pollutant proparty
Maidnum tar
any 1 day
Maxsnum tor
montftfy
avenge
Mg/ofMcg Ob/mdon o*Msa)
of atanrwn daanad or
0 079
0032
0.032
0022
0.262
0 109
1 15
0 573
3.S6
2.15
7.34
<')
349
(')
1 WUhui (ha ruga of 7.0 to to at tU tusea.
Subpart F
Cleaning or Etching Rinse

0PT affluant kmrtanona
Pollutant or poflutant proparty
Mawnum
Maximum tor

tor any 1
rortftfy

day
avoraga

Mg/ofMcg (Rj/mriKon o*f«

toi) of alumnum cleaned

or etched

Chrornum	-	-	
0.12
2.51

404
1 67
Zmc	
20 31
849
Aigmnum	-			
99 46
A4S19
Ot and graaaa ... 	
2*8.?4
166.95
Suapendnd aoftda.~..~.—
570.39
271 29
PH	 .. „
<»)
(')
• Within the range of 71} to 10 at «U timet.

Subpart F


Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor
BPT affluent (vTvtanona
PoMutant or poUutam property
Mexnmm
tar any 1
day
Mawnum
for monttty
average
Mg/off-kg (fb/mrilion off*
iba) at tkjmnum
ctaaned'Or etched
Chromium.
Cyanda
1 Within the range of 7.0 to to al til tlmaa.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 206 / Monday. October 24. 1983 / Rules and Regulations 49169
§ 467.63 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of best available
technology economically achievable.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluenUimitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best available technology
economically achievable. The discharge
of wastewater pollutants from the core
shall not exceed the volumes set forth
below:
Subpart F
Core
PoXani or pollutant propeny
BAT effluent imvtabona
Masrnum for
any 1 day
Maximum tor
montty
average

Mg/o**g Ob/mMon ofMbs)
of alumnum drawn
emulsions or soaps
Overman 		
Cyarade . -	 _
0.205
0.135
0.681
300
0.064
0.056
02B5
1 49



Subpart F
Continuous Rod Casting Spent
Lubricant
Pollutant or potkaam property
BAT crfftutnt bmftanons
Mavrrwn tor
any i My
Majumtm
for montWy
Mg/ott-kg Ob/tntkon ott*
ta) of alumnum rod east
Qvomum
Cyanrie ...
Zinc 	
Alummum
0 0009
0.0006
0.0029
0.013
Subpart F
Continuous Rod Casting Contact
Cooling Water

BAT effluent limitations
PoOutar* or pollutant piugerty
Maxvnum for
Maximum for

any 1 day
average

Mg/off-fcg Ob/mMon ort-fce*

of lUWU
m rod cast

0.065
0.035

0056
0 023
Zinc	 	
0.263
0 116
Alumnum 			
1 25
0 82
Subpart F
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water

8AT mtikm* iwwasona
Poflutant or no* ft art property
Maximum tor
any i day
Majomun
for montniy
average
Mg/off-kg (fe/mtikon off-
tos) of aluminum quenched
Orormjrt-
Cyande	
Zinc.. 	
Alumnum	
0lB96
0J7
0 591
0.25
2.96
1.24
1X10

Subpart F
Cleaning or Etching Bath

BAT effluent fcmwtoii
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maxxnum for
Maxxnum for

any day
average
Mg/off-fcg Ob/mribon oft-ibs)
of alumnum clear sd or
Qvomum
C/and*
Subpart F
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Pollutant or pollutant property
BAT effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
0 0004
0 0012
04063
Chrtxw*			
0 612
0 251
Cyamje 	
0.404
0.197
7i»w
2 03
0 649

645
• 445

Subpart F
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor

BAT effluent ftmrtationa
Pollutant or poflutant property
Maximum for
Maximum for

any day
average
Chromum
Cyarwie
Zlr*
3 467.64 New source performance
standards.
Any new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following
performance standards. The discharge
of wastewater pollutants from the core
shall not exceed the values set forth
below:
Subpart F
Core
NSPS
Manmum for
monttty
average
Mg/off-fcg (tt>/mtffcon off-fcs)
of aJunwmm
etefted
Podutant or pofattrt property
1
Manmum for i
any 1 day j
Maximum for
morttrwy
average

Mg/off-kg Gb/m*on oft-feai
ot alumnum drawn wot
amutsaons or snaps

0173
0070
Cyanide	 ... 	
Zinc....	
0093
0.476
265
0	036
0196
1	26

4.67
4.67

7 00
5.GO
prt	 	 • ~~
n
O
1 n the range of 7 0 to 10.0 at ail txnes.

Subpart F


Continuous Rod Casting Spent
Lubricant


NSPS
Pofcaant or pofluttrt property
Masomum for
any i day
Maximum for
montftfy
iwagt

Mg/off-kg (1b/mAon oft-tos)
of afcjnwwm rod cast

00006
0.0003
Cyanide		 	
Zinc . . 		
Alumnum					
03 and 	 - 	
Suspended mm
00004
0.0020
0012
0.020
0 030
(5
0 0002
00006
0 0051
0020
0 024
O

* WMNn toe range of 7 0 to 10 0 at all times.

Subpart F


Continuous Rod Casting Contact
Cooling Water

NSPS
Poflutam or poOutam property
Manmum for
any 1 day
Maximum for
morrtNy
average
Mg/ofM
-------
49170 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 206 / Monday, October 24, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart F
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water

NSPS
Poautant or pohiurl propany
1
...	ta, Ktaomum
(ormontwr
*"* ** (wag*

NSPS
Pollutant or podutant proparty
Maxmwn for
Maximum for
•
any 1 day
avaraga
Suapandad aoidi	
29.X
23.20
pH
(!)
(M


1 Wttfrn tha ranga at 7.0 to 10.0 «* JmTT1a

j S
Ctvtvrmm
0.515
0-21
Cyande			
0.278
0.11

1 42
0.59

850
377

13.911
13.91
Suapandad aotta	
20A7
16.70
pH	
n

1 vvntwi tha ranga of 7 0 to 10.0 at a* omaa.
Subpart F
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor

NSPS
Pollutant or uoflmam proparty
(or !

•"» ' "f 1
mMg/otf-tag (to/mAon off-
iOa) of atumnum ciaanad
or atcflad
5 447.65 Pretraatmnt standard* (or
existing soutcm.
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
pre treatment standards for existing
sources. The mass of wastewater
pollutants in aluminum forming process
wastewater introduced into a POTW
shall not exceed the values set forth
below:
Subpart F
Core

PSES
Poflmw or puaiifml propaty
M«Rwn (or
Maximum for

anyi day
awraga

Mg/ofWtg (fe/mtfon off-fea)

of atom*
n drawn w*h

antiaona 0
r soapa

0.206
084

0.135
0.056

0.681
0.285
rrn
0.33
Ol and grata (aitamata mon-


9.33
5.60

Subpart F
Continuous Rod Casting Lubricant
M9/oft*8 (fc/ntfton ofUbi)
of tfuTwun c*aanad or

PSES
Pofcitant or pollutant proparty
Maxvnum
Majomum for
tor any 1
monthly

day
avaraga
Mg/off-*g (to/mrtto* 0*-
iba) of aturarum rod cast

0.0009



0 0029
rrn
0.0014
08 and graaaa (atatata wfr
tenng paramaar)	
0 040
Subpart F
Continuous Rod Casting Contact
Cooling Water

PSES
Pottutant or poautant propaty
Manmum for
Maamtvn for

any i day
avaraga
Subpart F
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water

PS£S
PoNutani or pottuura proparty
Majomum for
Maximum for

any 1 day
awaraga
Ug/off-fcg Ob/mMon
ol akmnuni qutnctwd
CXromufn,
Cyartd*
Subpart F
Cleaning or Etching Bath

PSES
Poflutart or poflutant uiuparty
Majomum for
Masamumfor

any 1 day
avaraga
Mg/off-kg (fe/mOcn
of umun cMwd oc
Subpart F
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
0.0004
00003
0.0012
0 024
Podutam or poMutant proparty
PSES
Manmufn for
any i day
Manmum (or
monthy
mange
Mg/off-kg (1b/rmtton ofMta)
ol aiumrium cteanad or
atchad
Oromium	 _.
0.612
0.251
Cyanda 		
0.404
0 187

2.03
0.849
no 	 	
0.96

Oil and gnam (aitamata itov


itormg paramatar)
2782
16 69
CnroniMW..	 . 	
072
0290
Cyarwia	
0387
01SS
7inr
t 97
0812
Atummm			
1 18
5.24
Orf graaaa			
1933
19.33
Mg/oft-kg (%/mtton otf-fcf)
of aturranun rod caat
Ctvorman	j 0.085 I 0 038
Cytfda	1 0.056 I 0.023
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 206 / Monday, October 24, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 49171
Subpart F
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber

PSES
PoUutam or potttfant property
any i dav montny
J average
Mg/off-kQ (pounoa per m*
ion	of Mjiwum
rteanao or etched
		
0 851
0348

0.561
0.232
Tmr.	
2.82
1.18
TTO. 			 	
1 33

OA and grease (attamata mon-


rtomg parameter) _
38 66
ZL20
} 467.66 Pre treatment standards (or raw
sources.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7.
any new source subject to this subpart
which introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for new sources. The mass of
wastewater pollutants in aluminum
forming process wastewaters introduced
into a POTW shall not exceed the
values set forth below;
Subpart F
Core
PSNS
Pooutant or pottutant property
Maximum (or
any i oay
Maximum (or
montWy
average

Mg/ofMcg (b/mrihon off-ttM)
of alumnum aawn wtto

ewxiMona o
r eoape

0 173
0.094
0 4$
0.32
0.070
0038
0.198
ryMfta

TTfi
Ol and Graaaa (attamata

mowtoinQparamem)	
467
4.67
Subpart F
Continuous Rod Casting Lubricant
Pollutant or pollutant property
PSNS
Maximum for
any 1 day
Mg/off-kg (Ib/mtSon ofl-tos)
of aiummun rod cast

0.0008
0.0004
0.0020
0 0014
00003
00002
0.0006

7inr
rm
Ori and Grai
monrtonng pa
tae (attamata
rameter)		
ao20
• 0.020
Subpart F
Cleaning or Etching Bath
; Manmum far
| monthly
Wfiy

PSNS
Poflutant or pollutant property
Maxmuvn for
Maximum for

any 1 day
average

MQ/off-kg (ft/mAon ofl-to)

of afcmnufl flaanad or
etched
Chromun		
0.067
0.027
Cywart*
0.036
0.013
Tinft
0.183
0.075
TTO	 ..... „j
0.124
Ol and Qreaaa (attamata

monnonng parameter)	—
1 79
1.79
Subpart F
Continuous Rod Casting Contact
Cooling Water
PSNS
Podutant or poautant property
Maxvnum for
any 1 day
Maxmum for
monthly
average


Mg/ofMtg (to/m*on off-toe)
of aturwwn rod cast


0.039
0.021
0.016
0J»64
0.044


TTrt
O072
Oi md Gra
immHtfiig pa
tea (aftemete
rametep
1.04
1.04
Subpart F
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water

PSNS
PoUutam or poautant property
Maxanum
Marimum tor

tor any 1
monthly

day
aaagi
Mg/off-fcg (K^mtfon off*
fee) of afcrwn quenched
0.79	0.300
0.41	0.183
2.06	0J56
1.41	__
20J7	20.37
Subpart F
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Poflutam or poOutant property
PSNS
Waaiun
tor any l
day
Maxvnum
tor monthly
average

Mg/ott-fcg (fe/m*on ort-
Km) of afcjnwvn
cleaned or etched

052
051
an
0J9

029

1.42
rrn
006
Ol and Graaaa (attamata morn-
13.91
11*1
Subpart F
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber
PoSuant or poButant property
PSNS
..		 Maamum for
Maxvrun rar i
| ESS

Mg/off-kg (fe/mtfton off-fcs)
of afunwwn cleaned or
etched

0.715
0.387
1 97
1.34
19.33
0290
0.15$
0812

7»r«
TTO
01 and -Greaae (attamata
monrtormg parameter	
19.33
§ 467.97 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the beat conventional
pottutant control technology. [Heserved]
(FR Doc. 33-28157 Filed 10-21-S1: IAS am|
aaLitw coot stto-to-*
anc	
TTO	
OH and Graaaa (attamata mon-
ttrtng parameter)	
-------
^E0S%
\	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
$	WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
%	c4^
*<¦ PROl^-
OFFIC€ OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Aluminum Forming Point Source Category Settlement
' Agreement
Rebecca W. ""
FROM:	Rebecca W. Hanmer, Director
Office of/Water- Enforcement and Permits (EN-335 )
/O Office of/VJater- Enf01
i4dw^n C&KnJok! Wi
.rector
/•7i-0ffice of Water Regulations and Standards (WH-551)
TO: tC// Regional Administrators
State NPDES Directors
Director, NEIC
The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") entered into a
settlement agreement on April 1, 1985, with the Aluminum
Association, Inc. ("Aluminum Association"); Kaiser Aluminum &
Chemical Corp.; Reynolds Metals Company; Aluminum Extruders
Council, Inc. ("Extruders Council"); Cardinal Aluminum Company;
General Extrusions, Inc.; Loxcreen Company, Inc.; Macklanburg-
Duncan Company; and Pacific Aluminum Corp., to resolve all
challenges of the petitioners to the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the aluminum forming point source
category (40 CFR Part 467, 48 FR 49126, October 24, 1983, as
corrected) ("aluminum forming effluent guidelines"). A copy of
the Settlement Agreement is attached.
In this Settlement Agreement, EPA has agreed to propose to
amend certain provisions of the aluminum forming effluent
guidelines relating to best available technology economically
achievable (BAT), pretreatment standards for existing sources
(PSES) and new source performance standards (NSPS). In
particular, EPA has agreed to propose to amend (1) the BAT and
PSES flow allowances for cleaning and etching rinse for the
extrusion and forging subcategories, (2) the alternative
monitoring parameter of oil and grease for PSES, (3) the BPT and
NSPS pH limitations for direct chill casting contact cooling
water and has agreed to (4) add a definition for hot water seal
as set forth in Exhibit A. EPA has also agreed to propose to
amend certain provisions of the preamble relating to (1) nonscope
waters and (2) discharge allowance for hot water seal as set
forth in Exhibit B.
-------
- 2 -
Pursuant to paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement, the
parties have agreed to treat each amendment and preamble provision
contained in Exhibits A and B as the applicable effluent guideline
or standard or interpretation, as appropriate, beginning April 15,
1985 (or as soon as the appropriate EPA Regional official receives
actual notice of the Settlement Agreement, whichever occurs
first), until EPA takes final action on each proposed revision..
The parties have also agreed to seek a stay of the effectiveness
of those provisions of the regulations that EPA has agreed to
propose to amend, from the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, until final action is taken on the proposed amendments
(paragraphs 6 and 11 of the settlement agreement). (The members
of the Aluminum Association and Extruders Council, which are
listed in Exhibit C of the agreement, are also subject to the
provisions of the settlement agreement.) We will inform you when
a stay is granted by the court.
If you have any questions on this matter, please contact
Gary Hudiburgh, Technical Support Branch ((202 or FTS) 755-0750)
or Ernst Hall, Chief, Metals Industry Branch ((202 or FTS)
382-7126).
Attachment
-------
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
THE ALUMINUM ASSOCIATION, INC.,
et al.,
Pet i t ioners,
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, et al. ,
Respondents,
ALUMINUM EXTRUDERS COUNCIL, INC.,
et al.,
Pet i tioners ,
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, et al.,
Respondents.
Consolidated Nos.
84-3090 and 84-3101
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Petitioners, The Aluminum Association, Inc.; Kaiser Aluminum
& Chemical Corp.; Reynolds Metals Company; the Aluminum Extruders
Council, Inc.; Cardinal Aluminum Company; General Extrusions,
Inc.; Loxcreen Company, Inc.; Macklanburg-Duncan Company; and Pacific
Aluminum Corp. ("Petitioners") and respondent, U.S. Environmental
-------
- 2 -
Protection Agency ("EPA" or "the Agency"), intending to be
bound by this Agreement, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1.	This Agreement resolves all challenges which were or
could have been raised with respect to the Clean Water Act
regulation establishing effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for the aluminum forming industry point source category
("aluminum forming regulation"), published at 48 Fed. Reg.
49,126 (October 24, 1983) as corrected at 49 Fed. Reg. 11,629
(March 27, 1984) .
2.	EPA shall propose amendments to the aluminum forming
regulation as set forth in Exhibit A to this Agreement, and
shall propose amendments to the preamble as set forth in Exhibit B
to this Agreement. EPA shall propose and take any final action
on these amendments in accordance with the following schedule:
(a)	Immediately after the execution of this Settlement
Agreement, EPA shall notify the state directors
of approved permitting" agencies and the EPA Regional
Administrators of this Agreement and provide them with
copies of it.
(b)	As expeditiously as possible, EPA shall submit the
proposed amendments and preamble language (Exhibits
A and B) to the Office of Management and Budget
("0MB") in accordance with the terms of Executive
Order 12291. EPA shall request that 0MB expeditiously
review the proposed amendments and preamble language.
(c)	As expeditiously as possible after the completion of
0MB review, EPA shall submit the proposed amendments
and preamble language to the Federal Register for
immediate publication.
(d)	The public comment period on the proposed amendments
and preamble language shall be no longer than 30
days. EPA may extend this period for a maximum
of 30 days if it receives a request for an extension
based upon compelling circumstances not apparent at
the time of execution of this Agreement. If EPA
-------
- 3 -
extends the comment period, it shall immediately
notify Petitioners of the cause or causes for the
extension and the additional time allowed for comment.
No extension shall exceed the time required by its
cause.
(e)	As expeditiously as possible after the close of
the public comment period on the proposed amendments
and preamble language, EPA. shall submit any final
amendments and preamble language to OMB in accordance
with the terms of Executive Order 12291. EPA shall
request that OMB expeditiously review any amendments
and preamble language.
(f)	As expeditiously as possible after the completion of
OMB review, EPA shall submit any final amendments
and preamble language to the Federal Register for
immediate publication. Unless compelling circumstances
arise not apparent on the date of execution of this
Agreement, EPA shall set the effective date of any
final regulations no later than 44 days after publica-
tion in the Federal Register.
3.	Petitioners will move to voluntarily dismiss their
petitions for review within thirty (30) days from the date any
final aluminum forming regulation and preamble are signed by the
"Administrator of the EPA, provided that the final amendments
and preamble are substantially the same as, and do not alter the
meaning of, the language set forth in Exhibits A and B to this
Agreement. If the Agency's final action does not result in
amendments and preamble language that are substantially the same
as, and do not alter the meaning of, the language set forth in
Exhibits A and B to this Agreement, any motion by the Petitioners
to further pursue this litigation and/or petition for review
of any final action shall be made within ninety (90)
days of the Agency's final action or shall be forever barred.
4.	Petitioners will not seek judicial review of any amendment
to the aluminum forming regulation or preamble which is substantially
-------
- 4 -
the same as, and does not alter the meaning of, the language
set forth in Exhibits A and B of this Agreement.
5.	The parties agree that if, after EPA has taken final
action under this Agreement, any provision of the final aluminum
forming regulation or any preamble section is not substantially
the same as, or alters the meaning of, the language set forth
in Exhibits A and B, Petitioners reserve the right to proceed
further with this litigation or to seek further judicial review
with respect only to that provision. In challenging any such
provision, Petitioners reserve the right to raise any pertinent
issue with respect to that provision including, but not limited
to, the concentration basis for the effluent limitation covered
by that provision and the wastewater flow used to calculate
the limitation.
6.	Immediately upon execution of this Settlement Agreement,
the parties agree to move the Court for a stay of the effectiveness
of those portions of the aluminum forming regulations that EPA
has agreed to propose to amend. The parties will request that
this stay remain in effect until any final action on the proposed
amendments and preamble language becomes effective. If such
stay is not granted, Petitioners reserve the right to proceed
further with this litigation. If Petitioners proceed further
with this litigation, the Settlement Agreement shall become
null and void.
-------
- 5 -
7.	Petitioners agree to submit comments in support of all
the amendments and preamble language proposed in accordance with
Exhibits A and B.
8.	This Settlement Agreement will be deemed to be executed
and shall become effective when it has been signed by the
representatives of the parties set forth below.
9.	Fourteen (14) days after the effective date of this
Settlement Agreement, or as soon as the appropriate EPA
regional official with authority to issue the permit receives
actual notice of the Settlement Agreement, whichever occurs
first, and until the effective date of any final action on each
proposed revision, the parties agree to treat each amendment
and preamble provision set forth in Exhibits A and B as the
applicable effluent guideline or standard or interpretation,
as appropriate. The parties recognize, however, that the
existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards remain
in effect until the Court grants the stay the parties will
request under ^6 of this Settlement Agreement.
10. The Aluminum Association, Inc. ("Association") and the
Aluminum Extruders Council, Inc. ("Council") are national trade
associations representing members who are subject to the aluminum
forming regulation. The undersigned attorneys for the Association
and the Council certify that they are authorized to enter into
this Agreement on behalf of their respective clients. The
Association and Council represent that they have notified all
of their respective members subject to the aluminum forming
-------
regulation (those entities listed in Exhibit C to this Agreement)
of the terras of this Agreement, and have requested that any
member objecting to the terms of the Agreement notify the
Association or Council immediately. None of these members has
notified the Association or Council of any objection to the
terms of this Agreement. Moreover, the Association and Council
have notified these members that EPA would not enter into this
agreement unless the Association and the Council assured the
Agency that the regulated members of both trade associations:
(a) would treat the amendments and preamble provisions contained
in Exhibits A and B as the applicable effluent guideline or
standard or interpretation, as appropriate, after the execution
of this Settlement Agreement; (b) would not petition for review
of any amendment or preamble provision of the aluminum forming
regulation promulgated consistent with Exhibits A and B; and
(c) would not submit adverse comments on any proposed amendment
to the aluminum forming regulation or preamble provision that
is substantially the same as and does not alter the meaning of
the language in Exhibits A and B. Based upon the responses
from their respective members, the Association and the Council
have given EPA reasonable assurances that their members will
act in accordance with items (a) through (c) of this paragraph.
EPA has entered into this Agreement in reliance upon the
Association's and the Council's actions and assurances.
11. Upon execution of this Agreement, the parties agree to
move promptly for a stay of this litigation pending final action
by the Agency under this Agreement.
-------
7
12.	No party will seek to recover any litigation costs or
fees from another party.
13.	Nothing in this Agreement shall operate to waive any
legal right of any party unless such a waiver is expressly
provided .
14.	This Settlement Agreement, including Exhibits A, B and
C, represents the entire agreement between the Agency and Petitioners
with respect to the aluminum forming regulation published at 48
Fed. Reg. 49,126 (October 24, 1983) , as corrected at 49 Fed. Reg.
11,629 (March 27, 1984) .
Respectfully submitted,
Dated:
Alan S. Ward', Esq.
Jeffrey S. Holik, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLpR
818 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Attorneys for the Petitioners
in No 84-3090
Dated:
JENIFER &! BLOCK
One Plaza
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Attorney for the Petitioners
in No 84-3101
-------
8 -
&UeA*s
Ellen S. SieglerU Esq.	~
Office of General Counsel
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
401 M Street, S.W.
Room 536, West Tower
Washington, D.C. 20460
(c —...	- .-JS:
George'B.""Henderson, 11, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Land and Natural Resources Division
Environmental Defense Section
P.O. Box 23986
Washington, D.C. 20026-3986
Attorneys for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
-------
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENTS TO 40 CFR Part 467
1. BAT and PSES flew allowances for Cleaning S> Etching Rinse for the
Extrusion Subcategory (Subpart C) and the Forging Subcategory
(Subpart D)		
a. Amend 40 CFR § 467.33 to read:
Subpart C
Cleaning or Etching Rinse

EAT effluent limitations
Pollutant or pollutant


property
Maximum for any
Maximum for monthly

1 day
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million ofi
f-lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Chrcmium
1.7
0.7
Cyanide
1.2
0.5
Zinc
5.7
2.4
Aluminum
25
13
b. Amend 40 CFR §467.35 to read:


Subpart C
Cleaning or Etching Rinse

PSES
Pollutant or pollutant


property
Maximum for any
Maximum for monthly

1 day
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million oJ
Ef-lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Chrcmium
1.7
0.7
Cyanide
1.2
0.5
Zinc
5.7
2.4
TTO
2.7
	
Oil & Grease (alternate monitoring
parameter)
200
100
-------
-2-
Amend 40 CFR §467.45 to read:
Subpart D
Cleaning or Etching Rinse

PSES
Pollutant or pollutant
property
Maximum for any
1 Day
Maximum for monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Chromium
1.7
0.7
Cyanide
1.2
0.5
Zinc
5.7
2.4
TTO
2.7
	
Oil and grease (alternate
monitoring parameter)
200
100
-------
-3-
2. Alternate Monitoring Parameter of oil and grease for pretreatment standards
for existing sources	
a. Amend 40 CFR §467.15 to change the values for "Oil and grease (alternate
monitoring parameter)" as follows:
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS - SUBPART A
Maximum for any Maximum for monthly
1 Day	average^	
Core with an Annealing Furnace	4.3	2.1
Scrubber
Core without an Annealing Furnace 2.9	1.5
Scrubber
Continuous Sheet Casting	0.10	0.052
Lubricant
Solution Heat Treatment	110	53
Contact Cooling Water
Cleaning or Etching Bath	9.3	4.7
Cleaning or Etching Rinse	73	36
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber	100	50
These values have the same units as the tables in the regulation which
usually are rrg/off - kg (lb/million off - lbs) of aluminum processed.
b. Amend 40 CFR §467.25 to change the values for "Oil and grease
(alternate monitoring parameter)" to read as follows:
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS - SUBPART B
Maximum for any	Maximum for monthly
	1 Day	average 1	
Core 6.8	3.4
Direct Chill Casting Contact 69	35
Cooling Water
Solution Heat Treatment Contact 110	53
Cooling Water
Cleaning or Etching Bath 9.3	4.7
Cleaning or Etching Rinse 73	36
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber 100	50
1 These values have the same units as the tables in the regulations which
usually are mg/off - kg (lb/million off - lbs) of aluminum processed.
-------
-4-
Amend 40 CFR §467.35 to change the values for "Oil and grease
(alternate monitoring parameter )" as follows:
EXTRUSION - SUBPART C
Maximum for any
	1 day	
Maximum for monthly
average1	
Core	18
Extrusion Press Leakage	77
Direct Chill Casting Contact	69
Cooling Water
Press Heat Treatment Contact	110
Cooling Water
Solution Heat Treatment Contact	110
Cooling Water
Cleaning or Etching Bath	9.3
Cleaning or Etching Rinse	200
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber	100
8.8
39
35
53
53
4.7
100
50
These values have the same units as the tables in the regulation which
usually are mg/off - kg (lb/million off - lbs) of aluminum processed.
d. Amend CFR §467.45 to change the values for "Oil and grease (alternate
monitoring parameter)" as follows:
FORGING - SUBPART D
Maximum for any
	1 day	
Maximum for monthly
	average1	
Core
Forging Scrubber Liquor
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber
2.6
4.9
110
9.3
200
100
1.3
2.5
53
4.7
100
50
1 These values have the same units as the tables in the regulation which
usually are mg/off - kg (lb/million off - lbs) of aluminum processed.
-------
-5-
e. Amend 40 CFR §467.55 to change the values for "Oil and grease
(alternate monitoring parameter)" as follows:
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS - SUBPART E
Maximum for any Maximum for monthly
	1 day	average^-	
Core	2.6	1.3
Continuous Rod Casting Lubricant	0.10	0.052
Continuous Rod Casting Contact	10	5.1
Cooling Water
Solution Heat Treatment Contact	110	53
Cooling Water
Cleaning or Etching Bath	9.3	4.7
Cleaning or Etching Rinse	73	36
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber	100	50
1 These values have the same units as the tables in the regulation which
usually are mg/off - kg (lb/million off - lbs) of aluminum processed.
. f. Amend 40 CFR §467.65 to change the values for "Oil and grease (alternate
monitoring parameter)" as follows:
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS - SUBPART F
Maximum for any Maximum for monthly
1 day	average 1	
Core	25	12
Continuous Rod Casting Lubricant
Continuous Rod Casting Contact
Cooling Water
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water
0.10	0.052
10	5.1
110	53
Cleaning or Etching Bath	9.3	4.7
Cleaning or Etching Rinse	73	36
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber	100	50
1 These values have the same units as the tables in the regulation which
usually are mg/off - kg (lb/million off - lbs) of aluminum processed.
-------
-6-
3. pH limits for Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water
a. Amend 40 CFR §§467.22, 467.24, 467.32 and 467.34 to change the
footnote for Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water in each
provision to read:
1 The pH shall be maintained within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at
all times except for those situations when this waste
stream is discharged separately and without caningling with any
other wastewater in which case the pH shall be within the range
of 6.0 to 10.0 at all times.
4. Hot Water Seal
Amend 40 CFR §467.02 Definitions to add a definition of "hot water seal."
The definitions m through z should be changed to n through aa, respectively.
A new definition m should read as follows:
(m) Hot water seal is a heated water bath (heated to approximately 180°F)
used to seal the surface coating on formed aluminum which has been
anodized and coated. In establishing an effluent allowance for this
operation, the hot water seal shall be classified as a cleaning or
etching rinse.
-------
EXHIBT B
PREAMBLE LANGUAGE TO 40 CFR PART 467
1.	Nonscope Waters
Amend the preamble to include the following discussion in Section IX
entitled "Public Participation and Response to Major Cements" (Ccmrent
number 7 found at 48 Federal Register 49140). This new paragraph
would follow the second paragraph of the response.
"To account for site-specific wastewater sources for which the permit
writer in his best professional judgment determines that co-treatment
with process wastewater is appropriate, the permit writer must quantify
the discharge rate of the waste stream. The mass allowance provided
for the waste stream is then obtained frcm the product of the discharge
rate and treatment performance of the technology basis of the promulgated
regulation. For example, if the permit writer determines that contaminated
ground water seepage requires treatment, he must determine the flow rate
of contaminated water to be treated. He then can determine the appropri-
ate model treatment technology by referring to the technical development
document. Treatment effectiveness values are presented in Section VII
of the Development Document. The product of the discharge rate and
treatment performance is then the allowed mass discharge. This quantity
can then be added to the other building blocks (i.e., mass discharge for
the regulated streams) to determine total allowed mass discharge."
2.	Discharge Allowance for Hot Water Seal
a.	Amend the BPT discussion of miscellaneous waste streams (Section V.
C. of the preamble) to change the parenthesized statement at the
end of the bottom paragraph, middle column on p 49131 to read,
"The miscellaneous nondescript wastewater flow allowance is production
normalized to a plant's core production and covers waste streams
generated by maintenance, clean-up, ultrasonic testing, roll grinding
of caster rolls, ingot scalping, processing area scrubbers, ana
dye solution baths and seal baths (along with any other cleaning
or etching bath, except a hot water seal) when not followed by
a rinse."
b.	Amend Section IX of the preamble response to carrnent number 7 found
at 48 Federal Register 49141 by inserting the following statement:
"The hot water seal bath has high flow and, therefore, is not included
in the miscellaneous wastewater sources allowance, but is considered as
an etch line rinse for the purpose of calculating pollutant discharge
allowances."
-------
exhibit c
ALUMINUM EXTRUDERS COUNCIL MEMBERS
SUBJECT TO THE ALUMINUM FORMING REGULATIONS
Aerolite Extrusion Company
Alcan Canada Products Ltd.
Alexandria Extrusion Company
Almag Aluminum Ltd.
Alruss Extrusion & Finishing Corp.
Alsco Arco Metals
Alumax Extrusions, Inc.
Aluminart Extrusion Division
Aluminio De Venezuela C.A. (Alcanven)
Aluminio De Centro America, S.A. De CV
Aluminum Company of America
Aluminum Extrusion Corporation
Aluminum Shapes, Inc.
Aluteam Aluminum
Ametek, Inc.
Anaheim Extrusion Company
Anodizing, Inc.
ARA Aluminum Extrusions, Inc.
Arabian Light Metals Co., K.S.C.
Atec Industries
Bohn Extruded Products Division
Bonanza Aluminum Corporation
Brazeway, Inc.
Briteline Extrusions
California Custom Shapes
Capitol Products Corporation
Cardinal Aluminum Co.
Central Aluminum Company
Claridge Extrusions Division ¦
Consolidated Aluminum Corporation
Cressona Aluminum Company
Cupples Products Division
Cuprum, S.A.
Custom Aluminum Products, Inc.
Davidson Extrusions Corporation
Daymond Limited
Easco Aluminum
Elixir Industries
Environmental Air Products, Inc.
Ethyl Aluminum Group
Extruded Metals
Extruders, Inc.
Florida Extrusions
Futura Home Products
General Aluminum Corporation
General Extrusions, Inc.
Guaranteed Products, Inc.
The Himmel Brothers Company
-------
Hoover Universal, Inc.
ILC Products Company, Inc.
Indal Ltd.
International Extrusions, Inc.
Jarl Extrusions, Inc.
The Jordan Companies
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.-
Karnataka Aluminum Ltd.
Keymark Aluminum Corporation
KLIL Industries, Ltd.
Krestmark Industries, Inc.
Light Metals Corporation
The Loxcreen Company, Inc.
Macklanburg-Duncan Company
Magnode Corporation
Metal Industries, Inc.
Mid-States Aluminum Corporation
Midwest Aluminum Company
Minalex Corporation
National Architectural Products Corp.
National Aluminum Extrusion Division
New Jersey Aluminum Company
Nielsen-Bainbridae
Norsk Hydro Aluminum, Inc.
Ohio Valley Aluminum Company, Inc.
Pacific Aluminum Corporation
Peerless of America, Inc.
Penn Aluminum International
Pimalco
PPG Industries, Inc.
Precision Extrusions, Inc.
Ravens Metal Products, Inc.
Redman Building Products, Inc.
Revere Copper & Brass, Inc.
Reynolds Metals Co.
RPS Architectural Systems
Saramar Aluminum Company
Season-All Industries, Inc.
Southwire Company
Sun Valley Extrusion Company
Taber Metals, Inc.
Temroc Metals, Inc.
Traco
Trim Alloys, Inc.
United Technologies Inc.
Universal Aluminum Extrusion Corp.
V.A.W. of America, Inc.
Warner Manufacturing Corporation
R.D. Werner Co., Inc.
Western Extrusions Corporation
Winnebago Industries, Inc.
-------
ALUMINUM ASSOCIATION MEMBERS
SUBJECT TO THE ALUMINUM FORMING REGULATIONS
Aiflex Corporation
Alcan Aluminur Corporation
Algonquin Industries, Inc.
Alumax Aluminum Corporation
Aluminum. Company of America
Aluminum Mills
Anchcr-K=rvey Components, Inc.
ARCO Metals Company
Earmet Industries, Inc.
Carolina Alur.inur Company
Clender.in Brothers, Inc.
Commonwealth Alur.inur Corporation
Consolidated Alur.inur. Corporation
Copperveld Corporation
Cressona Aluminum Company
Durable V.'ire, Inc.
Ekco Products, Inc.
Ethyl Corporation
Extruded Metals Co.
General Extrusions, Inc.
Golden Recycle Company
Indal Aluminum
International Light Metals Corporation
Jarl Extrusions, Inc.
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
-------
2
Macnode Corporation
Metal Impact Corporation
Minalex Corporation
National Aluir.inui7> Corporation
National Architectural Products Corporation
National Northeast Corporation
Nev Jersey Aluninur, Corporation
Nichols-Horrieshielc Inc.
Nichols Wire
Noranda Alur.inur., Inc.
Norsk Hydra Alurr.inur., Inc.
Parker-Kannifin Corporation
Pirr.alco
Precision Extrusions, Inc.
Reynolds Metals Cor.pany
R.D. Werner Corpany, Inc.
RJR Archer, Inc.
Shaped Wire, Inc.
Sout'nvire Cor.pany
Tower Extrusions, Inc.
United Alurninurr. Corporation
V.A.W. of America, Inc.
Warner Manufacturing Corporation
Weber Metals, Inc.
-------
OCT 16 1985
r.:. '.'i I SSI ,
:-PA, P.EGiON
-------
(Revised 4/6/84)
ALUMINUM FORMING
CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
This summary provides industries in the Aluminum Forming Category and
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) with the information necessary to
determine compliance with pretreatment standards for this industrial category.
The Aluminum Forming categorical standards were established by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency in Part 467 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (40 CFR 467). This summary is not intended to substitute for the
regulations published in the Code of Federal Regulations or the Federal
Register. For specific information, refer to the Federal Register citations
given below.
Important Dates	Federal Register Citation
Proposed Rule: November 22, 1982	Vol. 47, p. 52626, November 22, 1982
Final Rule: October 24, 1983*	Vol. 48, p. 49126, October 24, 1983
Correction: March 27, 1984	Vol. 49, p. 11629, March 27, 1984
Effective Date: December 7, 1983
Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR)
Due Date: June 4, 1984
Compliance Dates:
-	Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES): October 24, 1986
-	Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS): From commencement of
discharge
SUBCATEGORIES AND SIC CODES
The Aluminum Forming category is divided into six subcategories based
primarily on different manufacturing processes. The subcategories and their
corresponding Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes are:
Subcategory	SIC Code
A.	Rolling with Neat Oils	3353,3355
B.	Rolling with Emulsions	3353,3355
C.	Extrusion	3354
D.	Forging	3463
E.	Drawing with Neat Oils	3354,3355
F.	Drawing with Emulsions	or Soaps	3354,3355
*Sectlon 467.01(c) was promulgated as an interim rule. It sets PSES for two
groups of plants: 1) those that extrude less than 1,360,000 kg (3 million
pounds) of aluminum annually, and 2) plants that draw with emulsions or soaps
and produce less than 453,333 kg (1 million pounds) of aluminum annually.
-1-
-------
ALUMINUM FORMING (cont.)
Each subcategory consists of two segments, core operations and ancillary
operations. Core operations include forming processes and those related
processes that typically occur in conjunction with forming. The core also
includes processes that are not always used in conjunction with forming but
do not discharge wastewater. Ancillary operations are not always unique to a
single subcategory and are generally characterized by the substantial volume
of wastewater they produce. Since they are not found at every plant, ancil-
lary operations are not included in the core and, therefore, have separate
limitations.
The discharge limits for aluminum forming industries are mass-based. The
production-normalizing parameter used in setting limitations for both core and
ancillary operations is the off-kilogram (off-pound), which is the mass of
aluminum or aluminum alloy removed from a forming or ancillary operation at
the end of a process cycle for transfer to another process. An aluminum
forming plant is permitted to discharge a mass of pollutants equivalent to the
sum of the mass limitations established for the core operations and the
individual ancillary operation(s) that are used at the plant.
Processes for casting aluminum or aluminum alloy at plants that manu-
facture aluminum and also do aluminum forming may be subject to different
categorical standards. Casting processes at these plants are regulated by the
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Categorical Standards for casting if they cast
aluminum without cooling.* If the aluminum they produce is a remelted primary
or secondary product and "is cast at a facility that also forms aluminum, the
casting processes subsequent to remelting are regulated by the Aluminum
Forming categorical standards.**
REGULATED POLLUTANTS
The pollutants regulated by the Aluminum Forming Categorical Standards
are chromium, cyanide, zinc, and total toxic organics (TTO). For this stan-
dard, the term total t^xic organics (TTO) refers to the sum of the masses or
concentrations of eacu of the following compounds found in the discharge at a
concentration greater than 0.01 mg/1.
p-chloro-m-cresol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
isophorone
napthalene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
phenol
benzo(a)pyrene
benz o(ghi)perylene
fluorene
phenanthrene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
endosulfan sulfate
bis(2-ethyl
hexyl)phthalate
diethylphthalate
3,4-benzofluoranthene
benzo(k)fluoranthene
chrysene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
di-n-butyl phthalate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
acenaphthene
* See the Nonferrous Metals Categorical Standards in the Federal Register, v.
49, p. 8742, March 8, 1984.
**Primary aluminum products are made from refined ore; secondary products are
made from recycled aluminum.
-2-
-------
ALUMINUM FORMING (cont.)
As an alternative to monitoring for TTO, indirect dischargers may monitor
and limit oil and grease to the levels established in the PSES and FSNS. Any
indirect discharger meeting the alternative monitoring levels for oil and
grease standards will be considered to be meeting the TTO standard.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Surface treatment of aluminum, whether chemical or electrochemical, is
covered by the Aluminum Forming standards whenever it is performed as an
integral part of aluminum forming. For the purposes of this category, surface
treatment is considered to be an integral part of aluminum forming whenever it
is performed at the same plant site at which the aluminum is formed. These
surface treatment operations are covered by the standards for cleaning or
etching baths, rinses, and scrubbers in the Aluminum Forming category and are
not subject to regulation under the Metal Finishing standards in 40 CFR Part
433.
-3-
-------
ALUMINUM FORMING (cont.)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES (PSES)
(In mg/off-kg)
4
Chromium	Cyanide	Zinc	TTO	Oil and Greasa
2	3
Subpart Subcategory	MD	MMA	HD	MMA	MD	MMA	MD	MMA	MD	MHA
A	Rolling with Neat Oils
- Core with annealing
.036
.015
.024
.010
.119
.050
.057
	
1.64
.98
furnace acrubber










- Core without annealing
.025
.010
.016
.007
.081
.034
.038
	
1.11
.67
furnace acrubber










- Continuous sheet
.00086
.00035
.00057'
.00024
.0029
.0012
.0014
	
.040
.024
casting lubricant










- Solution heat treat-
.90
.37
.59
.25
2.98
1.25
1.41
	
40.74
24.45
ment contact










cooling water










- Cleaning or etching
.079
.032
.052
.022
- .262
.109
.124
	
3.58
2.15
bath










- Cleaning or etching
.61
.25
.41
.17
2.03
.85
.96
	
27.82
16.69
rinse










- Cleaning or etching
.85
.35
.56
.23
2.82
1.18
1.34
	
38.7
23.20
scrubber liquor










Rolling with Emulsions










- Core
.057
.024
.038
.016
.190
.079
.090
	
2.60
1.56
- Direct chill
.59
.24
.39
.16
1.94
.81
.92
	
26.58
15.95
casting contact










cooling water










- Solution heat
.90
.37
.59
.25
2.98
1.25
1.41
	
40.74
24.44
treatment contact










cooling water










- Cleaning or etching
.079
.032
.052
.022
.262
.109
.124
	
3,58
2.15
bath










- Cleaning or etching
.61
.25
.41
.17
2.03
.85
.96
	
27.82
16.69
rinse










- Cleaning or etching
.85
.35
.56
.23
2.83
1.18
1.34
	
38.66
23.20
scrubber liquor










Extrusion










- Core
.15
.061
.098
.041
.49
.21
.23
	
6.80
4.07
- Extrusion press
.65
.27
.43
.18
2.16
.90
1.02
	
29.56
17.74
leakage










- Direct chill
.59
.24
.39
.16
1.94
.81
.92
	
26.58
15.95
casting contact










cooling water










- Press heat treat-
.90
.37
.59
.25
2.98
1.25
1.41
	
40.74
24.45
ment contact










cooling water










- Solution heat
.90
.37
.59
.25
2.98
1.25
1.41
	
40.74
24.45
treatment contact
cooling water
-------
ALUMINUM FORMINC (cont.)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES (PSES) (Continued)
(In mg/off-kg)
4
Chroolua	Cyanide	Zinc	TTO	Oil and Craass
Subcategory
HD2
MMA3
MD
MMA
MD
MMA
MD
MMA
MD
MHA
- Cleaning or etching
.079
.032
.052
.022
.26
.109
.124

3.58
2.15
bath










- Cleaning or etching
.61
.25
.41
.17
2.03
.85
.96
	
27.82
16.69
rinse
.8^









- Cleaning or etching
.35
.56
.23
2.82
1.18
1.34
	
38.66
23.20
scrubber liquor










Forging










- Core
.022
.009
.015
.006
.073
.031.
.035
	
1.00
.60
- Forging scrubber
.042
.017
.028
.011
.14
.058
.065
	
1.89
1.13
liquor










- Solution heat
.897
.37
.591
.25
2.98
1.24
1.41
	
40.74
24.45
treatment contact










cooling water










- Cleaning or etching
.079
.032
.052
.022
.26
.11
.123
	
3.58
2.15
bath










— Cleaning or etching
.61
.25
.40
.17
2.03
.85
.96
	
27.82
16.70
rinse










- Cleaning or etching
.851
.35
.561
.23
2.82
1.18
1.34
	
38.66
23.20
scrubber liquor










Drawing with










Neat Oils










- Core
.022
.009
.015
.006
.073
.031
.035
	
1.00
.60
- Continuous rod
.0009
.0004
.0006
.0003
.0029
.0012
.0014
	
.040
.024
casting lubricant










- Continuous rod
.086
.035
.362
.023
.283
.118
.133
	
3.878
2.327
casting contact










cooling water










- Solution heat
.896
.367
.591
.245
2.98
1.24
1.41
	
40.74
24.45
treatment contact










cooling water










- Cleaning or etching
.079
.033
.052
.022
.262
.109
1.24
	
3.58
2.15
bath










- Cleaning or etching
.612
.251
.404
.17
2.03
.85
.96
	
27.82
16.70
rinse










- Cleaning or etching
.831
.348
.561
.232
2.82
1.18
1.34
	
38.66
23.20
scrubber liquor










Drawing with










Emulsions or Soaps










- Core
.205
.084
.135
.056
.681
.285
.32
	
9.33
5.60
- Continuous rod
.0009
.0004
.0006
.0003
.0029
.0012
.0014
	
.040
.024
casting lubricant










- Continuous rod
.086
.035
.056
.024
.283
.119
.134
	
3.88
2.33
casting contact
cooling water
-------
ALUHINUH FORMING (cont.)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES (PSES) (Continued)
(In mg/off-kg)
4
Chromium	Cyanide	Zinc	TTO	Oil and Grease
2	3
Subpart Subcategory	HD	MMA	HD	HHA	MD	MMA	MD	MHA	MD	HHA
- Solution heat
.896
.367
.591
.245
2.98
1.25
1.41
	
40.74
24.44
treatment contact










cooling water










- Cleaning or etching
.079
.032
.052
.022
.262
.11
.124
	
3.58
2.15
bath










- Cleaning or etching
.612
.251
.404
' .167
2.03
.849
.96
	
27.82
16.69
rinse










- Cleaning or etching
.851
.348
.561
.232
2.82
1.18
1.34
	
38.66
23.20
scrubber liquor
'off-kllogram or off-pound Is defined as the mass of aluminum or aluminum alloy removed from a forming or ancillary operation at
the end of a process cycle for transfer to a different machine or process. Therefore, these standarda are expressed in terms of
mass of pollutant allowed per limit mass of product produced in the given process.
2
MD ¦ Maximum for any one day.
3
MMA ¦ Maximum for monthly average.
4
Oil and grease Is an alternative monitoring parameter for TTO.
-------
ALUMINUM PORHINC (cont.)
FRETREATKENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES (PSNS)
(In og/off-kg)
Chronlun	Cyanide	Zinc	TTO	Oil and Grease^
2	3
Subpart Subcategory	HD	MMA	MD	MMA	HD	MMA HD	MHA	MD	MIA
A	Rolling with Heat 011a
- Core with annealing
.030
.013
.017
.007
.084
.035
.057
	
.817
.817
furnace scrubber










- Core without annealing
.«WI
.009
.011
.005
.057
.024
.038
	
.54
.54
furnace scrubber










- Continuous sheet
.00073
.00029
.00039
. .00016
.0020
.00082
.0014
	
.020
.020
casting lubricant










- Solution heat treat-
.76
.31
.41
.17
2.08
.86
1.41
	
20.37
20.37
oent contact










cooling water










- Cleaning or etching
.067
.027
.036
.015
.183
.075 .
.124
	
1.79
1.79
bath










- Cleaning or etching
.52
.21
.28
.11
1.42
.59
.96
	
13.91
13.91
rinse










- Cleaning or etching
.72
.29
.39
.16
1.97
.81
1.34
	
19.33
19.33
scrubber liquor










Rolling with Enulslons










- Core
.048
.020
.026
.011
.133
.055
.090
	
1.30
1.30
- Direct chill
.49
.20
.27
.11
1.36
.56
.92
	
13.29
13.29
casting contact










cooling water










- Solution heat
.76
.31
.41
.17
2.08
.86
1.41
	
20.37
20.37
treataent contact










cooling water










- Cleaning or etching
.067
.027
.036
.015
.183
.075
.124
	
1.79
1.79
bath










- Cleaning or etching
.52
.21
.28
.11
1.42
.59
.96
	
' 13.91
13.91
rinse










- Cleaning or etching










scrubber liquor
.72
.29
.39
.16
1.97
.81
1.34
	
19.33
19.33
Bxtruslon










- Core
.13
.05
.07
.03
.35
.15
.24
	
3.40
3.40
- Extrusion press
.11
.05
.06
.03
.31
.13
.21
	
2.98
2.98
leakage










- Direct chill
.49
.20
.27
.11
1.36
.56
.92
	
13.29
13.29
casting contact










cooling water










- Press heat treat-
.76
.31
.41
.17
2.08
.86
1.41
	
20.37
20.37
ment contact










cooling water










- Solution heat
.76
.31
.41
.17
2.08
.86
1.41
	
20.37
20.37
treatment contact
cooling water
-------
ALUHINUH FORMING (cont.)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES (PSNS) (Continued)
(In mg/off-kg)
4
Chronlun	Cyanide	Zinc	TTO	Oil and Grease
2	3
Subpart Subcategory	MO	MMA	MD	HMA	HD	MMA	HD	HHA	HD	MHA

- Cleaning or retching
.067
.027
.036
.015
.183
.075
.124
	
1.79
1.79

bath











- Cleaning or etching
.52
.21
.28
.11
1.42
.59
.96
	
13.91
13.91

rinse











- Cleaning or etching
.72
.29
.39
.16
1.97
.81
1.34
	
19.33
19.33

scrubber liquor



*






D
Forging











- Core
.019
.008
.010
.004
.051
.021
.035
	
.50
.50

- Forging scrubber
.035
.014
.019
.008
.096
.040
.065
	
.95
.95

liquor











- Solution heat
.76
.31
.41
.16
2.08
.86 •
1.41
	
20.37
20.37

treataent contact











cooling water










!
- Cleaning or etching
.067
.027
.036
.015
.183
.075
.124
	
1.79
1.79
00
bath










1
- Cleaning or etching
.52
.21
.28
.11
1.42
.59
.96
	
13.91
13.91

rinse











- Cleaning or etching
.72
.29
.39
.16
1.97
.812
1.34
	
19.33
19.33

scrubber liquor










E
Drawing with
Neat Oils











- Core
.019
.008
.010
.004
.051
.021
.035
	
.50
.50

- Continuous rod
.0007
.0003
.0004
.0002
.0020
.0008
.0014
	
.020
.020

casting lubricant











- Continuous rod
.072
.029
.039
.016
.198
.082
.134
	
1.94
1.94

casting contact











cooling water











- Solution heat
.76
.306
.41
.183
2.08
.856
1.41
	
20.37
20.37

treatment contact











cooling water











- Cleaning or etching
.067
.027
.036
.015
.183
.075
.124
	
1.79
1.79

bath











- Cleaning or etching
.52
.21
.28
.11
1.42
.59
.96
	
13.91
13.91

rinse











- Cleaning or etching
.72
.29
.39
.16
1.97
.812
1.34
	
19.33
19.33

scrubber liquor










F
Drawing with
Emulsions or Soaps











- Core
.173
.070
.094
.038
.48
.196
.32
	
4.67
4.67

- Continuous rod
.0008
.0003
.0004
.0002
.0020
.0008
.0014
	
.020
.020

casting lubricant











- Continuous rod
.072
.029
.039
.016
.198
.082
.134
	
1.94
1.94

casting contact











cooling water










-------
ALUHINUH FORMING (cont.)
PRETREATMEHT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES (PSNS) (Continued)
(in ng/off-kg)
Chroalun	Cyanide	Zinc	TTO	Oil and Crease^
2	3
Subpart Subcategory	MD	MMA	KD	MMA	HD	MMA	HD	MMA	HD	MMA
- Solution heat
.76
.306
.41
.163
2.08
.856
1.41
	
20.37
20.37
treatment contact










cooling water










- Cleaning or etching
.067
.027
.036
.015
.183
.075
.124
	
1.79
1.79
bath










- Cleaning or etching
.52
.21
.28
. .11
1.42
.59
.96
	
13.91
13.91
rlnae










- Cleaning or etching
.715
.290
.387
.155
1.97
.812
1.34
	
19.33
19.33
scrubber liquor
Off-kllograa or off-pound la defined aa the aaas of alualnum or aluminum alloy removed, from a foralng or ancillary operation at
the end of a process cycle for transfer to a different machine or process. Therefore, these standards are expressed In terms of
aass of pollutant allowed per Halt aass of product produced In the given process.
2
MD « Maximum for any one day.
^MMA - Max1nun for monthly average.
4
Oil and grease la an alternative aonltorlng parameter for TTO.
-------
1
s
£
I
-y
ti
1
-------
BBZSB
Background
The Clean Water Act
Under the Clean Water Act (the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, as amended by the Clean Water
Act of 1977, "the Act"), the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) is charged
with the responsibility to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters
EPA was unable to promulgate many of
the regulations by the dates contained in
the 1972 Act and in 1976, EPA was sued
by several environmental groups In
settlement of this lawsuit, EPA and the
plaintiffs executed a Settlement Agree-
ment, which was approved by the Court,
This agreement required EPA to develop
a program and adhere to a schedule for
promulgating effluent limitations guide-
lines and new source performance
¦
-------
United States	Office of Water	Spring 1984
Environmental Protection	and Waste Management
Agency	Washington, D C. 20460
Final Effluent
Guidelines
Rulemaking for the
Battery Manufacturing
Point Source Category
-------
Pollutants
The pollutants to be regulated by the
limitations and standards promulgated for
the battery manufacturing industry are.
Toxic—Arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, nickel,
silver, zinc
Nonconventional —Aluminum, cobalt,
COD (chemical oxygen demand), iron,
manganese.
Conventional—Oil and grease, pH, total
suspended solids (TSS)
Not all of these pollutants or pollutant
parameters are controlled in all sub- ,
categories
EPA's Development
Program
T' " Agency s development of the
ation in terms of data gathering
. ts, methodology, sampling and
analysis program, and other important
factors affecting the regulation is
described summarily in the preamble to
the proposed regulation (47 FR 51052)
and in the Development Document, avail-
able from the National Technical
Information Service.
Subcategorization
The subcategorization of this point
source category has not changed since
proposal; eight subcategories are
addressed in this regulation:
Cadmium
Calcium
Lead
Leclanche (zinc anode with an acid
electrolyte)
Lithium
Magnesium
Zinc (with alkaline electrolyte)
Nuclear
Summary of Control
Technologies Considered
The following technologies were con-
sidered by EPA in developing limitations
and standards for the battery manufac-
turing category.
In-Process Technology
•	Countercurrent cascade rinsing
•	Consumption of cleansed wastewater
in product mixes
•	Substitution of non-wastewater-
generating forming (charging) and
other systems
End-of-Pipe Technology
•	Hexavalent chromium reduction
•	Chemical precipitation of metals
using hydroxides, carbonates, or
sulfides
•	Settling, sedimentation, and filtration
Of the 254 plants in the data base, 25
percent have no treatment and do not
discharge, 16 percent have no treatment
and discharge, 21 percent have only pH
adjustment systems, 3 percent have only
sedimentation or clarification devices, 24
percent have equipment for chemical
precipitation and settling, 7 percent have
equipment for chemical precipitation,
settling, and filtration, and 4 percent have
other treatment systems
The Final
Regulation
Cadmium
BPT
Technology Basis—Oil skimming and
lime and settle
Pollutant Removal —69,598 kg/yr toxics;
115,537 kg/yr other pollutants.
BAT
Technology Basis—Flow reduction, oil
skimming, and lime and settle
Pollutant Removal —70,096 kg/yr toxics;
109,614 kg/yr other pollutants
NSPS
Technology Basis— Lime, settle, and
filter
Pollutant Removal—Toxic pollutant
discharge levels would be reduced to 2 3
kg/yr per plant, the discharge of other
pollutants would be reduced to 34.7
kg/yr per plant.
PSES
Technology Basis—Same as BAT: flow
reduction, oil skimming, and lime and
settle
Pollutant Removal—27,325 kg/yr toxics;
42,730 kg/yr other pollutants
PSNS
Technology Basis— Equivalent to NSPS
Lead
BPT
Technology Basis—Oil skimming, lime
and settle.
Pollutant Removal— 1,442 kg/yr toxics;
13,493 kg/yr other pollutants.
BAT
Technology Basis— Flow reduction, oil
skimming, lime and settle
Pollutant Removal—1,634 kg/yr toxics,
16,787 kg/yr other pollutants.
NSPS
Technology Basis— Flow reduction;
lime, settle, and filter.
Pollutant Removal-Toxic pollutant
discharge levels would be reduced to
4.34 kg/yr; discharge of other pollutants
would be reduced to 42 kg/yr.
PSES
Technology Basis— Equivalent to BAT.
Pollutant Removal—21,037 kg/yr toxic
metals; 216,128 kg/yr other pollutants.
PSNS
Technology Basis— Equivalent to NSPS.
-------
Zinc
BPT
Technology Basis—Oil skimming, lime
precipitation and settle.
Pollutant Removal—1,093 kg/yr toxics;
789 kg/yr other pollutants.
BAT
Technology Basis— Flow reduction, oil
skimming, lime and settle.
Pollutant Removal—1,114 kg/yr toxics;
1,058 kg/yr other pollutants
NSPS
Technology Basis— Flow reduction,
sulfide precipitation, sedimentation and
filtration.
Pollutant Removal— Equivalent to
cadmium subcategory NSPS
PSES
"hnology Basis— Equivalent to BAT.
.utant Removal —3,729 kg/yr toxics;
3,543 kg/yr other pollutants.
PSNS
Technology Basis— Equivalent to NSPS
Calcium
BPT, BAT—Not promulgated because
there are no existing direct dischargers.
NSPS
Technology Basis— No discharge of
process wastewater pollutants Settle
and recycle for heat paper production
wastewater, and lime, settle, filter, and
recycle for other wastewaters
Pollutant Removal— Equivalent to
cadmium subcategory NSPS
PSES — Not promulgated because of
insignificant amount and toxicity of
discharge
PSNS— Equivalent to NSPS
Leclanche
BPT, BAT — Not promulgated because
-e are no existing direct dischargers
NSPS
Technology Basis—With the exception of
foliar battery production, zero discharge
of wastewater pollutants For foliar
batteries, water recycle and reuse, oil
skimming, and lime, settle, and filter
Pollutant Removal— Equivalent to
cadmium subcategory NSPS.
PSES
Technology Basis— Equivalent to NSPS
Pollutant Removal— 1,300 kg/yr toxic
metals, 11,000 kg/yr other pollutants
PSNS
Technology Basis— Equivalent to NSPS
Lithium
BPT, BAT —Not promulgated because of
insignificant amount and toxicity of
discharge
NSPS
Technology Basis— Depends on process
wastewater streams and includes
recycle, aeration, lime and settle; and
lime, settle, and filter.
Pollutant Removal —Equivalent to
cadmium subcategory NSPS
PSES —Not promulgated because of
insignificant amount and toxicity of
discharge
PSNS
Technology Basis —Equivalent to NSPS
Magnesium
BPT, BAT — Not promulated because of
insignificant amount and toxicity of
discharge.
NSPS
Technology Basis— Depends on process
wastewater streams and includes
recycle; aeration, permanganate
oxidation, lime and settle; and lime,
settle, and filter
Pollutant Removal— Equivalent to
cadmium subcategory NSPS
PSES
Technology Basis—Settle and recycle
for heat paper production wastewater,
and lime and settle for other wastewaters.
Pollutant Removal —97 kg/yrtoxics; 1,018
kg/yr other pollutants
PSNS
Technology Basis— Equivalent to NSPS.
Nuclear
Not proposed or promulgated for any
regulation because there are no existing
plants or plans for resuming commercial
production
Economic Impact
Analysis
EPA's economic impact assessment is
set forth in the Economic Impact Analysis
of Effluent Standards and Limitations for
the Battery Manufacturing Industry, EPA
440/2-84-002. This document reports
the investment and annual pollution
control costs for the industry as a whole
and for plants covered by the battery
manufacturing regulation. The report also
estimates the probable economic effect
of compliance costs in terms of plant
closures, production changes, price
changes, employment changes, local
community impacts, and imports and
exports of battery-related products
Impact Summary
EPA has identified 149 facilities that will
incur costs as a result of this regulation
Of these 149, 15 are direct dischargers
and 134 are indirect dischargers. Total
investment for BAT and PSES is pro-
jected to be $9 3 million, with annual
costs of $5 0 million, including deprecia-
tion and interest. These costs are in 1983
dollars and are based on the determina-
tion that plants will build on existing
treatment
-------
Fifteen direct dischargers are pro-
jected to incur costs of $0,924 million
in investment and $0,545 million
annually to comply with BPT limita-
tions. No potential plant closures or
job losses are anticipated to result
from BPT implementation Total loss
in industry production is expected to
be about 0.09 percent, with the cost
of production increasing about 0.27
percent. If average compliance costs
were passed on to consumers, price
increases would range from 0 to 0.3
percent
Total investment costs to comply with
BAT limitations are estimated to be
$1 1 million, with annual costs of
$0 60 million The incremental costs
over BPT are estimated to be $0.20
million in investment and $0 05
million annually. BAT will not cause
any plant closures or job losses. Price
increases due to compliance costs
are expected to range from 0 to 0.3
percent
The 134 identified indirect dis-
chargers subject to PSES in this
point source category will incur an
estimated $8.2 million in investment
costs and $4.4 million in annual costs
including depreciation and interest
No plant closures or job losses are
expected to result from PSES
implementation. Total loss in industry
production is estimated at 0.09
percent, with production cost
increases of about 0.3 percent
NSPS and PSNS are not expected to
pose a barrier to entry into this
industry. The average capital invest-
ment cost over costs incurred to
meet BAT or PSES for the new
source option would be $41,228 with
an annual cost of $16,344 for a
typical plant The incremental costs
over BAT and PSES cost estimates
as a percent of expected revenues
range from 0 percent for Leclanche
to 1.8 percent for lithium for the new
source plant
Glossary
BAT " Best available technology
economically achievable," to
be achieved by July 1, 1984
BCT Best conventional pollutant
control technology," to be
achieved by July 1, 1984
BPT " Best practicable control
technology currently available"
COD Chemical oxygen demand
For Further Information
Further technical information may be
obtained from:
Ms Mary L. Belefskior
Mr Ernst P. Hall
Effluent Guidelines Division (WH-552)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202)382-7126
The economic analysis may be obtained
from.
EPA U S Environmental Protection
Agency
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
NSPS New source performance
standards, to be achieved upon
commencement of operation
of a new plant
POTW Publicly owned treatment works
PSES Pretreatment standards for
existing sources, to be achieved
within 3 years of promulgation
of a regulation
PSNS Pretreatment standards for new
sources, to be achieved upon
commencement of operation
of a new plant
SIC Standard Industrial
Classification
Dr Ellen Warhit
Economic Analysis Staff (WH-586)
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C 20460
(202)382-5381
Copies of the technical and economic
(EPA440/2-84-002) documents will be
available from:
The National Technical Informatioi
Service
Springfield, Virginia 22161
(703)487-4600
TSS Total suspended solids
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 69 / Monday, April 9, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 13879
listed NSPS and NESHAPS source
categories should be directed to the
KCAPCD at the address shown in the
address section of this notice.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This Notice is issued under the
authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et
seq.).
Dated: March 29,1994.
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.
(FR Doc. 64-9364 Filed 4-6-64: 8-45 am|
B1LUNQ CODE 6560-&0-M
40 CFR Part 461
[WH-FRL 2516-2]
Battery Manufacturing Point Source-,
Category, Effluent Limitations r	
Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards,
And New Source Performance—
Standards f
Correction7
In FR Doc. 84-6236 beginning on page
9108 in the issue of Friday, March 9, .
1984, make the following corrections:
1.	On page 9108, column 1, in the
Dates paragraphs, line 6. "April 18,
1984" should read "April 23,1984".
2.	On page 9108, column 2, line 22,
"May 9,1984" should read "May 14,
1984".
3.	On page 9113, column 1, line 22,
"(153,437) pounds" should read "(153,437
pounds)".
4.	On page 9118, column 2, line 26,
"Lechlanche" should read "Leclanche".
5.	On page 9119, column 3, third line
from the bottom of the page, "ananlysis"
should read "analysis".
6.	On page 9120, column 2, line 18,
"may be in" should read "may be an".
7.	On page 9120, column 3, line 21,
"discharges" should read "dischargers".
8.	On page 9123, column 1, second line
from the bottom of the page, "For these
employees" should read "For those
employees".
9.	On page 9127, column 3, line 16,
"carinogenicity"should read
"carcinogenicity".
10.	On page 9129, column 3. Appendix .
C, item 033, should read "033 1, 2-
dichloropropyle (1,3-dichloropropene)".
11.	On page 9130, column 3, item 017
should read "017 Bis(chloromethyl)
ether".
12.	On page 9130, column 3, item 018
should read "018 Bis (2-chloroethyl) .
ether".
13.	On page 9131, column 1, item 052
should read "052 Hexachlorobutadien".
14.	On page 9132, column 3, item 053
should read "053
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene".
15.	On page 9133, column 3, Appendix
F, item 014 should read "014 1,1,2-
trichloroethane".
16.	On page 9137, column 2, in
§ 461.13(a)(1), in the first table, the last
entry, "(2) Subpart A—Impregnated
Anodes—NSPS." should be removed
and inserted as the heading at the top of
the second table in the paragraph.
17.	On page 9140, column 1, in
§ 461.31(a), line 2, "125.30-32," should
read "125.30-125.32,".
18.	On page 9141, column 1,
S 461.32(a), line 2, "125.30-32," should
read "125.30-125.32,".
19.	On page 9145, column 3, in
§ 461.63(a)(5), in the table, "BAT
Effluent Limitations" should be deleted.
20.	In § 461.70(a)(ll), on page 9147,
column 3, in the table, "Metric units—
mg/kg of silver peroxide produced"
should read "Metric units—mg/kg of
silver in silver peroxide produced".
2J. In 5 461.72(a)(4), on page 9148,
column 2, in the table, "Metric units—
mg/kg of Zinc deposited" should read
"Metric units—mg/kg of zinc
deposited".
22.	In | 461.72(a)(ll), on page 9148,
column 3, in the table, "Metric units—
mg/kg of silver peroxide produced"
should read "Metric units—mg/kg of
silver in silver peroxide produced".
23.	In § 461.75(a)(9), on page 9151,
column 3, in the table, "Metric units—
mg/kg of silver peroxide produced"
should read "Metric unit mg/kg of silver
in silver peroxide produced."
BILLING CODE 150S-01-H
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 64
[Dpcket No. FEMA 6594]
I
List of Communities Eligible for the
Sajle of Insurance Under the National
Flood Insurance Program
agency: Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
action: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule lists communities
participating in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). These
communities have applied to the
program and have agreed to enact
certian flood plain management
measures. The communities',
participation in the program authorizes
the sale of flood insurance to owners of
property located in the communities
listed.
effective DATE: The date listed in the
fourth column of the table.
addresses: Flood insurance policies for
property located in the communities
listed can be obtained from any licensed
property insurance agent or broker
serving the eligible community, or from
the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) at: P.O. Box 457, Lanham,
Maryland 20706, Phone: (BOO) 638-7418.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frank H. Thomas. Assistant
Administrator, Office of Loss Reduction,
Federal Insurance Administration. (202)
287-0222, 500 C Street, SW., FEMA—
Room 509, Washington, D.C. 20472f
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP), enables property owners to
purchase flood insurance at rates made
reasonable through a Federal subsidy. In
return, communities agree to adopt and
administer local flood plain
management measures aimed at
protecting lives and new construction
from future flooding. Since the
communities on the attached list have
recently entered the NFIP, subsidized -
flood insurance is now available for
property in the community.
In addition, the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency has
identified the special flood hazard areas
- in some of these communities by
publishing a Flood Hazard Boundary
Map. The date of the flood map, if one
has been published, is indicated in the
fifth column of the table. In the
communities listed where a flood map
has been published, section 102 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as
amended, requires the purchase of flood
insurance as a condition of Federal or
federally related financial assistance for
acquisition or construction of buildings
in the special flood hazard area shown
on the map.
The Director finds that delayed
effective dates would be contrary to the
public interest The Director also finds
that notice and public procedure under 5
U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and
unnecessary.
The Catalog of Domestic Assistance
Number for this program is 83.100
"Flood Insurance."
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Administrator, Federal
Insurance Administration, to whom
authority has been delegated by the
Director, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, hereby certifies
-------
27946 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 132 / Monday. July 9. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
Colorado—NOi


Btftlei man

DestQnatod araa
national

•tanaarcH
Entra State . .. . -	 . 		 	
X
IFF Doc 84-17512 Filed 7-e-M. 8 45 am)
BILLING COOi U60-S0-U
40CFR Part 461
(WH-FRL-2624-8]
Battery Manufacturing Point Source
Category, Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards,
and New Source Performance
Standards
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule, correction.
summary: This document corrects the
promulgated effluent limitations and
standards for the Battery Manufacturing
Point Source Category that appeared in
the Federal Register on Friday, March 9,
1984. at 49 FR 9108. This notice is
necessary to correct a typographical
error that appeared in that document.
ADDRESSES: Technical information
about the Battery Manufacturing
regulation may be obtained by writing to
Ms. Mary L Belefski, Effluent
Guidelines Division (WH-552). EPA. 401
M Street SW.. Washington, D.C. 20460.
or by calling (202) 382-7126. Copies of
the technical and economic documents
may be obtained from the National
Technical Information Service,
Springfield. VA 22161, (703) 487-4600.
The Record is available for public
review in EPA's Public Information
Reference Unit, Room 2004 (Rear) (EPA
Library). 401 M Street SW., Washington.
DC. The EPA information regulation (40
CFR Part 2) provides that a reasonable
fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ernst P. Hall, (202) 382-7126.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
notice corrects a typographical error
which was detected after the
publication of the promulgated
regulation. This correction of a
typographical error reduces one mercury
value from 0.10 to 0.010 mg/kg or from
0.10 to 0.010 pounds per 1 million pounds
in the final regulation.
Dated: June 29.1984.
Jack E. Ravan,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
In FR Doc. 84-6236 beginning on page
9108 in the issue of Friday, March 9.
1984, make the following correction:
$461.44 (Corrected]
1. On page 9144, column 2,
S 461.44(a)(1): for maximum for any one
day standards for mercury; change:
"0.10" to "0.010".
(FR Doc 84-18038 Filed 7-6-84 8 45 am|
BILLING CODE
40 CFR Part 712
IOPTS-82004Q; FRL TSH-2595-4]
Amendment Adding Chemicals
Recommended by the Interagency
Testing Committee
Correction
In FR Doc. 84-16939 beginning on page
25856 in the issue of Monday, June 25.
1984, make the following correction on
page 25857: In the first column, the
twenty-second line should read "25852-
70-4 Acetic acid, 2,2'.2
mUMO COM 1505-01-41
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs
41 CFR Chapter 60; 41 CFR Part 60-
999
OMB Control Numbers for OFCCP
Information Collection Requirements
AGENCY: Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs (OFCCP), Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Office of Federal
Contract Compliance Programs is
codifying the control numbers that have
been issued by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
information collection requirements in
OFCCP rules that are approved under
the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB
control numbers will no longer appear at
the end of the table of contents for each
Part of the regulations containing the
information collection requirement, but
will be centrally located in a new Part
60-999.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 29, 1984.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leonard J. Biermann, Director, Division
of Program Policy.'Office of Federal
Contract Compliance Programs, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW„ Room C3324.
Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone (202)
523-9426.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C. 3501-3520 (1982). and the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
regulations at 5 CFR Part 1320 (1983)
provide for OMB review of certain
information collection requirements
imposed by agency rules. Upon approval
of the information collection
requirement, OMB assigns a control
number. OMB regulations require that
the agency display this control number
as part of the regulatory text in order to
inform the public that the information
collection requirement has been
approved by OMB.
I.	Background
In OFCCP's initial implementation of
the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
control numbers were published at the
end of the table of contents for each Part
of the regulations at 41 CFR Chapter 60.
The OFCCP will no longer display
control numbers in this manner. Rather,
consistent with the OMB regulations, the
OFCCP is establishing a new Part 60-
999 which will contain a table of all
control numbers that have been issued
for its regulations. The table provides
columns displaying both the CFR
citation of the information collection
requirement and the applicable OMB
control number. OFCCP believes that
this format will provide an easy
reference to the numbers for the public
and will make it easier to accomplish
updating of the collection requirements
and OMB approvals.
Accordingly, OFCCP is removing all
control numbers which appear in
individual Parts of 41 CFR Chapter 60
and adding a new Part 60-999 that lists
all control numbers in a single display
table. Additions or changes to this
display will be published periodically as
notices of approval from OMB are
received for information collection
requirements in OFCCP regulations.
II.	Regulatory Flexibility Act; Waiver of
Proposed Rulemaking and Delay in
Effective Date
No substantive changes are being
made to the OFCCP regulations, all of
which have been promulgated in
accordance with appropriate
procedures, as applicable, under the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
551-553), the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). and Executive
Order 12291 (46 FR 13193, February 19,
1981). As this document is technical in
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28. 1986 / Proposed Rules
3477
compliance by the end of 1987. EPA will
process these rules in a separate notice.
Future Policy Changes'1"
The Agency is proposing to approve
the St. Louis attainment demonstration,
which is based in part on previous
submittals from the State of Missouri.
These submittals were in conformance
with policies and procedures in effect at
the time they were made. The submittals
were approved by EPA. The attainment
demonstration relied on an early version
of the mobile source emission model.
Use of that model may have resulted in
an underpredication of emission
reductions needed. Use of recently-
improved data collection techniques and
of a revised mobile source model could
provide a different estimation of
attd::iment status.
St. Louis is but one of many large
metropolitan areas that are currently
designated nonattainment for ozone.
F.PA is presently developing a
comprehensive new strategy to address
the nationwide ozone problem. When
this strategy is adopted, it may be
necessary to reexamine the attainment
demonstration for St. Louis and other
major cities. Where emission reduction
shortfalls are demonstrated, additional
controls will be required. Consequently,
approval of this attainment
demonstration does not relieve the State
of any subsequent requirements which
may be imposed under a new policy.
Summary
This attainment demonstration
consists of a consent order and
commitments to adopt several new
regulations. These regulations will be
the subjects of fixuture EPA
rulemakings. The total of the emission
: eductions to be obtained, even not
counting the fuel inlet check, exceeds
I hi; reductions which the State has
demonstrated are needed to attain the
ozone standard. Therefore, EPA believes
the St. Louis attainment demonstration
is approvable.
The State submission constitutes a
proposed revision to the Missouri SIP.
The Administrator's decision to approve
or disapprove this proposed revision
v.-ill be based on the comments received
and on a determination of whether or
not the revision meets the requirements
of sections 110 and 172 of the Clean Air
Act. and of 40 CFR Part 51.
Requirements for Preparation. Adoption,
and Submittal of State Implementation
Plans, and of the 1982 SIP policy (46 FR
7184, January 22.1981).
Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that
(his SIP revision will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control. Ozone, Nitrogen
dioxide. Carbon monoxide.
Hydrocarbons. Intergovernmental
relations, and Incorporation by
reference.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642.
Dated: November 11, 1985.
Morris Kay,
Regional Administrator.
|FR Doc. 80-1810 Filed 1-27-86: 8:45 am|
BILLING CODE 8560-50-11
40 CFR Part 461
IOW-FRL-2899-6)
Battery Manufacturing Point Source
Category Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards
and New Source Performance
Standards
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed regulation.
summary: EPA is proposing
amendments to the regulation which
limits effluent discharges to waters of
the United States and the introduction of
pollutants into publicly owned treatment
works (POTW) by existing and new
sources that conduct battery
manufacturing operations in the lead
subcategory. EPA agreed to propose
these amendments in a settlement
agreement,which resolved the various
lawsuites challenging the final battery
manufacturing regulation promulgated
by EPA on March 9.1984. 49 FR 9108.
The proposed amendments include:
(1)	Certain modifications of the effluent
limitations for "best available
technology economically achievable"
(BAT) and "new source performance
standards" (NSPS) for direct discharges:
(2)	certain modifications of the
pretreatment standards for new and
existing indirect discharges (PSNS and
PSES): and (3) guidance which allows
consideration of employee shower
wastewater as a process wastewater
under certain circumstances. After
considering comments received in
response to this proposal, EPA will
promulgate a final rule.
date: Comments on this proposal must
be submitted on or before February 27.
1986.
ADDRESS: Send comments to Ms. Mary
L. Belefski. Industrial Technology
Division (WH-552). Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW„
Washington, DC 20460. Attention: ITD
Docket Clerk, Proposed Battery
Manufacturing Rule (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), (EPA Library)
401 M Street SW.t Washington, DC. The
EPA information regulation provides
that a reasonable fee may be charged
for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions regarding this notice may be
addressed to Mr. Ernst P. Hall at (202)
382-7126.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Organization of this Notice:
I.	Legal Authority
II.	Background
A.	Rulemaking and Settlement Agreement
B.	Effect of the Settlement Agreement
III.	Proposed Amendments to the Battery
Manufacturing Regulation
A.	Effluent Limitations and Standards fur-
Battery Wash Operations in the Lead
Subcategory
B.	Battery Employee Shower Wastewater
IV.	Guidance to Permit Writers for Handling
Non-Regulated Wastewater Sources
V.	Environmental Impact of the Proposed
Amendments to the Battery
Manufacturing Regulation
VI.	Economic Impact of the Proposed
Amendments
VII.	Solicitation of Comments
VIII.	Executive Order 12291
IX.	Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
X.	OMB Review
XI.	List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 461.
I.	Legal Authority
The regulation described in this notice
is proposed under authority of sections
301. 304, 306. 307, 308 and 501 of the
Clean Water Act (the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as amended
by the Clean Water Act of 1977, Pub. L.
92-217).
II.	Background
A. Rulemaking and Settlement
Agreement
On March 9,1984. EPA promulgated a
regulation to establish Best Practicable
Control Technology Currently Available
(BPT) and Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT] Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS),
Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources (PSES). and Pretreatment
Standards for New Sources (PSNS) for
the Battery Manufacturing Paint Source
Category (40 CFR Part 461. 49 FR 9108).
The preamble to the regulation
describes the history of the rulemaking.
-------
3478	Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 1986 / Proposed Rules
After publication of the battery
manufacturing regulations certain
members of the battery manufacturing
industry and the Battery Council
International Hied a petition to review
portions of the regulation that pertained
to the lead subcategory [Batteiy Council
InternationaI v. EPA, 4th Cir. No. 84-
1507],
On March 27,1985, the parties entered
into a settlement agreement which
resolved ail issues raised by petitioners.
On April 25,1985, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
entered an order staying briefing in the
lawsuits. In the Settlement Agreement,
EPA agreed to publish a notice of
proposed rules and preamble language
and to solicit comments regarding
certain amendments to the final battery
manufacturing regulation. If EPA
promulgates amendments to the battery
manufacturing regulation and preamble
language that are substantially the same
as and do not alter the meaning of the
proposed language, the petitioners have
agreed to dismiss the lawsuit and not
challenge the new amendments.
B. Effect of the Settlement Agreement
As part of the Settlement Agreement,
the parties jointly requested the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit to stay the effectiveness of
cetain sections of 40 CFR Part 461
pending final action by EPA on the
proposed amendments. The April 25,
1985 court order granted this request.
All limitations and standards
proposed to be amended by regulation
have been stayed by the court order (i.e.,
they are not currently in effect).
However, until the Agency takes final
action on the proposed revisions, the
parties have agreed to treat these
proposed amendments and preamble as
applicable. All other limitations and
standards remain the same, and EPA is
not proposing to delete or amend any of
them.
III. Proposed Amendments to the
Battery Manufacturing Regulation
A. Effluent Limitations and Standards
for Battery Wash Operations in the
Lead Subcategory
The BAT. PSES, NSPS and PSNS
limitations and standards for the battery
wash (with detergent) operation in the
lead subcategory were based upon
discharging wastewater from the
washing of each battery once during the
production process. Based upon
subsequent re-evaluation of this aspect
of lead battery production, EPA
concludes that batteries are washed
with detergent twice at many plants
(once after formation and once prior to
shipping after the batteries have been in
storage); that wastewater from each
such battery wash operation may
contain pollutants and is properly
considered a process wastewater
requiring treatment; and that an
additional flow allowance for a second
battery wash is appropriate for purposes
of calculating the mass limits for battery
washing operations. Consequently, EPA
is proposing to double the battery wash
(with detergent) mass limits for all
pollutants covered by battery wash
(detergent) BAT, PSES, NSPS and PSNS
limitations and standards.
The proposed regulation, like the
existing regulation, would provide no
allowance for discharges from battery
wash operations that do not use
detergent. The wastewater from such
operations may be reused and thus does
not need to be discharged.
B. Battery Employee Shower
Wastewater
When EPA promulgated the battery
manufacturing regulation on March 9,
1984, EPA determined that no flow
allowance should be provided for
employee showers. EPA reasoned that
relatively few employees in battery
plants are exposed to high lead dust
levels and that adequate means are
available for assuring that substantially
all lead is removed prior to showering.
EPA concluded that there is thus no
need for a plant to discharge battery
employee shower wastewater as
process wastewater (i.e., as water that
has contacted and become
contaminated with substantial amounts
of lead) and that the battery employee
shower wastewater can be discharged
as sanitary wastewater. See 49 FR 9108,
9123 (March 9,1984).
The petitioners in Battery Council
Internationa! v. EPA have argued that in
some cases, battery employee shower
wastewater may be significantly
contaminated and require treatment. No
data have been submitted to
demonstrate the actual concentrations
of lead in various battery shower
wastewaters and EPA continues to
believe that battery shower wastewater
should not be classified as a process
wastewater. However, showers are
required by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) for
battery plant employees working in
areas with lead exposure in excess of 50
mg/m5. See 29 CFR 1910.1002. This
indicates a potential for the
contamination of some employee
shower wastewater with some amount
of lead. Therefore, EPA agrees with
petitioners that individual plants should
have the opportunity to demonstrate
that their particular wastewaters are
significantly contaminated and should
be accounted for accordingly. EPA is
addressing this concern in two ways,
one for indirect dischargers and one for
direct dischargers.
First, for indirect dischargers in the
battery manufacturing point source
category, EPA is proposing today an
amendment to the battery regulation.
§ 461.34(c), that would modify the way
that the combined wastestream formula.
40 CFR 403.6(e), applies to contaminated
shower wastewaters. The combined
wastestream formula provides a means
for determining final discharge
requirements for indirect dischargers
that combine different wastestreams
prior to the treatment and discharge of
these combined wastestreams to the
publicly owned treatment'works. The
formula treats certain types of
wastestreams, including sanitary
wastestreams that are not regulated by
a categorical prctreatment standard, as;
"dilution" streams (FD in the combmrj
wastestream formula). Thus, battery
shower wastewater is considered a
dilution stream under the existing
regulation.
Under proposed $ 461.34(c), where
battery employee shower wastewater
contains a significant amount of lead,
and the discharger combines this
wastewater with process wastestreams
prior to treatment and discharge, the
Control Authority is authorized to
exercise its discretion to classify the
stream as an unregulated stream rather
that a dilution stream. Classification as
an unregulated stream would result in
the consideration of the battery shower
wastewater as a contaminated stream
that may be combined with regulated
waste streams for purposes of treatment
and provide an appropriate flow
allowance.
EPA has selected 0.20 mg/1 as the
concentration of lead that represents a
significant contamination of battery
employee shower wastewater. This is
the lead concentration that was used by
EPA as a basis for establishing the
monthly average lead mass limitations
and standards in the regulation. EPA
anticipates that a demonstration of
significant contamination would be
based on data that can appropriately be
compared to the monthly average of 0 20
mg/1.
Second, for direct dischargers in the
battery manufacturing point source
category, EPA is stating its policy that
where battery employee shower
wastewater is shown to be significantly
contaminated (greater than 0.20 mg/1),
permit writers should likewise provide
an allowance when developing the
permit. In such situations, it would be
-------
Federal Regnter f Vol. 51, No. IB / Tuesday, January 28, 1986 / Proposed Rales	3479
appropriate for the permit writer to
develop a mass allowance.based upon
the product of the emp^gree shower
wastewater discharge rate and the -
treatment effectiveness used as a basis
for the promulgated regulation (as
specified in the Final Development
Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for Battery
Manaufacturing, Vol. LL Table. VII—21).
IV. Guidance to Permit Writers for
Handling Non-Regulated Wastewater
Sources
For those waste streams not given
flow allowances in the regulation, the
Agency does not believe they warrant
treatment on a national basis because
they are generally not contaminated or
occur at only one or two plants. The
Agency believes that such wastewater
sources as noncontact cooling water and
boiler blowdown ordinarily do not
contain significant quantities of toxic
pollutants. However, in some instances
wastewater sources such as these may
be contaminated. In certain
circumstances, the permit writer or
Control Authority may develop mass
limitations for site-specific wastewater
sources.
If the permit writer makes a threshold
determination that a wastestream is
sufficiently contaminated to require a
discharge allowance and further
determines that combined treatment
with other process wastewater is
appropriate, then the permit writer
should develop a mass discharge
limitation for a site-specific waste
stream. The permit writer must use his
best professional judgment to decide
which nonregulated wastestreams are
sufficiently contaminated to require
treatment, and which require combined
treatment with other process
wastewaters.
When consideration of site-specific
wastewater sources is warranted as
discussed above, the permit writer must
quantify the discharge rate of the
wastestream. The mass allowance
piovidud for the waste stream is then
obtained from the product of the
discharge rate and treatment
effectiveness of the technology basis of
the promulgated regulation. For
example. if the permit writer determines
that boiler blowdown requires
treatment, he or she must determine the
flow rate of contaminated wateT to be
treated. The permit writer cart then
determine the appropriate treatment
technology basis and treatment
effectiveness values by referring to the
final development document for battery
manufacturing. The product of the
discharge rate and treatment
effectiveness is then the allowed mass
discharge. This quantity can then be
added to the other building blocks (i.e.,
mass discharge for the regulated
streams) to determine total allowed
mass discharge for each pollutant.
In cases where in indirect discharger
combines boiler blowdown or non-
contact cooling water with regulated
streams, the combined wastestream
formula, 40 CFR 403.0(e) as amended on
May 17.1384, applies. See 49 FR 21024,
21037 (May 17, 1984).
V. Environmental Impact of the .
Proposed Amendments to the Battery
Manufacturing Regulation
If promulgated, the proposed
amendments would allow 111 existing
direct and indirect dischargers to
discharge a greater amount of pollutants
than was allowed by the March 1984
regulation. The increase in the mass of
pollutants allowed to be discharged is
not expected to be substantial, however.
The increased quantity of lead that
will be discharged at BAT and PSES due
to the flow change under the proposed
amended regulation average only 1.7
pounds per plant per year. Increases for
copper and iron would be 5.3 and 5.1
pounds per plant per year. For new
sources, the increases for these
pollutants would be 33% smaller than
the increases for existing sources.
For the 1984 promulgated regulation, it
was estimated that 72,047 kkg per year
of wastewater treatment sludges would
be generated at BAT-PSES of which 83
percent was from the lead subcategory.
As a result of these proposed
amendments, sludge generation will be
decreased by less than one percent to
about 71,980 kkg. However, lead battery
sludges are not specifically listed under
RCRA as a hazardous waste and
because of excess lime in the BAT-PSES
treatment systems, the Agency believes
that the siodges would pass the EPA
toxicity test Nevertheless, a separate
analysis showed that even if all lead
battery sludges were classified as
hazardous, there would be no adverse
economic impact on the industry from
solid waste generation.
VI. Economic Impact 6f the Proposed
Amendments
The proposed amendments will not
alter the recommended technologies for;
complying with the battery
manufacturing regulation. The Agency
considered the eooaomic impact of the
regulation when the final regulation was
promulgated (see 49 FR 8119). Since the
Agency concluded at the time that the
regulation wb» eoonunucaHy achievable,
and since H is expected thai the
amendments wHl not impose higher cost
than the final regulation was estimated
to impose, the Agency has concluded
that these proposed amendments will
not alter the determinations with respect
to economic impact that were made
previously.
VII.	Solicitation of Comments
EPA invites public participation in
this rulemaking and requests comments
on the proposed amendments discussed
or set out in this notice. The Agency
asks that comments be as specific as
possible and that suggested revisions or
corrections be supported by data.
VIII.	Executive Order 12291
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. Major rules are defined as -
rales that impose an annual cost to the ,
economy of $100 million or mo're, or
meet other economic criteria. This
proposed regulation, like the regulation
promulgated In March 1984, is not major
because it does not faD within the
criteria for major regulations established
in Executive Order 12291.
IX.	ReguiatOTy Flexibility Analysis
Pub. L 96-354 requires that EPA
prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis for regulations that have a
aigoiiicaat impact on a substantial
number of araall entities, is the
preamble to the March 8,1914 final
regulation, the Agency concluded that
there would not be a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities
[49 FR 911], For that reason, ftie Agency
determined that a formal regulatory
flexibility analysis was Rot required.
That coacfarsion is equally applicable to
these proposed amendments, since the
amendments would not alter the
economic hnpact of the regulation. The
Ageacy is not therefore, preparing a
formal analysis for this regulation.
X.	OMB Review
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by Executive Order
12291. Any comments from OMB to EPA
and any BRA response to tme
comments are available for public
Inspection at Room M2404, U.S. EPA.
401 M Street SW„ Washington, DC
20460 from 9:00 a.m. to 4r00 p.m. Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. This rale does not cootatai any
-------
3480
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 1986 / Proposed Rules
information collection requirements
subject to OMB review under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
XI. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 461
Battery manufacturing industry,
Primary batteries, dry and wet. Storage
batteries, Waste treatment and disposal,
Water pollution control.
Dated: January 15, 1986.
Lee M. Thomas,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated above, EPA is
proposing to amend 40 CFR Part 461 as
follows:
PART 461—BATTERY
MANUFACTURING POINT SOURCE
CATEGORY
1.	The authority section continues to
read:
Authority: Sections 301, 304 (b), (c), (e). and
(g), 306 (b) and (c), 307, 308 and 501 of the
Clean Water Act (the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
aa amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977),
(the "Act") 33 U.S.C. 1311.1314 (b). (c), (e).
and (g), 1318 (b) and (c), 1317 (b) and (c), and
1361; 86 Stat. 818, Pub. L 92-500; 91 Stat. 1567,
Pub. L 95-217.
2.	40 CFR 461.32 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows;
§ 461.32 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
(«)•**
(4) Subpart C—Battery Wash
(Detergent).
BAT Effluent Limitations

M&xvnum
Maximum
Po&rtarrt or potfutarrt property
for any 1
tor monthly

Oay
average
Copper	
I
	I 1 71
090
Lead, -	
	I 0 38
0 16
kon ..	
	— -t 1 08
055
3.40 CFR 461.33 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows;
§ 461.33 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
(a) • "
(4) Subpart C—Battery Wash
(Detergent) NSPS.
Metric Unrts~-mg/kg of
lead used
• Enghsh Urttt—pounds per
1.000.000 fe at lead used
Pollutant or poftutant property
Mawmum tor
any 1 Day
Maximum for
monttify
average
Metnc Urwts—mg/kg of
lead used
Engtish Units—pounds per
1,000,000 lb of lead used
Copper 	
Lead 	- 	
Iron	
Oil & Grease	
TSS 	-	
PH 			
1 152
0	252
1	06
60
135
(1)
0 549
0 117
0 55
90
108
(1)
1 W
-------
(Revised 5/16/84)
BATTERY MANUFACTURING
CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
This summary provides firms subject to the Battery Manufacturing
Categorical Standards and Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) with the
information necessary to determine compliance with these standards. The
Battery Manufacturing Standards were established by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) under Part 461 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (40 CFR 461). This summary is not intended to substitute for the
regulations published in the Code of Federal Regulations or the Federal
Register. For specific information, refer to the Federal Register citations
given below.
Important Dates	Federal Register Citation
Proposed Rule: November 10, 1982	Vol. 47, p. 51052, November 10, 1982
Final Rule: March 9, 1984	Vol. 49, p. 9108, March 9, 1984
Effective Date: April 18, 1984
Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR)
Due Date: October 15, 1984
Compliance Dates:
-	Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES): March 9, 1987
-	Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS): From commencement of
discharge
SUBCATEGORIES AND SIC CODES AFFECTED
The Battery Manufacturing category is divided into seven subcategories
based primarily on the active anode material used by firms in each sub-
category. The subcategories that are affected by these regulations are:
Subcategory A - Cadmium
Subcategory B - Calcium
Subcategory C - Lead
Subcategory D - Leclanche
Subcategory E - Lithium
Subcategory F - Magnesium
Subcategory G - Zinc
Industries in the Battery Manufacturing Category are generally included within
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 3691 and 3692.
REGULATED POLLUTANTS
The pollutants regulated by the Battery Manufacturing categorical
standards are cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, cyanide, lead, manganese,
mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc. Not all of these pollutants are regulated
in each of the subcategories. Limits were promulgated only if the pollutant
was found in a significant concentration in the raw waste water.
-1-
-------
BATTERY MANUFACTURING (cont.)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES (PSES AND PSNS)
PSES and PSNS for all seven subcategories are summarized In the following
tables. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) were not
promulgated for Subcategories B and E because of the small amount and low
level of toxicity of the discharges from industries in these subcategories.
Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) were promulgated for all
subcategories. The "Max" Standards are the maximum levels of pollutants for
any one day. The "Avg" Standards are the maximum levels of pollutants for a
monthly average of all samples taken. All standards are mass-based in units
of mg/kg (pounds/mil11 on pounds).
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
SUBCATEGORY A - Cadmium
See the table on the following page.
SUBCATEGORY B - Calcium
Reserved
SUBCATEGORY C - Lead
Pollutant in mg/kg (pounds/million pounds)
Copper	Lead
Process	Max	Avg	Max	Avg
(1)
Open Formation - Dehydrated
3.19
1.68
.71
.34
(2)
Open Formation - Wet
.100
.053
.022
.010
(3)
Plate Soak
.039
.021
.008
.004
(4)
Battery Wash - Detergent
.86
.45
.19
.09
(5)
Direct Chill Lead Casting
.0004
.0002
.00008
.00004
(6)
Mold Release Formulation
.011
.006
.002
.001
(7)
Truck Wash
.026
.014
.005
.002
(8)
Laundry
.21
.11
.05
.02
(9)
Miscellaneous Wastewater Streams
.58
.31
.13
.06
SUBCATEGORY D - Leclanche
There shall be no discharge allowance for process wastewater pollutants
other than the following:
Pollutant in mg/kg (pounds/mil 11 on pounds)
Mercury	Zinc	Manganese
Process	Max Avg Max Avg Max Avg
Foliar Battery Miscellaneous Wash	.01 .004 .067 .030 .019 .015
-------
BATTERY MANUFACTURING (cont.)
SUBCATEGORY A - CADMIUM
PRETRKATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES (PSES)
Pollutant in og/kg (pounds/million pounds)
Cadmium
Nickel
Zinc
Cobalt
Silver

Process
Hax
Avfl
Hax
Avg
44.64
Max
Avg
21.44
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg
(1)
Electrodeposlted Anodes
11.95
5.27
67.49
51.32
7.38
3.16
—
(2)
Impregnated Anodes
68.0
30.0
384.0
254.0
292.0
122.0
42.0
18.0
—
—
(3)
Nickel Electrodeposlted
Cathodes
11.22
4.95
63.36
41.91
48.18
20.13
6.93
2.97
—
—
(4)
Nickel Impregnated Cathodes
68.0
30.0
384.0
254.0
292.0
122.0
42.0
18.0
—
—
(5)
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Streams
0.79
0.35
4.47
2.96
3.40
1.42
0.49
0.21
—
—
(6)
Cadmium Powder Production
2.23
0.99
12.61
8.34
9.59
4.01
1.38
0.59
—
—
(7)
Silver Powder Production
1.09
.048
6.16
4.08
4.69
1.96
.67
.29
1.32
• .55
(8)
Cadmium Hydroxide Production
0.05
0.02
0.27
0.18
0.20
0.09
0.03
0.012
—
—
(9)
Nickel Hydroxide Production
5.61
2.48
31.68
20.96
24.09
10.07
3.47
1.49
—
—
-------
BATTERY MANUFACTURING (coat.)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES (CONT.)
SUBCATEGORY E - Lithium
Reserved
SUBCATEGORY F - Magnesium
Pollutant in mg/kg (pounds/million pounds)
Lead	Silver
Process	Max	Avg	Max	Avg
(1)	Silver Chloride Cathodes -	1032.36 491.6 1007.78 417.86
Chemically Reduced
(2)	Silver Chloride Cathodes -	60.9	29.0	59.5	24.7
Electrolytic
(3)	Cell Testing	22.1	10.5	21.6	8.9
(4)	Floor and Equipment Wash	0.039	0.018 0.038	0.015
SUBCATEGORY G - Zinc
See the table on the next page.
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
SUBCATEGORY A - Cadmium
See the table on page 6.
SUBCATEGORY B - Calcium
There shall be no discharge for process wastewater pollutants from any
battery manufacturing operations in the calcium subcategory.
-4-
-------
BATTERY MANUFACTURING (cont.)
SUBCATEGORY C - ZINC
PRETREATHENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES (PSES)
Pollutant In mg/kg (pounds/million pounds)
Chromium
Mercury
Silver
Zinc
Manganese
Nickel
Cathodes
(6)	Silver Oxide Powder Formed 8.73 3.37 4.96 1.99 8.14 3.37 26.98 12.11
Cathodes
(7)	Sliver Peroxide Cathodes	2.09 0.87 1.19 0.48 1.95
(8)	Nickel Impregnated	88.0 36.0 50.0 20.0 82.0
Cathodes
(9)	Miscellaneous Wastewater	0.57 0.23 0.32 0.13 0.53 0.22
Streams
13.5
5.76
0.81
34.0
6.95
292.0
1.88
2.90
122.0
0.79
3.24 1.38
136.0 58.0
0.88 0.37
Cyanide
Process
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Hax
Avg
Hax
Avg Hax
Avg
Max Avg
(1) Wet Amalgamated Powder
Anode
0.24
0.099
0.14
0.055
0.23
0.093
0.80
0.34
0.37
0.16
—
—
(2) Gelled Amalgam Anodes
0.030
.012
0.017
0.006
0.028
0.012
0.099
0.042
0.046
0.020 —
—
—
(3) Zinc Oxide Formed Anodes
9.53
3.90
5.42
2.17
8.89
3.68
31.64
13.22
14.74
6.28
—
—
(4) Electrodeposlted Anodes
94.47
38.65
53.68
21.47
88.03
36.50
313.46
130.97
146.0
62.26


(5) Silver Powder Formed
13.07
5.35
7.43
2.97
12.18
5.05
43.36
18.12
20.20
8.61


384.0 254.0 --
2.48
1.64 0.38 0.16
(10) Silver
Etch
3.27
1.34
1.86
0.74
3.05
1.26
10.86
4.54
5.06
2.16
(11) Sliver
Peroxide Production
3.48
1.42
1.98
0.79
3.24
1.34
11.55
4.83
5.38
2.29
(12) Silver
Powder Production
1.41
0.58
0.80
0.32
1.32
0.55
4.69
1.96
2.18
0.93
-------
BATTERY MANUFACTURING (ront.)
SUBCATEGORY A - CADMIUM
Process
PRETREATHENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES (PSNS)
Pollutant In mg/kg (pounds/million pounds)
Cadmium
Max
Nickel
Zinc
CobaIt
Silver
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
(1)	Electrodeposlted Anodes	7.03
(2)	Impregnated Anodes	40.0
(3)	Nickel Electrodeposlted	6.60
Cathodes
2.81 19.33 13.01
16.0 110.0 74.0
2.64 18.15 12.21
35.85 14.76
204.0 84.0
33.66 13.86
(4) Nickel Impregnated
Cathodes
40.0 16.0 110.0 74.0 204.0 84.0
2.38
.98
(5)	Miscellaneous Wastewater	.47	.19	1.28	.86
Streams
(6)	Cadmium Powder Production	1.31	.53	3.61	2.43 6.7 2.76
(7)	Sliver Powder Production	.64	.26	1.77	1.19 3.27 1.35
(8)	Cadmium Hydroxide	.028 .011 .077 .051	.142 .058
Production
(9)	Nickel Hydroxide	3.30 1.32 9.08 6.11 16.83 6.93
Production
4.92
28.0
4.62
2.46
14.0
2.31
28.0 14.0
.33
.92
.45
.019
2.31
.16
.46
.22
.009
1.16
.93
.39
-------
BATTERY MANUFACTURING (cont.)
SUBCATEGORY C - Lead
Pollutant in mg/kg (pounds/million pounds)
Copper	Lead
Process	Max	Avg	Max	Avg
(1)
Open Formation - Dehydrated
2.15
1.02
.47
.21
(2)
Open Formation - Wet
.067
.032
.014
.006
(3)
Plate Soak
.026
.012
.005
.002
(4)
Battery Wash - Detergent
.576
.274
.126
.058
(5)
Direct Chill Lead Casting
.000256
.000122
.000056
.000026
(6)
Mold Release Formulation
.007
.0037
.0017
.0008
(7)
Truck Wash
.006
.003
.001
.0007
(8)
Laundry
.14
.07
.03
.01
(9)
Miscellaneous Wastewater Streams
.39
.19
.085
.039
SUBCATEGORY D - Leclanche
There shall be no discharge allowance for process wastewater pollutants
other than the following:
Pollutant in mg/kg (pounds/million pounds)
Mercury	Zinc	Manganese
Process	Max Avg Max Avg Max Avg
Foliar Battery Miscellaneous Wash	.010 .004 .067 .030 .019 .015
SUBCATEGORY E - Lithium
Pollutant in mg/kg (pounds/million pounds)
Chromium	Lead
Process	Max	Avg	Max	Avg
(1)	Lead Iodide Cathodes	23.34	9.46	17.66	8.20
(2)	Iron Disulfide Cathodes	2.79	1.13	2.11	0.98
(3)	Miscellaneous Wastewater Streams .039 .016 .030 .014
-7-
-------
BATTERY MANUFACTURING (coat.)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS -FOR NEW SOURCES
SUBCATEGORY F - Magnesium
Process
Pollutant In mg/kg (pounds/million pounds)
Lead	Silver
Max	Avg
Max
Avg
(1)	Silver Chloride Cathodes
Chemically Reduced
(2)	Silver Chloride Cathodes
Electrolyte
(3)	Cell Testing
(4)	Floor and Equipment Wash
22.93 10.65 23.75 9.83
40.6 18.9 42.1 17.4
19.5
7.89 15.3
6.31
0.026 0.012 0.027 0.011
SUBCATEGORY G - Zinc
See the following table.
-8-
-------
BATTERY MANUFACTURING (cont.)
SUBCATEGORY C - ZINC
Chromium	Hercury

Process
Max
*"g
1.97
Max
Avg
1.19
(1)
Zinc Oxide Formed Anodes
4.55
2.82
(2)
Elertrodeposlted Anodea
45.09
19.54
27.91
11.81
(3)
Silver Powder Formed Cathodes 6.24
2.70
3.86
1.63
(4)
Silver Oxide Powder Formed
Cathodes
4.17
1.81
2.58
1.09
(5)
Silver Peroxide Cathodes
1.00
0.43
0.62
0.26
(6)
Nickel Impregnated Cathodes
42.0
18.2
26.0
11.0
(7)
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Streams
0.27
0.12
0.17
0.07
(8)
Silver Etch
1.56
0.68
0.97
0.41
(9)
Silver Peroxide Production
1.66
0.72
1.03
0.44
(10)
Silver Powder Production
0.67
0.29
0.42
0.18
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES (PSNS)
Pollutant In ag/ug (pounde/mlllton In pounds)
Silver	Zinc	Manganese	Nickel	Cyanide
Max
Avfi
Max
Avg
Max
Avg Max
Avg
Max Avg
4.55
1.97
0.87
0.39
6.5
4.98 —


45.09
19.54
8.59
3.86
64.41
49.38 --
—
—
6.24
2.70
1.19
0.53
8.91
6.83 —
—
—
4.17
1.81
0.79
0.36
5.96
4.57 —
—
	
1.00 0.43	0.19	0.09	1.43 1.09
42.0	18.2	8.0	3.6	60.0	46.0 42.0 18.2 --
0.27 0.12	0.05	0.02	0.39 0.30 0.27 0.12 0.039 0.016
1.56 0.68	0.30	0.13	2.23 1.71
1.66 0.72	0.32	0.14	2.37 1.82 —
0.67 0.29	0.13	0.06	0.96 0.74
-------
-------
ITOUIl68Ud|
December 1, 1982
Part H
Environmental
Protection Agency
CoM Coming Point 9wf Caiegwy
Effluent Limitations Qafatal&Ba*
PretoMrtment StumlwilH, end Mto Somwi
Perforaience Standards
-------
54232 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 231 / Wednesday. December 1.1982 / Rulea and Regulationr
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 465
[WH-FRL 2226-3]
CoU Coating Point Source Category
Effluant Limitations Guidelines,
Pratraatment Standards, and Naw
Source Performance Standarda
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency.
action: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
effluent limitations and standards
limiting the discharge of pollutants into
navigable waters and into publicly
owned treatment works by existing and
new coil coating operations. The Clean
Water Act and a consent decree require
EPA to promulgate this regulation. The
purpose of this action is to establish
specific effluent limitations based on
"best practicable technology" and "best
available technology," new source
preformance standards based on "best
demonstrated technology" and
pre treatment standards for existing and
new indirect dischargers.
DATES: In accordance with 40 CFR 100.1
this regulation shall be considered
issued for the purposes of judicial
review at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time on
December 15,1982. This regulation shall
become effective January 17,1983,
except section 465.03(a)2, which
contains information collection
requirements which are under review at
OMB. The compliance date for the BAT
regulations is as soon as possible, but no
later than July l, 1984. The compliance
date for New Source Preformance
Standards (NSPS) and Pre treatment
Standards for New Sources (PSNSJ is
the date the new source begins
operations. The compliance date for
Pre treatment Standards for Existing
Sources (PSES) is December 1,19§5.
Under Section S09(b)(l)>
Considered Applicable for this Category.
F.	Toxic Pollutants Effectively Controlled^ "
by BPT and BAT Limitations ia.This
Regulation
G.	Toxic Pollutants Not Regulated at
Pre treatment Because the Toxicity and.;'
Amount are Insignificant
I. Legal Authority
This regulation is being promulgated*-
under the authority of Sections 301,304,
308,307, and 501 of the Clean Water, Act-
(the Federal Water Pollution Cototral. Aot-
Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 12Slef-"
seg.. as amended by the Clean Water^ "
Act of 1977, Pub. L 95-217), also called
the "Act." It is also being promulgated
in response to the Settlement Agreement
in Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., v. Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1978),
modified. March 9,1979,12 ERC 1833
(D.D.C. 1979).
n. Scope of This Rulemaking
This final regulation, which was
proposed January 12,1981 (48 FR 2934),
establishes effluent limitations and
standards for existing and new coil
coating operations. Coil coating consists
of that sequence or combination of steps
or operations which clean, surface or
conversion coat and apply an organic
(paint) coating to a long thin strip or coil
of metal.
EPA's 1973 to 1978 round of
rulemaking emphasized the achievement
of best practicable 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
familiar (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
the discharge of all pollutants. At a
minimum. BAT represents the
performance of the best available
technology economically achievable 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.
EPA is promulgating BPT, BAT, new
source performance standards (NSPS)
and pre treatment standards for existing
and new sources (PSES and PSNS) for
the steel basis material (steel),
galvanized steel basis material
(galvanized) and aluminum alloys basis
material (aluminum) subcategories of
the coil coating category.
; m. Summary of Legal Background
The Federal Water Pollution Control
-	Act Amendments of 1972 established a
comprehensive program to "restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's
waters" (Section 101(a)). To implement
the Act EPA was to issue effluent
standards, pre treatment standards, and
new source performance standards for
industry dischargers.
The Act included a timetable for
issuing these standards. However, EPA
waa unable to meet many of the
-	deadlines and, as a result in 1978, it was
-------
Fatal Sesfctar edfan.MMta)M=
defines comwitiunal pollutants to
include BOB. TS&iacai colifnsi. pH
and any	i»iiuijimngpp_rHarn«t|nH hflnwf and in Section
VII nf tli« ^Mj«l«pinan>.
-------
54294* Federal Register / VoL 47. No. 23Vj Wednesday. December 1. 1)82 / Rules and ReyflatiOtir
V. Control Treatment Options and
Technology Basis for Final RHBtatiau
A.	Summary of Category ^	7
"Coil coating" is a term gfaSuKused
to describe the combinatiaa^||sp^
processing steps involved incScjroHliig
a coil—a long thin strip of metalrolled
into a coil—into a coil of painted metal
ready for further industrial use.
Three basis materials are commonly
used for coil coating: steel, galvanized
(steel), and aluminum. Additionally,
there is some minor amount of coating of
other material such as brass, galvalum
and coated steels.
There are three major groups or
standard process steps used in
manufacturing coated coils: (1) Cleaning
to remove soil, oil, corrosion, and
similar dirt: (2) chemical conversion
coating in which a coating of chromate,
phosphate or complex oxide materials is
chemically formed in the surface of the
metal: and (3) the application and drying
of one or more coats of organic
polymeric material such as paint
Water is used throughout the coil
coating processes. The cleaning
processes for removing oil and dirt
usually employ water-based alkaline
cleaners, and acid pickling solutions are
sometimes used to remove oxides and
corrosion. Water is used to rinse the
strip after it has been cleaned. Most of
the chemical conversion coating
processes are water based and water is
used to rinse excess and spent solutions
from the strip. After painting, the strip is
baked in an oven to dry the paint and
then chilled with water to prevent
burning or charring of the organic
coating. The characteristics of the
wastewater generated by coil coating
may vary depending on the basis
material and the process options
selected for cleaning and chemical
conversion coating.
The most important resulting
pollutants or pollutant parameters are:
(1) Toxic pollutants—chromium, zinc,
nickel, lead copper, cyanidttlgfcL;
conventional pollutants—waned "
solids, pH. and oil and greaMBp£(3) -
nonconventional polhitantj^gpfe7^
aluminum, phosphorus, andtflpferidfe
Toxic organic pollutants weniiiaf ftund
in large quantities. Because of the;
amount of toxic metals present, the
sludges generated during wastewater
treatment generally contain substantial
amounts of toxic metals.
B.	Control and Treatment Options
The control and treatment
technologies considered by EPA in
developing this regulation Include both
in-process and end-of-pipe treatments.
A wide range of treatment options were
considered before proposing the coil
coating regulations and were detailed in-
die preamble to the proposed regulation.
Major technology options considered
after proposal are discussed below, all
of the options which were considered in-
developing the proposed rule are
discussed in the development document
In-process treatment considered
includes a variety of water flow
reduction steps and major process
changes such as: Countercurrent
cascade rinsing (to reduce the amount of
water used to remove unwanted
materials from the product surface):
cooling and recycling of quench water;
and substitution of non-wastewater
generating conversion coating processes
(no-rinse conversion coating].
End-of-pipe treatment considered
includes: Cyanide oxidation or
precipitation: hexavalent chromium
reduction: chemical precipitation of ~
metals using hydroxides, carbonates, or
sulfides: and removal of precipitated
metals and other materials using
sedimentation, filtration, and
combinations of these technologies; and
sludge dewatering and disposal.
Because the amount of priority organic
materials in the wastewater is small and
can be adequately controlled by
controlling oil and grease, no specific
organic removal wastewater treatment
except oil removal has been considered.
Similarly, because of high energy costs
and low product recovery values,
distillation has not been seriously
considered as an end-of-pipe treatment
The effectiveness of these treatment
technologies has been evaluated and
established by examining the
performance of these technologies on
coil coating and other similar
wastewaters. The data base for the
performance of hydrobdde
precipitation—sedimentation technology
is a composite of data drawn from EPA
sampling and analysis of copper and
aluminum forming, battery
manufacturing, porcelain enameling, and
coil coating. TTiia data, called the
combined metals data base, reports
influent and effluent concentration for
nine pollutants. These wastewaters are
judged to be similar in all material
respects for treatment because they
contain a range of dissolved metals
which can be removed by precipitation
and solids removal.
In the proposed coil coating
regulation, the Agency relied on the data
we collected from sampling and
analyzing raw and treated wastewaters
from the aluminum forming, battery -
manufacturing, copper forming, cdi)
coating, porcelain enameHngand -
electroplating-categories to deterabiei
the effectiveness of the lime and settle,
and lime, settle and filter technologies.
Subsequent to proposal, an analysis of
variance of both raw and treated
pollutant concentrations was made of
this data to determine homogeneity, The
electroplating data were found to
substantially reduce the homogeneity of
the pooled data while the inclusion or
removal of data from any other category
did not meaningfully alter the
homogeneity of the data pool. Therefore,
the electroplating data were removed
from the pooled data base and only data
from the remaining five categories were
used for determining treatment
effectiveness of the technologies.
The lime and settle treatment
effectiveness values used in the
proposed regulation were derived from
the full pooled data set described above
using statistical methodology which
assumed the data set was normally
distributed. Variability factors for
estimating one day And thirty day
average values were transferred from
electroplating pre treatment The
treatment effectiveness values used in
this promulgation are derived from the
reduced data set using statistical
methodologywhich' assumes the data
set is log normally distributed One day.
maximum and ten day average
regulatory values and variability factors
are derived directly from the data set
These variability factors are applied to
long term mean values to derive
treatment effectiveness for other
pollutants. The derivation of the
treatment effectiveness values is
detailed in Section VII of the technical
development document The Agency
performed this analysis to assure itself
that performance data from other
industries reflects the ability of the
technology to achieve the established
results in coil coating facilities.
The Agency examined the
effectiveness of end-of-pipe treatment
. now being used to treat coil coating -
wastewater and found the treatment
was universally inadequate. Data
collected by the Agency and discussed
in Section IX of the development
document indicate that adequate
operation is intermittent and that
adequate performance must be based on
performance data transferred from other
categories. Based on similarities in the
quantity and characteristics of the
wastewater and die processes used, we
are confident that the technology used
in the other categories will perform as
well in coil coating facilities as It does in
facilities in the other categories. The
intermittent performance of some coil
coating facilities confirms that
conclusion. Therefore, die transfer of
technology performance data with
-------
Fedend Register / Vtft. 47, No. 231 / Wednesday, December 1. H82 7 Rafet and flegutatiang 54835
respectte this is-i
Tanners' Council
4th Cir. W7i ,
To eetabliab thf*jMHMpAV< - -
efTectivena«« of jMBfciBhaad Altar..
the lin 1	lnpii ii iiSMMjfi Imiii* fin
NSPS^ndi>SNS,^«JQMDL(kuimm
three plants thai had this recommended
technology in place: these plants had
wastewater that was similar to the
wastewater genera tad .at coil coating
plants. In genera ting long- tarm average
standards for NSPS and PSNS, EPA.
applied variability factors from the
combined matfils data base because the
combined data base .provided a better
statistical basis for computing
variabilitythan the data from the'three
plants sampled The combined data
base is composed tit data showing the
treatment ffffecti vw»8» of lime «nrf
settle without filtration. It was assumed
that filtration would ramove 33~peicent
more pollutants thend£ the coil coating
subcategories, .and'the final effluent
concentrations resulting fromtfaa
application of the technology are
identicalJbr aH three aubcategoiiaa.
Hownw, the smt limitations lor &aob
subcategory vary due to-different water
uses among the subcategories and the
absence of some pottetants-in some
subcategories.
The Agency is- revising certain
monitoring and compliance
requirements of the proposed' regulation
in response to comments. The Agency
has reduced the number of pollutants
regulated to five metals and three
conventional pollutants. This level of
control and regulation wOI effectively
ensure that the treatment technology is
installed and properly operated. ITie
pollutants not being regulated are
metals which are effectively removed ly
properly operated lime and settle
technology and will be.removed
coincidentally with removal of (he
regulated pollutants.
Cyanide is widely used as -aipsonwaa
chemical in the aluminum subcategory.
An exemption procedure is provided*®
that a plant that demonstrates and
certifies that it neither has no uses
cyanide .may-be exempted from tire
wqiiimniHBkiiif mnnitnring-fur rynnirU
This procedure is :a change from
proposal. In die preamhle to the
proposed regulation the Agency stressed
the desirability of achieving tbe-cyanide
limitations by changing to non-cyanide
conversion coating. This exemption
procedure allows a coilcoating BPT~techn0l«gy pins
filtration aflat sedimentation and i»-
proaesa wastewater *ednction. Industry
objected to the nse of fiitmtion because
of its coat. Tbe addition -of filtration
would remeve nmmsrtly 130ltgtrf'hMdc
pottntantaaadlPiKhcpflf other
pcUnfnau. TUstnmrflaftea into an
additieoBire maralof.approximate^
0.021 todc pollutants andt).135 kg
of other pnltataatafnr-day jBfdireat
dlschargse-Zhe in tegmental tests ed
thesfreffiaent aaduittton benefttsare
-------
54238 Federal Regfcffir / Vol 47, No. 231 / Wednesday, December 1, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
$2.16 million capital cost and $1.8^
million total annual costs. bkwtditlon,
some coil coating faciUtieg|i|fl^>~
intergrated facilities
currently subject to
based on filtration of theiisSPlRp*-*1—
wastewater streams. Thesaraffflties
may incur additional cost if the coil
coating wastewater streams were
subject to effluent limitations based on
filtration. In response to these comments
the Agency re-evaluated filtration and
determined that filtration was too costly
for existing facilities, *
The BAT model technology does not
include countercurrent cascade rinsing,
which is used as a basis for NSPS. The
installation of countercurrent cascade
rinsing to existing sources is impractical
because it would require the plants to
shut down temporarily and. therefore, is
not used as the basis for BAT by the
Agency.
The pollutants regulated under BAT
are chromium, copper, cyanide, zinc,
aluminum and iron.
Implementation of the BAT limitations
will remove annually an estimated
72,700 kg of toxic pollutants and 607,000
kg of other pollutants (from estimated
current discharge) at a capital cost
above equipment in place of $9.93
million and an annual cost of $4.01
million.
The incremental effluent reduction
benefits of BAT above BPT are the
removal annually of 700 kg of toxic
pollutants and 52,000 kg of other
pollutants. The incremental costs of
these benefits are $0.23 million capital
cost and $0.19 million total annual costs.
NSPS: This regulation establishes
NSPS for all three subcategories. The
technology basis for the NSPS being
promulgated includes oil skimming,
precipitation of metals; sedimentation,
polishing filtration, dewatering of
sludge, recycle of quench water, reuse of
quench water blowdown as cleaning
and conversion coating rinse water, and
three stage conntercurrent caacade
rinsing for both cleaningnEftu^rersion
The Agency proposcdHHfcl
conversion coatings
basis for the proposed NSRwnmvsver,
the industry commented "tBStt&rinae
conversion coating has not been
demonstrated for some applications and
there is no Food and Drug
Administration approved no-rinse
conversion coating. Since food
containers are often manufactured from
coil coated stock, it is necessary to have
FDA approval of the coating applied to -
the coil The Agency reconsidered die
requirement for no-rinse conversion
coating and substituted multistage" ~ "
countercurrent cascade rinsing in both
the cleaning and conversion coating
segments. This alternate technology,
which was discussed in the proposed
development document will provide
essentially equivalent overall pollutant
control. The pollutants regulated under
NSPS are the same as those under BPT.
A new direct discharge normal plant
having the industry average annual
production level in the steel subcategory
of 12.2 million square meters per year
would generate a raw waste of 550 kg
toxic pollutants and 18,400 kg total
pollutants. The NSPS technology would
reduce these pollutant levels to 4.0 kg
toxics and 60 kg total pollutants.
Estimates of the investment and annual
compliance costs reflect that the cost of
pollution control for NSPS are less
expensive than the cost of pollution
control for existing sources because of
the addition of multistage
countercurrent cascade rinsing which
reduces the flow rate and, consequendy,
the size of the required treatment
systems. The average capital investment
cost for new plants is estimated to be
$230,000. These new source performance
standards do not pose a barrier to entry
into the category because they impose
no greater cost than BAT effluent
limitations.
PSES: In establishing pretreatment
standards interference and pass-through
of the pollutants must be considered.
POTW removals of the major toxic
pollutants found in coil coating
wastewater average about 50 percent
(Cr-18%, Cu-58%, CN-52%, Zn-«5*)
while BAT technology treatment
removes more than 99 percent of these
pollutants. This difference in removal
effectiveness clearly indicates pass-
through of pollutants will occur unless
coil coating wastewaters are adequately
pre treated.
The Agency found a small amount of
several toxic organic compounds
(collectively referred to as total toxic
organics or (TTO) in coil coating
wastewaters. The Agency considered
whether these pollutants should be
specifically regulated and determined
that they did not require such regulation.
Oil and grease removal technology
would reduce the amount of TTO by an
estimated 88 to 97 percent, while
removal of these pollutants in a POTW
is somewhat less—about 05 percent
Thus clearly there ia pass through of
these pollutants. Because the raw waste
level of TTO is only about 1.6 mg/1 the
treatment effected by POTW ia judged
to reduce the amount and toxicity of
TTO below the level that would require
national regulation. The Agency has
considered the time for compliance fer
PSES. Few if any of the coil coatings
plants have installed and are properly -
operating the treatment technology for
PSES. Additionally,' the readjustment of
internal processing conditions to
achieve reduced wastewater flows may
require more time than for only the
installation of end-of-pipe treatment
equipment Additionally, many plants in
this and other industries will be
installing the treatment equipment
suggested as model technologies for this
regulation at about the same time, and
this may result in delays in engineering,
ordering, installing, and operating this
equipment For all these reasons, the
Agency has decided to set the PSES
compliance date at three years after
promulgation of this regulation:
November, 1985.
The pollutants to be regulated by
PSES include chromium, copper
(Subpart B only), cyanide, and zinc. Oil
and grease and TSS are not regulated by
pretreatment because these
conventional pollutants in the quantities
encountered do not interfere with or
pass through a POTW. Iron and
aluminum, which are sometimes added
as coagulant aids at POTW are not
regulated by pretreatment because at
the levels released to the POTW, they
will neither pass through nor interfere
with the POTW.
The technology basis for PSES is
analogous to BAT; flow reduction by
reusing quench water, hexavalent
chromium reduction, cyanide removal,
and lime and settle end-of-pipe '
treatment We proposed PSES based in
part on filtration after lime and settle
treatment Because, as indicated above
in the BAT discussion, filters were found
to be too costly for existing facilities
they are not included in the technology
basis for PSES. The incremental effluent
reduction benefits of the proposed PSES
above the promulgated PSES are the
removal annually of 330 kg of toxic
pollutants and 14^00 kg of other
pollutants. The Incremental costs of
these benefits are $2£3 million capital
cost and $2J million total annual costs.
The proper operation of this
technology on coil coating wastewater
will result in the removal of all of the
major pollutants to the levels
demonstrated (see Section VII of the
development document); however only
some key pollutants need to be
regulated to ensure installation and
effective operation of technology which
will meet PSES. For this reason
chromium, copper, cyanide and zinc are
regulated at PSES; the remaining toxic
metals are expected to be removed
adequately by the treatment technology
when regulated levels of the specified
metals are achieved
-------
¥hlL4g..Mte 28* ftVfcain idag». DhwiBeg* MB.ftRfafta mid luplilh— &S37
wilfi
106,0001
898.000 kg of
estimati
46«|i,BttaBalg!B»dstad«dH
ini 				aiinaffl fhittm
VI. Carta and Econnmlr laiennts
Bmottiva QedRtffiSBnipAerSAE
an"
impact
defined
annual
miUtaai
impaofc
miini
millta» Ths liairli
morafidijfiirSactioarXILafctba
developm—t rtnnimnat ¦
PfWS-Tfct *nrh~'^gf —¦* —"
for proposing endnote yimifgn*in^
PSNSHatannlngiaia tn thr tarhaifvtogfaa
for praying sad nrnmiilgaHn,J.a»ani»whn,wliowlMifattB!
effluent o—twiisyrti— liimiihail
earlieaJa Ifcf paaambte.Cmupiianm »na>^
placa-a* aedtplaob.1h»3a«iari«a*.
estinater addaasa away w£ iaduatoy*ft
commaat&aBftite-ptopoaaL AxMaaaaatmr
of the reuiaiaaata te-oaafcmadiiria!
presented in Section W-oftfcar
devetsfnaak iW«iw^
these <
only aaaaCtha-
tecinslagyttb*!
is lflaiy,ta>bslmnailiwi iinnlaflimlii«i
the ResomcrOmaasTartw* a nd I
Recovery Acft Tfea ammpijata.ihrigp:
dispci «i cost*an inrladad in tha'
economic anaJgatai The andysifcajaa-
reSaata othar iadnatty cnniinmita and-
additional iofgaiaatiunipKivfdadaince
proposal an±uaaa-ao£a mem*
informal—aa B««iriilM*Mniniiiir
characteristics of tbatadnsttjr;.
EPA haa idanMSad 0» catfc< iwtliig
plantar Total inwataintsaata fbr,
coiaUand BMLaad PSBSrC^mw.
equipnaafti»glaee}ia aatkna4a£teba
$2fc&flriUiaft wttk aanaat casta otSBAi
milllnci Hmt casta acaeanmaaed iar
1882 datiat* Costa be- iac.uicad.by
68 plaatat anspjaotdiscfcazgea n®>
procesaiwaiita^aalaf
Industry iartxpactadtaiaeara prisar
increase aaagaegaatoApwdwctlrm at':
1.15 percent and a nhawgaia^aaanttty
demanded of one-half of one getcant.
The ptfca amJ'quauflfy uBaugerara
small and indicate that, on average, es9
coating uliwlii hMHw iihlH t»gant
through most of thBrooMpMaiiiMi costii.
dufctedgaafiilxtliiwaaa iaitfaK
demand fnrumlld —Hi
closures are ]
controls 1
of this
are ju
bee
with I
The econ
utilizer piaaa gpariBaianrfUuBuu
for 62 saaiyfe pfaaO (WMU^wpmaenrar
percen* r#tiapftwta far tfc mtfcggryj'tfr
detennAa tfiia fla^iact of tie pi uytiMtT
rogalatle» TOa Bs»step wiBs»
-------
5423ft Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 23t / Wednesday, December 1, 1982 / Rules and Regulation*'
to account for differences in the-
financial characteristics of the plants
within the three sectors. HMtfNK fa"
general, the conclusionajMfiiiitdy.are
relatively insensitive to,tiiKni!fBtte
categorization. The resuttM^^^p'/v
screening analysis indicat^pHpSoc.'. -
plant closures or employmenteflects am
projected for the final regulations.
BPT—EPA estimates that the BPT
effluent limitation will cause the coil
coating industry to incur additional total
capital investment and annual
compliance costs (including interest and
depreciation) of $9.7 million and $3.8
million, respectively. The economic
analysis based on the profitability and
capital, investment requirement ratios
indicates that no plant closures or
employment effects are expected for the
plants affected by the regulation.
BAT—Assuming that direct
dischargers implement BAT from
present equipment in place, EPA
estimates that they will Incur additional
capital investment and annual
compliance costs of $9.9 million and $4.0
million, respectively. These figures were
extrapolated from the plant-specific cost
data for 27 direct dischargers to the
projected universe of 29 plants. No plant
closures or unemployment effects are
estimated as a result of this regulation.
PSES—EPA estimates that tne
indirect discharging segment of the coil
coating industry will incur additional
capital investment and annual
compliance costs of $14.3 million and
$5.0 million, respectively. These figures
were extrapolated from the plant-
specific cost data for 31 indirect
dischargers to the projected universe of
39 plants. The one plant that now
discharges no process wastewater was
an indirect discharger.
No plant closures or employment
impacts are expected among existing
indirect dischargers. Other impacts such
as employment, product substitution,
and foreign trade effects are not
anticipated.
NSPS-PSNS—Thfi coil CO|tfng
category has	* 1 jffllf'i'growth.
over the period 1962 thraMNHttTotal
coated metal coil shipa^HHtepown
at a compounded annii^NMHmr 12
percent Growth during lheM»W|iailml
for the end-use markets (transportation
equipment and building products) have
averaged 3-4 percent for the use of .
coated metal coils has grown man
rapidly than that of other materials. The .
industry Is still expected to be relatively
profitable and to grow at a rate at least
as great as the GNP through 1968 (which
has averaged around 3 percent in real
terms since World WarD).;
EPA estimates the average cost to ¦
build a new coil coating plant ol 7&1
million square meters per year would be
$20 million ($15 million for equipment
costs and $5 million for building costs).
Our analysis indicates that these cost
estimates will be the same regardless of
whether a new coil coating plant is built
on a new or existing plant site. The
average investment cost for a plant of
this sin to comply with NSPS or PSNS
is $686,000 which represents
approximately 3 percent of the cost to
build a new coil coating plant Because
of this high growth rate and the
relatively low capital investment
required by the NSPS and PSNS
regulation, the construction of new coil
coating lines is not expected to be
adversely impacted. The competitive
advantages of coated coil over other
products combined with the forecasted
growth and expanded end-product uses
through 1985 should allow the plants to
earn a level of profits sufficient to
attract needed capital funding.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis: Pub.
L 96-354 requires EPA to prepare an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
for all regulations that have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The analysis may be conducted .
in conjunction with a part of other
Agency analyses. A small business
analysis for this industry is included in
the economic impact analysis.
Plant annual production is the primary
variable used to distinguish firm size.
The small category includes 10 facilities
(16 percent of the total) with annual
production of 50,000 square feet or less
of coil (long strips of metal) coated.
Annual BAT and PSES compliance costs
for these small plants are $960 thousand,
and investment costs are $2.7 million.
No plant closures or employment effects
are projected for small firms as a result
of this regulation: therefore, a formal
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not
required. The Agency has concluded
that this regulation will have no
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
VIL Nott-Watar-Quallty Environmental
Impacts
Eliminating or reducing one form of
pollution may cause other
. environmental problems. Sections 304(b)
and 306 of die 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-water-quaHty programs. While it
is difficult to balance-pollution problems
against e^ch 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—Imposition of BPT,
BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS will not
create any substantial air pollution
problems because the wastewater
treatment, technologies required to meet
these limitations and standards do not
cause air pollution.
B.	Solid Waste—EPA estimates that
coil coating facilities generate 43,900
kkg/yr of solid wastes (wet basis—
1976). These wastes were comprised of
treatment system sludges containing
toxic metals, including chromium,
copper, lead, nickel and zinc.
EPA estimates that the BPT
limitations will contribute an additional
11,500 kkg/yr of solid wastes. BAT and;
PSES will increase these wastes by
approximately 1,100 kkg/yr beyond BFf
levelB. These sludges will necessarily
contain additional quantities (and
concentrations) of toxic metal
pollutants. New sources (either director
indirect dischargers) are projected to
generate 127 kkg/yr sludge for each new
steel basis material plant
Only one of the wastewater treatment
sludges from coil coating is likely to be
hazardous under the regulations
implementing subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Under those regulations,
generators of these wastes must test the
wastes to determine if the wastes meet
any of the characteristics of hazardous
waste (see 40 CFR 282.11,45 FR 33142-
33143, May IB, I960). Wastewater sludge
generated by aluminum coil coating may
contain cyanides and may exhibit
extraction procedure (EP) toxicity.
Therefore these wastes may require
disposal as a hazardous waste. We have
estimated the added cost above the cost
of disposing an equivalent mass of noa>>
hazardous waste at (361300 per year.
C.	Consumptivo Water Loss—
Treatment end control technologies
which require extensive recycling and
reuse of water may, in some cases, '
require cooling mechanisms. Where
evaporative cooling mechanisms are -
used water loss may result and
contribute to water scarcity problems, a
eoncern primarily in arid and semi-arid ' -
regions. This regulation envisions the" -
evaporative cooling and recycling of -'
-------
Fedut	/ VhC 4T, Bfa 2TP ft W**' "^3'* Pteaatep ft 1«R ARIrfte aaJteplnhim 54889-
releflmiy samttqnenHHpgafl cimltiif i
water. 1
plant1
loss of aboafi]
TUs<
constitute.!
waterless
D. EnergygffO>	
estimates'dn* the eddewantodHWF
effluent llniittUh nwtwtilnesaktiisameg
increase tnalsctttcalaargjp
consumptto of appro iiimntsly (I W '
million kitaeett-hiiyaii i*si jiiwreBWflT
limitnttn aw mnjautedtfradtfcaaodtw
2.84 milUm Infa—ifclwmf atmrtrirmkl
energy aanxumpttoiK. Ta achieve? the BBT
and BAT effluent teatisttooe; atypioak
direst discharger wili increase tsrtafc
energy corwninpttaa by less than one
percent o£ fas anergy cansnmeifer
prodasiion pucpeseai.-
The Agency estimates thaiPSESwdl
result in » net-increase is dec tacei.
energy consumption of approximately-
3.54 ariUimi lfilnmattuhm»inwr-y«ag: Tc:
achieve ESBS. s typical exiating-inriixacl-
dischargerwitt incraase energy,
consumption lass; than (me percent a£
the total energy consumed foe
production purposes.
The energy requirements to NSPS
and PSNS are estimated to be simitar to.
energy requirements for BAT and PSES.
However; this can only be quantified: itt-
kwh/year after projection® ace nude far
new plant construction.
VIII. Pollutants and Subcategories Not
Regulated
The Settlement Agree man* in NRDC
v. Train, supra contains provisions
authorizing the exclusion from
regulation is certain instances oi tcxie
pollutants and industry subcategories*.
Paragraph 8(a)Uiil of the Revised*
Settlement A^eement allows, tfcer
Administrator to exchida fromi
regulation toxic pollutants, not
detectable by Seeti»a 304tb) aoalyikalr
methods or other stofte>e&-the-ait>
metheda. The toxin, gpikitaat* net
detected and >>^^PTJ*'*wl front
regulation are UaMKEpfpudfet ft ta1
this iiiiiiimlilii fTwjHfciiMeailailiiil finin
all iniln iiliiyiniiiiii	mlw ii11i|]iii Ji
those not n—liHnifffiwFliflrstf gnriiim
Paragraph 8(a)fitt) also-aikjwa the*.
Administrator to exclude front
regulation toxic pollutants detected; ilk-
amounts toe amalltobseffecthieiyr
reduced by technologies, known to &s
Administiatos. Appendix. G ta this
preamble lists the. toxic pollutant* in>
each subcategory which, ware detected
in the effluesi in amorala a tor hekne
the nominal limit oi analytical
quantification;. whkh.aietoo smedHoabei
effectively reduced, hptechnalegieeascfe
which, thei
Pdnpaptl
Admi*6toWrWflB*Mr Ae»t
regulation fJite pettMnntedteeitafllb i»
th»efl>Hiu>luia eaty a»8magnaaiftereft
sources' wflHu tfts subuatSgery wfcfeft
are uniquely rslteterf to those soarcesr
Appendh EFN» tfcfepveambte Rats far
eacBsufeeteguiy tfa»tb*fc-pcflettmt»
detected issr Ifte effluent Arose only-e-
smaffimmberef sources witftar the-
subcategory wWefraie-mriquefy relate#
to these sources1.
Paragraph Ufajfiiffafto allows tflw
AdmiuisHator to exclude from
regulation, toxic pollutants present is.
amount* too small t«r be effectively
reduced by technologies considered
applicable to thecategory. Appendix E*
to thfr notice lWts fbr each subcategprj
the which are not treatable using
technologies consideredapptfcabZe to.
the category.
Paragraph 8{aKtfi Jalao allows, the
Administrator to exdude from
regulation toxic pollutants which will be.
effectively controlled.by the
technologies upon which are based
Other affluent HmUnHmia nnH atnnrfhftn
Appendix F Hat those toxic. poDatanta
which will be adequately controlled b^
the BPT and BAT limitations,
promulgated, here even though they are
not specifically regulated.
Paragraph 8(b)(ii) allows, the
Administrator.ta exduda from,
regulation, toxic pollutants infeoduced
into POTW whearamount and toxicity',
are so inaigmflc&Bi aa-to not justify
developing a pretreatment nidation.
Appendix G lists by subcategory
pollutants not regulated in preteeatmenti
because the quantity is so insi^iificanfc
that it does not justify regulations.
IX. Public Participation and Response to
Comments
Industry and government groups have
participated1 during the development oi
these effluent guidelines and standards.
Following the publication of the
proposed rale on January 12.1981 in the
F ederaL Register, we. provided thtt
development document supporting the
proposed raise ta indBsizyt Guvewinent
agenciesi. and the public sector feci
comments. A wnaksfcop was. hehfc an thtt
Coil Coating BAI Hulsnaking in;
Washmgtant.EIC»aBMasch'teul9et. Oik
Marclk 11. lWUie WMhtn^t»n> QG.. a
public hearing, wee; held on; tha' piuposed:
pretreatmerak atandazdfrak whidsene!
person presented.tastteoay^ Tfae-
comns—trperiedialnsedApritl3> MM.
and eightTcnnaMBtarasabmittadBatoia}
of 48 cnamanis on, the prepoead3
regulation.
All eon
carefutty-TOMidmd> flB*epgeepit»tt>
chaagee i»tb» isgnflrtlWi hawtiew
made whuus sen avaiisMedMa^and
inforauttan ao^Mtadtfeaae ebutgm
Ma^BriMite» raised b^tkaeoBBBaBl»
are addreeead Bafaerig tUfepinueiUts, A
summary of tkeaeneaeiitereewve#a»d[
our detettsdTwpeaserte atf ooraieirte
are liidiidad tinreperf "toapeaaea'tfr
Public Comments^ HtopeeedCeffi
Coating Bfll>i«iit'B&HrtWbnraBrf
Standenfe^' wfcteJrte-s partof"tkep«fcl5c
record for this regufliUont Tiaejepert.'
along witli A>j lust'ef tArpubtfi; reeer^
will be avaifeftfe' to pubfe reviewr-
February 7,198ft IaH*A>Ri&lfc
Information Reference BWt, Roonr2064
(RearJ, fEPA Library); tOfM Street SW.,
Washington; B.C.'
The-priii lipafuoiinneu Br rwaivBd'and'
the Agency mspumm tellbws.
l. Some cammenters-feft. the Agency
shouldrHmit regdatfaito pft TSS", oif
and grease; and chromhim as only these
parameters ara needed; in t&air view, ra
control pplltrttbo.
We agree that tfia ffioal regul4tToa
need not establish Hmftatioaa fbE alCt&s
polTutanU. Identifladlk the B^q>oaa£.
However, we dajxot believninduatr^'s.
suggestion foe pollutant control
adaquata. WeEaxaconsIndecHfiai a.
better regulatary approach for direct
dischargers is to regulate pH, TSS, oil
and grease-and tires, to fbui matala.
depending,on the subcategpoy £or diiect.
dischargers.This. approach raducaa the
number of metals to. ba regileted fram
eight in the propoeed regulation la three
or buz in *lw» final fgiiUrtiMi nmiwnulij.
therefore, decreasa tbe cost of sampling:
and analysis, far industry> Fori ad iract.
dischargers we-concliide. that regulation
of toxicmatala. (and. cyanide).is.
adequate.
Regelating^fae duseor £o» matale
which ocx^tr inlars&amountaon whioh
are unique ta that ssbcategazxaad pU
and TS8-will caatrol all aighiofi the
metals that werelhnfad inthepeopesedi
regulation.
Z. Conmente sag^saled ttaftentp?
hexavaloat	sbaaldber
regulated because.-tiivaient«hroBataniis
not toxin.
While heamvalenti cfanHitkm isjcfearly
the mocetaxie.foini-ofdiaimiugxr the
trivalent farm of tin i Milium iB afao toxic
Therefore weihawnabesiefios aott
regulatfeg-trivelsatdireauuBialongmtJl
the hexavetent fans- .
3. Some-conrnKatesrsappoctsd*
concentration, basedregufatteiKaiiiJsnd*
of a mass basadregu^atiaivbecause s"
mass based regula&onwoul& iit their
opinion, tenduvdbdese'confldentnl.
information-.
-------
54240 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 231 / Wednesday. December 1. 1982 V RulM and Riflttlationa.
The fundamental problem with
concentration-based Limitationsis that
the amount of poUutanttbta^||^^Utr^.
stream is not limited by.tBtjSSSbife--:
concentration. The isumBmh set
forth are the only methaMBMnnatiiig
effluent standards. Conceo||mgP4
standards can be met without^ a
implementing the water flow reduction'
which is a major feature of the treatment
and control system. Therefore, to
regulate on the basis of concentration
only is not adequate because it will not
control the quantity of toxics to POTW.
Therefore mass based limitations are
necessary to adequately control
pollution from this category.
4.	Comments objected to the use of
data from other categories to establish
the treatment effectiveness of the major
technologies. Commenters argued that
there were differences in the base
metcils used and that these differences,
indicate that technology used in other
categories cannot achieve equivalent
results in coil coating facilities.
Our plant visits and sampling
revealed that the wastewater in coil
coating facilities is similar to the
wastewater of the other categories from
which data to support this regulation
were derived. As discussed earlier in
this preamble the Agency made a
detailed analysis of data from several
sources to assure the correctness of
using the pooled data base in many
categories. Based on similarities in the
quantity and characteristics of the
wastewater and the processes used, we
are confident that the technology used
in the other categories will perform as
well in coil coating facilities as it does in
facilities in the other categories.
Therefore, the transfer of technology
performance data with respect to this is
supportable under Tanners'Council v.
Train.
5.	Industry objected to NSPS based on
no-rinse conversion coating because
industry believed that the use of no-
rinse conversion coating had not been
fully demonstrated for all product
applications and that
conversion coatings hasnMHjpitiprtived
by the Food and Drug Aaj^jgfitibu;
for use in food containerii^a|jf^F
The proposed NSPS wtrbnd on
reduction of process wastewater and
elimination of coatings wastewater by
the use of no-rinse conversion coatings
followed by lime, settle and filter
treatment This is the proposed BAT
plus flow reduction using no-rinse.
conversion coating. At the time of
proposal, we were also evaluating an
equivalent option which would not
require elimination of coating
wastewater but which achieves
essentially equivalent pollutant
reduction by using multistage
countercurrent cascade rinsing to reduce
flow with cyanide removal, hexavalent
chromium reduction, oil removal, and
lime, settle and filter treatment
Based on the comments submitted, we
re-evaluated the requirement for no-
rinse conversion coating. Because no-
rinse conversion coatings cannot be
used acrosB all product lines, the model
NSPS technology is now based on
alternative control technology in which
countercurrent rinsing replaces no-rinse
conversion coating. This will not result
in a substantial increase in the
discharge of pollutants from conversion
coating operations.
6.	Several commenters expressed the
fear that the reuse of quench water in
the cleaning and conversion coating
rinses would damage the quality of their
products.
The comment suggesting that product
quality will be degraded by the reuse of
quench water was not supported and
does not appear to be valid. Thirty
percent of the coil coating plants
already recycle quench water; many
facilities reuse the quench water in the
cleaning and conversion coating rinses.
Therefore we are continuing to rely on
the reuse of quench water as a viable
pollution control technology for BAT,
NSPS. PSES and PSNS.
7.	Some comments raised the problem
of meeting the 30 day average
limitations when fewer than 30 samples
were taken because a lesser number is
required by their permit
The issue of sampling frequency and
monthly average permit requirements
was considered fully during the final
consideration of this regulation. Because
most coil coating plants are not required
to monitor each day, we are publishing a
"monthly average" number which is
similar to the 30-day average number
but is based on the average of ten
consecutive sampling days (not
necessarily calendar days). This
monthly average number shall be the
basis for monthly average permit and
pre treatment compliance and for use in
the combined waste stream formula
regardless of the number of samples
required to be taken.
The Agency rejected shorter time
periods for averaging into a monthly
average because they do not reasonably
approximate the daily values over one
month and because shorter time periods
such as a four-day average used for-a
monthly average would allow much
greater discharges of pollutants.
8.	Comment from one company
complained that the cyanide limitation
is too low and connot be achieved.
We do not agree with the comment
that the cyanide limitation is
unattainable. Our limitation is based on
cyanide removal data from three coil
coating plants. After receiving the
comment we inspected the commenter's
plant and found the treatment process to
be improperly operated. With proper
operation we believe that this plant can
meet the limitations. Furthermore,
alternative processes which do not use
cyanide are available to eliminate
cyanide and treatment needs. The
Agency believes that non-cyanide
coatings are the most appropriate
solution to cyanide removal problems.
We are promulgating the limitations
for cyanide allowing the plant to be
relieved from monitoring cyanide after
certifying that cyanide is not present in
either the process or wastewaters.
9.	Industry criticized the oil and
grease limitation as being too low and
not achievable.
Because of the comment we re-
evaluated the oil and grease limitations
and find they are achievable by plants
now operating in the category. During
sampling we made oil and grease
analysis of 39 effluents and found that
28 achieved the one day limitation: five
of the eleven that did not meet the
limitation had no oil and grease removal
treatment
10.	We proposed to use oil and grease
as an indicator for BAT for the removal
of toxic organic pollutants. One
comment questioned the relationship
between oil and grease and toxic
organic pollutants.
Twenty-five toxic organic pollutants
were found during sampling and
analysis. Most of those are polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)
compounds found at low concentrations
above the limits of detection. The
organics appear to come from the cold-
rolling lubricants used in manufacturing
the metal strip. (Similar compounds
were found in iron and steel and
aluminum forming). The organics are not
uniformly used across the category but
may vary from coil to coil depending on
the rolling oil used by the mill which
manufactured the coil. The variability of
the presence of specific compounds and
the ability to shift rolling lubricant
formulas from one toxic organic to
another makes regulation of a subset of
specific toxic organic compounds appear
ineffective. The relationship between oil
and grease and toxic organics is
established in the development'
document and high removals seem
assured by regulating oil and grease. We
proposed the use of an oil and grease
limitation in BAT as an indicator of
adequate removal of the toxic organics;
however, further analysis makes this
now appear unnecessary. Good oil and
-------
FedanE Register / VoE 47; Ife. 23T P Wednearfsy December Is CT82> ^ girtfe8a»#gfrgulb[fw» 5M*I
grease controfcaaBOTTsisBoWw
more than 85 percent of the to)
organics present iwtilljjBftiiH^iirf 3 trf
and thr rnfiirn iftniJOsnirfarfarlftoTn
regulation...
11. A few cammenters asserted'tftat
the ecanomia impact of tiwregylatinn
would be too great These commeats.
generaUy were not specific, andincliided
no data. One commant criticizecLour
return on investment (KOTJ.assumptions.
We estimate tha fata!investment for
these plants to be S24.XmiIHoato
comply with RAT ($9JrmilUofl)'.and
PSES($M JTnflHon)'. For a IT existing
source regulations (BATff PSES1 the
annual' compliance- costs of $?.(Xmillion
are aboutt: percent "of the industry,
revenues aiiidwiH cause minimal,
industry-wide price and quantity-
change sk Nb plaint closures-or
employment impacts ore projected for
the frnaf regulation: lit the most recent
economic impact anafysir, ttntROIhaar
been adjusted upward.ftx ftO-percent.
The reasons far this adjustment te-
explained intfic economic impaet
report.
12; tin espouse toaietpiesffor
comments; threw- commectere- expressed'
the view that camnaking i» sgfBriantly
different from coil coating to reqmrff
separate- regulation- ra ther Aon- be*
covered under on» of the cod eoatiny
subcategories* They cited Bow amfo&
and grease or lubricant type as major
differences.
We agree with the comraentero that'
because of pcoeesv aad wastewater
differences, eaanieMflg'is suflftiiuwtfy
different from- coif coating to require
separate IwHtatioHS. Canmaklng Bawa-
separate-schedule under-the Cb«f Order
ami wffgfaiiito regulate camuttMwg as
separate subcategories*?# co feasting.
X. Best Managnm«BtPrnrrtfiWHi
Section 304(aV°{ tha Clean Water Act,
gives the Administrator authority to
prescrib8r-"bes(:]BaMHiBntr)H«itf«asiP
(BMPJ. EPA i»i
promulgating 1
coating.
XL Upset and Bypass Proviufljmi
A recurring issue of concern ftas Been
whether industry guidelina^uHu^di
include provisions authorizing
noncompliance. with-efftoerrt Rmitfidbna
during periods of "Upset"" or "tfypasB-."'
An upset, sometimes oatthdraw
"excursioa^VianrariBttB&cnaf.
noncompliance occuicfcyfi's »—i.'
beyoc
permittat- lthaat
upset]
limitatfonrie-neeessaryllieeaBse-sae^
upset* will inavilabfy eccareven in
propaii^operated controt equipment
Beeanav tecfinalogy basedllmiltalfeaa
require onij» what twhiiologji caw
achieve, ifcia i, hiiaail that ttsbiUtyifbn
such atealtoga-ia hi ifiipii Whan
r-nrrfrmitorfrwtrtl	nrmrK hnv-
disagreed on whether an explieifcupaefc
or excuisioiLexemplion is necessary or.
whether upset'or excursiofrincfdfentS'
maybe hawfle*! thtoagfr SPA-'a ewaroiag
of enfoEcameBt diacratitth. Compare?
Marti them OH €a w£A4»S64F. 2d 1263;
(9ik£ir: 1877). witL WgjmtJiaeuaen v.
Costh. su{MtK and Cam Bafiou*
Association, et aL v. Gratia. Na.Z&~108&
(8th Cir, April a^lSTSf. Saa alaa.
AmericanPeLrolaum Iostitute-v. EPA,,
540 F. 2d 1023 LlOth C]*.lfl26JiC£C
International lnc~ v. ZJtJi/vMO-P. 2d.
1320 (8th Cit i87^FMCCorp*. V. Tmirn
539 F. 2d 973 (4th.dr. 1970J,.
An upset is an unintentianaT;
during which effluent limits are exceed:'
a bypass however, is an act of
intentional' noncompliance thiriiig which1
waste treatment faciHtieyare
circumvented in-emergency situations:
We have; hrtfiapaat indiidbtfbypasr
provisions iirNwiidpctinila.
W e-cfete trained tiat betirupeef anefl
bypasypiw jerowa efeotridbe-tneftdedfi*"
NPDES penntta and haw pmuiulguted
ConsoHdatedPiiurtritgulutfons that
incloda upset and bypass penntt
provision* (Se*4a6FRl2£0fe48 FR
33290(M»jrl9; lSS8).Tbrop«a«'
provision estsMiabesi an uynlw an
affirmatfva.dbfBHi&te proaacuttao- for'
violatkuroiteckadbgp-tlaaedaBhiaaC
Thr-tTyyongi|.....rrciT*T
authaatea byyanif tiKpcaanattgrooC
life, personal.injucjK.«* saves* property
damagar.Cansaq«aa£tyi aithm^ft
permMtauain ^ umBhmUii ^ iaihBttjr
will be entfllaritDianut aatkb^paas.
provisions in NPDB^ptsaHtn^mSaA
regulation doafcnot addassa thasflcissiM1 sl
XIL Vmfsnaaa amPWWtiipiUiBuiia
Upon t&e pminirt^Hnn nl tfiia
regulation, thaafilusnlBinitatfan&iDC.
the appropriate subcatfegpry must Be
applied in alTFed&ia£andSfate NPDES
permitr thereafter issued* to dlracr
diaoBargers in thr coiTcoatfiig industry..
In acfilllfun, onpronnilgptloii. lib.
pretreatmentihnitatlanr are dfractfy
only
is EPA'i>'TlhmMaieutafl^ iBKinuf
factorsf^wtawft SerES*
deNemmam tFOw»wfeipiiWngi
AlftenglV-tlrij varianci? ifaw waa sat'
forth-fe-Hwi tgyauflCTradustrr
regulatfonsritla-TKm iacfddedintfie-
NPDES regulations and wiffmit tm
included'ln the cuJ coating1 qr other
industry regulations: See-tle-NWE9J
regulations at 4CTCFR Art 12ST Stabpart-
D.
Tie HAT TtrnifaHnTio fn tKi«. mgiifntifui.
are also subjfSctitci£PAla.
"fundamentally, different factors!'
variance-BAT: Gmitaliona. for.
noncowfantianaLpdluUatSfatt flvhjsct
to	¦mHwSrrtiBnsimV')
andf3QI(g)-aLtha Act.' Hms» atatntoi^.
modifies bcaa-daaafeapj^ste tnwa gr
flallHtnatfii ftTrnH'ig*"-'
Section	ap^kuktkiafr&ia
these mnrflflimlliiiMi inasl lnii filmfcnwilliiia
270 daystafiaepaiNiigrfaAafcBnafc
nfflnrnt lfrttntinaa gMiifaillmiii Win
rr|]iilnWmM Hfihiahiuniiitai imfw
301(c) i
been pr
Agency recently i
12
pr
IS
file i
days <
substantl
301(g)1*
			
determiMi^a>wilIba>eaBtfftreri>Mnfc'
time tbvlNIQlHI paiiaiMirBe&i^
reiaauuA BLuauuBueafattiaJfcidS #Bi'
existBiy swiunaa asu satifeeftptBer
"fundamental iSOUeul ft i Una1**
variance anrfmeJIft Bs polftittuB-
removed IfMJIW (gto	.
403.13)f
The econoBatc-mndiBcafldn sadfiio.
(301(cU gjvea tBa Adhiioiateaiar.
authority to	k« i inqy^ - aula,
for noncauvealiaxiaf'Bpl&iianit.'laL
diachargpmwfio^fihta pninii.
application afflto
frhnvfiag uduudfit£
maximaojua ottacintlig^viikiaittar
economic
opera *~tr nnri (Jl.rwult fn iriggmiUa
furthatgMjarnasttniaiiid tteaHwiiiartmii
of the.dis
env
(301(g)) aU
the cone
BAT limitatioMk£a*aaa
pollutants from i
sh
such point i
Administrator that
' Section 301(f) ptacMli I
modifying RMjupiM		
which in OILlSlilHriC gplQ|a2AMcLBDdBLSfiClkBL>
307(1K1) of f
-------
54242 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 231 / Wednesday, December 1, 1982 / Rules and Regplations
(a)	Such modified requirements will
result at a miaimaia compliance with
BPT limitations or aay iiiiijgjri(»Miiili
limitations necesaasy^MNMnj&fV;;
quality standards
(b)	Such modified re Applicants interested in applying for
both must do so in their initial
application. For further details, see 43
FR 40859. September 13,1978.
The nonconventional pollutants
limited under BAT in this regulation are
aluminum and iron. No regulation
establishing criteria for 301(c) and 301(g)
determinations have been Mropsedor
promulgated, but the Agenjwjcairtl/-
armounced in the April lSjSijfe 'r
Regulatory Agenda plan^nnmora
such regulations by Deceiu|K1882 (47
FR 15702). All dischargers ww fills an
initial application within 270 days will
be sent a copy of the substantive
requirements for 301(c) and 301(g)
determinations once they are
promulgated. Modification
determinations will be considered at the
time the NPDES permit is being
reissued.
Pretreatment standards for existing
sources are subject to the
"fundamentaSy different factors"
variance and credits for pollutant*
removed by POTW. (See 40CFR 403.7,
403.13.) Pretreatment standards for new
sources are subject only to the credits
provisidh in 40 CFR 403.7. NSPS are not
subject to EPA's "fundamentally
different factors" variance or any
statutory or regulatory modifications.
See E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.. v.
Train, supra.
XUI. Relationship to NPDES Permits
The BPT limitations and NSPS in this
regulation will be applied to individual
coil coating plants 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 are 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
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. We
emphasize that although the Clean
Water Act is a strict liability statute, the
initiation of enforcement proceedings by
EPA is discretionary. We have exercised
and intend to exercise that discretion in
a manner that recognizes and promotes
good-faith compliance efforts.
We agree with the commenters that
because of process and wastewater
differences, mnmalring is sufficiently
different from coil coating to require
separate limitations. Canmaking has a
separate schedule under the Court Order
and we plan to regulate rjnmaVing as
separate subcategories of coil coating.
XIV.	Availability of Technical
Information
The basis for this regulation is
detailed in four major documents.
Analytical methods are discussed in
Sampling and Analysis Procedures for
Screening of Industrial Effluents for
Priority Pollutants. EPA's technical
conclusions are detailed in Development
Document for Effluent Guidelines, New
Source Performance Standards and
Pretreatment Standards for the Coil
Coating Point Source Category. The
Agency's economic analysis is
presented in Economic Impact Analysis
of Effluent Limitations and Standards
for the Coil Coating Industry. EPA. A
summary of the public comments
received on the proposed regulation is
presented in a report "Responses to
Public Comments, Proposed Coil
Coating Effluent Guidelines and
Standards," which is a part of the public
record for this regulation and economic
documents may be obtained from the
National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22181 (703/487-
4800). Additional information
concerning the economic impact
analysis may be obtained from Ms.
Josette Bailey, Economic Analysis Staff
(WH-588) EPA. 401M Street S.W.,
Washington. D.C 20460 or by calling
(202)382-5382.
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by Executive Order
12291.
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L 96-511),
the reporting or recordkeeping
provisions that are included in this
regulation have been or will be
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). They
are not effective until OMB approval has
been obtained and the public notified to
that effect through a technical
amendment to this regulation.
XV.	List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 485
Metal coating and allied services.
Waste treatment and disposal, Water
pollution control.
Dated: November 5,1982.
Anne M. Gorsuch, -
Administrator.
XVI.	Appendices
Appendix A—Abbreviations, Acronyms,
and Other Terms Used in This Notice
Act—The Clean Water Act
Agency—The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency-
BAT—The best available technology-
economically achievable under
Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act
-------
Federal Register I Vol? 47, No. 231 / Wednesday. December 1. 1982 / Rplfesvand Regulations- 54243
BCT—The best conventional pollutant
control technology, under Section
304(b)(4)
BOT—The best a^MBttKldemonstrated
csntrol techas&SgKOraswfc.
operating metiwB|m.other
alternatives, inaoaiag. where
practicable, a standard permitting
no discharge of pollutants under
Section 306(a)(1) of the Act
BMPs—Best management practices
under Section 304(e) of the Act
BPT—The best practicable control
technology currently available
under Section 304(b)(1) of the Act
Clean Water Act—The Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as
amended by the Clean Water Act of
1977 (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
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
PSES—Pretreatment standards for
existing sources of indirect
discharges under Section 307(b) of
the Act
PSNS—Pretreatment standards for new
sources of indirect discharges under
. Section 307 (b) and (c) of the Act
RCRA—Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (Pub. L. 94-580) of
1976. Amendments to Solid Waste
Disposal Act
Appendix B—Toxic Pollutants Not
Detected in Wastewaters
(a) Toxic pollutaott not detected in
wastewaters of aa£fgj|£Btegory.
001	Acenaphthene^^'t-.;'
002	Acrolein
003	Acrylonitrita.
005	Benzidine
006	Carbon tetrachloride
(tetrachloromethane)
007	Chlorobenzene
008	1.2,4-trichlorobenzene
009	Hexachlorobenzene
010	1,2-dichloroethane-
012 Hexachloroe thane
014	1.1,2-trichloroethaae
015	1.1.2J-tetrBchlaroe thane
018 Chloroethane
017	Bis(chloromethyl)ether
018	Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
019	2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed).
020	2-chloronaphthalena
021	2.4.8-trichlorophenoi
022	Parachlorometa creaoL
024	2-chlorophenol
025	1.2-diehlorobenzene
028	1,3-dichloro benzene
027	1,4-dichlorobenzene
028	3,3-dichlorobenzidine
031	2.4-dichlorophenol
032	1,2-dichloropropane
033	1.2-dichloropropylene (1.3-
dichloropropene)
034	2.4-dimethylphenol
035	2.4-dinitrotoluene
036	2,8-dinitrotoluene
037	1.2-diphenylhydrazine
040	4-chlorophenyi phenyl ether
041	4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
042	Bls(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
043	Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
044	Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
045	Methyl chloride (dichloromethane)
046	Methyl bromide (bromomethane)
047	Bromoform (tribromomethane)
048	Dichlorobromomethane
049	Trichlorofluoromethane
050	Dichlorodifluoromethane
052	Hexachlorobutadiene
053	Hexachioromyclopentadiene
056	Nitrobenzene
057	2-nitrophenol
058	4-tiitrophenoi
059	2.4-dinitraphenol
060	4.8-dinitio-o-creBol
061	N-nitrosodimethylamine
062	N-nitrosodipbenylamine
063	N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
064	Pentachlorophenol
065	Phenol
086	Toluene
088	Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene),
089	Aldrin
090	Dieldrin
091	Chlordane (technical mixture and
metabolites)
092	4,4-DDT
093	4,4-DDE (p, p-DDX)
094	4,4-DDD (p, p-TDE)
095	Alpha-endosulfan
096	Beta-endosulfan
097	Endosolfan sulfate
098	Endrin
099	Endrin aldehyde
100	Heptachlor.
101	Heptachlor epoxide (BHC-
hexachlorocydohexane)
102	Alpha-BHC - -
103	Beta-BHC
104	Gamma-BHC (lindane)
105	Delta-BHC (PCB-polychlorinated
biphenyls)
108	PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
107	PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
108	PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
109	PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
110	PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
111	PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1280)
112	PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1018)
113	Toxaphene
115	Arsenic
116	Asbestos
117	Beryllium
125'	Selenium
127	Thallium
129	2,3,7, &-Tetiachlorodiben2o-p^iioxin
(TCDD)
(b)	Toxie pollutants not detected in
wastewaters of the steel basis material
subcategory.
023 Chloroform (trichloromethane)
029	1,1-dichloroethylene
030	1.2-trans-dichloroethylene
051 Chlorodibromomethane
(c)	Toxic pollutants not detected in
wastewaters of the Galvanized Basis
Material Subcategory.
044 Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
114 Antimony
(d)	Toxic pollutants not detected in
wastewaters of the Aluminum Basis
Material Subcategory.
011	l.l.l-trichlorethane
013	1,1-dichloroethane
023	Chloroform (trichloromethane)
029	1,1-dichloroethylene
030	1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
038	Ethylbenzene
051 Chlorodibromomethane
054	Isophorone
114 Antimony
Appendix C— Toxic Pollutants Detected
Below the Analytical Qualification
Limit-
(a)	Steel Basis Material Subcategory.
004	Benzene
038	Ethylbenzene
044	Methylene chloride (erylene)
080	Fluorene
081	Phenanthrene *
082	12JS&
dibenaanthracene^dibengotJilmiUmicene)
-------
3BM& Fedarai Repstor / Vol; 47; Ifto. 231" / Wednesday, December^, 1882 ^ Rttfes-- and* Rtgolattiw-
063 fadmmfl ,2.3-cdfr pyreM-OSo*
pheynyien* pyrei»fc
084 Pyrene
065	Tetrachloroethylene
087 Trichlotoethylenw ¦
123	Mercury
126 Silver
Appendix D—Toxic Pollutants Found in
a Smalt Number of Plants Where Suck
Pollutants Are Unique to These Plantr
(a)	Steel Basis Material Subcategory.
013 1.1-dichloroe thane
054 Isophorona
066	Bist2^etfey&«xyi]phtbM.upunyhnu (bemofoM)
perylene)
080	Fhiarenr
081	PhenaBtluem:
082	1.2,5.6-dibenzanthcaeana
(dihffln»(.h)anthracana),
083	Indeno(lA3-cd) pyrene (2.3-o
pheynylena pyrene).
084	Pyrene
087 Trichloroethylene
(b)	Galvanized Basis Material
Subcategory
Oil	l,l,l-trtcMo«ethaB«
029	1.1-dfchloroBthylima
030	1.2-tran«-
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 231 / Wedne8day^ecember^J^_/_RulCT_andj^la^eB^ 54245
Subpart C—Aluminum Basis Material
Subcategory
of the
te8oiy.
iting the
attainable by
cti cable
available.
405.30	Applicafa
aluminum baaiAi
465.31	Effluent I
degree of efflu
the application!
control technology^
465.32	Effluent limitation* representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
465.33	New source performance standards.
465.34	Pre treatment standards for existing
sources.
465.33 Pre treatment standards for new
sources.
465.36 [Reserved].
Authority: Sees. 301, 304 (b). (c). (e). and
(g). 306 (b) and (c), 307 (b) and (c). and 501 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 (g), 1318 (b) and (c), 1317 (b) and (c). and
1361; 86 Stat 816, Pub. L. 92-500; 91 Stat. 1567.
Pub. L. 95-217.
General Provisions
§465.01 AppflcabWty.
This part applies to any coil coating
facility which discharges a pollutant to
waters of the United States or which
introduces pollutants to a publicly
owned treatment works.
§ 465.02 General deffnftlona.
In addition to the definitions set forth
in 40 CFR Part 401, the following
definitions, apply to this pact:
(a)	"Coil" means a strip of basis
material rolled into a roll for handling.
(b)	"Coil coating " means the process
of converting basis material strip into
coated stock. Usually cleaning,
conversion coating, and painting are
performed on the basis material. This
regulation covers processes which
perform any two or more of the three
operations.
(c)	"Basis material" means the coiled
strip which is proceued^-.
(d)	"Area proc«MHBfiMtns the area
actually exposed jUHfippss solutions.
Usually this inclu*Kri|^«ides of the
(e)	"Steel basis	means cold
rolled steel, hot rolled steel, and chrome,
nickel and tin coated steel which are
processed in coil coating.
(f)	"Galvanized basis material" means
zinc coated steel, galvalum. brass and
other copper base.strip which is
processed In coil coating.
(g)	"Aluminum basis material" means
aluminum, aluminum alloys and
aluminum coated steels which ara
processed in coil coating.
{46543 Monitoring and reporting
requirements
The following special monitoring
requirements apply to all facilities
controlled by this regulation.
(a)	Periodic analyses for cyanide are
not required when both of the following
conditions are met:
(1)	The first wastewater sample taken
in each calendar year has been
analyzed and found to contain less than
0.07 mg/1 cyanide
(2)	The owner or operator of the coil
coating facility certifies in writing to the
POTW authority or permit issuing
authority that cyanide is not used in the
coil coating process.
(b)	The "monthly average" regulatory
values shall be the basis for the monthly
average discharge limits in direct
discharge permits and for pretreatment
standards. Compliance with the monthly
discharge limit is required regardless of
the number of samples analyzed and
averaged.
§ 465.04 Compliance date for PSES.
The compliance date for Pretreatment
Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) is-
December 1,1985.1
Subpart A—Steel Basis Material
Subcategory
§ 465.10 Appflcabfllty; description of the
steel basis material subcategory.
This subpart applies to discharges to
waters of the United States, and
introductions of pollutants into publicly
owned treatment works from coil
coating of steel basis material coils.
§485.11 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the beet practicable
control technology currently available.
Except a8 provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available:
Subpart A
' The Consent Decree in NKDC v. Train. 12 ERC
1833 (D.D.C. 1979) specifies ¦ compliance datafor
PSES of no later than June 3a 1984. EPA will be
moving for modification of that provision of the >
Decree. Should tbe Court deny that motion. EPA -
will be required to modify thi* BnmpHanne date-
accordingly.
PoSutam or
poOutani property
BPT effluent Imftxaora
Mndmum lor any
• der
Maximum lor -
I average
Mg/m1 (poundi per 1 mWon It*) of
Chromium—
Cyan**	
Zinc	
CM end
TSS.....
P«	
1 ftt

0.47
(0096)
0J0
i—on*"- *
Poflutant or pofcHaf*
property
" Mart-
mum
• rV U
Mttdmuv W fribnMy ~



MQ/m* Cpomdi par 1 rrMen ft') of*
Chromium..
Cyarada.	
Zinc...
Iron
0£0
(0.10)
02a
(0 041)
0J&

0.14
team
1JI
:
. QM
(0.14)
1.45
ftUO)
a74
(0.15)
9 485.13 New source performance
standards.
The following standards of
performance establish the quantity or
quality of pollutants or pollutant .
properties, controlled by this section,
which may be discharged by a new
source subject to the provisions of this
subpart
Subpart A

NSP9 '
Pollutant or
Itod.

pollutant property
nun
Maximum tar monthly

tar any
avaraqa

1 day

Chromium...
Cyamda-...
Zinc—		
CM and
TSS—.
pH~
Mg/m1 (pound! pi
araa pre
w 1 mNofl
ft ¦> al
0.12
(0.024)
0.047
(0.01)
0JOB*
(0413)
0005
(0.006)-
0.33
(0JW>
0.14
(0.027),
03*
fOJJOO)
0l20
fawn
110
(0M*
3.16
(046)
4.74
lOJfT) .
3.46
(0.72) ,
(')

(7
V)
'Within	10.0:
-------
542SC FadfenL Skater. I VdtL4r«.Nra..231.1 Wedhesday^ December t>. 1982. t. Rutea. and1 RagpiatknM;
§ 465.14 Pretreatment standards for
Excep ta»provi«la«l i
and 403.13. any mrinrtny
to this- subpart which i
pollutants into » publicly <
treatment works must'comptj) with 40
CFR Part 408 and achieve-the following
re treatment standards for existinf
sources. The mass, of wastewater
pollutants in coil coating process-
waste water introduced into a POTW
shall not exceed tha following values?
Suspwrr A
PSES
PotMant or podutant
prtperty
M»d-
mum
for any
| id**
Mawmum (or montfty
Mg/m * (pound per 1 mJton ft M of
Chromun	:	i
0.50
vim
020
(0.041)
Cyanide		
0 34-'
.
Except aa provided in 4A CFR 125-30-
125.32. any.existing point sourca subject
to this subpart must achieve tha
following effluent limitations
representing.tha degree ofeflluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control,
technology currently available:
Subpart^
Subpart B"'
Pottutent or
pottutant property
NBP*
Maximum tor any


itter


Ug/or
(poonda-pea 1 mMoi
aree proceeaed-
rva^ef
Chfomtawi	
0.13
(ooarj.
0462
(oan>
Copper	
0.44

" on
(1043)
Cyanide		
0.0)
(&0191
, 0.02t
(0.006)
Zinc	-		
0.39
(008)
' 0.T3"
(0 030)
Iron	— ..
04*

1 022
(0048)
04 andpeaaa*-
14ft
tOJD.
14ftr
r (0 702)
rss 	
5.16
(1061,
3.7%
(0.7«
PH™	-		
(7
n
<7
V)
1 wtum tn» ang» afro* «m>«

art enveni vneuone
podutait prapvir
Marfmum (Mny
1 day
Maximum, tar
morthty tverape-

Mg/m 1 (pounds p
area prt
er i nMorvft^ of
con)
Pretraatmotatandardafor
Oromamr..		
t 10
(023)
0.49
96
(1.02)
2.61
fo&m

076
(0.16)-
032


zmc.			
3.47
(0 7iy
146
(030)
tron		
32t
(0.66)
r.6B

Ol and greet*	
622-
(10.7)
313
<&4*
TSS	
107.0
(21.9)
52A
(10.7)
PH		
(7
<7
(7'
(7 •
to range of 7 5 to 10.0 at aft Umea.
§ 465.22 Effluent limitations representing.
the degrsa of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best avaKabls
technology economically aeMevaMa.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source sabject
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:
SubpartB
(§ 465-2*
existing
Except aa provided in 40 CTR 403.7
and 403.1$, any existing sourca subject
to this subpart which introduces
pollutants intaa pu tritely-owneif
treatment works must comply with 49
CFR Part 403 and achieve the following
pretreatment standards for existing
sources. The mass of wastewater
'pollutants in coil coating, process
wastewater introduced fitrtb a POTW
shall not cKceadthefallimihg vahsami-
SubpabtB.
Pottutert or pollutant
property
PSEff'

mont
inwvfer
t/ average
Mg/n1
r«"»*r
Chromium-
Copper..
Cyanide-
Zinc	
0l5»
-CW>~
11 0.16-
m
§ 465.25 Pretreatment standards for new

BAT effluent hwlattona
property
MMHM»tar any
1 day
none
Hyevereoa
(pounds per t mmonflTof'
Chromium.
Copper	
Cywde...
Zinc	
03?
(0077)
016
(OiSt)
i>71
(0.36)
0.90-
(0.tfl>
0^8
(0063)
an
(0022)
120
(0.26)
0.S1
(0.11h
1.10
(023)
057
(012)
§ 465.23 New
standarda.
The following standard* of
performance establish the qnantity or
quality of pollutants or pollutant
properties, controlled by this section
which may be discharged by a new
source subject to the provisions of this
subpart:
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. The mass of
wastewater pollutants in coil coating
process wastewater introduced into a
POTW shall not exceed the following
values.
Subpart B
Poflutant or poAutant
property
MaftiM* for any
UBdawn for-
Mg/mr&uidi per t mSon ft} of'
Chromium.....		1 0.13 I (0.027) I 0.042 I (0.011)
-------
Federal Register / VoL 47. No. 231 / Wednesday, December 1. 1982 / Rulea and Regulations 54247
Subpart B—Continued

PSNS
Poflutant or poflutwt-
propeny


Mttdmum tor
n*jr*f*y average
Copper			
Cyan**-	
Zinc					
' "TJl

. 0-21
0.029
0.15
333
m
J 465^6 [Reserved]
Subpart C—Aluminum Basis Material
Subcategory
9 465.30 Applicability; description of the
aluminum basis material subcategory.
This subpart applies to discharges to
waters of the United States and
introductjpns of pollutants into publicly
owned treatment works from coil
coating of aluminum basis material
coifs.
5 465.31 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available:
Subpart C
§ 465.32 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best available technology
economically achievable:
Subpart C

BAT Effluent limitation*
Pollutant or poHutant
Maximum for any
Maximum tor
property
1 day
monthly average
•
mg/m^ (pounds per 1 mitfc
area processed
« ft^ of
Chromium 	
0 42
(0 085)
0 17
(0 034)
Cyanide	
0.29
(0.058)
0 12
(0 024)
Zinc	
1 32
(0-27)
056
(0.12)
Aluminum	-	
448
(0.92)
1.84
(0 38)
§ 465.33 New source performance
standards.
The following standards of
performance establish the quantity or
quality of pollutants or pollutant
properties, controlled by this section,
which may be discharged by a new
source subject to the provisions of this
subpart
SubpartC
§ 465.34 Pre treatment standards for
existing sources.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart which introduces
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
CFR Part 403 and achieve the following
pretreatment standards for existing
sources. The mass of wastewater
pollutants in coil coating process
wastewater introduced into a POTW
shall not exceed the following values:
Subpart C

PSE3
Pollutant or oottutant
Manmum forViy
Manmum for
property
1 day
monthly average
Mg/m* (poundsper t mflton ft3) of
•res processed
Ctvomojm.	
0 42
(0 065)
0 17
(0 34)
Cyanide		
0.29
(0 059)
0 12
(0 024)
Zinc	
32
(0.27)
056
(0 12)
§ 485.35 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,
any new source subject to this subpart
which introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR Part 403 -and ' '
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for new sources. The mass of
wastewater pollutants in coil coating
process wastewater introduced into a
POTW shall not exceed the following
values:
Subpart C

BPT Effluent bmrtaOorts

NSPS

PSNS
PoOutant or
pottutant property
Maximum tor any
1 day
Maximum tor
monthly average
Poflutant or
pollutant property
Maximum tor any
1 day
Maximum tor
montttfy average
Pottutant or
pollutant property
Maxtmvn for any
1 day
Maximum tor
monthly average
mg/m} (pounds per 1 mOton of
Mg/m' (pounds par 1 mdSon It *> of
area processed
Mg/mf (ptMtds per t twflton ft1) of
Chrorraum	
1 42
(0 29)
056
(0 12)
Cyanide. 	
0.90
(020)
0 41
(0083)
zmc	 -	
448
(092)
189
(0.39)
Atununum		
153
(314)
6.26.
(1.28)
Oi and greats 	
673
(138)
404
(8.27)
TSS	
138.0
(2*3)
67 3
(13.8)
PH 	......		
O
w
O
n


Tf	


'Withm ttw isngi of
Chromium			
0.10
(0.037)
0 072
(0.015)
Cy*«e. 	
0 09S
(0.020)
0.038
(0 008)
Zinc 	
049
(0.10>
0.20
(0 041)
Alunanum		
1 44
(0J0)
0.59
(0.121)
OB and Grease	
4.75
(098)
4 75
(0 98)
TSS - 	
7.13
(146)
5.23
d 07)
pH	J
V)
(')
(')
(')
Chromium..	—
0.18
(0.037)
0.072
(0.015)
Cyanida		
0.095
(0 02)
0 038
(0.006)
7km:
0.049
(0.01)
0.20
(0.041)

1 Within tha ring* d 7 S to 10 J) at « Dm*.
9465.36 [Reserved]
|FR Doc. 82-31393 FUsd 11-3M2: &«S »m)
BILLOW COOC MM-SO-M
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington DC 20400
WH 552	^
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
-------
COIL COATING
PROMULGATED REGULATION FOR THE
COIL COATING
INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
-------
COIL COATING
THE COIL COATING CATEGORY
COIL COATING IS THE PROCESS OF CONVERTING BASIS
MATERIAL STRIP (OR COIL) INTO COATED STOCK.
USUALLY THREE PROCESS STEPS ARE INVOLVED —
CLEANING, COATING (CONVERSION COATING) AND PAINTING.
ANY TWO OF THESE THREE PROCESS STEPS QUALIFY AS COIL COATING
COIL COATING MAY BE CLASSIFIED IN SIC 3479,
COATING, ENGRAVING AND ALLIED SERVICES, NEC
-------
ACCUMULATOR
FIGURE 11! 1. GENERAL PROCESS SE015ENCE FOR A SINGLE COAT COIL COATING LINE
-------
THE COIL COATING CATEGORY (CONTINUED)
COIL COATING IS SUBCATEGORIZED INTO THREE SUBCATEGORIES
1.	STEEL (INCLUDES CHROMIUM, NICKEL AND TIN - COATED STEELS)
2.	GALVANIZED STEEL (INCLUDES GALVALUM, COPPER AND COPPER
ALLOYS SUCH AS BRASS)
3.	ALUMINUM (INCLUDES ALUMINUM ALLOYS AND ALUMINUM COATED
STEEL)
-------
COIL COATING
THE COIL COATING CATEGORY - (CONTINUED)
WASTEWATER IS GENERATED IN ALL THREE PROCESS STEPS
PROCESS STEPS	PRINCIPAL POLLUTANTS
CLEANING -	Cr, Pb, Ni, Zn, AT, F, Fe, Mn, P,
O&G, TSS, TTO
COATING -	Cr, CN, Pb, Ni, Zn, A1, F, Fe, Mn,
O&G, TSS
QUENCH -	Zn, AT, TTO
-------
COIL COATING
THE COIL COATING CATEGORY - (CONTINUED)
EPA OBTAINED DATA ABOUT 69 COIL COATING PLANTS
(ABOUT 125 LINES)
29 ARE DIRECT DISCHARGERS
39 ARE INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
1 DOES NOT DISCHARGE
-------
COIL COATING
THE COIL COATING CATEGORY - (CONTINUED)
DATA WAS COLLECTED FROM ALL KNOWN COIL COATERS
USING A DATA COLLECTION PORTFOLIO (DCP)
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS VISITS WERE MADE TO 12 PLANTS:
ENGINEERING VISITS TO THREE ADDITIONAL PLANTS.
ENGINEERING STUDIES WERE MADE OF END-OF-PIPE
TREATMENT SYSTEMS.
-------
COIL COATING
THE COIL COATING CATEGORY - (CONTINUED)
DATA TO SUPPORT TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF LIME & SETTLE (L&S)
TREATMENT COLLECTED DURING SAMPLING
DATA FROM COIL COATING, ALUMINUM FORMING, BATTERY MANUFACTURING
COPPER FORMING & PORCELAIN ENAMELING USED AS BASIS FOR L&S
DATA FROM ELECTROPLATING NOT USABLE AS BASIS FOR L&S
-------
THE REGULATION
THERE IS NO PREVIOUS REGULATION OF COIL COATING
THIS REGULATION PROPOSED JANUARY 12, 1981;
PROMULGATED DECEMBER 1, 1982.
REGULATION INCLUDES BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES AND
PSNS. BCT IS DEFFERED.
-------
CHEMICAL
CHEMICAL	ADDITION
FIGURE IX-1. BPT WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
-------
COIL COATING
THE REGULATION - (CONTINUED)
FLOW BASIS IS THE AVERAGE FLOW OF ALL PROCESS
STEPS IN THE SUBCATEGORY
FLOW
STEEL	2.752 1/m2
GALVANIZED	2.610 1/m2
ALUMINUM	3.363 1/m2
END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT CHROMIUM REDUCTION, CYANIDE
PRECIPITATION, OIL SKIMMING AND L&S
-------
CHEMICAL
CHEMICAL	ADDITION
FIGURE X I. BAT LEVEL t WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
-------
COIL COATING
BAT-PSES
THE REGULATION	- (CONTINUED)
FLOW REDUCED BY REUSING QUENCH WATER FOR
CLEANING RINSE &	COATING RINSE
FLOW
STEEL	1.173 1/m2
GALVANIZED	0.896 1/m2
ALUMINUM	0.987 1/m2
END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT IS THE SAME AS BPT
-------
COIL COATING
THE REGULATION - (CONTINUED)
PRETREATMENT
COMPLIANCE DATE
FOR EXISTING SOURCES DECEMBER 1, 1985
FOR NEW SOURCES	DECEMBER 1, 1982
-------
COIL COATING
THE REGULATION - (CONTINUED)
PRETREATMENT
PSES AND PSNS FOR THIS CATEGORY ARE EXPRESSED AS
MASS STANDARDS - MILLIGRAMS OF POLLUTANT PER SQUARE
METER OF PRODUCT
CONCENTRATION STANDARDS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS
CATEGORY BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT REDUCTION IS
ACHIEVED THROUGH FLOW REDUCTION
-------
COIL COATING
THE REGULATION - (CONTINUED)
PRETREATMENT
DATA NEEDED TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE
-	MEASURED WASTEWATER FLOW
-	POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
POSSIBLE ALTERNATES -
-	WATER USE RATE OR WATER METER
-	POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
-------
COIL COATING
THE REGULATION - (CONTINUED)
PRETREATMENT
FOR MASS BASED PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
1.	PRODUCTION RATE - BASED ON
A)	PREVIOUS HISTORY - e.g. 5 YEAR AVERAGE
B)	MAX MONTH PRODUCTION
C)	NAME PLATE RATING
2.	DISCHARGE STANDARD FROM REGULATIONS
3.	DETERMINES DAILY MAX & MONTHLY AVERAGE DISCHARGE
-------
CDNVEnSION
COATING
WASTEWATER
CHEMICAL
AODITION
jp.
CHROMIUM
nFouciion

CHEMICAL
AODITION
0

CYANIDE J
I TREATMENT I
"| (OHIONAI |
I ^ I
l_ _	I
CLEANING
WASTEWATER
OTHER
(QUENCH WASTES)
RECYCLE TO QUENCH
MX REUSE TO COUNTERCURRENT RINSE
REMOVAL OF
OIL AND 6REASE
Diiiiiftniir
stuntie in
IM^rilSAI
nmw»wfw
FIGURE XI I. BOT LEVEL I WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
-------
COIL COATING
THE REGULATION - (CONTINUED)
NSPS - PSNS
FLOW FURTHER REDUCED BY REQUIRING COUNTERCURRENT
CASCADE RINSE IN BOTH CLEANING AND COATING
FLOW
STEEL	0.316 1/m2
GALVANIZED	0.343 1/m2
ALUMINUM	0.475 1/m2
END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT IS THE SAME AS BPT-BAT
PLUS POLISHING FILTRATION
-------
COIL COATING
THE REGULATION - (CONTINUED)
POLLUTANTS REGULATED
BPT
BAT
PSES
NSPS
PSNS
Cr
Cr
Cr
Cr
Cr
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
Zn
Zn
Zn
Zn
Zn
A1
A1

A1

Fe
Fe

Fe

O&G


O&G

TSS


TSS

pH


pH

-------
THE REGULATION - (CONTINUED)
ONE DAY MAXIMUM AND MONTHLY AVERAGE
VALUES ARE PUBLISHED FOR EACH POLLUTANT
MONTHLY AVERAGE VALUE MUST BE USED FOR BOTH
DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCHARGERS.
COMPLIANCE WITH MONTHLY VALUES IS REQUIRED
REGARDLESS OF NUMBER OF SAMPLES ANALYZED AND
AVERAGED.
-------
COIL COATING
THE REGULATION - (CONTINUED)
PERIODIC ANALYSIS FOR CYANIDE MAY BE REDUCED TO
ONCE ANNUALLY PROVIDING TWO CONDITIONS ARE MET.
1.	FIRST SAMPLE TAKEN IN CALENDAR YEAR IS ANALYZED
AND CN FOUND TO BE LESS THAN 0.07 mg/1.
2.	THE OWNER OR OPERATOR CERTIFIES TO THE POTW OR
PERMIT ISSUING AUTHORITY THAT CYANIDE IS NOT USED
IN THE COATING PROCESS.
-------
POST PROMULGATION ISSUES
REGULATION HAS NOT BEEN LITIGATED
INDUSTRY HAS PETITIONED ADMINISTRATOR TO:
1.	USE CONCENTRATION RATHER THAN MASS LIMITATIONS
2.	SPECIFY SPECIFIC CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OPTION TO BE
USED FOR ANALYZING FOR OIL & GREASE
-------
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
THERE ARE 17 SECTIONS IN THE DOCUMENT.
SECTIONS I & II ARE A SUMMARY OF THE DOCUMENT
SECTIONS III & IV EXPLAIN THE TECHNOLOGY AND SUBCATEGORIZATION
SECTION V PRESENTS DATA COLLECTED
SECTION VI DISCUSSES POLLUTANTS
SECTION VII PRESENTS TECHNOLOGY AND PERFORMANCE
SECTION VIII PRESENTS COSTING METHODOLOGY
SECTION IX - XIII REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT
SECTION XIV - XVII - REFERENCE INFORMATION
-------
Thursday
November 17, 1983
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
Coil Coating Point Source Category,
Canmaking Subcategory; Effluent
Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment
Standards, and New Source Performance
Standards; Final Rule
-------
52380 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 223 / Thursday, November 17,1983 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 465
[WH-FRL-2459-2]
Coil Coating Point Source Category,
Canmaking Subcategory; Effluent
Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment
Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards
AGENCY; Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION; Final rule.
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
effluent limitations and standards
limiting the discharge of pollutants into
navigable waters and into publicly
owned treatment works by existing and
new plants engaged in the
manufacturing of cans. The Clean Water
Act and a consent decree require EPA to
promulgate this regulation.
This regulation establishes specific
effluent limitations based on "best
practicable technology," "best available
technology," new source performance
standards based on "best demonstrated
technology" and pretreatment standards
for existing and new indirect
dischargers.
dates: This regulation shall become
effective on January 2,1984.
The compliance date for the BAT
regulations is as soon as possible, but in
any event, no later than July 1,1984. The
compliance date for new source
performance standards (NSPS) and
pretreatment standards for new sources
(PSNS) is the date the new source
begins operations. The compliance date
/for pretreatment standards for existing
I sources [PSES) is as soon as possible
\but in no case later than November 17,
1988. ,
Under Section 509(b)(1) of the Clean
Water Act, judicial review of this
regulation can be made only by filing a
petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals within 90 days after
the' regulation is considered issued for
purposes of judicial review. Under
Section 509(b)(2) of the Clean Water
Act. the requirements in this regulation
may not be challenged later in civil or
criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements. In
accordance with 40 CFR 100.01 J45 FR
26048), this regulation shall be
" considered issued for purposes of
judicial review at 1:00 p.m. Eastern time
on December 1,1983.
The information requirements
contained in 40 CFR 465.03(d) have not
been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and
they are not effective until OMB has
approved them.
The Record will be available for
public review not later than January 23,
1984, in EPA's Public Information
Reference Unit, Room 2404 (Rear) (EPA
Library), 401 M Street. SW.,
Washington, D.C. The EPA public
information regulation (40 CFR Part 2)
provides that a reasonable fee may be
charged for copying.
ADDRESSES: The basis for this regulation
is detailed in four major documents. See
Section XIV, Availability of Technical
Information, for a description of each -
document. Copies of the technical and
economic documents may be obtained
from the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161;
(703/487-4800). For additional technical
information, contact Ms. Mary Ll
Belefski, Effluent Guidelines Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C.
20480 (Phone (202) 382-7126). For
additional economic information contact
Ms. Josette Bailey, Economic Analysis
Staff (WH-586), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460 (Phone (202)
382-5382).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT;
Ernst P. Hall (202) 382-7126.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Organization of this notice
L Legal Authority
n. Scope of this Rulemaking
Ql. Summary of Legal Background
IV.	Methodology and Data Gathering Efforts
V.	Control Treatment Options and
Technology Basis for the Final
Regulation:
A.	Summary of Subcategory
B.	Control and Treatment Options
C.	Technology Basis for Final Regulation
VI.	Economic Considerations:
A.	Costs and Economic Impact
B.	Executive Order 12291
C.	Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
D.	SBA Loans
VII.	Non-Water-Quality Environmental
Impacts:
A.	Air Pollution
B.	Solid Waste
C.	Consumptive Water Loss
D.	Energy Requirements
VIII.	Pollutants and Subcategory Segments
Not Regulated:
A.	Exclusion of Pollutants
B.	Exclusion of Subcategory Segments
IX.	Public Participation and Response to
Major Comments
X Best Management Practices (BMP)
XI. Upset and Bypass Provisions
XII Variances and Modifications
XIII.	Implementation of Limitations and
Standards:
A Relationship to NPDES Permits
B. Indirect Dischargers
XIV.	Availability of Technical Information
XV.	List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 465—
Subpart D
XVI.	Appendices
A—Abbreviations. Acronyms and Other
Terms Used in this Notice
B—Toxic Pollutants Not Detected
C—Toxic Pollutants Detected Below the
Nominal Quantification Limit
D—Toxic Pollutants Not Treatable Using
Technologies Cowidered Applicable for
The Subcategory
E—Toxic Pollutants Controlled at BPT,
BAT. and NSP But Not Specifically
Regulated
F—List of Toxic Organic Pollutants
Comprising Total Toxic Organics (or
TTO) Controlled at PSES and PSNS
G—Subcategory Segments Not Regulated
I.	Legal Authority
This regulation is being promulgated
under the authority of Sections 301, 304,
306. 307, 308. and 501 of the Clean Water
Act (the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.. as amended by the Clean Water
Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-217), also called
"the Act." It is also being promulgated
in response to the Settlement Agreement
in Natural Resources Defense Council.
Inc. v. Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976),
modified by Orders dated August 26,
1982,	October 26,1982 and August 2,
1983.
II.	Scope of This Rulemaking
This final regulation, which was
proposed on February 10,1983 (48 FR
6268), establishes effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for existing
and new canmaking facilities.
Canmaking consists of the process or
processes used to manufacture a can
from a basis metal, including aluminum
and steel. In this regulation, only
seamless cans made from uncoated
stock are regulated, since no process
wastewater is generated from the
manufacture of seamed cans or
seamless cans made from coated stock.
EPA is promulgating BPT, BAT, new
source performance standards (NSPS),
and pretreatment standards for existing
and new sources (PSES and PSNS,
respectively) for the canmaking
subcategory of the coil coating point
source category.
m. Summary of Legal Background
The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 established a
comprehensive program to "restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's
Water." (Section 101(a)). To implement
the Act, EPA was to issue effluent
limitations guidelines, pretreatment
standards, and new source performance
standards for industrial dischargers.
-------
Federal Register / Vol 48. No. 223 / Thursday. November 17. 1983 / Rules and Regulations 52381
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 "Settlement
Agreement" which was approved by the
Court. This agreement required EPA to
develop a program and adhere to a
schedule for controlling 65 "priority"
pollutants and classes of pollutants. In
carrying out this program, EPA must
promulgate BAT effluent limitations
guidelines, pretreatment standards, and
new source performance standards for
21 major industries. See Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc. v.
Trtjin, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976),
modified, 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979),
modified by Order dated August 2.1983.
Many of the basic elements of the
Settlement Agreement 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 strengthening the toxic
control program, Section 304(e) of the
Act authorizes the Administrator to
prescribe "best management practices"
(BMPb) 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.
Under the Act, the EPA is to set a
number of different kinds of effluent
limitations. These are discussed in
detail in the preamble to the proposed
regulation and in the development
document. They are summarized briefly
below:
1.	Best Practicable Contra! 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 for control of
familiar (i.e. classical) pollutants.
In establishing BPT limitations, EPA
considers the total cost in relation to the
age of equipment and facilities involved,
the processes employed, process
changes required, engineering aspects of
the control technologies, and nonwater
quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements). The
Agency balances the industry-wide cost
of applying the technology against the
effluent reduction.
2.	Best Available Technology (BAT)
BAT limitations, in general, represent
the best existing performance in the
industry 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 the
control technologies, process changes,
the coBt of achieving such effluent
reduction, and nonwater quality
environmental impacts. The Agency
retains considerable discretion in
assigning the weight to be accorded
these factors.
3. Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT)
The 1977 Amendments to the Clean
Water Act added Section 301(b)(2)(E),
establishing "best conventional
pollutant control technology" (BCT) for
discharge of conventional pollutants
from existing industrial point sources.
Section 304(a)(4) designated the
following as conventional pollutants:
BOD TSS, fecal coliform, pH, and any
additional pollutants defined by the
Administrator as conventional. The
Administrator designated oil and grease
"conventional" 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 factors specified in Section
304(b)(4)(B), the Act requires that the
BCT limitations be assessed in light of a
two part "cost-reasonableness" test.
American Paper Institute v. EPA, 660
F.2d 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
stringent 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
ordered EPA to make certain revisions.
A revised methodology for the general
development of BCT limitations was
proposed on October 29,1982 (47 FR
49176). BCT limits for this industry are
deferred until promulgation of the final
methodology for BCT development.
Until the Agency has promulgated
BCT limitations for this subcategory,
permit writers should incorporate into
permits BCT limitations for oil and
grease, TSS, and pH based upon best
professional judgment. Since BCT
limitations cannot be less stringent than
BPT limitations, permit writers should
regard the BPT limitations promulgated
now as minimum BCT requirements.
4.	New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS)
NSPS are based on the best svailable
demonstrated technology (BDT). New
plants have the opportunity to install the
best and most efficient production
processes and wastewater treatment
technologies.
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
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 nationwide average
percentage of pollutants removed by a
well operated POTW achieving
secondary treatment is less then the
percent removed by the BAT model
treatment system. The General
Pretreatment Regulation, which serves
as the framework for categorical
pretreatment regulations, is found at 40
CFR Part 403.
6.	Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources (PSNS)
Like PSES, PSNS are designed to
prevent the discharge of pollutants
which pass through, interfere with, or
are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of a POTW. PSNS are to be
issued at the same time as NSPS. New
indirect dischargers, like new direct
dischargers, have the opportunity to
incorporate in their plant the best
available demonstrated technologies.
The Agency considers the same factors
in promulgating PSNS as it considers in
promulgating PSES.
-------
52382 Federal Register / Vol 48, No. 223 / Thursday, November 17, 1983 / Rules and Regulation*
IV. Methodology and Data Gathering
Efforts
The methodology and data gathering
efforts used in developing the proposed
regulation were summarised in the
"Preamble to the Proposed Canmaking
Point Source Subcategory Effluent
Limitations Guidelines, Pre treatment
Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards" (48 FR 0ZB8,
February 10,1983), and described in
detail in the Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Coil Coating Point
Source Category (Canmaking
Subcategory) EPA 440/l-83/071-b
(referred to as development document).
Since proposal and in response to
comments, the Agency has gathered
additional data and performed
additional statistical and engineering
analyses of new and existing data.
These activities are discussed briefly
below and in substantial detail in the
appropriate sections of the development
document. These additional data were
summarized in a Federal Register notice
(48 FR 43195, September 22,1983) made
available for public comment, and are in
the public record supporting this rule.
The treatment effectiveness data base
was reviewed thoroughly following
proposal in order to respond to
comments and assure that all relevant
data were properly considered. As a
result of this review, several additions
and deletions were made to the
Agency's treatment effectiveness data
base. These changes are documented in
the record along with responses to
comments. Following the changes,
statistical analyses performed prior to
proposal were repeated. Conclusions
reached at proposal were largely
unchanged and little or no changes in
the final limitations occurred as a result
of changes in the data.
EPA conducted engineering site visits
to seventeen canmaking plants in order
to gather information regarding water
use and in place treatment systems for
wastewater discharges. In addition, EPA
solicited data and clarifications of
comments from eleven companies, to
confirm the information provided in the
Agency's 1978 and 1982 data collection
portfolios regarding flow, production,
and treatment systems in place. The
data supplied was used to update tha
data base for the subcategory.
Additional data were provided by the
industry on the characteristics of
untreated wastewaters and on treated
wastewaters discharged from
canmaking operations. In addition. EPA
conducted sampling and analysis for
metals at seven plants and for toxic
organic pollutants at five of these seven
plante to farther characterize
wastewaters discharged from the
subcategory.
- Comments or the proposal criticized
the Agency's estimate of compliance
costs. Following proposal, the Agency
revised its analysis of the cost of model
treatment systems used as the basis for
limitations and standards to take into
account better data on treatment
equipment in place and restructured the
equipment costing methodology. Section
VIII of the development document and
related documents in the record explain
the basis for the revised costs estimates.
V. Control Treatment Options and
Technology Basis for Final Regulations
A. Summary of Subcategory
Can manufacturing is included within
the U.S. Department of Commerce
Census Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) 3411—Metal Cans,
and includes about 425 manufacturing
plants.
Canmaking covers all of the
manufacturing processes and steps
involved in the manufacturing of various
shaped metal containers which are
subsequently used for storing foods,
beverages and other products. Two
major types of cans are manufactured:
Seamed cans and seamless cans.
Seamed cans (primarily three-piece
cans] are manufactured by forming a flat
piece or sheet of metal into a container
with a longitudinal or side seam which
is clinched, welded, or soldered, and
attaching formed ends to one or both
ends of the container body. About 300
plants in the United States manufacture
seamed cans.
Seamless cans (primarily two-piece
cans) consist of a can body formed from
a single piece of metal and usually a top,
or two ends, tint are formed from sheet
metal and attached to the can body.
There are several forming methods
which may be used to shape the can
bodies including simple drawing,
drawing and redrawing, drawing and
ironing (D&I), extruding, spinning, and
others. About 125 plants in the United
States manufacture seamless cans.
In the manufacture of seamless cans,
oil is used frequently ae a lubricant
during the forming at the seamless body
and must be removed before further
processing can be performed. Typically,
this is accomplished by washing the can
body in a continueds canwasher using
water based cleaners. This step is
followed by metal surfacing steps to
prepare the can for painting.
In the manufacture of seamed cans,
can ends and tops, and seamless cans
from coated (e.g., coil coated) stock, no
oil is used and the cans do not need to
be washed after forming. These
CHnmaking process segments are
excluded from regulation because they
generate no process wastewater. (See
Section VIII of this preamble.)
Pollutants or pollutant parameters
generated in canmaking wastewaters
and regulated are: (1) Toxic metals—
chromium, copper and zinc; (2) toxic
organics listed as total toxic oganics
(TTO) (TTO is the sum of all toxic
organic compounds detected in
quantifiable amounts—See Appendix F
of this preamble); (3) nonconventional
pollutants—aluminum, manganese,
fluoride, and phosphorus; and (4)
conventional pollutants and pollutant
parameters—oil and grease, TSS, and
pH. Because of the toxic metals present,
the sludges generated during
wastewater treatment generally contain
toxic metals.
EPA estimates that 86 of the
approximately 425 can manufacturing
plants in the United States generate
wastewater. Three of these plants are
direct dischargers, 80 are indirect
dischargers, and the remaining three
plants dispose of wastewaters by land
application. These plants are scattered
geographically throughout the United
States.
B. Control and Treatment Technologies
Prior to proposal of the canmaking
regulation, EPA considered a wide range
of control and treatment options
including both in-process changes and
end-of-pipe treatment These options are
discussed in detail in the preamble to
the proposed canmaking regulation and
in the development document No major
changes have been made to the end-of-
pipe technology options considered for
the final rule from those considered for
the proposed rule, although some
changes have been made in the
recommended flow reduction techniques
and in the pollutant parameter?
regulated for pretreatment The control
and treatment technologies used as the
basis for the final limitations and
standards are described below.
In-process controls include flow
reduction techniques atilizing reuse and
recycle of catwaaber rinse wastewaters.
Numerous plumbing and water rense
configurations are used in canwashers,
but the most frequently observed
method involves die reuse of stage five
sump water overflow as make-up to
stage three rinsing. In some cases, stage
three sump water overflow is in turn
used as make-up to stage one rinsing.
This technique is referred to as
counterflow rinsing. Counterflow rinsing
(which for this regidation is defined as
having all of the makenp water for stage
-------
Federal Register / Vol 48, No. 223 / Thursday, November 17, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 62383
3—the rinse following etching or
cleaning the can—taken fron. the
overflow from stage five—the rinse
following metal surface treatment) is the
model flow reduction technology for
BAT. PSES, NSPS and PSNS.
Countercurrent cascade rinsing
(adding cascaded rinse stages to
increase rinsing efficiency) is an
alternate approach to reducing water
use as are other methods. These
methods are described in more detail in
Sections III and Vll of the development
document.
The model end-of-pipe treatment for
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS
includes removal of oil and grease and
toxic organic pollutants by oil skimming,
chemical emulsion breaking, dissolved
air flotation or a combination of these
technologies; lime precipitation of metal
ions, fluoride, and phosphorus; removal
of precipitated solids by Stokes law
sedimentation; and pH adjustment of the
final effluent. Chromium reduction may
also be necessary. Although not
specifically included in the model end-
of-pipe treatment system, cyanide
precipitation may be necessary if plants
use cyanide as a process chemical
additive in the canmaking process.
When used, cyanide should be removed
and regulated. These treatment
technologies are described in detail in
Section VII of the development
document.
The treatment effectiveness of the
model treatment technologies has been
. evaluated by observing the performance
of these technologies on canmaking and
other similar wastewaters.
The data base for the performance of
precipitation and sedimentation
technology ("lime and settle") in
reducing concentrations of chromium,
copper, manganese, zinc, and TSS in
canmaking wastewaters is a composite
of data drawn from EPA sampling and
analysis of effluents from well-operated
lime and settle treatment systems at 18
plants in the copper forming, aluminum
forming, battery manufacturing,
porcelain enameling, and coil coating
(including one canmaking plant)
categories. These data, referred to as the
combined metals data base (CMDB),
consist of influent and effluent
concentration measurements for nine
pollutants. The wastewaters of these
categories and canmaking wastewaters
were found to be similar for treatment
since they contain comparable levels of
dissolved metals which can be removed
by lime precipitation and solids
removal.
The Agency regards the combined
metals data base as the best available
measure for establishing the
concentrations of TSS, chromium,
copper, zinc, and manganese attainable
with lime and settle treatment
technology. Our determination is based
on the similarity of raw and treated
wastewaters of the canmaking
subcategory with the raw and treated
wastewaters of the categories whose
data comprise the CMDB. After removal
of oil, canmaking raw wastewaters
contain TSS, chromium, copper, zinc,
and manganese in concentrations
comparable to those in the CMDB
categories. The similarity of raw
wastewaters is supported by a
statistical analysis for homogeneity
which is part of the record of this
rulemaking.
The Agency had few data on
achievable effluent concentrations from
optimally operated lime and settle
treatment systems in canmaking plants.
These data were useful for confirming
the applicability of achievable effluent
concentrations from the CMDB to
canmaking plants. The CMDB was used
to establish regulatory concentrations
because of the larger number of plants
and data points and because of the
greater sampling reliability of the data
available in the CMDB in comparison to
the few effluent data available from post
proposal sampling. The larger data base
enhanced the Agency's ability to
estimate long-term performance and
variability through statistical analysis.
The CMDB is discussed in more detail
in this preamble in Section IX, Public
Participation and Response to
Comments, in Section VII of the
development document in the document
"A Statistical Analysis of the Combined
MetaU Industries Effluent Data" and in
. the memorandum "Revisions to Data
and Analysis of the Combined Metals
Data Base" which are both in the
administrative record.
Maximum concentration levels for
aluminum for BPT, BAT, and NSPS were
proposed on the basis of data from the
coil coating and aluminum forming '
categories. EPA judged that the raw
wastewaters of canmaking plants were
similar to those of coil coating and
aluminum forming plants, and that the
model lime and settle treatment
technology could reduce the
concentrations of aluminum in
canmaking plants to levels comparable
to those achieved in coil coating and
aluminum forming plants. Since
proposal of the aluminum forming
regulation, the Agency gathered
additional data on aluminum from two
aluminum forming plants that have well
operated lime and settle end-of-pipe
treatment. The Agency also analyzed
data on aluminum submitted by the Can
Manufacturers Institute (CMI) and
United States Brewers Association
(USBA) in their comments on the
canmaking proposal. The CMI and
USBA data confirmed that canmaking
plants' raw wastewaters contained
concentrations of aluminum comparable
to those found in aluminum forming
wastewaters. When adjusted to exclude
plants which do not employ or optimally
operate the model end-of-pipe
technology (lime and settle], six of eight
data days of the treated effluent data
submitted by CMI and USBA confirm
that the concentration for aluminum
used in the final regulations is
achievable in canmaking plants that
optimally operate the model technology.
Further, we obtained Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR) data for one
of the three direct dischargers in the
subcategory. This plant employs and
optimally operates the model end-of-
pipe treatment technology (lime and
settle). Hie DMR data show that this
plant consistently met the concentration
for aluminum used in the final regulation
for all but two months in the past two
years. Consequently, the concentrations
for aluminum used in the final
canmaking regulation for BPT, BAT, and
NSPS are the same as those used in the
final aluminum forming regulation.
These concentrations are higher than
those used for the proposed canmaking
regulation.	<<
Maximum concentrations for
aluminum were also proposed for PSES
and PSNS as an indicator to assure
removal of chromium, zinc, and other
metals and optimal operation of the
model treatment system. Following
proposal, a number of commenters
pointed out that aluminum is often
added by POTW and suggested that
aluminum need not be regulated as an
indicator since specific standards could
be set for particular pollutant
parameters of concern. In response to
these comments, the Agency substituted
PSES for manganese and copper in place
of standards for aluminum. This results
in an approach to aluminum in
wastewaters in the canmaking
subcategory which is consistent with the
approach used in regulations for such
sources as the aluminum forming and
coil coating categories. In comments,
industry has assured the Agency that
making seamless cans from low
manganese aluminum alloy was quite
unlikely, increasing the Agency's
confidence that manganese could be
relied upon to assure the optimal
-------
52384 Federal Register / Vol 4B, No. 223 / Thursday, November 17, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
operation of the model (LAS] end-of-pipe
treatment bn die event that a km
manganese content can alloy is osed,
the Agency is requiring notification by
each discharger of the intended use of a
low manganese alloy and the
composition of such low manganese
alloy. The Agency will evaluate the
potential impact of the nse of any sew
alloy on pollutant discharge and will
propose any appropriate revisions tf
these limitations and standards.
Aluminum was retained as a pollutant
parameter for direct dischargers in the
camnaking subcategory to assure
removal of other pollutants and because
aluminum appears at elevated
concentrations in wastewaters and
since aluminum is known to cause
adverse effects in receiving waters at
concentrations that would be discharged
from canmaking plants. See Section VI
of the development document for more
details.
The lower end of the pH range in the
final regulation has been lowered from
7.5 at proposal to 7.0, in order to allow
optimal removal of alnnumm from
canmaking wastewaters. This change is
also based on data obtained from the
aluminum forming category, aad is
explained in more detail in Section K of
this preamble.
Manganese and copper appear in
wastewaters in the canmaking
subcategory as a consequence of their
use as alloying agents in the aluminum
stocks used in canmaking. These
pollutants are removed by the model
end-of-pipe treatment technology. The
achievable concentrations of manganese
and copper are based upon the
performance of properly operated lime
and settle treatment systems as
documented in the combined metals
data base.
Maximum concentration values for oil
and grease are the same as proposed.
The Agency judged that oil skimming,
chemical emulsion breaking, dissolved
air flotation devices or a combination of
these technologies could reduce
concentrations of oil and grease in
canmaking effluents to the regulated
levels. Following proposal, CM! and
USBA jointly submitted treated effluent
data for fourteen canmaking plants, ten
of which employ and optimally operate
these recommended treatment
technologies for the removal of od and
grease. The Agency found that the data
submitted by CMI and USHA for these
ten plants consistently met the proposed
concentration values for oil and grease.
As a result, the final achievable
concentration values for oil and grease
are the same as proposed.
Maximum concentration values for
TTO were proposed for PSES and PSNS,
based on the application of the model
treatment technologies for oil and grease
removal. Because CMI and USBA
claimed that process changes had
eliminated toxic organic* from
canmaking wastewaters, after proposal,
the Agency conducted sampling for
toxic organic pollutants at five plants,
and confirmed the presence of the six of
the seven toxic organic compounds
found before proposal in untreated raw
effluents, plus seven additional toxic
organic*. These compounds were found
in process wastestreams and are
generally associated with natural
lubricants, solvents and surface
coatings. AD are removed by oil and
grease removal technologies. As a
result, the proposed achievable
treatment levels for TTO are retained in
the final regulation. A definition of TTO
has been added to the final regulation,
which includes aH fourteen toxic organic
pollutants identified before and after
proposal in untreated raw wastewater
streams in the canmaking subcategory.
For direct discharger*. TTO is not
regulated since the BPT/BCT oil and
grease limitation will remove TTO. For
BAT permits that are issued before BCT
limitations are promulgated, permit
writers should regard the BPT oil and
grease limits as minimum loads for best
professional judgment oil and grease
limitations (see Section IH of this
preamble).
The final regulation includes a method
to be used for the analysis of the
concentration of oil and grease in
wastewater samples from all
subcategories of coil coating, which
includes the canmaking subcategory.
This method, which is described more
fully in Section IX of this preamble, was
presented for public comment in the
September 22,1983 Federal Register
notice (48 FR 43195). No adverse
comments were received.
Flow reduction is a significant part of
the overall poRutant redaction
technology. To assure that flow
reduction is practiced, the Agency is
promulgating mass-based limitations
and standards. The Agency was able to
establish production normalized flows
so that mass-based limitations and
standards could be developed. The
numerical limitations and standards are
expressed as a mass of polhitant
allowed to be discharged per unit of
production and are derived as the
product of the regulatory flow and the
overall treatment effectiveness. The
regulatory flows are based on flow data,
normalized to production, supplied by
the industry. Concentration-based
standards do not limit the quantity of
pollutants discharged.
C. Technology Basis for Final
Regulation
A brief summary of the technology
bans for the regulation is presented
below. A more detailed summary is
presented in the "Preamble to the
Proposed Canmaking Subcategory of the
Coil Coating Point Source Category
Effluent Limitations Guidelines,
Pretreatraent Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards" (48 FR
626& (February 10,1983]], and the
development document.
BPT: EPA is promulgating BPT mass
limitations based on end-of-pipe
treatment, which consists of removal of
oil and grease by skimming, chemical
emulsion breaking, dissolved air
flotation or a combination of these
technologies, and removal of metal ions,
fluoride and phosphorus by lime and
settle treatment technology. Chromium
reduction may also be necessary in
some cases. The model end-of-pipe
treatment technology basis for the BPT
limitations being promulgated is the
same as that for the proposed
limitations.
In developing BPT limitations, the
Agency considered the amount of water
used per unit of production (liters per
1000 cans produced). Comments on the
proposed regulation criticized the flow
estimates EPA used to set mass-based
limitations. The regulatory flow used as
the basis for BPT (referred to as
regulatory Bow or BPT flow) changed
from the proposal to reflect updated
information on plant flows and
production and to reflect a more
accurate assessment of flow reduction
practices within the industry. The BPT
flow is discussed briefly below and in
more detail in Section IX of this
preamble and in Section IX of the
development document. The limitations
presented in the final BPT regulation
reflect these changes.
The flow basis for BPT is established
at 215D1/1000 cans. Production
normalized flows for plants in the
subcategory range from 20.31/1000 cans
to 9B41/1000 cans, representing a
continuum from highly efficient water
reuse and recycle practices to once-
through rinsing at very high flows. The
proposed BPT flow was based on the
average production normalized
wastewater flow of the 32 plants in the
subcategory which EPA believed
practice reuse of process wastewater
within the canwasher. Commenters
asserted that much of the data used to
estimate flow was inaccurate. The
Agency updated and verified its data for
flow and recalculated flows based on
the new data. The BPT flow is based on
-------
Federal Register / Vol 48, No. 223 / Thursday, November 17, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 52385
tlie performance of the median plant
among the 62 pknts in the data base for
which we bare complete flow dcta. The
median phnzt was chosen in preference
to the mean because die industry
presents a skewed distribution of How
values. Far instance, five percent of the
62 platfto for which we have date
account for 16 percent of the total flow.
The use of the median prevents a few
extreme values from exerting an undue
influence on the value used to
characterize the industry.
Canmaking plants employ a variety of
methods for reducing flow. These
methods include recycle, reine, or
water-conservation practices. All plants
in the subcategory can achieve the BPT
flow through use of one or more of these
methods. As explained in more detail in
Section IX of this preamble, some
commenters asserted that plant-specific
factors prevent some plants from
achieving reductions in flow. The
Agency analyzed these factors in detail
and concluded that commenters
assertions are not supported by the
record.
The pollutant parameters selected for
limitation at BPT are: Chromium, zinc,
aluminum, fluoride, phosphorus, oil and
grease, total suspended solids (TSS),
and pH. These are the same pollutants
that were selected for regulation in the
proposed regulation.
Implementation of the BPT limitations
will remove annually an estimated 2,234
kg of toxic pollutants (metals and
organics), 3.71 million kg of conventional
pollutants and 3.79 million kg of total
pollutants (from estimated current
discharge) at a capital cost, above
equipment in place, of $0,743 million and
a total annual cost of $0,045 million.
(These costs assume plants will install
BPT systems at the BPT regulatory
flow). The Agency has determined that
the effluent reduction benefits
associated with compliance with BPT
limitations justify the costs.
BA T: EPA is promulgating BAT mass-
Based limitations based on the BPT
model end-of-pipe treatment technology
and flow reduction to approximately 60
percent of the BPT flow. The model end-
of-pipe treatment technology basis for
the promulgated BAT is the same as that
for BPT and is the same as that which
was proposed. Astliscussed in the
proposed regulation filtration at BAT
was not selected because the additional
pollutant removals are small. (If a
polishing filter were added to a normal
- plant after the application of the model
BAT technology, the filter would remove
24.B kg/yr toxic pollutants at a capital
cost of $0,017 million and a total annual
cost of $0,011 millionj The Agency
received no adverse comments o* this
issue.
In developing BAT limitations, the
Agency considered the amount of water
used per unit of production (liters per
1000 cans) far each wastewater stream.
Following an examination of several
objective factors, including age, water
use, manufacturing processes, final
products, equipment, and characteristics
of wastewater and make-up water, EPA
also determined that wastewater reuse,
recycle, and conservation practices can
be mniformly adopted throughout the
subcategory. To determine the best
performing plantB in the subcategory we
evaluated die various oraftebie water
reuse techniques correndy oaed m die
canmaking subcategory.
The model flow reduction technology
basis for BAT at proposal was
coantercuirent cascade rinsing
(partitioning within a rinse stage to
increase rinsing efficiency and to reduce
water ose). In response to comments
and following a revaluation of current
practices in the industry, the model flow
redaction technology basis in the final
regulation is changed to counterflow
rinsing, which has been defined in
Section V of this preamble. Hie Agency
used this model technology as a basis
for calculating the BAT regulatory flow '
since it is fully demonstrated in at least
fourteen plants, but notes that other
flow reduction techniques, including
countercurrent cascade rinsing, different
counterflow configurations, and water
conservation practices can also be
employed to achieve comparable
results. Because of anomalies at two of
the fourteen plants which are known to
practice counterflow rinsing, twelve
plartts were used to establish the BAT
flow.
The regulatory flow for BAT is
83.9 Vi ooo cans, based on the production
normalized performance of 50 percent of
the plants among the twelve plants
without anomalies which practice
counterflow rinsing. This BAT flow
represents an increase of approximately
50 percent from the proposed BAT flow
and reflects updated flow and
production data provided by the *
industry and other changes made since
proposal for BPT as discussed in the
preceding section. The Agency notes
that plants are achieving flow reduction
to the BAT level or below using
techniques other than counterflow
rinsing as we have defined it. Hie flow
reduction technology basis for BAT and
alternate flow reducfion practices which
can be nsed to achieve similar results
are discussed in more detail in Sections
III, VII, and X of the development
document. The Agency has determined
that afl plants in the subcategory can
achieve the BAT flow by the model flow
reduction technology or by alternate
technologies or practices.
Hie pollutants selected for regulation
are: Chromium, zinc, aluminum, fluoride
and phosphorus. These are the same
pollutants that were selected for
regulation in the proposed rule. Toxic
organics are not regulated at BAT
because the oil and grease limitation at
BPT effectively controls these organics.
Implementation of the BAT limitations
will remove annually an estimated 2,369
kg of toxic poflutants (from estimated
current discharge) at a capital cost,
above equipment in place, of $0,646
million and a total annual cost of $0,594
million. For costing purposes, the
Agency retained the in-process costs
based on the proposed technology
because the cost difference between the
proposed technology and counterflow
rinsing was considered insignificant
BAT w31 remove 135 kg/yr of toxic
pollutants incrementally above BPT. The
Agency projects no plant closures,
employment impacts or foreign trade
effects and has determined that the BAT
limitations are economically achievable.
The date foT compliance with the BAT
limitations for aluminum, fluoride and
phosphorus is the same as for toxic
pollutants regulated, since the model
technology for controlling the toxic
pollutants will control these
nonconventional pollutants.
NSPS: EPA is promulgating NSPS
based on end-of-pipe treatment which is
the same as the BPT and BAT end-of-
pipe technology. Alternative end-of-pipe
technologies which could be used for
NSPS in the canmaking subcategory,
including polishing filters, ultrafiltration,
and reverse osmosis, were considered
and rejected for NSPS since the use of
these technologies would result in little
incremental pollutant reduction benefits.
(If a polishing filter were added to a
normal plant after the application of the
model NSPS technology, the filter would
remove 26.40 kg/yT toxic pollutants at a
capital cost of $0,017 million and a total
annual cost of $0,009 million.)
In developing NSPS, the Agency
considered the amount of water used
per unit of production. Comments on the
proposed regulation criticized the
proposed flow of 141/1000 cans used for
new sources, which was based upon
what the Agency believed to be the
performance of a 9-stage canwasher or
its equivalent. As a result of comments,
the Agency reevaluated the issue. The
Agency evaluated verified flows of the
best performing canmaking plants for
which information was available.
Following an evaluation of factors
-------
52386 Federal Register / Vol 48, No. 223 / Thursday, November 17, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
which could affect achievable flow
rates, including age, water use,
manufacturing processes, final products,
equipment, and characteristics of
wastewater and make-up water, EPA
established the basis for the NSPS flow
upon the lowest generally applicable
demonstrated plant flow in the
subcategory.
The regulatory flow for NSPS is 63.6
1/1000 cans. The NSPS flow, which
represents a 70 percent reduction from
the BPT flow, is substantially increased
from the proposed flow for NSPS to
reflect updated flow and production
data provided by the industry. The
model plant achieves this flow by using
counterflow rinsing. Other methods such
as the addition of additional stages of
countercurrent cascade rinsing can be
used to achieve NSPS flow. (See
Sections III, VII and XI of the
development document.)
The pollutants selected for regulation
are the same as those proposed:
Chromium, zinc, aluminum, flouride,
phosphorus, oil and grease, TSS, and
pH. Specific toxic organics are not being
regulated because, as previously
disau8sed the removal of oil and grease
to meet the BPT oil and grease limit will
adequately control the toxic organics
found in canmaking wastewaters.
EPA estimates that a new direct
discharge canmaking plant having the
industry average annual production
level would generate a raw waste of 859
kg per year of toxic pollutants. The
NSPS technology would reduce these
pollutant levels to 60 kg per year of
these same toxic pollutants. Because the
technology on which the new source
flow is based is same as for BAT there
would be no incremental cost above
BAT. However, the Agency considered
that some new sources might install
additional technology to meet the new
source flows. For a worst case
evaluation the Agency considered that
three additional stages of countercurrent
cascade rinsing might be added beyond
BAT. The total capital investment cost
for a new model canmaking plant to
install NSPS technology for a worst case
situation is estimated to be $0,493
million, compared with investment costs
of $0,382 million for a model plant to
install technology equivalent to BAT.
Similar figures for total annual costs are
$0,302 million for NSPS, compared with
$0,267 million for BAT. If the more
expensive technology were used, NSPS
investment and annual costs would be
about ten percent greater than BAT
costs for existing sources. These
incremental costs for NSPS over BAT
represents less than 0.1 percent of
expected revenues for a new source
model plant. The Agency has
determined that the new source
performance standards will not pose a
barrier to entry.
For costing, the proposed in-process
costing model (installation of three
additional stages to a six stage
canwasher) was retained because plants
can achieve the new source flow using
this technique. There would be no
additional costs above BAT for a new
source to achieve NSPS using
counterflow rinsing technology, which is
used at the plant used as the basis for
new sources.
PSES: In the canmaking subcategory
of the coil coating category, the Agency
has concluded that the following metals
regulated under these standards
(chromium, copper, zinc and
manganese) pass through the POTW.
The nationwide average percentage of
these same metals removed by a well-
operated POTW meeting secondary
treatment requirements is about 58
percent to 65 percent, whereas the
percentage that can be removed by a
canmaking direct discharger applying
the best available technology
economically achievable is about 92
percent. Accordingly, these pollutants
pass through a POTW.
In addition to pass through of metals,
fluoride and phosphorus pass through
POTW. Phosphorus removal in POTW is
10-20 percent while fluoride is not
removed; BAT treatment achieves more
than 90 percent removal of both, clearly
indicating pass through of these
pollutants.
Available information from an EPA
study on POTW shows that many of the
toxic organics from canmaking facilities
will pass through a POTW. Removal of
those toxic organic pollutants by well-
operated POTW achieving secondary
treatment averaged about 70 percent,
while the oil skimming component of the
BPT technology basis achieves removals
of about 97 percent. Accordingly, EPA is
promulgating a pretreatment standard
for toxic organics.
To regulate the pollutants that pass
through a POTW, EPA is promulgating
PSES based on the application of
technology equivalent to BAT, which
consists of flow reduction, model end-of-
pipe treatment comprised of lime and
settle technology following preliminary
treatment, where necessary, consisting
of chromium reduction, chemical
emulsion breaking, oil skimming,
dissolved air flotation, or a combination
of these technologies.
The Agency proposed to regulate
aluminum for pretreatment as an
indicator to assure that other toxic
metals would be removed prior to
discharge. Commenters pointed out that
aluminum is sometimes added by
POTW and is largely removed by
POTW. Commenters suggested that
aluminum need not be regulated as an
indicator for indirect dischargers since
specific regulations could be set for
particular pollutant parameters of
concern. As a result, (he Agency is
promulgating PSES standards for
manganese and copper in place of the
proposed standard for aluminum. This
decision is consistent with the approach
used for regulating indirect sources in
the coil coating and aluminum forming
categories. The Agency is also
promulgating standards for chromium,
zinc, fluoride and phosphorus.
At proposal, we stated that toxic
organic pollutants would be regulated as
total toxic organics (TTO) and defined
TTO as seven specific compounds
which were found at the sampled
canmaking plants at concentrations
greater than the quantification level of
0.01 mg/1. Appendix F of this preamble
and S 465.02 of the regulation lists those
toxic organics which comprise TTO. The
list of TTO presented in this regulation
reflects all the toxic organic pollutants
found at concentrations above the
quantification level at sampled plants,
including seven additional organic
compounds found in wastestreams of
sampled canmaking plants following
proposal. However, other toxic organics
may be found in canmaking
wastewaters even though they were not
found in the sampled wastestreams.
This is because toxic organic
compounds originate in lubricants,
solvents and surface coatings and these
compounds can vary depending upon
the formulation.
Many polyaromatic hydrocarbons and
organic solvents can be substituted for
one another to perform the same
function. If substitution does occur, the
Agency believes that these other toxic
organics are likely to be adequately
controlled by the PSES model treatment
technology and that the same
pretreatment standards on TTO should
apply. However, toxic organics not
covered by this regulation at canmaking
facilities should be considered for
regulation by the control authority on a
case-by-case basis.
The analysis of wastewaters for toxic
organics is oostly and requires
sophisticated equipment Therefore the
Agency proposed to establish as an
alternative to monitoring for TTO a
monitoring parameter for oil and grease.
Data indicate that the toxic organics are
in the oil and grease and by removal of
the oil and grease, the toxic organics
will also be removed.
-------
Federal Register / Vol 46. No. 223 / Thursday, November 17, IB 03 / Rules and Regulations 52387'
1b developing Aeae standard*. the
amount of water used per wit at
production is considered for each waste
stream. The Sow fcasis is the same aa icr
BAT.
The pollutaaU selected for Mpdaiioa
ire Chromium, copper, ziac. fbwride,
manganese. phosphorus, sad TTO.
Tkt PSES set forth in Hue final rule
are expressed in terms of mass per unit
of production cather than concentration
standards. Regulation on the basis of
concentration is not appropriate
because concentration-based standards
do not restrict the total quantity of
pollutants discharged. Flow reduction is
a significant part of the model
technology for pre treatment because it
reduces the amount of toxic pollutants
introduced into a POTW. For this reason
and because production normalized
flows could be established, no
alternative concentration standards are
promulgated for indirect dischargers.
The Agency estimates that
implementation of the PSES will remove
annually an estimated 63,174 kg of toxic
pollutants (from estimated current
discharge) at a capital cost above
equipment in place, of $21.29 million and
a total annual cost of $17.13 million.
These costs are based on the application
of the model end-of-pipe treatment
technology, which includes lime and
settle technology for the removal of
metal ions, fluoride and phosphorus, to
each plant in the subcategory which
does not now employ such technology.
Data submitted by CMI and USBA
indicate that some plants can meet PSES
with existing technologies other than
lime and settle. The Agency has no firm
data on the number of tttese plants that
can meet the limits with existing
technology. Therefore, we have included
the cost of clarifcers for these plants in
subcategory PSES costs. Thus the total
cost probably are overstated.
The Agency believes that one two-
piece can manufacturing line is expected
to close as a result of this regulation and
will result in 26 job loses among indirect
dischargers. The PSES standards are
economically achievable for the
subcategory.
The Agency has considered the
deadline for compliance for PSES.
Although a number of canmaking plants
have installed and are properly
operating the treatment Jechnology for
PSES, many have not. Th« installation of
end-of-pipe treatment equipment may
require several years in some instances.
Additionally, many plants in this and
other industries will be installing die
treatment equipment suggested as model
technologies for this regulation, which
may result in delays in engineering,
ordering, installing, and operatiag this
equipment For ail these seasons, the
Agency has decided to set the PSES
oaoiptiance date to be as soon as
possible, but in no case later than the
three years after ptenmlgatian erf this
regulation.
PSN& EPA is promulgating PSNS
based on end-of-pipe treatment and in-
process eaatiols equivalent to that used
as the basis for NSPS. The regulatory
flow for PSNS is also the same as that
for NSPS. As discussed uader PSES,
pass throu^i of the regulated pollutants
will occur without adequate
preireatment and, therefore,
pretreatment standards are required
Alternative end-of-pipe technologies
which could be used for PSNS is the
canmaking subcategory including
polishing filters, ultrafiltration, and
reverse osmosis, were considered and
rejected for PSNS as well as NSPS since
fee use of these technologies would
result in Utile incremental pollutant
reduction benefits.
The pollutants regulated under PSNS
are chromium, zinc, copper, manganese,
fluoride, phosphorus, and TTO. The
Agency has substituted manganese and
copper for aluminum, as was done for
PSES. Monitoring for oil and grease has
been established as an alternative to
monitoring for TTO as discussed under
PSES.
EPA estimates that a new indirect
discharge plant having the industry
average annual production level would
generate a raw waste of 856 kg per year
of toxic metal and organic pollutants.
The PSNS technology would reduce
these pollutant levels to 80 kg per year
cf these same toxic pollutants. Because
the technology on which the new source
flow is based is same as for PSES there
would be no incremental cost above
PSES. However, the agency considered
that some new sources mij^t install
additional technology to meet the new
source flows. For a worst case
evaluation, the Agency considered that
three additional stages of counter
current cascade rinsing might be added
beyond PSES. The total capital
investment cost for a new model
canmaking plant to install the PSNS
technology for a worst case situation is
estimated to be $0,483 million, compared
with investment costs of $0,382 million
for a model plant to install the treatment
technology equivalent to PSES. Similar
figures for total annual costs are $&302
million for PSNS and $0-287 million for
PSES. H the more expensive technology
were used, PSNS investment and annual
costs would be about ten percent greater
than PSES costs for existing sources.
These incremental costs over PSES
represent less then 0.1 percent of
expected revenues for a new source
model plant, (he Agency has determined
Ifaat the new scarce performance
standards will sot pose a barrier to
entry.
VL Knonnmir. *^nr,«'Hff*rfltwiBfl
A. Cost&emdEconomic Impact
The Agency's economic impact
assessment of this regulation is
presented in the report entitled
Economic Impact Analysis of Effluent
Standards and Limitations for the
Canmaking fndustry (EPA-440/2-63-
011). This report details the investment
and annual costs for the canmaking
subcategory. Compliance costs are
based on engineering estimates of
capital requirements for the model
treatment systems described earlier in
this preamble. The report assesses the
impact of effluent control costs in terms
of price changes, production changes,
plant closures, employment effects, and
balance of trade effects. The impacts for
each of the regulatory model treatment
technologies are discussed in the report.
The economic analysis also reflects
other industry comments, additional
information provided since proposal,
and the use of current information on
financial and economic characteristics
of the industry. Since proposal, the price
of cans has been reduced to $60/1000
cans in response to industry comments
and compliance costs have been revised
as distressed in Section DC of this
preamble and in Section VIII of the
development document. As a
consequence, estimated plant revenues
and investment costs have decreased.
EPA estimates that of the
approximately 425 can manufacturing
plants in fee United States 86
manufacture cans that are washed
(primarily two-piece cans) and are the
subject of this regulation. Of these 88
plants, three are direct dischargers and
80 are mdirect dischargers. The
remaining three plants dispose of
.process wastewaters by land
application. Total investment for
combined BAT and PSES is estimated to
be $21.97 million with annual costs of
$17.74 million, including depreciation
and interest These costs are expressed
in 1982 dollars as are all the following
costs. The Economic Impact Analysis
projects one indirect discharge 2-piece
can line closure, causing 26 job losses.
We project no changes in price nor
significant changes in production and no
foreign trade impacts.
The above costs reflect EPA's
estimate of required monitoring, ranging
from 12 days per month for large plants
to one day per month for small plants. If
all plants are required either by their
-------
52388 Federal Register / Vol 48, No. 223 / Thursday, November 17, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
control authority or their permit writer
to monitor 10 days per month, then total
annual costs would increase by less
than $0.90 million. One additional
closure may result from this level of
monitoring; the average increase in the
cost of production would be negligible.
The methodology for the economic
analysis is the same as that used at
proposal. It is detailed in Chapter II of
the economic impact analysis. Using
revised compliance costs for each plant,
we performed a capital requirements
analysis and a profitability analysis.
The capital requirements analysis was
used to assess a company's ability to
make the initial capital investment
needed to construct and install the
required treatment systems. The
analysis is based on the ratio of
compliance capital investment
requirements to plant annual revenues
(CCI/R). This ratio provides an -
indication of the relative magnitude of
the compliance capital investment
requirements. Return on investment
(ROI) (pre-tax profits as a percent of
revenues) was used to assess the impact
of the effluent regulations on the
profitability of individual plants. The
use of this technique involves a
comparison of the return on investment
after compliance with a threshold
required return on investment. EPA
expects some plants will experience
slight decreases in ROI. No price
increases are expected. Changes in
production costs are expected to be less
than 0.1 percent. No measurable balance
of trade effect is expected. The Agency
expects one 2-piece can production line
closure with 26 job losses to result from
this regulation. EPA has determined that
this regulation is economically
achievable.
BPT: The BPT regulation is expected
to affect all three direct discharging
plants. BPT for these three plants is
projected at $0,644 million in investment
costs and $0,591 million in annual costs
(including depreciation and interest).
These costs are different from the
engineering compliance cost estimates
presented in Section V of this preamble.
The Agency believes facilities will
choose the most economical means of
complying with BPT and, if going
directly to BAT is less expensive, will
choose to install BAT technology with
flow reduction in order to meet the BPT
limits. This assumption was not made
for purposes of Section V of this
preamble. The Agency has determined
that the effluent reduction benefits
associated with compliance with BPT
justify the costs. According to the
analysis of economic impacts, no plant
closures or job losses are associated
with complying with the BPT limitations.
BAT: All three direct dischargers will
be affected by the BAT limitations.
These three plants would incur
investment costs estimated at $0,646
million and total annual costs of $0,594
million, including depreciation and
interest. The incremental cost above
BPT is estimated to be $2,000 and $3,000
in investment and annual costs
respectively. These costs will not result
in any plant closures or job losses. We
project no changes in price, therefore,
the Agency believes that compliance
with BAT will be economically
achievable.
PSES: Many of the 80 indirect
dischargers will incur costs to comply
with this regulation. Based upon the
application of in process controls and
end-of-pipe model treatment technology
at all plants which do not currently
utilize such technology, the Agency
estimates that these 60 plants will share
investment costs of $21.32 million and
annual costs of $17.14 millioa including
depreciation and interest. The Agency
believes that only one 2-piece can
production line is expected to close and
will result in twenty-six job losses. Thus
the PSES are economically achievable
for the subcategory.
NSPS-PSNS: The two-piece segment
of the canmaking industry is relatively
profitable and has fared well during
recessionary periods. Beverage can
shipments, by far the largest market for
seamless cans, have generally
outperformed growth in real GNP since
1972. There is presently excess capacity
in certain segments of the industry but
growth is expected over the next five
years. EPA believes this growth trend
will continue and expects new plants
and major modifications to existing
plants will be built in this subcategory.
EPA is promulgating NSPS and PSNS
based on flow reductions beyond the
BAT level, in addition to the BAT model
end-of-pipe treatment technology. The
model in-process technology used as a
basis for NSPS and PSNS is the same as
the BAT model technology. Therefore,
we estimate that there is essentially
zero incremental cost for NSPS and
PSNS above the cost incurred for
existing sources. However, the Agency
has performed a sensitivity analysis
assuming that the new source would use
an alternate (more expensive)
technology for achieving NSPS and
PSNS regulatory flows: Three additional
stages of countercurrent cascade rinsing.
The Agency analyzed a "normal" plant
and estimated compliance costs above
the BAT level, comparing estimated
costs for the additional treatment
technology to expected revenues. The
incremental costs over the cost
estimates for the BAT and PSES
technologies are less than 0.1 percent of
expected revenues for a normal plant.
Investment costs for a new source are
projected to be no more than 10 percent
above BAT, and annual costs are
projected to be 4 percent above BAT.
Even considering the costs for the
additional flow reduction technology,
EPA does not believe that NSPS and
PSNS will constitute a barrier to entry
for new sources, nor prevent major
modifications to existing sources nor
produce other adverse economic effects.
B.	Executive Order 12291
Executive Order 12291 requires EPA
and other agencies to perform regulatory
impact analyses of major regulations.
Major rules are those which impose a
cost on the economy of $100 million a
year or more or have certain other
economic impacts. This regulation is not
a major rule because its annualized cost
of $17.73 million is less the $100 million
and it meets none of the other criteria
specified in Section I paragraph (b) of
the Executive Order. The economic
impact analysis prepared for this
proposed rulemaking meets the
requirements for non-major rules.
C.	Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pub. L 96-354 requires EPA to prepare
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
for all proposed regulations that have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of Bmall entities. This analysis
may be done in conjuction with or as a
part of any other analysis conducted by
the Agency. The economic impact
analysis for this regulation discusses
possible impacts upon small entities.
The regulatory requirements are
projected to cause one product line
closure. This product line is part of a
larger canmaking plant The Agency
estimates that the percentage change in
production costs for small plants
(defined as producing less than 500
million cans per year) is less than one
percent. The Agency does not believe
that small entities will be
disproportionately impacted by this
regulation.
D.	SB A Loans
The Agency is continuing to
encourage canmakers to use Small
Business Administration (SBA)
financing as needed for pollution control
equipment The three basic programs
are; (l)Tfce Guaranteed Pollution
Control Bond Program, (2) the Section
503 Program, and (3) the Regular
Guarantee Program. All the SBA loan
-------
Federal Register / Vol 48. No. 223 / Thursday, November 17, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 52389
programs are only open to businesses
that have: (a) Net assets less than $6
million, (b) an average annual after-tax
income of less than $2 million, and [c)
fewer than 250 employees. The
estimated economic impacts for this
category do not include consideration of
financing available through these
programs.
The Section 503 Program, as amended
in ]uly 1980, allows long-term loans to
small and medium sized businesses.
These loans are made by SBA approved
local development companies. For the
first time, these companies 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. Hub program haB 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 Desselle
who may be reached at (202) 382-5373.
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.
VII. Nonwater Quality Environmental
Impacts
Eliminating or reducing one form of
pollution may cause other
environmental problems. Sections 304(b)
and 306 of the Act require EPA to
consider the nonwater 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 nonwater 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 nonwater 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
Imposition of BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES,
and PSNS will not create any
substantial air pollution problems
because the wastewater treatment
technologies required to meet these
limitations and standards do not cause
air pollution, with the possible exception
of dissolved air flotation treatment
systems. In EPA's judgment, the possible
air pollution problems created by the
use of such systems on canmaking
wastewaters are not significant.
B.	Solid Waste
EPA estimates that canmaking
facilities generated 7,100 kkg of solid
wastes (wet basis) in 1978 from
manufacturing process operations as
well as a result of sludge wastewater
treatment in place. These wastes
consisted of treatment system sludges
containing precipitated pollutants,
including chromium, copper, zinc,
aluminum, fluoride, manganese, and
phosphorus; and oil containing toxic
organics removed during oil skimming,
chemical emulsion breaking, and
dissolved air flotation or a combination
of these technologies.
EPA estimates that BPT will
contribute an additional 13,600 kkg per
year of solid wastes over that which is
currently being generated by the
canmaking industry. BAT and PSES will
increase these wastes by approximately
562,000 kkg per year beyond BPT levels.
These sludges will necessarily contain
additional quantities (and
concentrations) of toxic metal
pollutants. We estimate that NSSP and
PSNS will generate approximately 6,950
kkg per year for a model plant.
The Agency examined the solid
wastes that would be generated at
canmaking plants by the model
treatment technologies and believes
they are not hazardous under Section
3001 of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). This judgment is
made based on the model technology of
lime and settle. By the addition of a
small excess of lime or other source of
hydroxide ion during treatment, similar
sludges, specifically toxic metal bearing
sludges, generated by other industries
such as the iron and steel industry
passed the EPA toxicity test. See 40 CFR
261.24 (45 FR 33084 (May 19,1980)).
Thus, the Agency believes that
canmaking wastewater sludges will
similarly be found not hazardous if the
recommended technology is applied.
Since the canmaking solid wastes are
not believed to be hazardous, no
estimates were made of costs for
disposing of hazardous wastes in
accordance with RCRA requirements.
Although it is the Agency's view that
solid wastes generated as a result of
these guidelines are not expected to be
classified as hazardous under the
regulations implementing Subtitle C of
the Resource-Conservation and
Recovery Act, generators of these
wastes must test the waste to determine
if the wastes meet any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste. See
40 CFR 282.11 (45 FR 12732-12733
(February 28,1980)). The Agency may
also list these jludges as hazardous
pursuant to 40 CFR 261.11 (45 FR 33121
(May 19,1980). as amended at 45 FR
76624 [November 19,1980)).
If these wastes are identified as
hazardous, they will come within the
scope of RCRA's "cradle to grave"
hazardous waste management-program,
requiring regulation from the point of
generation to point of final disposition.
EPA's generator standards would
require generators of hazardous
canmaking wastes to meet
containerization, labeling,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. In addition, if canmakers
dispose of-hazardous wastes off-site,
they would have to prepare a manifest
which would track the movement of the
wastes from the generator's premises to
a permitted off-site treatment, storage,
or disposal facility. See 40 CFR 262.20
(45 FR 33142 (May 19, I960)). The
transporter regulations require
transporters of hazardous wastes to
comply with the manifest system to
assure that the wastes are delivered to a
permitted facility. See 40 CFR 263.20 (45
FR 86973 (December 31,1980)). Finally,
RCRA regulations establish standards
for hazardous treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities allowed to receive
such wastes. See 40 CFR Part 464 (46 FR
2802 (January 12,1981), 47 FR 32274 (July
26.1982)).
Wastes which are not hazardous must
be disposed of in a manner that will not
violate the open dumping prohibition of
section 4005 of RCRA. See 44 FR 53438
(September 13,1979). The Agency has
calculated as part of the costs for
wastewater treatment the cost of
hauling and disposing of these wastes in
accordance with these requirements. For
more'details, see Section VIII of the
development document.
C. Consumptive Water Loss
Treatment and control technologies
that require extensive recycling and
reuse of water may require cooling
mechanisms. Evaporative cooling
mechanisms can cause water loss and
contribiute to water scarcity problems—
a primary concern in arid and semi-arid
regions. While this regulation assumes
-------
52390 Federal Register / Vol 48, No. 223 / Thursday, November 17, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
water reuse, the quantity of water
involved is not regionally significant.
We conclude that the pollution
reduction benefits of recycle and reuse
technologies outweigh their impact on
consumptive water loss.
D. Energy Requirements
EPA estimates that the achievement
of BPT and BAT effluent limitations will
result in a net increase of electrical
energy consumption of approximately
0.11 million kilowatt-hours per year. To
achieve the BAT effluentlimitations, a
typical direct discharger will increase
total energy consumption by less than 1
percent of the energy consumed for
production purposes. NSPS will not
significantly add to total energy
consumption since new source
equipment and pumps will be smaller
and therefore use less energy due to the
decreased flows resulting from flow
reduction. New source wastewater
treatment systems will have energy
requirements similar to BAT.
The agency estimates that PSGS will
result in a net increase in electrical
energy consumption of approximately
2.93 million kilowatt-hours per year. To
achieve PSES, an indirect discharger
will increase energy consumption by
less than 1 percent of the energy
consumed for production purposes.
PSNS, like NSPS, will not significantly
add to total energy consumption based
on a normal plant calculation.
VIII. Pollutants and Subcategory
Segments Not Regulated
The Settlement Agreement in NRDC
v. Train, supra authorizes the exclusion
from regulation in certain instances of
toxic pollutants and industry
subcategories. These provisions have
been rewritten in a Revised Settlement
Agreement which was approved by the
District Court for the District of
Columbia on March 9,1979. See NRDC
v. Costle. 12 ERC 1833 (D.C.C. 1979).
Paragraph 8(a)(iii] of the Revised
Settlement Agreement allows the
Administrator to exclude from
regulation specific pollutants not
detectable by Section 304(h) analytical
methods or other state-of-the-art
methods. The toxic pollutants not
detected in this subcategory and
therefore, excluded from regulation are
listed in Appendix B to this notice.
Paragraph 8(a)(iii) of the Revised
Settlement Agreement allows the
Administrator to exclude from
regulation toxic pollutants detected in
amounts too small to be effectively
reduced by technologies known to the
Administrator. Appendix C to this
notice lists the toxic pollutants in this
subcategory that were detected in the
effluent in amounts that are at or below
the nominal limit of analytical
quantification which are too small to be
effectively reduced by technologies and
that are therefore excluded from
regulations.
Paragraph 8 (a)(iii) of the Revised
Settlement Agreement allows the
Administrator to exclude from
regulation toxic pollutants present in
amounts too small to be effectively
reduced by technologies considered
applicable to the subcategory. Appendix
D lists those toxic pollutants which are
not treatable using technologies
considered applicable to the
subcategory.
Paragraph 6(a)(iii) also allows the
Administrator to exclude from
regulation specific pollutants which will
be effectively controlled by the
technologies upon which are based
other effluent limitations and guidelines,
standards of performance or
pretreatment standards. The toxic
pollutants considered for regulation, but
excluded from BPT, BAT limitations and
NSPS because adequate control of these
pollutants is now provided by this
regulation through the control of other
pollutants, are listed for this
subcategory in Appendix G of this
preamble.
Paragraph 8(a)(iv) and 8(b)(ii) of the
Revised Settlement Agreement allow the
Administrator to exclude from
regulation subcategory segments for
which the amount and the toxicity of •
pollutants in the discharge does not
justify developing national regulations.
Some segments of the canmaking
subcategory meet this provision and are
excluded from this regulation because
there is no discharge of process
wastewater. These segments are listed
in Appendix G to this preamble.
IX. Public Participation and Response to
Major Comments
Industry groups, individual can
companies, and municipalities
participated during the development of
these effluent guidelines and standards.
Following the publication of the
proposed ride on February 10,1983 in
the Federal Register, we provided the
development document and the
economic impact analysis supporting the
proposed rule to industry, government
agencies, and the public sector. On April
27,1983 in Washington, D.C., a public
hearing was held on the proposed
pretreatment standards at which one
person presented testimony. Fourteen
commenters submitted a total of
approximately 330 individual comments
on the proposed regulation. In addition,
additional information that became part
of the record was summarized in a
Federal Register notice (48 FR 43195,
September 22,1983), and made available
for public comment. The September 22,
1983 Federal Register notice also
described the Agency's preliminary
analyses of data submitted by
commenters and collected by the
Agency between proposal and
promulgation of this rule. Six
commenters submitted about 50
comments on the data and issues raised
in the September 22,1983 notice.
All comments received have been
carefully considered, and appropriate
changes in the regulation have been
made whenever available data and
information supported those changes.
Major issues raised by the comments
are addressed in this section of the
preamble. A summary of all comments
received and detailed responses to these
comments is included in a document
entitled Response to Public Comments,
Proposed Canmaking Effluent
Limitations and Standards which has
been placed in the public record for this
regulation.
The following is a discussion of the
Agency's responses to the principal
comments.
1.	Inaccurate Flow and Production Data
Comment Several companies and two
trade associations complained that the
flow and production data used in the
proposal to calculate production
normalized wastewater flow were
inaccurate or out of date.
Response: Each of these companies
and trade associations provided
updated flow and production figures,
which have been incorporated into the
data base used in the development of
this regulation. In addition, eleven
inquiries were sent under the authority
of section 308 of the Act to obtain
further updated flow and production
information, and timely responses were
included in the data base. All this
information was made available for
public comment in the September 22,
1983, Federal Register notice. In
response to these comments, the Agency
recalculated the flow figures.
2.	Factors Restricting Achievable
Reductions in Flow
Comment: Several commenters
objected to the establishment of
limitations and standards premised
upon reductions in flow, asserting that
at least thirteen factors relating to water
quality and product quality affect
achievable water flow reductions in
canwashers. These factors include
specific assertions that cans must be
cleaner for beer than for soft drinks, that
minerals in the intake water of some
-------
Federal Register / Vol 48, No. 223 / Thursday, November 17, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 52391
plants in some parts of the country
necessitate more or less water use, and
that the geometry of the can affects
water use requirements.
Response: The Agency analyzed each
of these thirteen factors in detail, UBing
data provided by commenters, data
contained in the date collection
portfolios for the industry, and data
received on plant visits and in response
to Agency requests for further
information after proposal. EPA
concluded that none of these thirteen
factors will prevent the achievement of
the estimated flow reductions for this
regulation by any plant.
Perhaps the most strenuous objection
was that the taste of beer and other malt
beverages is more sensitive to
contaminants than is the taste of soft
drinks, and that additional rinse water
is therefore required for beer cans than
for soft drink cans. One commenter
added that more water is necessary for
light beers than for heavier pilsners,
lagers, or ales for the same reason. The
Agency examined canmaking plants of
four companies which produce cans for
both soft drinks and beer, and
additional plants which produce cans
for both light beer and other malt
beverages. EPA found that on the basis
of information supplied by the industry,
wastewater flows in each plant do not
vary with the intended use of the can.
Further, a number of the lowest
wastewater flow rates in the industry
are found at plants which manufacture
cans primarily intended for beer. As a ~
result, wfe concluded that reduced flows
are achievable regardless of whether
cans are manufactured for beer or for
soft drinks.
Other commenters asserted that the
quality of fresh makeup water varies
from location to location, and restrains
the achievable flow reduction. The
Agency examined supporting arguments
that a high dissolved solids content
requires a higher allowable flow, as well
as arguments that a low dissolved solids
content requires a higher allowable
flow. The industry identified about three
plants following proposal as
experiencing product quality problems
related to the quality of the fresh water
supply. The Agency visited several of
those plants and talked with company
officials, and we do not believe that the
specific product quality problems these
plants are experiencing are due to an
excess of dissolved solids in the fresh
water supplied to the canwashers. In
general, EPA concludes that while site-
specific water quality factors could
conceivably require additional water
purification steps or the addition of
water treatment chemicals in a few
instances, data submitted by
commenters and other data available in
the record do not support a contention
that quality of makeup water limits the
degree of flow reduction achievable.
Another factor mentioned by
commenters is that routine production
stoppages restrict a company's ability to
meet reduced water flow allowances,
since water flow allowances are
expressed as a function of production.
The Agency found no support for this
contention, since our observations at
canplants confirmed that canplants can
reduce the supply of water to the
washer during production stoppages.
Commenters also mentioned
canwasher age and design, canwasher
mat width, and can geometry aslactors
which could affect a company's ability
to achieve the reduced water flow. EPA
found only one of these factors, age and
design, to have any demonstrable
relation to water use. Water use at
canmaking tends to vary with age and
design, but we visited several units of
varying ages and designs and found no
engineering reason why improved
recycle, reuse, and water conservation
practices cannot be implemented at
these canwashers to achieve the
reduced flows of this regulation.
Commenters also asserted that the
type of organic coating to be applied, the
type of lubricant to be washed off, the
surface finish on can tooling, and the
type of label used all affect achievable
reductions in flow rates. Despite
requests for industry to provide data to
substantiate these claims, only general
statements were provided for the record.
In plant visits and in subsequent
information requests sent by EPA under
the authority of section 308 of the Act,
attempts were made to determine the
possible effects of these factors, but no
specific data were obtained. As a result
the Agency concludes that based on the
record, these factors do not appear to
prevent any plant from achieving the
flows used for calculating the limitations
and standards in this regulation.
3. Model Flow Reduction Technology for
BATandPSES
Comment The model flow reduction
technology presented in the proposed
regulation for BAT and PSES was
countercurrent cascade rinsing within a
six-stage canwasher. Commenters
asserted that this technology has not
been adequately demonstrated in the
canmaking industry and that some of
the plants used to calculate BAT and
PSES flow allowances were not using
countercurrent cascade rinsing or were
not achieving the estimated flow
reduction.
Response: The Agency reexamined
the BAT and PSES model flow reduction
technology and flow estimates in
response to these comments. While
countercurrent cascade rinsing is used
in the industry in at least three instances
to reduce flow, a more common flow
reduction technique is counterflow
rinsing, in which water from the fifth
stage of the canwasher is reused in
stage three, with no makeup water
added to stage three. Counterflow
rinsing is used in at least fourteen
plants. In a change from the proposed
Regulation, the Agency bases the flow in
the final regulation upon the production
normalized performance of the median
plant1 among twelve of these fourteen
plantB. (Two of the fourteen plants were
not used in establishing the BAT and
PSES flows due to plant-specific
anomalies at these two plants.)
The final development document
presents a number of available flow
reduction techniques as alternatives,
which may be used singly or in
combination to achieve BAT and PSES
flows. Varying combinations of flow
reduction techniques will be appropriate
depending upon the particular
configurations of individual canwashers.
However, the Agency found no
technological barriers for any plant to
achieve water reuse and recycle at
canwashers which now practice once-
through washing, nor to reducing flows
at all canmaking plants to achieve the
BAT and PSES of 83.9 1/1000 cans.
4. Combined Metals Data Base
Comment¦ The Agency proposed
limitations and standards for TSS,
chromium, and zinc based on
concentrations calculated from the
"combined metals data base" (CMDB).
Several commenters objected to the use
of data from other industry categories to
establish the treatment effectiveness of
lime and settle technologies.
Commenters argue that the primary
metals being treated in the categories
represented in the CMBD are different
from those in canmaking wastewater
and, therefore, the data cannot be
transferred to establish the treatability
of metals found in canmaking
wastewaters. Commenters also
contended that the data supplied by the
industry should be used in place of the
CMDB. This point is addressed below in
Comment 5.
Comments specifically directed to the
combined metals data base contend
that: (1) The data base is too small; (2)
1 We define the term median plant as the plant in
an even numbered population of plants the' will
include ooe half of the population.
-------
52392 Federal Register / Vol 48, No. 223 / Thursday, November 17, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
the statistical methodology used was too
complex; (3] some data were improperly
included and others improperly deleted:
and (4) data were included which are
not representative of lime and settle
technology in canmaking plants, and (5)
the data base used to establish the
metal finishing limits should be used
instead of the combined metals data
base.
Response: (1) The CMDB (revised
slightly following proposal of the
canmaking regulation) includes 162 data
points from 18 plants in five industrial
categories with similar wastewaters
(one of these is an aluminum canmaking
plant). This is an ample data base. All
plants in the data base have the model
end-of-pipe treatment technology of lime
and settle. These data were evaluated
and analyzed to establish effluent
limitations on the basis of data that
represent good operation of the model
technology. The use of comparable data
from several categories enlarges the
data base and enhances the estimates of
treatment effectiveness and variability
over those that would be obtained from
data from any one category alone. The
Agency believes that the CMDB
contains a sufficient number of data
points for determining the treatment
effectiveness of lime and settle
technology.
(2) The statistical methods used to
assess homogeneity and determine /
limitations are well known. The
methods used to analyze homogeneity
are known generally as analysis of
variance. Effluent limitations were
determined by fitting the data to a
lognormal distribution and using
estimation techniques that possess
desirable statistical properties. These
methods are described in detail in the
document entitled "A Statistical
Analysis of the Combined Metals
Industries Effluent Data" which includes
appropriate references to statistical
texts, journal articles, and monographs.
Following proposal of the canmaking
rule, data in the CMDB were reviewed.
This resulted in minor additions,
deletions and corrections to the data
base used to assess homogeneity and to
determine treatment effectiveness in the
canmaking subcategory. The
homogeneity analyses performed prior
to proposal were repeated o"h the
revised data base with the result that
the earlier conclusions regarding
homogeneity were unchanged. The
changes in the data base resulted in
slight changes in the final limitations.
The revisions to the data base and
analysis are described in the record of
this rulemaking.
(3)	The Agency carefully re-examined
the specific data points that commentera
identified as being improperly included
in the CMDB. These data points fall into
two categories, effluent points
associated with low pH readings and
influent points associated with larger
effluent measurements made on the
same day (so called "inverted values").
Detailed responses to each data point
referred to by commenters are provided
in the respqpse to comments document.
In eliminating data from use in the data _
base, EPA used a pH editing rule which
generally excludes data in cases where
the pH is below 7.0 for extended periods
of time (i.e. over two hours). The
rationale for this rule was that low pH
over a long period of time often
indicates improper functioning of the
treatment system. The time periods of
low pH for the points in question cannot
be determined from existing data;
however, because large amounts of
metals were removed and low effluent
concentrations were being achieved, the
pH at the point of precipitation
necessarily had to be well above pH 7JO.
The reason for the effluent pH falling
below 7.0 cannot be determined from
the available data, but it is presumed to
be a pH rebound. This phenomenon is
often encountered when a slow reacting
acidic material is neutralized or reacts
late in the treatment cycle. The Agency
believes that the data in question are
representative of a lime and settle
treatment process which is being
operated in an acceptable manner.
Accordingly, the data have been
retained in the CMDB.
The occurrence of an influent value
less than an effluent value measured on
the same day may be an indication of
system malfunction. However, such
values can also occur in the course of
normal operation. In general where
there was no indication of treatment
malfunction or mislabeling of the sample
the values were retained in the data
base.
(4)	The Agency carefully reexamined
the specific data points in the CMDB to
assure that each datum came from a
plant with treatment that qualified as
well-operated lime and settle
technology. The discovery that one plant
in the CMDB did not employ lime and
settle technology caused the Agency to
remove the data from that plant from the
CMDB. This and other minor deletions
and additions caused the chromium and
zinc concentrations to be increased
slightly from the concentrations used at
proposal
(5)	The Agency at one time considered
including metal finishing data in the
CMDB, however, statistical analysis
indicated that these data were not
homogeneous with other metals
industries' data. Differences between
electroplating and the other categories
were suspected on the basis of
engineering assessment. The results of
the statistical analysis showed there
were statistically discernible differences
among electroplating wastewaters and
the wastewaters of other categories.
Therefore, metal finishing data were
removed from the CMDR
5. Treatability of Pollutants and New
Treatment Effectiveness Data From
Canmaking
Comment: The proposed regulation
specifically requested sampling and
analytical data from the canmaking
industry, especially paired influent and
effluent data points. The CMI and USBA
jointly submitted paired influent and
effluent sample data from fourteen
canmaking plants and requested that
this data be used as the basis for the
treatment effectiveness of the model
technology in the final regulation.
Response: The information submitted
by CMI and USBA was carefully
reviewed to evaluate: (1) The final
effluent concentration values achievable
for oil and grease; (2) The final effluent
concentration values achievable for
metals, fluoride, phosphorus, TSS, and
pH; and (3) the comparability of
pollutant characteristics of untreated
waste streams in the canmaking
industry data base with the
characteristics of such waste streams
used in the combined metals data base.
With respect to oil and grease, the
Agency found that twelve of these
fourteen plants employ the model end-
of-pipe BPT technology of oil skimming,
chemical emulsion breaking, dissolved
air flotation, or some combination of
these technologies. The remaining two
plants dispose of oily wastes by
contract hauling, without prior
treatment. Of the twelve plants
employing oil removal treatment
technology, two do not properly operate
these treatment facilities, as observed
first-hand by EPA during plant visits.
Without exception, each of the ten
remaining plants with properly operated
oil removal treatment technology met
the proposed one-day maximum
concentration values for oil and grease
on all days when the treatment
technology was operating well. The
proposed one-day maximum
concentration value for oil and {pease is
also consistent with the performance of
oil and grease removal technologies in
numerous other categories, including
aluminum forming, copper forming, and
coll coating. As a result, the proposed
-------
Federal Register / Vol 46, No. 223 / Thursday, November 17, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 52393
concentration value for oil and grease is
retained in the final regulation.
With respect to removal of metals,
fluoride, phosphorus, and TSS, we found
that only three of the fourteen plants
employ and optimally operate the model
end-of-pipe BPT treatment technology of
lime precipitation and settling. Seven of
the remaining eleven plants we
dissolved air flotation (DAF) in place of
sedimentation technology as the
principal method for removing TSS and
other pollutants. Tfce data supplied by
CMI and USBA confirm* the Agency's
judgment that DAF is different from hme
and settle which is the model technology
for this subcategory. Of the other plants
sampled by CM] and USBA, one uses an
inadequately designed settling basin in
place of a clarifien one employs no
precipitation technology at all; and two
were not optimally operated and use
caustic for pH adjustment which is
inappropriate for removal of fluoride. Of
the three remaining plants, the Agency
determined that a total of eight days of
sampling data submitted by CM1 and
USBA was representative of optimally
operated model end-of-pipe treatment
technology for metals, fluoride,
phosphorus and TSS.
The achievable concentration values
for TSS, chromium, and zinc were based
at proposal upon the combined metals
data base. As described above in
comment 4, this data base has been
recently reviewed and updated which
has resulted in slightly less stringent
values for zinc and chromium. The
Agency compared the one-day
concentrations of TSS, chromium, and
zinc at the eight data points for CMI and
USBA described above with the CMDB,
and found that the CMI and USBA data
met the achievable values indicated by
the CMDB for all eight data points. As a
result, the CMDB has been retained as
the basis for establishing achievable
concentration values for chromium,
copper, zinc, manganese and TSS in the
final regulation. EPA notes that had
concentrations for TSS, chromium and
zinc been based in the final regulation
upon the eight data days supplied by
CMI and USBA, the final limitations and
standards would have been more
restrictive.
Prior to proposal of the canmaking
regulation, a statistical analysis
confirmed that the untreated
wastewaters from canmaking plants
were homogeneous with the untreated
wastewaters of plants in the CMDB
categories. Subsequently, the Agency
performed additional statistical
analyses of untreated and treated
wastewaters using data supplied by
CMI and USBA. These analyses
confirmed (he general homogeneity of
canmaking wastewaters with the
wastewaters of the CMDB categories.
The achievable concentration value
for aluminum was based at proposal
upon data from aluminum forming and
coil coating. This data has recently been
enlarged to include additional
information received from the
performance of fan* and settle treatment
systems at aluminum forming
operations, which has resulted in a new
less stringent value for aluminum in the
final alnnrimiB) forming regulation. This
value, 6.4 mg/1 as a daily maximum, has
also been used in this regulation. This
new aluminum value was compared to
the eight alnminam data points in the
CMI and USBA mbfnisaioD described
above, and we found that this new value
lor aluminum was met oo six of the eight
sampling days. The aluminum
concentrations measured in the
wastewaters of plants used for the
.development of the aluminum forming
aluminum limitations were compared
statistically with the eight aluminum
effluent concentrations from the CMI
and USBA data base and found not to
be significantly different. Further,
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR)
data for one direct discharger employing
optimally operated lime and settle
technology show that this plant met the
concentration for aluminum used in the
final regulation for all but two months in
the past two years. As a result, the data
on aluminum used in the final aluminum
forming regulation has been used as the
basis for achievable concentration
values for aluminum in the final BPT,
BAT, and NSPS regulations applicable
to direct dischargers in the canmaking
subcategory.
The lower end of the pH range in the
final canmaking regulation has been
lowered from 7.5 at proposal to 7.0 to
allow greater flexibility for the optimal
removal of aluminum from canmaking
wastewaters. Data from the optimally
operated lime and settle systems in the
aluminum forming category show
optimal aluminum removal in the range
of pH 7.5 to 7.8, so that the lower end of
the pH range in the final aluminum
forming regulation was lowered to 7JO in
order to provide treatment plant
operators with a reasonable operating
range around the optimal pH level
necessary to achieve removal of
aluminum. The same approach has been
adopted in the final canmaking
regulation.
The achievable concentration values
for phosphorus and fluoride were based
at proposal upon data from the
electroplating industry and "the CMDB
(for phosphorus) and the electrical
components industry (for fluoride).
These values have not changed since
proposal. We found that the CMI and
USBA data for the eight sampling days
described above met the proposed
values for phosphorus and fluoride
without exception. As a result, we
concluded that the concentrations for
these two pollutants used at proposal
should be retained in the final
regulation.
As described more fully in Comment 6
below, pretreatment standards for
manganese and copper are established
tn the final regulation for indirect
dischargers in the canmaking
subcategory. These two metals are
constituents of the aluminum alloys
used in canmaking processes, and are
.removed from wastewaters along with
other metals by the model lime and
settle treatment technology. The final
regulation is based upon achievable
reductions in concentrations of these
two pollutants, as established by the
combined metals data base.
In every case where the Agency
transferred data from other categories to
establish achievable concentrations, the
Agency compared available data on raw
untreated process wastewaters and the
similarity of treatment systems. In each
case, EPA concluded that untreated
wastewaters were similar and that the
effectiveness of lime and settle
treatment systems in these other
industries was a representative measure
of the effectiveness of lime and settle
treatment systems in the canmaking
subcategory.
ft Regulation of Aluminum for Indirect
Dischargers
Comment- A municipality criticized
the proposed regulations for aluminum
for indirect dischargers, asserting that
aluminum is largely removed by POTW
and thus should not be regulated.
Following the September 22,1983
Federal Register notice of the
availability of new data, CMI stated that
regulation of aluminum should be
deleted in the final regulation in favor of
regulation of the metals for which
aluminum was intended to act as an
indicator, particularly manganese.
Response: Aluminum was presented
at proposal of PSES and PSNS as an
indicator for the removal of other
metals. The Agency evaluated all data
in canmaking and other categories in
which aluminum is regulated. For the
aluminum forming and coil coating
categories, alumimum was regulated for
direct dischargers only. Regulation of
aluminum for indirect dischargers in
these two categories had appeared to be
unnecessary because alum, an
-------
52394 Federal Register / Vol 48, No. 223 / Thursday, November 17, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
aluminum sulfate, is often added as a
treatment chemical in POTW.
Manganese and copper appear at
treatable levels in effluents from the
canmaking subcategory as a result of
their presence as alloying agents in
aluminum coil stocks used in canmaking
processes. The Agency determined that
regulation of manganese and copper in
addition to chromium and zinc should
adequately control all of the toxic
metals in these effluents and assure
operating effectiveness of the treatment
system. As a result, the Agency agrees
with commenters with regard to indirect
dischargers and is promulgating PSES
and PSNS for manganese and copper in
place of the proposed standard for
aluminum.
The regulation also requires reporting
of any change to alloys with low
concentrations of manganese. This
information will enable the Agency to
determine whether changes in this
regulation are warranted. The Agency is
retaining aluminum as a regulated
pollutant for direct dischargers since
aluminum appears at high
concentrations in untreated
wastewaters and has adverse impacts .
on receiving waters. The Agency is
therefore promulgating BPT, BAT, and
NSPS standards for aluminum in order
to assure its removal.
7. Pollutants Appearing at Tceatable
Levels
Comment: CMI and several other
commenters argued that chromium, zinc,
phosphorus, and total toxic organics
(TTO)) do not appear in waste streams
at treatable levels, and should therefore
not be regulated. In particular,
commenters argued that chromating
surface treatment is rarely used, so that
chromium is not intentionally added to
process wastewaters, and should
therefore not be regulated.
Response: The sampling and
analytical data supplied by CMI and
USBA for untreated raw process
wastewater at 14 plants for a total of 39
sampling days shows chromium
appearing in treatable quantities on 38
of these sampling days, zinc in treatable
quantities on seven sampling days, and
phosphorus in treatable quantities on
three sampling days. Phosphorus
appears in process wastewaters as a
consequence of the use of zirconium
phosphate coatings, and zinc appears as
a consequence of its use as an alloying
agent in the aluminum strip used for
forming cans. Chromium appears as a
result of its continued use in chromating
surface treatment in a few instances in
the industry (including one of the
fourteen plants for which CMI and
USBA provided data), and as a result of
its appearance at treatable levels in
effluents of other canmaking plants,
apparently as the result of dissolution of
chrome-containing alloys in canwashers
by acid baths. Since these three
pollutants were found at treatable
levels, limitations for these pollutants
are retained in the final regulation.
In response to comments on TTO, the
Agency conducted sampling for toxic
organic pollutants at five plants and
evaluated effluent data submitted by
one commenter. In addition to the seven
toxic organic pollutants found in
wastestreams prior to proposal, seven
new toxic organic pollutants were
identified at treatable levels in the
untreated canmaking process
wastewater streams. In every instance,
these organic compounds appear to be
associated with oil and grease solvents
or surface coatings, and can be removed
with the model end-of-pipe treatment
technology recommended for the
removal of oil and grease. Thus, TTO
are regulated at PSES and PSNS.
8. Synthetic Lubricants, and Analytical
Methodology for Oil and Grease
Comment¦ Four commenters said that
synthetic lubricants are supplanting
natural lubricants in the industry,
asserting that these synthetic lubricants
are soluble rather than emulsifiable.
which in turn implies a different degree
of treatability. These commenters also
asserted that synthetic lubricants are
biodegradable and thus should not be
regulated.
Response: Based on information
supplied by one of these commenters,
the Agency found that as of 1982,
natural lubricants were still used on
more than sixty percent of the
bodymakers and on ninety percent of
the cuppers on aluminum draw and iron
can lines. As a result, we concluded that
limitations for oil and grease are
necessary in the final regulation.
Several commenters presented data
Indicating that the analytical method
usually used for total oil and grease: (40
CFR 138.3(a) Parameter No. 90. Oil and
Grease: 14th ed. Standard Methods
Method 502 or 15th ed Standard
Methods Method 503) is affected by
fatty materials and the more polar
hydrocarbons interferences which are
peculiar to wastewaters in the coil
coating category, including canmaking.
These interferences are screened out
when the method for a hydrocarbon oil
and-grease (Method 502E is used. EPA
recognizes this interference problem and
this regulation includes an oil and
grease analytical method for
hydrocarbon oil and grease equivalent
to Method 502E.
9. Mass-Based Limitations and
Standards
Comment Several commenters
opposed mass-based limitation and
standards and recommended that the
Agency establish concentration-based
limits instead. These commenters
contend the production normalized
flows, necessary for mass-based limits,
have not and cannot be properly
established and therefore, the standards
should be based on concentration alone.
Additionally, commenters said that
mass-based limits make compliance
determinations unnecessarily complex if
not impossible. One commenter
recommended that representative values
for flow and production be used in
setting permit limits with revision for
major process changes only; this would
alleviate the problem of noncompliance
due to minor variations in production
and flow.
For pretreatment standards,
commenters contended that mass-based
limits are especially inappropriate as
most POTW sewer ordinances are
concentration-based and as compliance
determinations will depend on industry
supplied data.
Response: The Agency is
promulgating mass-based limitations
and standards because flow reduction is
an effective and demonstrated
technology for reducing the quantity of
pollutants discharged from plants in the
canmaking subcategory, and because
the Agency found no difficulty in
establishing production normalized
flows. In developing the canmaking
regulation, the Agency examined the
sources and amounts of water used in
can manufacturing operations. EPA
found that recycle, reuse, and water
conservation practices were used by
many plants in the subcategory, and that
such practices could be implemented at
all plants in the subcategory.
Accordingly, flow reduction was
incorporated as an integral part of the
final regulation for canmaking. The
inclusion of flow reduction for this
subcategory is consistent with EPA's
normal practice of establishing such
mass-based limitations where a
quantitative flow basis can be
established.
The Agency has established mass-
based pretreatment standards for many
other categories in the past. A company
may have to provide the POTW with
production information to enable the
POTW to determine compliance with
the regulation. Such information is
generally reported in a manner not
readily usable by competing companies.
-------
Federal Register / Vol 48, No. 223 / Thursday, November 17, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 52395
10.	Compliance Costs
Comment Several commenters took
issue with our cost figure*, asserting that
the correct costs are probably three or
four times greater than EPA presented at
proposal.
Response: The Agency evaluated
information submitted by commenters,
and ascertained that their estimates
include the cost of ultrafiltration and
reverse osmosis, which are not parts of
the model end-of-pipe treatment system.
When this additional treatment is
excluded from CMl's calculation, their
costs very nearly agree with the
calculations the Agency used at
proposal.
The estimated costs for the final
regulation are slightly lower than at
proposal, due to a revised analysis of
the unit costs of end-of-pipe treatment
operations. This revised analysis
includes a change in the procedure for
costing from the procedure used at
proposal, in which oil removal
technologies are now costed as a single
unit rather than individually as
sequential unit operations. Further, the
treatment in place in the subcategory
was reassessed based on new
information provided by companies and
industry groups, and the costs of sludge
hauling were reassessed. These
revisions indicate that the unit costs of
treatment systems at canmaking plantB
are lower than originally believed, and
the cost basis for the final regulation
was revised accordingly. These costs
are described more fully in Section Vm
of the development document.
As a result, EPA believes that the
revised costs are accurate and may even
be overstated if, as the Agency believes,
some indirect dischargers can comply
with the regulation without installing
lime and settle treatment technology.
11.	Economic Impacts
Comment- Three commenters noted
that EPA had overestimated the selling
price of aluminum cans in the economic
impact analysis by including the cost of
can ends. Commenters suggested that
the appropriate price was $60.00 per
thousand cans.
Response: Since the manufacture of
can ends is an independent production
process which does not generate
wastewater, the economic analysis was
revised using a price of $60.00 per
thousand cans instead of the $90.00 per
thousand can price used for the
proposal.
12. Effects of Excess Capacity and
Mandatory Deposit Legislation on the
Canmaking Industry
Comment The commenters stated
that the economic impact analysis did
not address the effects of either excess
production capacity or mandatory
deposit legislation. They believed the
economic analysis overestimated future
demand for aluminum cans and
therefore understated the regulatory
impacts because the mandatory deposit
legislation would increase the costs of
handling aluminum cans. They asserted
that excess capacity would be reflected
in lower profit rates and inability on the
part of 2-piece can manufacturers to '
withstand the impacts of the regulation.
Response: The Agency believes the
growth for two-piece cans will remain
strong and excess capacity will dwindle,
improving the profit picture. EPA has
projected an average annual growth rate
of 4.3 percent for all beverage cans by
1985, which is higher than 3.6 percent
GNP growth rate expected for the period
1982-1985. The Agency does not
envision the occurrence of significant
economic impacts.
Ttade literature indicates that
aluminum two-piece cans have done
well in deposit law states. Since there
are invariably mandatory deposit laws
for glass containers as well, aluminum
cans have an advantage over glass due
to lower handling costs, greater
recycling value, and easy storage. As a
result, cans tend to gain market share at
the expense of glass containers. Thus,
the Agency expects no negative effects
of mandatory deposit legislation on
aluminum cans.
X.	Best Management Practices
Section 304(e) of the Clean Water Act
gives the Administrator authority to
prescribe "best management practices"
(BMP). EPA is not promulgating BMP
specific to canmaking.
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 non-
compliance occurring for reasons
beyond the reasonable control of the
permittee. It has been argued that an
upset provision in EPA's effluent
limitations is necessary 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 exercise of
EPA's enforcement discretion. Compare
Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA 564 F.2d 1253
(9th Cir. 1977) with Weyerhaeuser Co. v.
Costle, supra, and Com Refiners
Association, et al. v. Costle, No. 78-1069
(8th Cir., April 2,1979). See also
American Petroleum Institute v. EPA,
540 F.2d 1023 (10th Cir. 1976); CPC
International, Inc. v. Train, 540 F.2d 1320
(8th Cir. 1976); FMC Corp. v. Tram. 539
F.Zd 973 (4th Cir. 1976).
An upset is an unintentional episode
during which effluent limits are
exceeded; a bypass, however, is an act
of intentional noncompliance during
which waste treatment facilities are
circumvented in emergency situations.
We have, in the past, included bypass
provisions in NPDES permits.
The Agency determined that both
upset and bypass provisions should be
included in NPDES permits and have
promulgated permit regulations that
include upset and bypass permit
provisions (see 40 CFT* 122.41, 45 FR
14166 (April 1,1983)). 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
permittees in the canmaking industry
will be entitled to upset and bypass
provisions in NPDES permits, this final
regulation does not address these issues.
XII. Variances and Modifications.
Upon the promulgation of this
regulation, the appropriate effluent
limitations must be applied in all
Federal and State NPDES permits
thereafter issued to direct dischargers in
the canmaking industry. In addition, on
promulgation, the pretreatmer.t
limitations are directly appl.cable to any
indirect discharger.
For the BPT effluent limitations, the
only exception to the binding limitations
is EPA's "fundamentally different
factors" variance. See E.I. duPont
deNemours & 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.
However, the economic ability of the
individual operator to meet the
compliance cost for BPT standards is
not a consideration for granting a
-------
52396 Federal Register / Vol 48, No. 223 / Thursday, November 17, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
variance. See National Crushed Stone
Association v. EPA, 449 U.S. 64 (1980).
Although this variance clause was set
forth in EPA's 1973 to 1976 industry
regulations it is now included in the
NPDES regulations and will not be
included in the canmaking or other
industry regulations. See the NPDES
regulations at 40 CFR Part 122, Subparts
A and D, 45 FR14166 et seq. (April 1,
1963) for the text and explanation of
"fundamentally different factors"
variance.
The BAT limitations in this regulation
also are subject to EPA's
"fundamentally different factors"
variance. In addition, BAT limitations
for nonconventional pollutants are
subject to modifications under Sections
301(c) and 301(g) of the Act. Aluminum,
fluoride, and phosphorus are
nonconventional pollutants for which
BAT limitations apply under this
regulation. These Section 301(c) and
301(g) statutory modifications do not
apply to toxic or conventional
pollutants. According to section 301(j)
(1)(B), applications for these
modifications must be filed within 270
days after promulgation of final effluent
(See 43 FR 40859 (September 13,1978)).
Indirect dischargers subject to PSES
and PSNS are eligible for credits for
toxic pollutants removed by POTW. See
40 CFR 403.7 48 FR 9404 (January 28,
1981). New sources subject to NSPS are
not eligible for any other statutory or
regulatory modifications. See E. I.
duPont deNemours (r Co. v. Train, supra.
The economic modification section
(301(c)) gives the Administrator
authority to modify BAT requirememts
for nonconventional pollutants1 for
dischargers who file a permit
application after July 1,1978, upon a
showing that such modified
requirements will: (1) Represent the
maximum use of technology within the
economic capability of the owner or
operator and (2) result in reasonable
further progress toward the elimination
of the discharge of pollutants. The
environmental modification section
301(g) allows the Administrator, with
the concurrence of the State, to modify
BAT limitations for nonconventional
pollutants from any point source upon a
showing by the owner or operator of
such point source satisfactory to the
Administrator that:
(a) Such modified requirements will
result at a minimum in compliance with
BPT limitations or any more stringent
1 Section 301(e) precludes the Administrator from
modifying BAT requirement! for any pollutant!
which are on the toxic pollutant list under Section
307(1)11) of the Act.
limitations necessary to meet water
quality standards:
(b)	Such modified requirements will
not result in any additional
requirements on any other point or
nonpoint source; and
(c)	Such modification will not interfere
with the attainment or maintenance of
that water quality which shall assure
protection of public water supplies, and
the protection and propagation of a
balanced population of shellfish, fish,
and wildlife, and allow recreational
activities, in and on the water and such
modification will not result in the
discharge of pollutants in quantities
which may reasonably be anticipated to
pose an unacceptable risk to human
health or the environment because of
bioaccumulation, persistency in the
environment, acute toxicity, chronic
toxicity (including carcinogenicity,
mutagenicity or teratogenicity), or
synergistic propensities.
Section 301(j)(l)(B) of the Act requires
that application for modifications under
Section 301 (c) or (g) must be filed
within 270 days after the promulgation
of an applicable effluent guideline.
Initial applications must be filed with
the Regional Administrator and, in those
States that participate in the NPDES
Program, a copy must be sent to the
Director of the State program. Initial
applications to comply with 301(j) must
include the name of the permittee, the
permit and outfall number, the
applicable effluent guideline, and
whether the permittee is applying for a
301(c) or 301(g) modification or both.
Indirect dischargers subject to PSES
have, in the past been eligible for the
"fundamentally different factors"
variance. See 40 CFR 403.13. However,
on September 20,1983, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit held that
"FDF variances for toxic pollutants are
forbidden by the Act," and remanded
403.13 to EPA. NAMFet al. v. EPA, Nos.
79-2256 et al. (3rd Circuit, September 20,
1983). EPA is considering the effect of
that decision. Since the opinion
addressed only the availability of FDF
variances for PSES toxic pollutants,
however, "fundamentally different
factors" variances for nonconventional
pollutants remain available to indirect
dischargers. The Agency will soon
amend 40 CFR 403.13 in accordance with
the court's opinion.
In a few cases, information which
would affect these PSES may not have
been available to EPA or affected
parties in the course of this rulemaking.
As a result it may be appropriate to
issue specific categorical standards for
such facilities, treating them as a
separate subcategory with more, or less.
stringent standards as appropriate. This
will only be done if a different standard
is appropriate because of aspects of the
factors listed in section 301(b)(2)(A) of
the Act: The age of equipement and
facilities involved, the process
employed, the engineering aspects of
applying control techniques, nonwater
quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements) or the
cost of required effluent reductions (but
not of ability to pay that cost).
Indirect dischargers and other
affected parties may petition the
Administrator to examine those factors
and determine whether these PSES are
properly applicable in specific cases or
should be revised. Such petitions must
contain specific and detailed support
data, documentation, and evidence
indicating why the relevant factors
justify a more, or less, stringent
standard, and must also indicate why
those factors could not have been
brought to the attention of the Agency in
the course of this rulemaking. The
Administrator will consider such
rulemaking petitions and determine
whether a rulemaking should be
inititated.
Xin. Implementation of Limitations and
Standards
A. Relationship to NPDES Permits
The BPT and BAT limitations and
NSPS in this regulation will be applied
to direct dischargers in the canmaking
industry 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 the extent that
variances and modifications are
expressly authorized. Other aspects of
the interaction between these
limitations and NPDES permits are
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
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
-------
Federal Register / Vol 48, No. 223 / Thursday, November 17, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 52397
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. The Agency
emphasizes that 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.
B. Indirect Dischargers
For indirect dischargers, PSES and
PSNS are implemented under National
Pretreatment Program procedures
outlined in 40 CFR 403. The table below
may be of assistance in resolving
questions about the operation of that
program. A brief explanation of some of
the submissions indicated on the table
follows:
A "request for category
determination" is a written request,
submitted by an indirect discharger or
its POTW, for a determination of which
categorical pretreatment standard
applies to the indirect discharger. This
assists the indirect discharger in
knowing which PSES or PSNS limits it
will be required to meet. See 40 CFR
403.6(a).
A "baseline monitoring report" is the
first report an indirect discharger must
file following promulgation of an
applicable standard. The baseline report
includes: an identification of the indirect
discharger; a descirption of its
operations; a report on the flows of
regulated streams and the results of
sampling analyses to determine levels of
regulated pollutants in those streams; a
statement of the discharger's
compliance or non-compliance with the
standard; and a description of any
additional steps required to achieve
compliance. See 40 CFR 403.12(b).
A "report on compliance" is required
of each indirect discharger within 90
days following the date for compliance
with an applicable categorical -
pretreatment standard. The report must
indicate the concentration of all
regulated pollutants in the facility's
regulated process wastestreams; the
average and maximum daily flows of the
regulated streams; and a statement of
whether compliance is consistently
being achieved, and if not, what
additional operation and maintenance
or pretreatment is necessary to achieve
compliance. See 40 CFR 403.12(d).
A "periodic compliance report" is a
report on continuing compliance with all
applicable categorical pretreatment
standards. It is submitted twice per year
(June and December) by indirect
dischargers subject to the standards.
The report shall provide the
concentrations of the regulated
pollutants in its discharge to the POTW;
the average and maximum daily flow
rates of the facility; the methods used by
the indirect discharger to sample and
XIV. Availability of Technical
Information
The basis for this regulation is
detailed in four major documents.
Analytical methods are discussed in
"Sampling and Analysis Procedures for
Screening of Industrial Effluents for
Priority Pollutants." EPA's technical .
conclusions are detailed in the
"Development Document for Effluent
Guidelines, New Source Performance
Standards and Pretreatment Standards
for the Canmaking Subcategory of the
Coil Coating Point Source Category."
The Agency's economic analysis is
presented in "Economic Impact Analysis
of Effluent Limitations and Standards
for the Canmaking Industry." A
summary of the public comments
received on the proposed regulation is
presented in a report "Responses to
Public Comments, Proposed Canmaking
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards," which is a part of the public
record for this regulation. Copies of the
technical and economic documents may
be obtained from the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia 22161; (703) 487-4600.
Additional information concerning the
technical support documents may be
obtained from the project officer Ms.
Mary L. Belefski and additional
information concerning the economic
impact analysis may be obtained from
Ms. josette Bailey, Economic Analysis
analyze the data, and a certification that
these methods conform to the methods
outlined in the regulation. See 40 CFR
403.12(e).
Indirect dischargers subject to PSES
may obtain "fundamentally different
factors" variances for nonconventional
pollutants. See Section XII of this
preamble.
Staff at the addresses listed under
ADDRESSES in this preamble.
The information collection
requirements in this rule will be
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,4£
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. They are not effective
until OMB approves them and a
technical amendment to that effect is
published in the Federal Register.
XV. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 465
.Canmaking, Water pollution control,
Metal coating and allied services, Waste
treatment and disposal.
Dated. November 9,1983.
William D. Ruckelshaus,
Administrator.
Appendix A—Abbreviations, Acronyms and
Other Terms Used in This Notice
Act—The Clean Water Act
Agency—The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
BAT—The best available technology
economically achievable under Section
304(b)(2)(B) of the Act
BCT—The best conventional pollutant
control technology, under Section
304(b)(4) of the Act
BDT—The best available demonstrated
control technology processes, operating
methods, or other alternatives, including
where practicable, a standard permitting
no discharge of pollutants under section
306(a)(1) of the Act
Indirect Dischargers Schedule for Submittal and Compliance
ttem
Appfcable
sources
Date or tme period
Meaiured from—
Submitted to—
Request tor category
detenrwiation
Oaaafcnc monitoring 	
Report on oompfcance	
Penodfc oomphance
reports
Ensbng 	
AO	
EjusMug	
New....,	
AIL-. 		
60 (toys . 		
00 
-------
52398 Federal Register / Vol 48, No. 223 / Thursday, November 17, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
BMP—Best management practices under
Section 304(e) of the Act
BPT—The best practicable control
technology currently available under
Section 304(b)(1) of the Act
Clean Water Act—The Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 etseq.}, as amended
by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L
95-217)
Direct discharger—A plant that discharges
pollutants into waters of the United
States
Indirect discharger—A plant that introduces
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
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 1970, as
amended
TTO—Total Toxic Organics
Appendix B—Toxic Pollutants Not Detected
(a) Subpart D—Canmaking Subcategory
001	Acenaphthene
002	Acrolein
003	Acrylonitrile
005	Benzidine
008	1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
009	Hexachlorobenzene
010	1,2-dichloroethane
012	Hexachloroethane
014	1,1.2-trichloroethane
016	Chloroethane
017	[Deleted]
019	2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
020	2-chloronaphthalene
021	2,4.6-trichlorophenol
022	Parachlorometa cresol
024	2-chlorophenoI
025	1,2-dichlorobenzene
026	1,3-dichlorobenzene
027	1,4-dichlorobenzene
028	3,3-dichlorobenzidine
031	2,4-dichlorophenol
032	1.2-dichIoropropane
033	1.2-dichloropropylene (1,3-
dichlorpropene)
034	2.4-dimethylphenol
035	2,4-dinitrotoluene
036	2,6-dinitrotoluene
039	Fluoranthene
040	4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
041	4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
042	Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
043	Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
045	Methyl chloride (dichloromethane)
046	Methyl bromide (bromomethane)
049	[Deleted]
050	[Deleted]
052	Hexachlorobutadiene
053	Hexachloromyclopentadiene
054	Isophorone
056	Nitrobenzene
057	2-nitrophenol
058	4-nitrophenol
059	2.4-dinitrophenol
060	4,6-dmitro-o-cresol
061	N-nitrosodimethylamine
063 N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
069 Di-N-octyl phthalate
073	Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)
074	3,4-Benzofluoranthene
(benzo(b)fluoranthene)
075	11.12-benzofluoranthene
(benzo(b)fluoranthene)
077 Acenaphthylene
079 1,12-benzoperylene (benzo(ghi)
perylene)
082	1.2.5,6-dibenzanthracene dibenzo(a.h)
anthracene
083	Ideno(1.2,3-cd) pyrene (2,3-o-pheynylene
pyrene)
084	Pyrene
088	Vinyl chloride (chlorethylene)
089	Aldrin
090	Dieldrin
094	4,4-DDD (p,p-TDE)
095	Alpha-endosulfan
096	Beta-endosulfan
099 Endrin aldehyde
105	Delta-BHC (PCB=pclychlorinated
biphenyls)
106	PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
108	PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
109	PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
111	PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
112	PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
113	Toxaphene
114	Antimony
116	Asbestos
117	Beryllium
125	Selenium
126	Silver
127	Thallium
129 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD)
Appendix C—Toxic Pollutants Detected
Below the Nominal Quantification Limit
(a) Subpart D—Canmaking Subcategory
004
Benzene
006
Carbon tetrachloride

(tetrachloromethane)
007
Chlorobenzene
030
1,2-trans-dichloroethyIene
037
1,2-dipheny (hydrazine
038
Ethylbenzene
047
Bromoform
048
Dichlorobromome thane
051
Chlorodibromomethane
055
Naphthalene
062
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
065
Phenol
070
Diethyl phthalate
071
Dimethyl phthalate
072
1.2-benzanthracene

(benzo(a)anthracene)
076
Chrysene
078
Anthracene
080
Fluorene
087
Trichloroethylene
091
Chlordane (technical mixture and

metabolites)
092
4.4-DDT
093
4,4-DDE (p,p-DDX)
097
Endosulfan sulfate
098
Endrin
100
Heptachlor
101
Heptachlor epoxide (BHC-

hexachlorocydohexane)
102	Alpha-BHC
103	Beta-BHC
104	Gamma-BHC (lindane)
107	PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
110 PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
Appendix ~—Toxic Pollutants Not Treatable
Using Technologies Considered Applicable to
the Subcategory
(a) Subpart D—Canmgking Subcategory
115 Arsenic
118 Cadmium
121 Cyanide
123 Mercury
Appendix E—Toxic Pollutants Controlled at
BPT, BAT and NSPS but Not Specifically
Regulated
(a] Subpart D—Canmaking Subcategory
Oil
1,1,1-trichloroethane
013
1,1,-Dichloroe thane
015
l,lZ2,-Tetra chloroethane
018
Bis (2-chloroethyl] ether
023
Chloroform
029
1,1-dichloroethylene
044
Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
064
Pentachlorophenol
066
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
067
Butyl benzylphthalate
068
Di-N-butyl phthalate
081
Phenanthrene
085
Tetrachloroethylene
088
Toluene
120
Copper
122
Lead
124
Nickel
Appendix F—Ult of Toxic Organics
Comprising Total Toxic Organics (or TTO),
Controlled at PSES and PSNS
(a) Subpart D-Canmaking Subcategory
Oil	1,1,1-trichloroethane
013	1,1-Dichloroethane
015	1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
018	Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
023	Chloroform
029	1,1-dichloroethyIene
044	Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
064	Pentachloropheno)
066	Bis (2-etbylhexyl) phthalate
067	Butyl benzylphthalate
068	Di-N-butyl phthalate
081	Phenanthrene
085	Tetrachloroethylene
086	Toluene
Appendix G—Segments Not Regulated
(a)	The manufacture of seamed cans
(clinched, soldered or welded)
(b)	The manufacture of seamless cans from
coated stock
(c)	The manufacture of can ends and ran tops
1. The authority citation for these
amendments is:
(Sees. 301. 304 (b). (c), (e). and (g), 306 (b) and
(c), 307 (b) and (c), 308 and 501 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 (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)
-------
Federal Register / Vol 48, No. 223 / Thursday, November 17, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 52399
2.	Section 465.01 is revised to read as
follows:
§465.01 Applicability.
' This part applies to any coil coating
facility or to any canmaking facility that
discharges pollutants to waters of the
United States or that introduces
pollutants to a publicly owned treatment
works.
3.	Section 465.02 is amended by
adding new paragraphs (h), (i) and (j) to
read as follows:
( 465.02 General definitions.
*****
(h)	the term "can" means a container
formed from sheet metal and consisting
of a body and two ends or a body and a
top.
(i)	The term "canmaking" means the
manufacturing process or processes
used to manufacture a can from a basic
metal.
(j) The term 'Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)" shall mean the sum of the mass
of each of the following toxic organic
compounds which are found at a
concentration greater than 0.010 mg/l.
1.1,1-trichloroethane
1.1-dichloroelhane
1,1,2.2-tetrachloroethane -
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Chloroform
1,1-dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
Pentachlorophenol
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
' Butyl benzyl-phthalate
Di-N-butyl phthalate
Pbenanthrene
Tetrachioroethylene
Toluene
4.	Section 465.03 is amended by
adding new paragraphs (c) and (d) to
read as follows:
S 465.03 Monitoring and reporting
requirement*.
*****
(c) The following determination
method shall be used for the
determination of the concentration of oil
and grease in wastewater samples from
all subcategories of coil coating (Based
on Standard Methods, 15th Edition,
Methods 503A and 503E). In this method,
a partition gravimetric procedure is used
to determine hydrocarbon (petroleum
based) oil and grease (O&G-E).
(1) Apparatus, (i) Separatory funnel, 1
liter, with TFE 1 stopcock.
(ii)	Glass stoppered flask, 125 ml.
(iii)	Distilling fiask, 125 ml.
(iv)	Water bath.
(v)	Filter paper, 11 cm diameter.'
(vi)	Class funnel.
(vii)	Magnetic Btirrer and Teflon
coated stir bar.
(2)	Reagents, (i) Hydrochloric acid,
HC1.1+1.
(ii)	Trichlorotrifluoroethane.' (1,1,2-
trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane), boiling
point 47°C. The solvent should leave no
measurable residue on evaporation;
distill if necessary. Do not use any
plastic tubing to transfer solvent
between containers.
(iii)	Sodium sulfate, NaiSO<,
anhydrous crystal.
(iv)	Silica gel. 60 to 200 mesh.4 Dry at
110'C for 24 hours and store in a tightly
sealed container.
(3)	Procedure. To determine
hydrocarbon oil and grease, collect
about 1 liter of sample and mark sample
level in bottle for later determination of
sample volume. Acidify to pH 2 or
lower, generally, 5 ml HC1 is sufficient.
Transfer to a separatory funnel.
Carefully rinse sample bottle with 30 ml
trichlorotrifluoroethane and add solvent
washings to separatory funnel.
Preferably shake vigorously for 2
minutes. However, if it is suspected that
a stable emulsion will form, shake
gently for 5 to 10 minutes. Let layers
separate. Drain solvent layer through a
funnel containing solvent-moistened
filter paper into a tared clean flask. If a
clear solvent layer cannot be obtained,
add lg NajSO. to the filter paper cone
and slowly drain emulsified solvent onto
the crystals. Add more Na2SO, if
necessary. Extract twice more with 30
ml solvent each but first rinse sample
container with each solvent portion.
Combine extracts in tared flask and
wash filter with an additional 10 to 20
ml. solvent. Add 3.0 g silica gel. Stopper
flask and stir on a magnetic stirrer for 5
minutes. Filter solution through filter
paper and wash silica gel and filter
paper with 10 ml solvent and combine
with filtrate in tared distilling flask.
Distill solvent from distilling flask in a
water bath at 70°C. Place flask on a
water bath at 70°C for 15 minutes and
draw air through it with an applied
vacuum for the final 1 minute. Cool in a
desiccator for 30 minutes and weigh
(4) Calculations.—Calculation of
O&G-E-. If the organic solvent is free of
residue the gain in weight of the tared
distilling flask is due to hydrocarbon oil
and grease. Total gain in weight, E. is
the amount of hydrocarbon oil and
grease in the sample (mg):
mg (hydrocarbon oil and grease)/! =
E x 1000
ml sample
(5) Use of O&G-E: The value, O&G-E
shall be used as the measure of
compliance with the oil and grease
limitations and standards set forth in
this regulation except where total O&G
is specifically required.
1 Teflon* or equivalent.
'Whatman No. 40 or equivalent.
•Freon or equivalent.
* Davidson Grade 950 or equivalent.
(d) The owner or operator of any
canmaking facility subject to the
provisions of this regulation shall advise
the permit issuing authority or POTW
authority and the EPA Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington,
D.C. 20460 whenever it has been decided
that the plant will manufacture cans
from an aluminum alloy containing less
than 1.0 percent manganese. Such
notification shall be made in writing, not
less than 30 days in advance of the
scheduled production and shall provide
the chemical analysis of the alloy and
the expected period of use.
5. Section 465.04 is revised to read as
follows:
{ 465.04 Compliance date for PSES.
(a) For Subparts A, B, and C the
compliance date for Pretreatment
Standards for Existing Source (PSES) is s
December 1,1985.
(b) For Subpart D, the compliance
date for Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources will be as soon as
possible, but in no case later than
November 17,1986.
6.40 CFR Part 465 is amended by
adding a new Subpart D to reasd as
follows:
Subpart D—Canmaking Subcategory
Sec.
465.40	Applicability: description of the
canmaking subcategory.
465.41	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
465.42	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable
465.43	New source performance standards.
465.44	Pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
465.45	Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
465.46	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology. (Reserved]
-------
52400 Federal Register / Vol 48, No. 223 / Thursday, November 17, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart D—Canmaking Subcategory
§ 465.40 Applicability; description ot the
canmaking subcategory.
This subpart applies to discharges to
waters of the United States, and
introductions of pollutants into publicly
owned treatment works from the
manufacturing of seamless can bodies,
which are washed.
§ 465.41 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available:
Subpart D.—BPT Effluent Limitations
Portutant or
poHutant
property
Manmum for any 1
day
Maximum lor
monthly werage

g (toe)/1,000,000 cans manufactured
£
Al 	
F
P . .
0 4 G
TSS	
PH .
EM.00 (0.209)
313.90 (0 692)
1382 45 (3.048)
12790 00 (28 197)
3590 50 (7 916)
4300 00 (9 480)
8615 00 (19 434)
n
38 70 (0.086)
131 15 (0.209)
66800 (1.517)
5676 00 (12.513)
1468.45 (3 237)
2580 00 (5 688)
4192 50 (9 243)
(')
'Witfrn the range of 7.0 to 10 at afl
§ 465.42 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
redaction attainable by the application
of the best available technology
economically achievable:
Subpart D.—BAT Effluent Limitations
PoUutant or
poMutant
property
Moornum tor any 1
Maxnum tor
monthly average

g (ba)/i,000,000 <
ana manutactmd
Cr 	
Zn	
AL 		
pI ZZTZZ
36.92 (0061)
122 49 (0-270)
539.48 (1.189)
4692.06 (11.001)
1401 13 13.008)
IS to (&033)
51 10 (0.119)
268.48 (0 592)
2214 96 (4»863)
573.64 (1-260)
§ 465.43 New source performance
standards.
The following standards of
performance establish the quantity of
pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section, which may be
discharged by a new source subject to
the provisions of this subpart:
Subpart D.—NSPS Effluent Limitations
g (00/1.000.000
Cr	
27.98 (0.062)
11 45 (0 025)
Zn 	
92 86 (0 205)
38.90 (0 066)
Al			
406 95 (0 902)
203 52 (0 449)
F 			
3784.20 (6 343)
1679 04 (3 702)
P		
1062 12 (2.342)
434.39 (0.956)
o a g	
1272.00 (2 804)
763JO (1 683)
TSS 	
2607 60 (5 749)
1240.20 (2 734)
pH.~	
n
(')
lW*wi the mnge d 7.0 to 10 at ai time*.
S 465.44 Pretreatment standards tor
existing source*.
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 exisitng
sources.
Subpart D.—PSES Effluent Limitations
Potfcrtant or pofedant
Maximum tor any
Maunwn for
property
1 day
monthly average

g 99)/1.000,000
ana manulactmd
Cr-.-		
36 92 (0 061)
15.10 (0 033)
Cu
156 41 (0.361)
83.90 (0.185)
Zn	
122 49 (0 270)
51 18 (0113)
F				
4992 05 (11 001)
2214 96 (4 683)
P			
1401 13 (3060)
57304 (1263)
Mn		-	
57.05 (0 126)
24 33 (0.053)
TTO
2&65 (0.059)
12.59 (0026)
04G (tor alternate


monrtormg) 	
1678 00 (3.699)
1006 60 (2.220)
$ 485.45 Pietieatment standards for new
sources.
Except as provided in $ 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.
Subpart D—PSNS
Pottutant or pollutant
property
Majomum tor any
1 day
ttcnmum for
monthly average

g (lbs)/1,000,000 cans manufactured
Cr 			
27 98 (0.0617)
12034 (0.267)
92 86 (0.206)
3784 20 (8 345)
1062 12 (2.342)
43.25 (0 095)
20 35 (0.045)
1272.00 (2 804)
11 45 (0025)
63 60 (0.140)
38.60 (0066)
1679 04 (3 702)
434 39 (0956)
18 44 (0 041)
9 54 (0 0210)
763-20 (1 663)
Zn		 		
P	
Mn			
TTO	-
04G (for alternate
monrtonnQ) 	
{465.46 [Reserved]
[FR Doc S3-30U0 Filed 11-19-83. »«5 am]
KLUNQ coot um-m-m
-------

4% \
|	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
V	WASHINGTON. D C 20460
<< onO^°
M 9685
OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM
TO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Addressees
Colburn T. Cherne]
Associate General ^unsel
Water Division (LE-132W)
Fourth Circuit Decision Upholding Pretreatment
Standards Applicable to the Canmal^ng Industry
On May 1, 1985, the Fourth Circuit unanimously upheld the
pretreatment standards applicable to the canmaking industry
that the Agency promulgated under the authority of Sec. 307
of the Clean Water Act in November 1983. Reynolds Metals
Company, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency.
No s. 84-1 183(L) and 84-1 184. Industry petitioners had chal-
lenged these regulations on a number of technical grounds.
The opinion, written by Judge Sprouse, enunciated, and then
applied, an extremely deferential standard of review.
This is one of the first opinions rendered with respect
to BAT-level effluent limitations guidelines and standards;
it sets a very favorable precedent for future cases involving
effluent guidelines and other cases involving technical/
scientific issues. A brief summary of the case follows, and a
copy of the decision is attached. I you have any questions,
please call Ellen Siegler; she can be reached at 382-7700.
Industry challenged the pretreatment standards for total
toxic organic pollutants ("TTO'M and for rhrnTriyTTT. z inc . and ~~
copper. Their arguments addressed:the Agency's selection
and manipulation of treatment effectiveness data; whether these
pollutants "pass through" treatment systems of publicly owned
treatment works ("POTW's"); and whether the Agency properly
considered costs before promulgating the regulations. With
respect to the last issue, petitioners had claimed that EPA
had overstated the expected removals of hexavalent chromium
that the regulation would achieve and, accordingly, had greatly
overstated the cost effectiveness of the regulation.
-------
- 2 -
In addressing the TTO issue, the Court upheld the Agency's
use of data transferred from the aluminum forming effluent
limitations guidelines and standards, using the tests the Eighth
Circuit applied in CPC International, Inc. , v. Train, 515 F. 2d
1032, 1048 (8th Cir^ 1975). 1_/ The Court also found a rational
basis for the Agency's conclusion that the model technology
would achieve the same percentage removal (97%) of TTO from
canmaking influents as it would with respect to the TTO in
aluminum forming influents. The Agency's conclusion had been
based largely on an analysis of octanol/water partition
coefficients which indicated that the TTO in canmaking influents
would adhere to oil and be removed by oil removal technologies.
The Court found that the Agency "thoroughly considered removal
efficiency in the canmaking context, and we find no abuse of
discretion." Slip op. at 29.
The Court tested the validity of the regulations in accord-
ance with an almost strictly procedural standard. Since the
Agency had complied with procedural requirements and had offered
a plausible rationale, the Court refused to second-guess the
Agency's technical bases. In regard to TTO, the Court stated:
As a reviewing court, we have delved deeply
enough into this essentially scientific dis-
agreement to understand it for our purposes-
judicial review of the administrative agency's
actions under the standards of review we have
previously discussed. Slip op. at 26.
Then the Court dismissed petitioner's objections to EPA's selec-
tion and use of data:
The Agency explained its methods during rule-
making and insisted there and here on appeal
that their methods were scientifically correct.
We do not judge that; we view their actions
under a judicial glass and readily discern
that they have acted reasonably, given the
1_/ The Agency must: "(1) show that the transfer of technology
is available outside the industry; (2) determine that the
technology is transferable to the industry; (3) make a reason-
able prediction that the technology if used in the industry
will be capable of removing the increment required by the
effluent standards." Slip op. at 32.
-------
- 3 -
industry's representatives more than adequate
opportunity to comment, considered the comments,
and explained their rejection. This is indeed
reasoned administrative decisionmaking, and we
have no occasion to interfere in that process.
Slip op. at 26-27. 2/
Petitioners had attacked the Agency's consideration of
co8ts principally by claiming that EPA has vastly overestimated
the cost effectivenes sof the regulation. 3/ EPA had argued
that the Agency had not overestimated cost effectiveness, but,
in any case, had satisfied the Agency's statutory obligation
to "consider costs." The Court did not render a definitive
holding with respect to the role of cost effectiveness in
setting BATlevel pretreatment standards. The Court concluded
that the Agency's entire consideration of costs, which included
the cost-effectiveness analysis, was sufficient to meet the
relatively low threshold that applies to cost issues under the
Clean Water Act. This was true even though the Court had serious
doubts about the Agency's estimates of the amount of hexavalent
chromium the regulation would remove, an estimate that was of
pivotal importance in the cost effectiveness analysis. The court
concluded:
Although we do not condone the Agency's treatment
of the issue concerning the hexavalent/trivalent
chromium mix, the record indicates that it care-
fully considered all other cost factors and, in
this one particular, made an estimate of the
differing quantities of hexavalent and trivalent
chromium which has support in the administrative
record. Importantly, it also concluded that even
if its estimates were completely erroneous, it
would not have affected the regulation. In sum,
we believe that the record demonstrates that the
Agency made a reasonable effort in analyzing costs
and on that basis the regulation must be upheld.
See FMC Corp. v. Train, 539 F. 2d 973, 979 (4th Cir.
1976). Slip op. at 45.
2/ The Court also agreed with other courts that issues not
raised in comments during the rulemaking will be accorded
little weight on review if the Agency's procedures have been
adequate. Slip op. at 35.
3/ The Agency computed cost effectiveness in terms of dollars
of compliance costs per "pound equivalent" of toxic pollu-
tants removed. ("Pound equivalents" are weighted pounds, based
upon relative toxicity of the pollutants removed.)
-------
- 4 -
It would appear from this language that the court is
comfortable with our preparing cost-effectiveness analyses
and that, where such an analysis is part of our rulemaking
record, it wi-11 be subject to judicial review and must meet
at least some threshold of rationality.
Attachment
Addressees: A. James Barnes
Henry L. Longest, II
Milton Russell
Josephine Cooper
cc: Rebecca Hanmer
Edwin Johnson
Martha Prothro
Jeffrey Denit
Scott Bush
Glen Unterberger
Robert Wolcott
Mahesh Podar
Regional Counsels
Water Division Directors
-------
>SS& UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 84-1183 (L)
Reynolds Metals Company
and .t
United States Brewers Association,
versus
Petitioners,
United States Environmental
Protection Agency,
No. 84-1184
Respondent.
Miller Brewing Company,
versus
Petitioner,
United States Environmental
Protection Agency,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of the Regulations of"the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Argued: October 3, 1984	Decided: May 1, 1985
Before SPROUSE and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges, and HARGROVE, United
States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting
by designation.
-------
R. Stuart Bloom (Riddell, Fox, Holroyd & Jackson, P. C.;
Kenneth A. JBarry; Norton F. Tennille, Jr., Lester Sotsky, Arnold
& Porter on brief) for Petitioners; Ellen Siegler, Environmental
Protection Agency; John L. Wittenborn, Dept. of Justice (A.
James Barnes, General Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency,
Colburn T. Cherney, Associate General Counsel, Susan Lepow,
'Assistant General Counsel; F. Henry Habicht, II, Assistant
Attorney General; Margaret N. Strand, Dept. of Justice on brief)
for Respondent.
2
-------
SPROUSE, Circuit Judge:
In these consolidated cases, petitioners Reynolds
Metals Company, Miller Brewing Company, and United States Brewer's
Association, ask us to set aside as invalid effluent limitations
promulgated for the canmaking industry*" by the Environmental
* *
Protection Agency (Agency) under the Clean Water Act2 (Act).
The canmaking industry discharges in its effluent^ conventional,
toxic and nonconventional pollutants. Standards for canmaking
were promulgated to control all three types of pollutants,
conventional, toxic and nonconventional, but it is that portion
of the standards relating to the removal of the total toxic
organics (TTO) and toxic metals that generate petitioners'
^ The challenged regulation appears at 40 C.F.R.
§ 465.40 — .46 (1984) .
2 The Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 U.S.C. § 1251-1376
(1982) .
^ The influent, or cleansing water, is introduced
into canmaking apparatus during the canmaking process. The
effluent, or wastewater, is drained from the washing area with
a network of in-plant pipes for treatment and discharge.
The pollutants sought to be removed from the nation's
waterways are divided into three types: (1) "conven-tional
pollutants," which include oil and grease, pollutants classified
as biological oxygen demanding, total suspended solids, fecal
coliform, and pH, 40 C.F.R. § 401.16 (1984); (2) "toxic pollutants"
which are subject to regulations if they are contained in the
list of 65 "priority" toxic pollutants listed in the consent
decree entered in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Costle.
8 E.R.C. 2120, 2129-2130 (D.D.C. 1976), (codified at 40 C.F.R.
§ 401.15 (1984)); and (3) "non-conventional pollutants," com-
prising those pollutants which are neither conventional nor
toxic.
2a
-------
objections. As in other "clean water" regulations, the Agency
devised limitations for pollution from canmaking by first deter-
mining the best ways to remove pollutants (the model technology),
then testing wastewaters to determine the effectiveness of
the technology, and prohibiting pollutant discharges in excess
of limits determined to be achievable by reference to the model
technology.
Petitioners contend that the standards for effluent
control are invalid in that the Agency erroneously concluded
that because the removal of oil and grease had effectively
removed total toxic organics in the aluminum forming and coil
coating industries, it would achieve similar results in the
canmaking industry. They also contend that the Agency arbitrarily
refused to subcategorize the canmaking industry, erred in its
pass-through analyses, overstated the presence of chromium,
zinc, and copper, and failed to observe its statutory duty
to "weigh" costs relating to one standard and to "consider"
costs for another. We disagree with all of these contentions
and affirm.
Canmaki nq
Canmaking encompasses all of the manufacturing pro-
cesses employed in the production of various shaped metal con-
tainers used to package and store foods, beverages, and other
products. The two major types are two-piece (seamless) and
3
-------
three-piece (seamed) cans. A vegetable or soup can is an example
of a three-piece can and an aluminum soda can is an example
of a two-piece can. It is only the seamless, or two-piece,
cans that are subject to the regulation which is involved in
this appeal. The EPA excluded from regulation manufacturers
of three-piece cans, can ends, can tops and seamless cans which
are not washed because these processes do not generate waste-
water-.
In the manufacturing of a two-piece can a coiled
metal sheet is coated with an oil lubricant and straightened.
A machine called a cupper then cuts a circular blank from the
metal sheet and forms the blank into a cup that is drawn into
the required height and diameter by a process known as ironing.
This ironing process is performed by a machine called a body
maker. The can bodies are then cleaned, the metal is treated,
and coatings and decorations are applied. Finally, the open
end of the can body is flanged to receive the can top.
The forming process employs oil lubricants at virtually
all stages. In order to remove the lubricants from the can
bodies, the process utilizes a can washer, which usually consists
of six spray processing stations. After leaving the body maker,
the cans are conveyed through the canwasher on a continuous
metal belt. The six canwashing stages include (1) prewash,
to remove layer of lubricant remaining on the can from the
body maker; (2) acid wash, to further clean and etch the surface
4
-------
of the can; (3) rinse, to further remove contaminants; (4)
surface treatment, to prepare the can for decorating by the
application of either chromium- or zirconium phosphate-based
coatings; (5) rinse, to remove contaminants remaining from
surface treatment; and (6) DI rinse, using de-ionized water
to rinse off the last remnants of the processing solutions.
Nationally, eighty-six plants generate wastewater
from the manufacture of two-piece cans. Of these, eighty are
indirect dischargers and three are direct dischargers.^
The remaining three dispose of wastewater by land application.
Pollutants found in two-piece canmaking wastewaters^ include
(1) conventional pollutants, (2) toxic organics, (3) toxic
metals, and (4) nonconventional pollutants.
The Clean Water Act of 1977
The Clean Water Act directs the EPA to issue nationally-
applicable effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
classes or categories of point sources.® E.I. duPont deNemours
& Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112 (1977). The standards normally
A "direct discharger" is one who directly introduces
wastewater into waterways with no intervening process. An
"indirect discharger," on the other hand, expels wastewater
into a facility that treats the wastewater prior to its introduc-
tion into public waterways.
^ Hereafter when the term "canmaking" is used it
refers only to the manufacture of two-piece cans.
6 The term "point source" is defined as "any discernible,
confined and discrete conveyance,... from which pollutants
are or may be discharged." 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14) (1982).
5
-------
are to apply uniformly."^ After standards and guidelines
are established by regulations, facilities may achieve the
specified effluent discharge allowance through the use of the
technology described in the regulation or in any other manner.
The Agency's actions in regulating industrial water pollution
have been so frequently the subject of appellate review that
*
detailed references to the statutory scheme mandating regulations
seems redundant. An overview, however, is necessary to frame
the issues presented by petitioners' objections to the removal
technology recommended by the Agency for canmaking as well
as the issues relating to the treatability of toxic metals
and the final issue of whether the Agency properly considered
costs of the removal technology.
In passing the Act, which amended the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972, Congress set as a national goal
the elimination, by 1985, of the discharge of pollutants into
navigable waters. 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (1) (1982). To reach
that goal, the Act directed the Administrator of the Agency
to promulgate regulations setting limits on the pollutants
that can be discharged by "point sources." 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14)
(1982).
First, the Act required the Administrator to establish
effluent limitations for point sources which discharge pollutants
directly into navigable waters i.e. "direct dischargers". The
^ Variances may be permitted in certain instances.
See 33 U.S.C. 5S 13U(g)-(n) (1982 & Supp. II).
6
-------
Administrator had to define effluent limitations for categories
or classes of point sources that would require existing direct
dischargers to employ by 1977 the "best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT) , 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b)(1)(A),
1314(b) (1) (A), and to comply by 1984 with limitations based
on the "best available technology economically achievable"
(BAT)., 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b)(2)(A), 1314(b)(2)(B).8 For newly-
constructed dischargers, the Administrator had to establish
new source performance standards (NSPS) requiring the application
of the "best available demonstrated control technology" to
remove all types of pollutants. 33 U.S.C. § 1316. The Adminis-
trator's BPT, BAT, and NSPS limitations were to be based upon
a consideration of the factors specified in sections 304(b)
and 306(b) of the Act. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1314(b)(1)(B), 1316(b)(1)(B).
Second, the EPA is required to establish effluent
limitations for point sources that expel wastewater into publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs) , which treat the wastewater prior
to its introduction into public waterways, by requiring such
g
The Act also requires that direct dischargers achieve
by July 1, 1984 effluent limitations for conventional pollutants
based on "best conventional pollutant control technology" (BCT).
33 U.S.C. S§ 1311(b)(2)(E), 1314(b)(4)(B). At the time of
this appeal, BCT limitations have not yet been promulgated
and the preamble to the regulation at issue states that until
such limitations are imposed, the discharge of conventional
pollutants is to be assessed according to BPT. 48 Fed. Reg.
52379, at 52381 (Nov. 11, 1983) . For nonconventional pollutants,
direct dischargers must meet requirements based on BAT within
three years after the promulgation of applicable regulations
but in no case after July 1 , 1987. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b) (2) (F);
see generally 40 C.F.R. 5 125.3 (1984).
7
-------
indirect dischargers to pretreat wastewater before allowing
it to flow into a POTW. Under unregulated conditions, indirect
dischargers ultimately would introduce fewer pollutants into
waterstreams than direct dischargers because indirect discharges
flow through sewers into POTWs where much pollution is removed
before it is, in turn, discharged into a national stream of
water. In requiring standards for indirect dischargers, however,
Congress realized that a POTW normally would not remove the
same amount of pollutants from industrial wastewater as direct
dischargers are now required to remove. Additionally, a POTW
is unable to successfully operate on some pollutants—specific
pollutants might interfere with or be incompatible with its
operation. Because of these factors, the Agency is required
to establish standards for pretreatment of wastewater before
it enters a POTW "to prevent the discharge of any pollutant
through [POTWs] which interferes with, passes through, or other-
wise is incompatible with such works." 33 U.S.C. § 1317(b)(1).
The legislative history indicates that pretreatment standards
are analogous to the standards for direct dischargers, i.e.
the combined treatment of wastewater by an indirect discharger
and the POTW should achieve the same level of pollution removal
as would be realized if the industrial source were treating
wastewater and then directly discharging it. See H.R. Conf.
Rep. No. 830, 55th Cong., 1st Sess. 87, r epr inted in 1977 U.S.
Code Cong. & Ad. News 4424, 4462. The EPA accordingly has
8
-------
imposed pretreatment standards both foe existing sources (Prefcre?
ment Standards for Existing Soucces or PSES) and for newly-
constructed facilities (Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
or PSNS) . 33 U.S.C. § 1317(c).
Third, though not relevant to this appeal, the Act
requires that the Administrator set effluent limitations for
*
POTWs that treat municipal sewage and industrial waste. 33
U.S.C. §S 1311(b)(1)(B), 1314(d)(1)."
In setting standards, the EPA is directed to consider
five factors: the age of equipment and facilities, the process
employed, engineering aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques, process changes, and nonwater
quality environmental impacts (including energy demands).
33 U.S.C. § 1314(b). A sixth factor involves cost, and in
this regard the Agency is required, for setting BPT limitations,
to refer to "total cost of application of technology in relation
to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved by such applica-
tion." 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b) (1) (B) .• -For BAT, the Act mandates
consideration of "the cost of achieving such effluent reduction."
33 U.S .C. § 1314 (b) (2) (B) .
Prerequlation Agency Activity
The EPA, in 1978, began collecting information later
used to formulate effluent standards for the canmaking industry.
9
-------
Data was gathered from EPA studies, published literature, trade
associations, and can manufacturers. Additionally, meetings
were held between the Agency and industry representatives.
The Agency sent a data collection portfolio in 1978
to each company known or believed to be engaged in aluminum
ft
forming. The portfolios requested specific information concerning
production, wastewater management and treatment, cost information,
and other pollutant information based on 1977 data. Follow-
up portfolios directed specifically at can manufacturers were
mailed and returned in 1982 with similar information based
on 1981 production records.^"® The 1978 portfolios requested
that each company indicate which of a list of 129 TTO pollutants
were believed to be present, believed to be absent, known to
be present, or known to be absent. The 1982 portfolios added
toxic metals and cyanide to this list. Three toxic metals—chromium,
copper, and zinc—were often identified in the 1982 responses
as believed to be present or known to be present.
9
This information was originally requested in conjunc-
tion with the EPA's development of effluent limitation guidelines
in the aluminum forming category. This effort resulted in
the promulgation of limitations. See 40 C.F.R. § 467.01-.67
(1984). Twenty of the companies responding to the 1978 request
were primarily engaged in manufacturing aluminum cans.
The 1982 portfolios were sent to the twenty can
manufacturers included in the 1978 data collection as well
as steel can manufacturers and others not included in the earlier
collection effort. This combined collection resulted in a
data base consisting of information from twenty-one canmaking
companies representing about 100 manufacturing sites.
10
-------
The £.PA conducted engineering and sampling visits
in 1978 and 1979 based on the responses to the first data collec-
tion portfolios. Prior to sampling, all available data, including
plant and wastewater pretreatment facility layouts and diagrams,
were gathered and reviewed. From this information, a detailed
sampling plan was generated identifying the points at which samples
would be collected. Engineering visits were conducted at seven
canmaking plants and five plants were chosen for sampling—for-
manufacturing two-piece aluminum can bodies and one producing
two-piece steel cans.
In conducting the sampling, the EPA took samples
from each operation which discharged or used water, including
rinses. Both influent and final effluent were analyzed for
pollutants.. When streams were treated and discharged separately,
all of the effluents were measured. The samples were collected
and analyzed in accordance with Sampling and Analysis Procedures
for Screening of Industrial Effluents for Priority Pollutants,
U.S. EPA, March 1977, revised April 1977. With respect to
total toxic organics, this sampling revealed seven specific
compounds at concentrations greater than 0.01 mg/L.^1 Other
pollutants detected included conventional pollutants (oil and
^	These seven included:
a.	1,1,1-Trichloroethane
b.	Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
c.	1, 1-Dichloroethylene
d.	Methylene chloride
e.	Bis (2-ethyl hexyl) ether
f.	Butyl benzyl phthalate
g.	Di-n-butyl phthalate
11
-------
grease, suspended solids, and pH), toxic metals (chromium,
copper, nickel, and zinc), and nonconventional pollutants (aluminum,
fluoride, manganese, and phosphorus).
After the data had been analyzed, the EPA, on February 10,
1983, published a proposed regulation in the Federal Register.
48 Fed. Reg. 6267 (Feb. 10, 1983). It outlined various tech-
nologies considered in reaching proposed effluent limitations
for BAT, BPT, NSPS, PSNS , and PSES and explained its research
methods. In setting limitations, the Agency considered various
factors, including the cost of applying technology in relation
to effluent reduction benefits, the age of the involved facilities
and equipment, the processes employed, and additional environ-
mental impacts. . The Agency based its proposed limitations
on a model technology consisting of a combination of oil and
grease removal, chromium reduction and cyanide precipitation,
and precipitation and sedimentation methods in conjunction
with techniques aimed at reducing the flow of water through
the canwashers. It invited comments, however, on more exacting
technologies of possible use in meeting BAT, NSPS, PSNS and
PSES limitations. The Agency proposed to regulate TTO under
PSES and PSNS, but gave to the industry the alternative of
monitoring only for oil and grease limits. The Agency reasoned
that efficient removal of oil and grease eliminated 97% of
the TTO, so that the costly monitoring for toxic organics was
unnecessary and that compliance would be assumed upon a showing
that the oil and grease standards were satisfied.
12
-------
The Agency also explained that its proposed setting
of limitations for certain pollutants was based on data gathered
in regulating other categories of point sources. This included
borrowing values for aluminum from aluminum-forming and coil
coating data; for fluoride and phosphorus from values achieved
in the electric and electronic component manufacturing industries;
and for oil and grease from data derived from the coil coating,
aluminium-forming, and copper-forming industries. "The Agency
referred to these industries from which it transferred data
as the combined metals data base (CMDB). The Agency also referred
to the CMDB in determining to regulate suspended solids, chromium
and zinc
.".-The Agency, in the preamble to the proposed regulation,
referred to the CMDB in explaining aspects of its proposed
model technology. With respect to the oil removal component,
i.e. skimming, dissolved air flotation, and chemical emulsion
breaking, the Agency reasoned that because canmaking generated
amounts of oil and grease comparable -to that from coil coating
and aluminum forming, this technology could be employed in
canmaking as well. Although recognizing that canmaking waste-
streams contained different pollutants than those appearing
in coil coating and aluminum forming effluent, due to the greater
number and variety of forming lubricants and cleaning formulations
employed in canmaking, it concluded that "by controlling the
13
-------
most prevalent toxic metals, some conventional and nonconventional
pollutants, and total toxic organics (TTO) with oil removal
and lime and settle technology, pollutants present as a result
of these variations will also be controlled." The incorporation
into the proposed model technology of filtration and of hydroxide
precipitation and sedimentation was also based on results achieved
by similar technologies in the CMDB.
The proposed regulation solicited comments on all
aspects of the regulation, including data on steel canmakers,
the use of filtration, the effectiveness of oil skimming tech-
nologies and precipitation and sedimentation systems, the use
of the CMDB, and the reasonableness and achievability of the
Agency's cost analysis. The Agency also requested the submission
of additional data from canmaking plants employing properly-
operated model technologies.
Following the publication of the proposed rule, the
Agency provided the development document and the economic impact
analysis supporting the proposed"rule to industry, government
agencies, and the public. A public hearing was held in Washington,
D.C. on April 27, 1983 at which one person presented testimony.
Additionally, fourteen commenters submitted a total of approxi-
mately 330 individual comments on the proposed regulation.
Comments addressed (1) perceived inaccurate data,
(2) difficulty in achieving water flow reduction, (3) transfer-
ability of technology or data from CMDB, (4) perceived inaccu-
11
-------
racies in evaluating pollutants, (5) regulation of aluminium
for indirect dischargers, (6) alleged erroneous finding that
certain pollutants appeared at treatable levels in canmaking
water streams, (7) alleged failures to consider use of synthetic
lubricants, (8) use of mass-based standards rather than those
based on concentration, (9) alleged miscalculation of compliance
costs, (10) economic impacts, and (11) the effect of suggested
deposit legislation on future demand for two-piece cans. Many
of the comments were generated by a self-sampling program of
fourteen aluminum canmaking plants initiated by industry trade
associations, the Can Manufacturing Institute (CMI) and the
United States Brewer's Association (USBA) after promulgation
of the proposed regulation. The Agency accepted some suggestions
contained in the comments but rejected most. It responded
to all of them.
After the comments were submitted, and in response
to the CMI and USBA sampling data, the Agency conducted post-
proposal sampling for metals at seven plants and for TTO at
five plants.. The samples taken during this period were "grab"
samples, i.e. short term samples which were not conducted in
the same manner as the pre-proposal samplings. These grab
samples consisted of process wastewater before treatment (seven
plants), treated wastewater (six plants) , and untreated individual
process streams (two plants). This sampling revealed the presence
of seven additional toxic organic pollutants appearing at treat-
15
-------
12
able levels in canmaking wastestreams. The EPA published
a notice in.the Federal Register on September 22, 1983 describing
the post-proposal sampling and the Agency's preliminary analysis
of data submitted by the various commenters. 48 Fed. Reg.
43195 (Sept. 22, 1983). Six commenters submitted about fifty
comments on the data and issues raised in the September 22,
1983 notice. The Agency, in turn, responded to the additional
comments and made certain modifications based on industry sub-
missions .
The Final Regulation
The Agency published the final regulation for the
canmaking industry in November 1983. In promulgating the regula-
tion, the Agency identified a model technology consisting of
an "end of pipe treatment" in conjunction with flow reduction
techniques. The "end of pipe treatment" includes the removal
of oil and grease from wastewater through the use of oil skimming,
chemical emulsion breaking, dissolved air flotation, or a combina-
tion of these processes. The removal of metals, fluoride,
and phosphorus is accomplished by lime precipitation and chemical
12	. .
These additional pollutants included:
a.	1,1-Dichloroethane
b.	1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
c.	Chloroform
d.	Pentachlorophenol
e.	Phenanthrene
f.	Tetrachlorethylene
g.	Toluene.
16
-------
precipitation in which process alkaline compounds are used
to cause metals such as chromium, copper and zinc to precipitate.
Solids, as well as the metal ions precipitated as a result
of the previous process, are eliminated by sedimentation.
Additionally, pH is adjusted through the use of sodium hydroxide
or lime plus sodium hydroxide. Finally, chromium reduction
is realized by employing reducing agents which reduce hexavalent
chromium to its trivalent form. Then chemical precipitation
is employed to eliminate the resulting trivalent chromium.
Using this model technology, the Agency established standards
for the best practicable control technology currently available
(BPT), the best available technology economically achievable
(BAT), and established new source performance standards (NSPS)
as well as pretreatment standards for both existing sources
(PSES) and new sources (PSNS) .
A.	BPT
In setting BPT limitations-,. the Agency employed the
model treatment, including flow reduction to reduce the flow
of water through the canwasher. Specific effluent values were
established for chromium, zinc, aluminum, phosphorus, fluoride,
oil and grease, total suspended solids, and pH.
B.	BAT
In setting BAT limitations, the Agency employed the
model treatment, but included further flow reduction. Two
17
-------
other options proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking
were rejected.^ Effluent limitations were selected for pollutants
including chromium, zinc, aluminum, fluoride, and phosphorus.
Canmakers were required to limit the discharge of these pollutants
to specified quantities expressed in terms of maximum monthly
and daily discharges. TTO was not^regulated under BAT because
the Agency felt that it would be removed by the oil and grease
removal systems mandated by BPT. Copper, lead, nickel, and
manganese were not regulated because the Agency believed that
these metals would be removed by the model technology when
it was operated with sufficient efficiency to remove the pollution
parameters chosen.
C. NSPS
Effluent limitations for new sources were also insti-
tuted on the basis of application of the model technology.
However, flow reduction was further increased. Effluent limita-
tions were established for oil and grease, total suspended
solids, chromium, zinc, aluminum, fluoride, phosphorus, and
pH. The oil and grease limitation was used in order to control
TTO, the Agency explained, because of these pollutants' high
13
These options involved the use of filters and/or
ultrafiltration techniques. The Agency's rejection was based
in part on its conclusion that the expenses of installing further
pollution control devices was not economically justified in
view of the small amount of additional pollutants that could
be removed.
18
-------
solubility in oil, i.e. removal of oil and grease would also
remove acceptable amounts of TTO present in the wastestreams.
Nickel, copper, and lead were not regulated under NSPS because
the Agency believed that these pollutants would be reduced
incidentally by the model treatment technology.
D. Pretreatment Standards
Although the regulation controls the discharge of
a number of pollutants as indicated earlier, it is the regulation
of total toxic organics and toxic metals that form the principal
issues on this appeal. TTO is specifically controlled only
by pretreatment standards—that is, under PSES and PSNS. As
has been indicated, TTO is not specifically controlled for
direct dischargers (BPT, BAT or NSPS) but only under PSES and
PSNS for indirect dischargers. Many of petitioners' objections
to this regulation then relate not to the data collected for
BPT, BAT and NSPS technologies but only to the TTO data collected
for control of indirect dischargers under PSES and PSNS.
The model technology selected by the Agency for setting
PSES standards is the same as for BAT, while that selected
for PSNS is identical to that for NSPS. The Agency also explained
that "pass-through" existed with regards to TTO. It reasoned
that while a POTW would remove 70% of these pollutants from
untreated wastewaters, treating the wastewater by oil and grease
removal, as demonstrated in the aluminum forming category,
19
-------
would achieve a 97% reduction. Pass-through having been estab-
lished, the Agency promulgated effluent limitation standards
for TTO. However, because the Agency recognized that monitoring
for TTO was a costly and time consuming process, oil and grease
standards were established as an alternative monitoring parameter,
i.e. a canmaking facility could meet the effluent limitation
for TTO by satisfying the standards set for the removal of
oil and grease.
Although petitioners allege error in the Agency's
regulation of toxic metals for direct dischargers (considered
infra), their disagreement with pretreatment standards or regula-
tion of indirect dischargers of toxic metals under PSES and
PSNS relate to the Agency's findings that toxic metals "pass-
through" a POTW.
With respect to chromium, zinc, copper, and manganese,
the Agency reasoned that a well-operated POTW would remove
50%-60% of these pollutants while the model technology would
remove 92%. Accordingly, "passrthrough" was demonstrated and
pretreatment standards were established for these pollutants.
No standard was established for aluminum because alum, an aluminum
sulfate, is often added to wastewater at a POTW. Manganese
and copper were chosen because these substances are employed
as alloying constituents along with aluminum in canmaking and
20
-------
ic was believed that removal of manganese and copper would
result in acceptable removal of aluminum. The treatment effective
ness for copper and manganese was drawn from the CMD3.
I.
Again, the errors argued by petitioners on this appeal
%
are: that the effluent limitations for total toxic organics
were so marred by erroneous data collection and selection that
we must view the Agency's actions as arbitrary and capricious
and its conclusions as resulting from unreasoned judgments;
that the Agency erred in not subcategorizing the canmaking
industry into point sources that use chromium as a can coating
and those that use other coating material; that it erroneously
applied the "pass-through" criteria in formulating that PSES
and PSNS limitations on chromium, copper and zinc in the waste-
water of indirect dischargers; and that it failed to exercise
its statutory duty to consider the costs imposed by the regula-
tion. With respect to petitioners' challenge regarding TTO
limitations, we note that no argument has been advanced that
the oil and grease limitations established by the Agency as
an alternative monitoring parameter cannot be met.
II.
The Standard of Review
The scope of our review of the Agency's action in
this case is governed by § 10(e) (2) (A) of the Administrative
21
-------
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2) (A). That standard provides
that we may set aside the Agency's action only if it is found
to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or other-
wise not in accordance with law." Id. Under this standard,
we presume the validity of Agency action, Ethyl Corp. v. EPA,
541 F.2d 1, 34 (D.C. Cir.) (en banc), cert, denied, 426 U.S.
941 (1976), and our function is to scrutinize the Agency's
activity to discern whether the record reveals that a rational
basis exists for the Agency's decision. Id.; Bowman Transporta-
tion Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281,
286 (1974).
The scope of our review is further colored by the
policy of the Clean Water Act and the sophisticated data evalua-
tions mandated by that lengthy and complicated statute. The
Act expresses a congressional insistence to eliminate water _
pollution within a short time-span through the use of uniform
effluent limitations imposed on an industry-wide basis. This
need for quick action and cross-iridustry application demands
that we exercise our review of these regulations with consider-
able circumspection. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Costle, 604
F.2d 239, 243 (4th Cir. 1979); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle,
590 F.2d 1011, 1025 (D.C. Cir. 1978). Further, technological
and scientific issues, such as those presented in this case,
are by their very nature difficult to resolve by traditional
principles of judicial decisionmaking. For this reason, "[w]e
must look at the decision not as the chemist, biologist or
22
-------
statistician that we are qualified neither by training nor
experience to be, but as a reviewing court exercising our narrowly
defined duty of holding agencies to certain minimal standards
of rationality." Ethyl Corp., 541 F.2d at 36. More specifically,
we note that an agency's data selection and choice of statistical
.methods are entitled to great deference, FMC Corp. v. Train,
539 F.2d 973, 986 (4th Cic. 1976); American Meat Institute
v_i_EPA, 526 F.2d 442, 457 (7th Cir. 1975), and its conclusions
with respect to data and analysis need only fall, within a "zone
of reasonableness." Hercules, Inc. v. EPA, 598 F.2d 91, 107
(D.C. Cir. 1978). This standard, however, does not compel
us to abdicate our judicial function, and we are mindful that
the Agency "must fully explicate its course of inquiry, its
analysis, and its reasoning." Tanner's Council of America,
Inc. v. Train, 540 F.2d 1188, 1191 (4th Cir. 1976).
With these principles in mind, we review the Agency's
action during rulemaking to determine if it abused its discretion
in promulgating the regulation.
III.
We consider first petitioners' several arguments
relating to their contention that the Agency committed reversible
error in setting pretreatment standards limiting effluence
of total toxic organics. The Agency, in setting pretreatment
standards, reasoned that oil and grease removal would result
in a 97% removal of TTO. It reached that conclusion based
23
-------
on the testing of wastewater in rulemaking for the aluminum
forming industry. Although the aluminum forming wastewater
contained a much higher concentration of TTO (25.7 mg/L) than
did canmaking wastewater, the Agency concluded that the percentage
of TTO removable by the model technology (97%) would be similar.
In establishing canmaking standards, the Agency relied on data
indicating that wastewater from canmaking facilities contained
an average of 2.727 milligrams of TTO in each liter of wastewater
(2.727 mg/L). Deducting 97% of that, the Agency arrived at
a mean expected TTO concentration of 0.08 mg/L and, factoring
in variables in the model technology, the Agency established
.32 mg/L as an allowable one-day maximum TTO concentration.14
The oil and grease removal technology recommended
for the canmaking industry, therefore, was conceived in the
regulation of another source category—the aluminum forming
industry. The Agency's regulation of the aluminum forming
industry is, of course, not a subject of this appeal, but the
Agency transferred1^ oil and grease removal technology from
14
The limitation applies to both existing indirect
dischargers and new indirect dischargers, that is PSES and
PSNS. The final regulation expresses this limitation in terms
of grams or pounds per 1,000,000 cans. The Agency explained
that it used mass-based standards because such standards properly
reflected the use of water flow reduction techniques.
15
This is the procedure in informal rulemaking where
an agency determines that a standard governing one industry
can be transferred in whole or in part to another industry.
See Tanner's Council of America, Inc. v. Train, 540 F.2d 1188,
1191-92 (4th Cir. 1976) .
24
-------
that category to the canmakiuy category. The petitioners initial
contend that the regulation was not valid even as it applied
to the aluminum forming industry due to the flawed method by
which the Agency collected data.
(a^
The petitioners' primary complaints concerning the
transfer of aluminum forming removal efficiency challenge the
way in which the Agency sampled and tested the aluminum forming
wastewater. They state that the Agency compared one day's
influent concentration to another day's effluent concentration,
t '	.
or compared one day's influent or effluent concentration to
the average concentration of several days ertiuent or influent.
The petitioners urge that this error in testing was compounded
by errors of taking wastewater samples from improper locations
in the water flow systems. The Agency tested three plants
in five days, say the petitioners, and the efficiency was unknown
for one day and varied between 97% and 99% for the other four
days. If the samples had been accurately taken, they contend
that the TTO removal efficiency would have varied between 76%
and 99%.
The Agency responds that use of even the comparisons
and sampling points suggested by the petitioners reveals a
constant removal efficiency approximating 97%. Additionally,
25
-------
the Agency points out that most of these objections were not
raised in the rulemaking procedure. The parties tabulate and
chart much of the same raw data and sometimes utilize the same
tables and charts, but arrive at their different conclusions
concerning the removal efficiency percentage. As frequently
has been written, we do not sit as a scientific body minutely
comparing competing research methods and results. See BASF
Wyandotte Corn, v. Costle. 598 F.2d 637, 649-50 (1st Cir. 1979).
As a reviewing court, we have delved deeply enough into this
essentially scientific disagreement to understand it for our
purposes—judicial review of the administrative agency's actions
under the standards of review we have previously discussed.
The Agency here chose five representative canmaking plants where
it gathered water samples. It had previously, as explained in
its rulemaking, designed procedures and protocols for sampling
and analysis to protect their scientific integrity. The peti-
tioners argue with the choice of testing sites within the water
systems and with the Agency's methods of comparing samples.
The Agency explained its methods during rulemaking and insisted
cnere and here on appeal that their methods were scientifically
correct, we do not judge that; we view their actions under
a judicial glass and readily discern that they have acted reason-
ably, given the regulated industry's representatives more than
26
-------
adequate opportunity to comment, considered the comments, and
explained their rejection. This is indeed reasoned administrative
decisionmaking, and we have no occasion to interfere in that
process.
(b)
The petitioners next contend that, even if the 97%
removal efficiency was correctly calculated in aluminum forming,
it is not a valid assumption when applied in canmaking. First,
they contend that removal of oil and grease removes a greater
percentage of TTO from wastewater highly concentrated with
TTO than wastewater with lower concentrations.
The petitioners argue that at concentrations of less
than 2.12 rag/L, removal of oil and grease only removes 7 6%
of the TTO. Demonstrating by graph a 97% removal rate for .
TTO at a concentration of 25.7 mg/L (as found in the aluminum
forming category) and a 76% removal rate at concentration of
2.12 mg/L, they argue that the removal efficiency percentage
for a 2.727 mg/L concentration, as found in the canmaking industry
Is only 80%. Petitioners reach this conclusion by charting
the removal rates that they contend would have been demonstrated
had the sampling been conducted properly, i.e. removal efficien-
cies fluctuating between 76% and 99.0% depending on the amount
of TTO present.
-------
Additionally, petitioners cite the report of Murray P.
Strier, that they contend was used along with others by the
Agency, and which demonstrates that only trace amounts of eight
of the fourteen regulated TTO pollutants found in canmaking
wastewater could be removed by the model technology. Finally,
in this part of their argument, petitioners list the tested
achievable treatment levels for the fourteen toxic pollutants
(ranging from 0 mg/L to .10 mg/L), total them, and arrive at
an achievable level of TTO in the wastewater after treatment
by the model technology of 0.413 mg/L.16 They, therefore,
assert that the TTO discharge level permitted by the regulation
(.32 mg/L) is significantly lower than what is actually achievable.
The Agency characterizes the petitioners' reasoning
as seriously flawed. It is not the concentration of organics
that determines the percentage that can be removed, argues
the Agency; removal efficiency depends upon the octanol/water
partition coefficient and the concentration of oil.1^ If the
organics have a high partition coefficient and there is sufficient
oil in the wastewater, virtually all of the organics will be
absorbed by the oil and removed by effective oil removal technology.
16
Strier's report, according to petitioners, demon-
strates an achievable level of .8L5 mg/L.
^ The octanol/water partition coefficient reflects
the ability of a toxic organic to be absorbed in oil. A high
coefficient reflects an increased solubility in oil, and conse-
quently a greater potential to be removed along with oil and
grease. The octanol/water partition coefficient for the regu-
lated TTO ranges from 1.25 to 8.73, indicating high solubility.
28
-------
Since all fourteen organics found in canmaking wastewaters
are highly soluble in oil and there are high levels of oil
1Q
present, scientific analysis reinforces the conclusion based
on the sampling data collected from aluminum forming wastewater.
Moreover, the Agency disputes the petitioners' con-
centration estimates. The Agency points out that the data
chosen by the petitioners to calculate the amount of toxic
organics in canmaking wastewater represents the condition of
the wastewater before flow reduction mandated by the model
technology is applied. That part of the required technology,
unchallenged by the petitioners, reduces the amount or water
and obviously increases the concentration of TTO in the water.
An Agency table shows that TTO concentration will increase
¦s.
several times after application of flow reduction required
for meeting both PSNS and PSES . The Agency dismisses the "Strier
report" as based on a different technology than that developed
by the Agency and avers that although it possessed the Strier
material, it was not used in their determinations. The Agency
thoroughly considered removal efficiency in the canmaking content,
and we find no abuse of its discretion.
18
The data indicated that aluminum forming generated
17,752 mg/L of oil and grease while canmaking produced 19,838
mg/L of oil and grease.
29
-------
(c)
The petitioners next contend that the Agency erred
in arriving at its mean concentration value of 2.727 mg/L in
canmaking wastewater because it did not include in its average
the data from sampling points where it was indicated that a
particular pollutant was not present. The Agency replies that
it purported to show an average of only the pollutants that
were present and subject to removal and that it would have
been senseless to devise a standard which included toxic organics
that did not have to be removed because they were not present
in the first place. We agree with the Agency that it acted
well within its assigned role in selecting the method to tabulate
the data needed to reflect the pollutant composition of the
wastewater under examination.
The petitioners, both in complaining about the efficacy
of TTO sampling and in attacking the Agency's costs considera-
tions (considered infra), advance another asserted error in
sampling. They contend that in addition to the samples taken
in 1977 and 1978, the 1933 "grab" samples should have been
added to the equations and, if included, would have produced
for them a favorable result. That argument overlooks the explana-
tion offered by the Agency in the preamble to the regulation
and reiterated on appeal--that the 1983 sampling was not designed
for scientifically accurate computation but was designed to
obtain approximate values and to respond to Agency conclusions
called into question by the CMI and USBA sampling conducted
30-
-------
after promulgation of the proposed regulation. This has been
explained and reiterated administratively, yet the petitioners
insist thatwe weigh judicially these Agency actions, which
are without the sphere of judicial review. We decline.
(d).
The petitioners urge that the technology designed
in aluminum forming is not transferable to canmaking. Here,
they repeat many of their arguments that the Agency's calculation
of the percentage efficiency of pollutant removal was faulty.
i
They argue that the technology developed in the aluminium forming
category is, for the same reasons, not legally transferable
to the canmaking subcategory.
•In Tanner's Council of America, Inc. v. Train, 540
F.2d 1188 (4th Cir. 1976), we considered the propriety of trans-
ferring the results of pollution technology from one industry
to another as the basis for Clean Water Act standards. We
stated that "[t]his transfer of technology is permissible only
'if he (the Administrator) determines the technology to achieve
those higher levels can be practicably applied.'" Id. at 1192,
quoting S. Rep. No. 414, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971), A Legis-
lative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. 1468. We quoted with approval
the criteria developed by the Eighth Circuit*"^ to determine
19
CPC International, Inc. v. Train, 515 F.2d 1032,
1043 (8th Cir. 1975) .
31
-------
it a technology can be practicably applied: the Agency must
"(1) show that the transfer technology is available outside
the industry; (2) determine that the technology is transferable
to the industry; (3) make a reasonable prediction that the
technology if used in the industry will be capable of removing
the increment required by the effluent standards." Tanner's
Council, 540 F.2d at 1192 (footnote omitted).
The Agency demonstrated in the aluminum forming category
that the removal of oil and grease by the technology would
result in acceptable reduction of TTO. The Agency also explained
that in light of the similar amounts of oil and grease present
in canmaking and aluminum forming wastestreams, the removal
technology could be applied in both industries. Finally, as
we have explained, the Agency offered a reasoned justification
for the transfer, based on data demonstrating that the TTO
found in canmaking effluent was highly soluble in oil and thus
the technology could be expected to remove an adequate amount
of these pollutants. We note further that this issue was fully
aired during the rulemaking procedure and that the Agency has
consistently held to its position and exhaustively explicated
its reasons for the transfer of technology. We find no abuse
of the Agency's discretion in this regard and hold that the
transfer of technology was amply justified.
32
-------
(e)
The petitioners also assert that the Agency abased
its discretion in even regulating TTO under PSES and PSNS.
The petitioners point to the Agency's decision not to regulate
the coil coating category under PSES and PSNS because the TTO
concentration in wastewater from that category was only approxi-
mately 1.47 mg/L and argue that, according to their calculations,
TTO concentration in canmaking wastewater is only 1.145 mg/L.
The statutory criteria for determining to impose
pretreatment standards is whether pollutants generated by a
facility would interfere with, pass-through, or otherwise be
incompatible with the POTW. See 33 CJ.S.C. § 1317(b). The
petitioners, again relying on their calculations rather than
the Agency's, insist that direct dischargers, by removing oil
and grease from canmaking wastewater, can remove only .413
mg/L. Using the Agency's assumption that a well-run POTW can
remove 70% of TTO and the petitioners' TTO concentration calcu-
lations of 1.145 mg/L, they attempt to demonstrate that a POTW
receiving wastewater without pretreatment by removal of oil
and grease would eliminate all but .344 mg/L TTO (i.e. 30%
x 1.145). Since the .344 residual TTO after POTW treatment
is less than .413 mg/L, which petitioners argue is the maximum
level of TTO achievable by a direct discharge through oil and
grease removal, the pass-through criteria, they argue, is not
met because the POTW can remove a greater percentage of TTO
than a direct discharger.
33
-------
Assuming the correctness of the petitioners' calcula-
tions, we would be greatly concerned with this argument. However,
the 1.145 nig/L TTO concentration in canraaking is at odds with
the Agency's tabulated 2.727 mg/L concentration. We would
be hard put to accept that the 1.145 concentration had been
proved by a preponderance of the evidence—yet, of course,
that is not the test. Additionally, the .413 mg/L that the
petitioners propound as the achievable level of TTO removal
is considerably greater than the .32 mg/L limit imposed by
the regulation. We are convinced that the Agency properly
exercised its administrative role in reaching the conclusion
that there is a 2.727 mg/L concentration of TTO in canmaking
wastewater and that pass-through has been demonstrated—we
need go "no further.
Although not determinative, we note again that a
number of the objections petitioners now level at Agency data
were either not raised or not fully explained to the Agency
during rulemaking. To raise such material for the first time
on appeal is unfortunate from both an administrative and appellate
standpoint. The Agency in this case has complied strictly
with the notice and comment procedures required by the Administra-
tive Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553 , and petitioners do not
attack the regulation on the ground of procedural irregularity
or infirmity. The Agency has not cloaked its consideration
in secrecy—adequate notice was given in the proposed regulation
34
-------
and the Agency has exhibited an admirable willingness to consider
matters brought up by comments submitted by petitioners and
others in the industry. An enormous amount of explanatory
and technical data has been generated, including development
documents, comments and responses, economic analyses, and scien-
tific data. Despite this adequate opportunity to comment and
* «
the clear explanation of the Agency's intent, many of the argu-
ments relating to the Agency's conclusions regarding the removal
of TTO in the aluminum forming category and the transfer of
technology to the canmaking subcategory were not presented
to the Agency during the rulemaking procedure. Under such
circumstances "the notice-comment-and-response procedures will ¦
have been deprived of murh of their validity, and the party
responsible therefor will accordingly be given less latitude
in complaining about the results." Weyerhaeuser, 590 F.2d
at 1028 n.15 (emphasis in original); see also National Association
of Metal Finishers v. EPA. 719 F.2d 624, 638 (3d Cir. 1983).
IV.
The petitioners' attack on the Agency's regulation
of the discharge of chromium, zinc, and copper by indirect
dischargers in one respect differs from their attack on the
regulation of toxic organics and in another respect parallels
their objection to toxic organic regulation.
35
-------
(a)
The first objection is that the presence of chromium
is overstated because the Agency abused its discretion by con-
sidering canmaking as a single category of a source of water
pollution rather than creating a subcategory for plants that
use a chromium-based manufacturing^ process. As was pointed
out in our previous discussion, there are only a few canmaking
plants that now use chromium as a coating. This is significant
because not only do the plants using the chromium coating process
discharge wastewaters with a higher percentage of chromium,
but hexavalent chromium is more prevalent than trivalent chromium.
Hexavalent chromium is many times more toxic than trivalent
chromium. The Agency recognizes that levels of chromium pollu-
tants from plants using the chromium process^ are much higher
than levels from those using nonchromium processes, but it
insists that some chromium is present in the wastewaters from
all plants and that, regardless, the chromium effluent limitation
which it set can be readily achieved .by all plants.
The Act requires the Agency to establish effluent
limitations "for categories and classes of point sources."
33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A). It must also "designate the category
or categories of sources" to which pretreatment standards apply.
20
A memorandum by Ernest P. Hall, Chief of the Agency's
Metals and Machinery Branch, indicated that while one industry
source estimated that 30 plants used chromium surface treatment,
another source claimed only three. The memo further stated
that because at least seven plants had installed chromium reduc-
tion equipment, at least that many plants still employed the
chromium process.
36
-------
33 U.S.C. § 1317(b)(3). Here/ it is the fixing of a single
pretreatment standard that precipitates the petitioners' complaint.
This is another area of judicial review, however, where we
will not reverse the Agency's determination unless it abused
its discretion, and the Agency need not account for all possible
differences among plants. American Iron and Steel Institute
%
v. EPA, 568 P.2d 284, 297-99 (3dCir. 1978).
In the development document, the Agency discussed
thirteen factors it considered in deciding whether to subcate-
gorize further the canmaking subcategory. One of these factors
was the manufacturing process employed. In discussing this
factor, the Agency made no mention of differing surface treat-
ments; petitioners contend that these differing surface treat-
ments constitute a difference in "manufacturing processes"
and that the Agency abused its discretion in failing to subcate-
gorize on this basis. Even if this were error, we do not feel
that it is of sufficient magnitude to require reversal of the
Agency's decision.
In the first place, the Agency on appeal stresses
that while most of the plants now use nonchromium coating pro-
cesses, they are constructed so that they can use either chromium-
or nonchromium-based treatments. Consequently, although chromium
surface treatments may be out of favor at this time, the manu-
facturing process itself remains capable of using chromium
in the future. The regulation of a pollutant now in use in
some plants and capable of being employed in others does not
37
-------
appear to us to be unreasonable. Secondly, the Agency points
out that there are chromium pollutants, in some quantity, dis-
") 1
charged from all plants. The Agency's task was to establish
numerical standards limiting effluent pollution and it concen-
trated on grouping plants that could meet the same limitations.
That this is a legitimate consideration, there can be no doubt.
See Vol. 1, Legislative History of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, at 172. The Agency urges that
even if the canmaking industry was further subcategorized,
the effluent standards would probably be the same. The peti-
tioners have not shown that it would be otherwise, but even
if they could we do not think the Agency has abused its discretion
in creating a single canmaking category. Before making that
decision, it considered all relevant factors and provided reasoned
\
explanations for its actions for which there was a substantial
2 2
basis in the record.
21	'' •
In this regard, we note that in the 1978 portfolios,
38 plants reported chromium as known to be present in their
wastewaters. See 48 Fed. Reg. 6267, at 6272 (Feb. 10, 1983).
22
During this appeal, petitioners submitted documents
indicating that one of the plants sampled in 1978, which at
that time used chromium-based surface coatings, had since dis-
continued such use. Thus, petitioners urge, the values for
the industry are considerably less than originally calculated.
Here again, petitioners failed to bring this to the Agency's
attention during the rulemaking procedures and arguably should
not now be heard. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011,
1028 n.15 (D.C. Cir. 1978); American Frozen Food Institute
v. Train. 539 F.2d 107, 135 (D.C. Cir. 1976). However, even
considering petitioners' evidence, we find no reason to overturn
the Agency's action because the information does not serve
to rebut the Agency's argument that chromium application may
be used without changing the process employed.
38
-------
¦(b)
The petitioners' second objection to the regulation
of toxic metals is that chromium, zinc, and copper do not meet
the pass-through criteria for regulation under PSES. In other
words, they contend that a well operated POTW would remove
more chromium, zinc, and copper froin wastewater discharged
*
into it without pretreatment than would be removed by direct
dischargers employing the model technology.
As in its attack on the TTO standards, however, the
petitioners use different data for their demonstration.^
Importantly, they overlook the water flow reduction which is
part of the model technology—with the water flow reduced the
concentrations of chromium, zinc, and copper are much greater
and pass-through criteria easily met. Apart from that, peti-
tioners show at most a disagreement with the Agency without
a showing that the Agency was guilty of serious technological
errors in testing, calculating, and applying the results of
the tests so as to achieve their basic goal—a uniform achievable
standard which would prevent an optimum amount of toxic metals
from reaching the nation's waters.
23
Petitioners exclude data from one plant that was
employing chromium-based surface treatments at the time of
the 1973-79 sampling and include the results of the 1933 Agency
grab samples conducted after the issuance of the proposed regula-
tion.
19
-------
v.
The petitioners' final major assault on the regulation
attacks the Agency's analysis and "consideration" of the cost
effectiveness of treatment options. The Act requires the Agency,
in identifying BPT, to consider "the total cost of application
of technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits
to be achieved from such application." 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(1)(B).
In identifying BAT technology and promulgating NSPS, PSES and
PSNS standards, however, the Agency is not required to con
"effluent reduction benefits," but must "take into account
direct and indirect costs. 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(2)(B). Th
petitioners contend the Agency failed to fulfill these stal
duties.
For BPT there must be a "limited balancing" of costs
against benefits, but as regards BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS no
balancing is required—only that costs be considered along
with the other factors discussed previously. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1314(b)(1)(B),
(b) (2) (B) . National Ass'n Metal Finishers v. EPA, 719 F.2d
624, 662-663 (3rd Cir. 1984); Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d
1011 at 1046.
The petitioners concede that the Agency "considered"
costs but contend that its analysis was so faulty that promul-
gating the regulation in face of what the actual cost and actual
cost/benefits results should have been amounts to an abuse of
discretion. The Agency calculated the cost of BPT for direct
dischargers at $50/lb. The petitioners contend this cost should
40
-------
be $17,7lO/lb, or a cost 350 times that calculated by the Agency.
Similarly, it is contended that the Agency grossly understated th€
cost of pretreatment. The petitioners argue that these alleged
gross inaccuracies resulted from three principal factors—the
Agency's failure to (1) establish a separate subcategory for
plants using the chromium-based manufacturing process; (2)
*
include its 1983 wastewater sampling data in its calculations;
and (3) correctly differentiate between the amounts of high
toxic chromium (hexavalent chromium) and low toxic chromium
(trivalent) which were present in wastewater.- They also contend
that the Agency erred in calculating costs at incremental levels
of the technology rather than the overall benefit for each
treatment level.
">sThe first two objections to the cost analysis considera-
tion repeat the arguments we have rejected in part IV. There
is no reason to reconsider them. An agency has a broad discre-
tion in its selection of data and in the method of calculation,
particularly when it involves highly-scientific or technical
considerations. Hercules, Inc. v. EPA. 598 F.2d 91, 108 (D.C.
Cir. 1978); American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 540 F.2d 1023,
1035-36 (10th Cir. 1976) .
Similarly, we think that the Agency's action in con-
sidering costs at incremental levels to be properly within
its discretion. The Agency explained in its Cost Effectiveness
Analysis that cost-effectiveness was defined as "the incremental
41
-------
annualized cost of a pollution control option in an industry
or industry, subcategory per incremental pound equivalent of
pollution removed by that control option." We find no abuse
of discretion of its decision to analyze costs on this basis
and hold that this was a reasonable effort by the Agency which
must be upheld. FMC Corp. v. Train. 539 F.2d 973, 979 (4th
Cir. 1976).
The Agency's estimate of the hexavalent/trivalent
mix in canmaking wastewater, however, gives us some pause.
We are of the opinion that the Agency's reasoning in this one
particular was far from faultless, but we are reluctant to
remand the regulation because of this one error when a corrected
result would not affect the regulation. Determining that it
would not, we decline to reverse on this ground.
The "cost effectiveness" of a technology is defined
as an annualized capital cost of the technology per "pound
equivalent" of pollutant removed by such technology. "Pound
equivalent" is a term used to express the varying degrees of
toxicity of different pollutants, wherein toxicity is standardized
by reference to the toxicity of copper. The "pound equivalent"
of a particular pollutant is the number of pounds of copper
that are equivalent in toxicity to one pound of a given pollutant.
The toxic weight of hexavalent chromium is 19.3 and that for
trivalent chromium is 0.127.
42
-------
The true mix of hexavalent to trivalent chromium
was a contested issue during the rulemaking. Commenters con-
tended that of the chromium present in wastewater, virtually
all of it was in trivalent form, although the Agency argues
that no commenter submitted any data to support that claim.
The Agency responded that B[b]ased o„n the data available
. . . chromium is present in the wastewaters of almost all
canmaking plants, .... II]n the absence of specific steps
to reduce chromium, chromium in canmaking wastewaters can be
expected to appear in hexavalent form." Nonetheless, the Agency
attempted to compensate for its failure to distinguish between
hexavalent and trivalent chromium in the final Cost Effectiveness
Analysis which was issued contemporaneously with the final
regulation:
Two key estimates were made with regard
to chromium pollutant loadings. Since
these values are reported for total chromium
only, the precise mix between hexavalent
and trivalent chromium (which have toxic
weights of 19.3 and .127, respectively)
is not known. To calculate CE values,
it was estimated that the chromium mix
is 50% hexavalent and 50% trivalent before
treatment, and 24% hexavalent and 76%_triva- •
lent after lime and settle treatment.
We do not agree with the Agency's argument that the
petitioners had a primary duty to demonstrate the percentage
24	i
Data from one plant tends to support the Agency s
estimate in that testing revealed .46 mg/L of hexavalent chromium
out of 1.7 mg/L of total chromium, yielding a mix of 26%/74%
hexavalent/t r ivalent.
43
-------
of hexavalent chromium present in its wastewaters. We think,
however, that the record demonstrates that the Agency satisfied
the statutory requirement that it consider costs.
As we stated in FMC Corp. v. Train. 539 F.2d 973
(4th Cir. 1976):
«
The Act's overriding objective of elimin-
ating...the discharge of pollution into
the waters of our Nation indicates that
Congress, in its legislative wisdom, has
determined that the many intangible benefits
of clean water justify vesting the Adminis-
trator with broad discretion, just short
of being arbitrary or capricious, in his
consideration of the cost of pollution
abatement.
Id. at 978-79. See also American Iron and Steel Institute
v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027, 1031 (3rd Cir. 1974) (cost of compliance
¦s
"not a factor to be given primary importance").
In promulgating this regulation, the Agency, through
25
a subcontractor, conducted exhaustive economic impact analyses
2 6
and cost effectiveness analyses. The cost effectiveness analyses
examined the cost effectiveness of regulatory alternatives
with respect to indirect and direct dischargers as well as
each type of controlled pollutant. Additionally, the subcontractor
analyzed the impact of the regulation on such diverse aspects
25
Policy Planning & Evaluation, Inc.
2 fi
Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Effluent Standards
and Limitations for the Canmakinq Subcategory o£- the Coil Coating
Category, November 1983.
44
-------
as plant-level profitability, capital requirements, plant closure
new plant construction, small businesses, and plant characteristics.
i
Further the development documents contain estimated compliance
costs which were the subject of numerous comments and responses.
Although we do not condone the Agency's treatment
of the issue concerning the hexavalent/trivalent chromium mix,
*
the record indicates that it carefully considered all other
cost factors and, in this one particular, made an estimate
of the differing quantities of hexavalent and trivalent chromium
which has support in the administrative record. Importantly,
it also concluded that even if its estimates were completely
erroneous, it would not have affected the regulation. In sum,
we believe that the record demonstrates that the Agency made
a reasonable effort in analyzing costs and on that basis the
regulation must be upheld. See FMC Corn, v. Train, 539 F.2d
973, 979 (4th Cir. 1976).
Conclus ion
For all of the foregoing reasons, the effluent limita-
tions for the canmaking industry are upheld, and the petitions
denied.
DENIED.
45
-------
CANMAKING SUBCATEGORY OF THE COIL COATING
INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY
We issued final effluent limitations guidelines for best practic-
able control technology (BPT), best available control technology
economically achievable (BAT); and new source performance standards
(NSPS), and pretreatrnent standards for existing and new sources
(PSES and PSNS) on November 8, 1983 ( 48 FR 52580 , November 17,
1983 ) for the canmaking subcategory of the coil coating point
source category. , They will be effective January 2, 1984. We
based BPT on flow normalization and model end-of-pipe treatment
technology consisting of oil removal by skimming, chemical emulsion
breaking, dissolved air flotation or a combination of these
technologies, chromium reduction where necessary, and removal of
other pollutants by lime and settle technology (L&S). BAT and
PSES reduced the BPT flow by 60 percent and NSPS and PSNS were
based on flow reduction beyond the BAT level, in addition to the
BPT model end-of-pipe treatment technology. The compliance dead-
line for BAT is July 1, 1984; the PSES deadline is November 17,
1986 and compliance for NSPS and PSNS is when the plant begins
operation.
As a result of public comment on the proposal, we made individual
plant visits and collected additional data and information.
After analyzing the new data and making these available for
comment, we decided to make certain additional flow allowances
and other slight modifications in the regulation. With respect
to flow reduction, we changed the model technology from counter-
current cascade rinsing to counterflow rinsing. Flows for BAT
and PSES were increased from proposal because of this change.
There is one major legal issue presented by this regulation. It
concerns the selection of a less stringent technology option for
BAT and PSES and for NSPS and PSNS on the basis of cost-effective-
ness considerations alone. Under the Clean Water Act, there are
strong arguments that cost-effectiveness considerations were given
considerable weight in rejecting the more stringent technology
option; e.g., filtration. The Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) has challenged the petroleum refining effluent limitations
guidelines on this basis. Because the incremental effluent
reduction benefits of adding filtration to the model treatment
technology are so small, we believe the likelihood of suit by
NRDC or another environmental group is also small. It is uncer-
tain whether or not industry will petition for judicial review
of this regulation. Issuance for the purpose of judicial review
was December 1, 1983, and the deadline for legal challenge is
March 1, 1984.
The Public Record will be available January 23, 1984 for review at
the EPA Public Information Reference Unit, Waterside Mall, Rm.
2922, 401 M St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. The project
officer is Mary Belefski and she can be contacted at (202) 38 2—
7153.
-------
14104
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 70 / Tuesday, April 10. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 465
IFRL-2S61-2]
Cod Coating Point Source Category,
Canmaklng Subcategory, Effluent
Limitations GukteMnea, Pretraatment
Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency.
action: Notice of correction of final
rule.
summary: This document corrects the
promulgated limitations and standards
for the Coil Coaling Point Source
Category. Canmaking Subcategory that
appeared in the Federal Register on
Thursday, November 17,1983 (48 FR
52380).
This action is necessary to correct
typographical errors in the document.
ADDRESSES: Technical information may
be obtained by writing to Ms. Mary L.
Belefski, Effluent Guidelines Division
(WH-552). EPA, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington. D.C. 20460, or by calling
(202) 382-7126. Copies of the technical
and economic documents may be
obtained from the National Technical
Information Service. Springfield, VA
22161 (703) 487-4600.
The Record is available for public
review in EPA's Public Information
Reference Unit, Room 2004 (Rear) (EPA
Library), 401 M St., SW., Washington,
D.C. Tlie EPA information regulation (40
CFR Part 2) provides that a reasonable
fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ernst P. Hall. (202) 382-7128.
Corrections:
1.	On page 52380, column 3, line 13,
change "NSP" to "NSPS".
2.	On page 52382, column 1, line 59,
change "data supplied was used" to
"data supplied were used".
3.	On page 52382, column 2, line 32,
change "Seamed cans" to "seamed
cans".
4.	On page 52383, column 1, line 23,
change "Stokes law" to "Stokes* law".
5.	On page 52384, column 3, line 50.
change "215.01/1000 cans" to "215.01/
1000 cans".
6.	On page 52384, column 3, line 52,
change "20.3 1/1000 cans" to "20.3 1/
1000 cans".
7.	On page 52384, column 3, line 53,
change "9641/1000 cans" to "064 1/1000
cans".
8.	On page 52385. column 1, line 8,
change "for which we have date" to "for
which we have data".
9.	On page 52385, column 1, line 30,
change "Chromium " to "chromium".
10.	On page 52385, column 1, line 52,
change "Based limitations on the BPT'
to "based limitations based on the BPT".
11.	On page 52385. column 2, line 47,
change "83.B 1/1000 cans" to "83.9 1/
1000 cans".
12.	On page 52385, column 3, line 8,
change "Chromium" to "chromium".
13.	On page 52385. column 3, line 53,
change $0,017 million" to "$0,014
million".
14.	On page 52385, column 3, line 59,
change "14 1/1000 cans" to "14 1/1000
cans".
15.	On page 52388, column 1, line 10,
change "63.8 1/1000 cans" to "63.8 1/
1000 cans".
18. On page 52388, column 1, line 26,
change "Chromium" to "chromium".
17.	On page 52388, column 3. line 26.
change "0.01 mg/l" to "0.01 mg/1".
18.	On page 52387, column 3, line 57,
change "2-piece" to "two-piece".
19.	On page 52388, column 2, line 29,
change "2-piece" to "two-piece".
20.	On page 52389, column 2, line 40,
change "NSSP" to "NSPS".
21.	On page 52390, column 1, line 12,
change "0.11 million kilowatt-hours per
year." to "0.30 million kilowatt-hours per-
year.".
22.	On page 52390, column 1, line 29,
change "2.93 million kilowatt hours per
year." to "7.92 million kilowatt hours per
year.".
23.	On page 52391, column 3, line 38,
change "83.9 1/1000 cans" to "83.91/
1000 cans".
24.	On page 52391, column 3, line 51,
change "CMBD" to "CMDB".
25.	On page 52394. column 1, line 40,
change "(TTO))" to "(TTO)".
28. On page 52394, column 2, line 21,
change "oil and grease solvents" to "oil
and grease, solvents.".
27.	On page 52394, column 2, line 54,
insert a period after "15th ed".
28.	On page 52394, column 2, line 62,
insert closing parenthesis after
"(Method 502E".
29.	On page 52395, column 2, line 17,
change "2-piece" to "two-piece".
30.	On page 52396, column 1, line 30,
insert "limitations guidelines" after
"final effluent".
31.	On page 52398, column 3, line 5,
change "equipement" to "equipment".
32.	On page 52397, columns 2 and 3, in
the table that bridges the columns
entitled "Indirect Dischargers Schedule
for Submittal and Compliance", insert
an "or" on the line between "60 days"
and "60 days".
33.	On page 52398, column 1, line 27,
change "direct discharges" to "indirect
discharges".
34.	On page 52398, column 1, line 72,
change "053
Hexachloromyclopentadiene" to "053
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene".
35.	On page 52398, column 3. line 27,
change "067 Butyl benzylphthalate" to
"067 Butyl benzyl phthalate".
36.	On page 52398, column 3, line 28,
change "066 Di-N-butyl phthalate" to
"068 Di-n-butyl phthalate".
37.	On page 52398, column 3, line 48,
change "067 Butyl benzylphthalate" to
"067 Butyl benzyl phthalate".
38.	On page 52398, column 3, line 49,
change "Di-N-butyl phthalate" to "Di-n-
butyl phthalate".
9485.03 [Amendsd]
39.	On page 52399, column 2,
paragraph (c)(5). delete the words
"except where total O&G is specifically
required".
40.	On page 52399, columns 2 and 3.
the equation in the center of the
columns, that bridges the columr.s
change
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 10, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 14105
Ex iooo
"mg (hydrocarbon oil and grea»e)/l = 	
ml/tample"
to
E x 1000
"B8 (hydrocarbon oil and gre.*e)/l - „l|/samp|e..
41.	Oil page 52399, column 3, line 23
from the bottom of the page, change
"reasd" to "read".
S 465.41 [Amended]
42.	On page 52400, column 1—} 465 41
tdble, change "F . . . 12790.00 (28.197)
5676.00 (12.513)" to "F . . . 12792.50
(28.203) 5676.00 (12.514)".
$465.43 (Amended]
43.	On page 52400, column 2—5 465.43
table heading, change "SUBPART D—
NSPS Effluent Limitations" to
"SUBPART D—NSPS".
J 465.44 (Amended]
44.	On page 52400, column 3—§ 405.44
table heading, change "SUBPART D—
PSES Effluent Limitations" to
"SUBPART D—PSES".
{465.45 (Amended]
45.	On page 52400, column 3—5 465.45,
change "Except as provided in { 403.7"
to "Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7".
Dated. March 29,1984.
Jack E. Ravan,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
|FR Doc. a«-S33» Filed 4-#-M 6 45 un)
BtLLIMO COOE eM0-«0-M
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
41 CFR Part 101-17
[FPMR Temp. Reg. D-68, Suppt. 1]
Assignment and Utilization ot Space
AGENCY: Public Buildings Service. GSA.
ACTiev: Temporary regulation.
Thv. supplement extends to
1j, V05 trie exrir.ition date of
lTMR Temporary Regulation D-62. D-6S
sets forth simplified and streamlined
CSA space management regulations,
and mandates improved cost
effectiveness in agencies' use of space.
DATES: Effective date: February 1.19SI
Expiration date: May 15.1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Jo-Anne D Venneberg. Acting Assistant
Commissioner for Space Management
(202) 56tM025.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
General Services Administration has
determined that this regulation will not
impose unnecessary buniens on the
economy or on individuals and,
therefore, is not significant for the
purpose of Executive Order 12044.
(Sec. 205(c). A3 Stat. 380; 40 U.S.C. 466(c))
Chapter 101—[Amended]
In 41 CFR Chapter 101, the following
temporary regulation is added to the
appendix at the end of Subchapter D.
Federal Property Management
Regulations
Temporary Regulation D-68
Supplement 1
TO: Heads of Federal agencies
SUBJECT: Assignment and Utilization of
Space
1.	Purpose. This supplement extends
the expiration date of FPMR Temporary
Regulation D-68.
2.	Effective Date. February 1,1984.
3.	Expiration Date. This supplement
expires on May 15,1985.
4.	Explanation of Changes. The
expiration date in paragraph 3 of FPMR
Temporary Regulation D-68 is revised to
May 15,1905.
Ray Kline,
Acting Administrator of General Services.
March 8.1U04.
ire Doc M-BM2 Filid IIW e 45 am)
SILUMQ coot U10-23-M
41 CFR Part 101-41
[FPMR Amendment Q-65]
Cancel Standard Form 1131, U.S.
Government Transit Bill cf Lading
AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller, GSA.
ACTION: Final rule.
summary: This regulation amends the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and
the Federal Property Management
Regulations (FPMR) by removing
reference to and illustrations of the U.S.
Government Transit Bill of Lading
(transit GBL) set, Standard Form (SF)
1131 through SF 1134. Inventory records
indicate that no orders for this form
have been received for more than one
year. Cancelling this accountable
transportation document will eliminate
GSA's need to print and maintain an
inventory for Federal agencies.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10,1984.
KM FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John W. Sandfort Chief, Regulations,
Procedures, and Claims Branch, Office
of Transportation Audits (202 786-3014).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: GSA has
determined that this rule is not a major
rule for the purposes of Executive Order
12291, of February 17,1981. because it is
not likely to result in an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more; a
major increase in costs to consumers or
others; or significant adverse effects.
GSA has based all administrative
decisions underlying this rule on
adequate information concerning the
need for. and consequences of, this rule;
has determined that potential benefits to
society from this rule outweigh the
potential costs and has maximized the
net benefits; and has chosen the
alternative approach involving the least
net cost to society.
The transit CBL has been in use by
the Government for more than 40 years.
Demands for this form, however, have
slackened during the past few years.
National Archives and Records Service
(NARS) reports that no orders for this
form were received from Federal
agencies for more than a year. NARS
suggested cancelling this form.
A proposed rulemaking was published
in the Federal Register on October 13,
1983 (48 FR 46554), inviting comments
for 45 days ending November 28,1983.
The Office of Transportation, Oftice of
Federal Supply and Services, GSA,
suggested some editorial changes that
we adopted. The largest user of this
form, the Department of Defense,
advised us prior to publication of the
proposed rulemaking that it had no
objection to cancelling this form.
List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 101-41
Air carriers. Accounting, Claims,
Freight, Freight forwarders. Government
property management. Maritime
carriers, Moving of household goods,
Passenger services. Railroads,
Transportation.
PART 101-41—TRANSPORTATION
DOCUMENTATION AND AUDIT
Title 41, Part 101-41 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
1.	The authority for Fart 101-41 is:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3726. and 40 U S C.
486(c)
2.	The table of contents for Part 101—
41 is amended by revising the following
entries:
-------
(Revised 4/6/84)
COIL COATING
CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
This summary provides industries in the Coil Coating category and Pub-
licly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) with the information necessary to deter-
mine compliance with pretreatment standards for this industrial category. The
Coil Coating categorical standards were established by the Environmental
Protection Agency in Part 465 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(40 CFR 465). This summary is not intended to substitute for the regulations
published in the Code of Federal Regulations or the Federal Register. For
specific information, refer to the Federal Register citations given below.
Important Dates
Federal Register Citation
Proposed Rule: January 12, 1981
Final Rule: December 1, 1982
Amendment Proposed: February 10, 1983
Amendment: September 15, 1983
Amendment, Final Rule (Subcategory D,
Canmaking): November 17, 1983
Effective Date: January 17, 1983
(January 2, 1984, for Subcategory D)
Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR)
Due Date: July 16, 1983
(June 30, 1984, for Subcategory D)
Compliance Dates:
Vol.	46,	p. 2934, January 12, 1981
Vol. 47,	p.	54232, December 1, 1982
Vol. 48,	p.	6268, February 10, 1983
Vol. 48,	p.	41409, September 15, 1983
Vol. 48,	p.	52380, November 17, 1983
-	Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES): December 1, 1985
(November 17, 1986, for Subcategory D)
-	Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS): From commencement of
discharge
SUBCATEGORIES AND SIC CODES AFFECTED
Coil Coating is divided into four subcategories: (A) Steel Basis Mate-
rial, (B) Galvanized Basis Material, (C) Aluminum Basis Material,' and (D)
Canmaking. Facilities classified under SIC codes 3411, 3479, and 3497 may be
regulated under this standard. However, the SIC designation is tentative
until EPA makes a final determination.
REGULATED POLLUTANTS
All of the pollutant limits established for the Coil Coating category are
mass-based limits. Industries regulated under Subcategories A and C have
limits on their discharges of chromium, cyanide, and zinc. Industries regu-
lated under Subcategory B have limits on their discharges of chromium, copper,
cyanide, and zinc.
Source: Summary of the Effluent Guidelines Division Rulemaking Activities,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 1983.
-------
COIL COATING (coat.)
Industries regulated under Subcategory D (Canmaking) have limits on their
discharges of chromium, copper, zinc, fluoride, phosphorus, manganese, and
total toxic organics (TTO). For this industrial category, total toxic
organics (TTO) is defined as the sum of the mass of each of the following
toxic organic compounds that are found at a concentration greater than 0.01
mg/1.
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1-dichlorethane
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
chloroform
1,1-dichloroethylene
methylene chloride
pentachlorophenol
bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
di-N-butyl phthalate
phenanthrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
As an alternative to monitoring for TTO, indirect dischargers in Sub-
category D may measure and-limit oil and grease to the levels established by
PSES and PSNS. Any indirect discharger meeting the alternative oil and grease
standards will be considered to meet the TTO standard. Oil and grease con-
centrations are to be determined by the method outlined in 40 CFR 465.03(c).
The regulations provide Coil Coating facilities with an exemption from
periodic cyanide monitoring if they meet the following two conditions:
(1)	The first wastewater sample that is collected in each calandar year
contains less than 0.07 mg/1 cyanide.
(2)	The owner or operator of the facility certifies in writing to the
Control Authority that cyanide is not used in its coil coating
process.
-2-
-------
COIL COATING (cont.)
SUCATEGORY A - STEEL BASIS MATERIALS
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES (PSES)

Maximum for Any One Day
Maximum Monthly Average
Pollutant
mg/m^ of
area processed
Pounds per
1 million ft of
area processed
mg/m^ of
area processed
Pounds per
1 million ft of
area processed
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
0.50
0.34
1.56
0,10
0.07
0.32
0.20
0.14
0.66
0.041
0.029
0.14

PRETREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES (PSNS)







Maximum for Any One Day
Maximum Monthly Average
Pollutant
mg/m^ of
area processed
Pounds per
1 million ft of
area processed
mg/m^ of
area processed
Pounds per
1 million ft of
area processed
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
0.120
0.063
0.330
0.024
0.013
0.066
0.047
0.025
0.140
0.010
0.005
0.027

-------
COIL COATING (cont.)
SUBCATEGORY B - GALVANIZED BASIS MATERIAL
PSES

Maximum for Any One Day
Maximum Monthly Average
Pollutant
mg/m^ of
area processed
Pounds pet
1 million ft of
area processed
mg/m^ of
area processed
Pounds per2
1 million ft of
area processed
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Zinc
0.37
1.71
0.26
1.20
0.077
0'.35
0.053
0.25
0.16
0.90
0.11
0.51
0.031
0.19
0.022
0.11
PSNS

Maximum for Any One Day
Maximum Monthly Average
Pollutant
mg/m^ of
area processed
Pounds per
1 million ft of
area processed
mg/m^ of
area processed
Pounds per-
1 million ft of
area processed
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Zinc
0.13
0.44
0.07
0.35
0.027
0.090
0.015
0.072
0.052
0.21
0.028
0.15
0.011
0.043
0.006
0.030
-4-
-------
COIL COATING
(conti)

SUBCATEGORY
C - ALUMINUM BASIS MATERIAL
PSES


Maximum for Any One Day
Maximum Monthly Average
Pollutant
2 Pounds peij
mg/m of 1 million ft of
area processed area processed
2 Pounds per2
mg/m of 1 million ft of
area processed area processed
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
0.42 0,085
0.29 0.059
1.32 0.27
0.17 0.34
0.12 0.024
0.56 0.12
PSNS

Maximum for'Any One Day
Maximum Monthly Average
Pollutant
2 Pounds peij
mg/m of 1 million ft of
area processed area processed
2 Pounds per2
mg/m of 1 million ft of
area processed area processed
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
0.18 0.037
0.095 0.02
0.049 0.01
0.072 0.015
0.038 0.008
0.20 0.041
-5-
-------
COIL COATING (cont.)
SUBCATEGORY D - CANMAKING
In this subcategory, only cans that are washed at the point of manufac-
ture are regulated. No process wastewater is generated from the manufacture
of seamed cans, seamless cans made from coated stock, can ends, or can tops.
PSES
Maximum for Any One Day	Maximum Monthly Average

Grams per
Pounds per
Grams per
Pounds per
Pollutant
1 million cans
1 million cans
1 million cans
1 million cans

manufactured
manufactured
manufactured
manufactured
Chromium
36.92
.081
15.10
.033
Copper
159.41
.351
83.90
.185
Zinc
122.49
.270
51.18
.113
Fluoride
4992.05
11.001
2214.96
4.883
Phosphorus
1401.13
3.089
573.04
1.263
Manganese
57.05
.126
24.33
.053
TTO
26.85
.059
12.59
.028
Oil and j




Grease
1678.00
3.699
1006.80
2.220
PSNS

Maximum "for Any One Day
Maximum Monthly Average

Grams per
Pounds per
Grams per
Pounds per
Pollutant
1 million cans
1 million cans
1 million cans
1 million cans

manufactured
manufactured
manufactured
manufactured
Chromium
27.98
.0617
11.45
.025
Copper
120.84
.267
63.60
.140
Zinc
92.86
.205
38.80
.086
Fluoride
3784.20
8.345
1679.04
3.702
Phosphorus
1062.12
2.342
434.39
.958
Manganese
43.25
.095
18.44
.041
TTO
20.35
.045
9.54
.021
Oil and j




Grease
1272.00
2.804
763.20
1.683
Oil and grease is an alternative monitoring parameter for TTO.
-6-
-------

c
£
K.
o-
6
-------
7568
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1986 / Rules and Regulations
activity in the stimulated rat ovarian
microsomal system.
9. A mouse lymphoma forward
mutation assay; a DNA repair synthesis
study in rat liver culture systems; Ames
test in salmonella typhimurim and in E.
coIi\ and in vivo chromosome aberration
in the Chinese hamster. Fenarimol did
not demonstrate mutagenic activity in
any of these studies.
The adverse reproductive effects
(irreversible infertility) in rats are
considered species-specific caused by
testosterone aromatase inhibition. A
NOEL of 35 mg/kg bw/day for
reproductive effects was established in
the multigeneration reproduction study
in the guinea pig.
Data currently lacking is a 1-year
feeding study in dogs. This study has
been submitted to the Agency and is
presently being reviewed and evaluated.
The acceptable daily intake (ADI)
based on the 2-year rat chronic feeding
study (NOEL of 1.25 mg/kg bw/day) and
using a 100-fold safety factor is
calculated as 0.0125 mg/kg bw/day. The
maximum permitted intake (MPI) for a
60-kg person is calculated to be 0.75 mg/
day. The theoretical maximum residue
contribution (TMRC) from the tolerance
is 0.00005 mg/day and utilizes 0.12
percent of the ADI. No previous
tolerances have been established for
fenarimol. The chemical has
demonstrated oncogenic effect in rats,
producing a significant increase in
hepatic adenomas and hyperplastic
nodules at the highest dose tested (17.5
mg/kg bw/day). Based on these results,
a theoretical oncogenic risk for dietary
exposure from eating pecan meat
containing 0.1 ppm of fenarimol residues
was calculated to be 7.3 X 10~9.
The chemical also demonstrated the
teratogenic effect of hydronephrosisjat
35 mg/kg bw/day in rats. The NOEL, as
previously stated, for this effect was 13
mg/kg bw/day. Based on these data, a
margin of safety was calculated for a
single dietary portion of pecan meat
containing 0.1 ppm of fenarimol
residues. The margin of safety for
teratogenic effects is >56.000
The nature of the terminal residues in
pecans is adequately understood. No
data is available concerning the
metabolism in poultry and livestock.
However, pecan hulls are not
considered feed items for cither poultry
or livestock. Therefore. 40 CFR
180.6(a)(3) applies to this tolerance. An
adequate analytical method, gas
chromatography, is available for
enforcement purposes. There are
presently no actions pending against the
continued registration of fenarimol.
Any person adversely affected by this
regulation may, within 30 days after
publication of this document in the
Federal Register, file written objections
with the Hearing Clerk, at the address
given above. Such objections should
specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds
for the objections. If a hearing is
requested, the objections must state the
issues for the hearing and the grounds
for the objections. A hearing will be
granted if the objections are supported
by grounds legally sufficient to justify
the relief sought.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
Pursuant to the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 98-
354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the
Administrator has determined that
regulations establishing new tolerances
or raising tolerance levels or
establishing exemptions from tolerance
requirements do not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. A certification
statement to this effect was published in
the Federal Register of May 4,1981 (46
FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Administrative practice and
procedure. Agricultural commodities,
Pesticides and pests.
Dated. February 18, 1986.
Susan II. Sherman,
Acting Director. Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR Part 180 is
amended as follows:
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1.	The authority citation for Part 180
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a.
2.	Section 180.421 is added to read as
follows:
§ 180.421 Fenarimol; tolerances for
residures.
Tolerances are established for
residues of the fungicide fenarimol
[alpha-(2-chlorophenyl)-alpha-(4-
chlorophenyl)-5-pyrimidinemethanol] in
or on the following raw agricultural
commodities:
Commodities
Parts per
rmllton
Pecans . .
01
[FR Doc 4487 Filed 3-4-86; 8:45 am)

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

40 CFR Part 468
[OW-FRL-2942-1]
Copper Forming Point Source
Category Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, Pretreatment, Standards,
and New Source Performance
Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
action: Final regulation.
SUMMARY: EPA is amending 40 CFR Part
468, a regulation which limits effluent
discharges to waters of the United
States and the introduction of pollutanis
into publicly owned treatment works by
existing and new sources that form
copper and copper alloys ("copper
forming regulation"). EPA agreed to
propose and take final action on these
amendments in a settlement agreement
to resolve a lawsuit challenging the final
copper forming regulation promulgated
by EPA on August 15,1983 (48 FR 36942).
The amendments modify the copper
forming regulation as it applies to the
forming of beryllium copper.
DATES: In accordance with 40 CFR Part
23 (50 FR 7268, February 21.1985), this
regulation shall be considered issued for
the purpose of judicial review at 1:00
p.m. Eastern time on March 19.1986.
This regulation shall become effective
April 18,1986. Under section 509(b)(1) of
the Clean Water Act, judicial review of
this regulation can be made only by
filing a petition for review in the United
States Court of Appeals within 90 days
after the regulation is considered issued
for purposes of judicial review. Under
section 509(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act.
the requirements in this regulation may
not be challenged later in civil or
criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
ADDRESS: Address questions on the final
rule to Ms. Janet K. Goodwin. Industrial
Technology Division (WH-552),
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
The record for the final rule will be
available for public review not later
than April 4,1986 in the EPA Public
Information Reference Unit, Room 2404
(Rear) (EPA Library) 401 M Street, SW..
Washington, DC. The EPA information
regulation provides that a reasonable
fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions regarding this notice may be
addressed to Mr. Ernst P. Hall at (202)
382-7128.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 7589
SUPPLEMENTARY DtFORMATIOIC
Organization of this notice
I.	Legal Authority
II.	Background
III.	Amendments to tbe Copper Forming
Regulation
IV.	Environment.*! Impact of the
Amendment* to the Copper Forming
Regulation
V.	Economic Impact of the Amendments
VI.	ExecntFve Qwler 122B9
VII.	Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
VIII.	OMB Review.
IX.	List of Subjects m 40 CFR Part 468
I.	Legal Authority
The regulation described in this notice
is promulgated under the authority of
sections 301, 304. 306, 307. 308, and 501
of the Clean Water Act (the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, 33 U.&C. 1251 et
seqas amended by the Clean Water
Act of 1977, Pub. L. 92-217).
II.	Background
On November 12,1982. EPA proposed
a regulation to establish effluent
limitations guidelines for existing direct
dischargers based on the best
practicable control technology currently
achievable ("BPT") and the best
available technology economically
achievable ("BAT'); new source
performance standards ("NSPS"") for
new direct dischargers; and
pretreatment standards for existing and
new indirect dischargers ("PSES" and
"PSNS", respectively) for the copper
forming point source category (47 FR
51279.) EPA published final effluent
limitations guidelines and standards fur
the copper forming category on August
15, l'J83 (40 CFR Part 468; 48 FR 36942)
and technical corrections to the final
rule on November 3,1963 (48 FR 50717).
This regulation established one
subcategory that applies to all
wastewater discharges resulting from
the forming of copper and copper alloys.
See 40 CFR 468.01. The preamble to the ,
final copper forming effluent limitations
guidelines and standards ("copper
farming regulation") contains a complete
discussion of the development of the
regulation.
Following promulgation of the copper
forming regulation. Brush Wellman. Inc.
("Brush ') and Cerro Copper Products
Company together with the Village of
Sauget ("Cerro") filed petitions to
review the regulation. These challenges
were consolidated into one lawsuit by
the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit (Cerro Copper
Products Company et al. v. EPA, Nos.
83-3053 and 84-1087.) At the request of
all parties, the two cases were
subsequently deconsolidated since each
raised distinctly different issues.
On September 23, 1984. EPA and
Brush executed a Settlement Agreement
to resolve all issues raised by Brash
with respect to the copper forming
effluent limitations guidelines and
standards. The Agreement applies only
to the challenges made by Brush: it does
not resolve challenges made by Cerro
nor is Cerro a party to the Agreement.
All the provisions in the copper forming
regulation challenged by Cerro were
upheld in Cerro Copper Products
Company v. Ruckelshaua (7th Cir.. July
1,1985).
Brush challenged the copper forming
regulation on the grounds that this
regulation and single subcategory were
not appropriate as applied to its
facilities for two related reasons. First,
Brush forms beryllium copper alloys that
differ from other copper alloys because
the beryllium oxide coating formed on
the surface of the metal during beat
-treating is both tenacious and abrasive
and must be removed by special
treatment before the alloys can be
further processed. Second, one facility
owned by Brush produces exclusively
very high gauge beryllium copper strip
and wire products. Brush claims this
causes the volume of wastewater and
mass of pollutants discharged to vary
significantly from other copper forming
plants.
Subsequent data and information
submitted by Brush which were not
available to EPA before promulgation
support its contention that beryllium
copper forming involves technical
considerations not adequately
addressed by the single subcategory of
the copper forming regulation. In
addition, substantial quantities of
beryllium will be present in
wastewaters from the removal of the
beryllium oxide coating which were not
taken into account during the copper
forming rulemaking.
Because of these differences, EPA
concluded that discharges from
beryllium copper forming are best
handled as a separate subcategory.
Accordingly, EPA agreed to propose
certain amendments to the copper
forming regulation and to take final
action on that proposal. Specifically,
EPA agreed to propose to exclude the
forming of beryllium copper alloys from
the existing copper forming regulation
and to create a new subcategory in the
regulation reserved for effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for
the forming of beryllium copper alloys.
EPA also agreed to propose that the
term "beryllium copper" shall mean
copper that is alloyed to contain 0.1
percent or more beryllium. Brush in turn
agreed that if the provisions of the
copper forming amendments were
consistent with the Settlement
Agreement, it would voluntarily dismiss
its petition for review and withdraw its
request for a "fundamentally different
factors" variance which it also
submitted pursuant to 40 CFR Part 125,
Subpart D. Brush also agreed not to seek
judicial review of any final amendments
that are consistent with the Settlement
Agreement.
As part of the Settlement Agreement,
the parties jointly requested the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit to stay the effectiveness of 40
CFR Part 408 as it applies to discharges
from beryllium copper forming pending
final action by EPA on the amendments.
On November 8, 1984. the court denied
the joint motion. EPA and Brush
subsequently filed a joint motion to
reconsider the deniaL The court granted
the motion and entered the stay
described above on March 5,1985.
\ Therefore, 40 CFR Part 468, Subpart A,
l currently does not apply to discharges
vfrom beryllium copper forming. Copies
of the Settlement Agreement and the
court's stay have been sent to EPA
Regional Offices and State NPDES
Permit issuing authorities.
III. Amendments to the Copper Forming
Regulation
In accordance with the Settlement
Agreement, on June 24,1985, EPA
proposed to exdude the forming of
beryllium copper alloys from the
existing copper fanning regulation and
to create a new subcategory in the
regulation reserved for effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for
the forming of beryllium copper alloys.
EPA also proposed to define "beryllium
copper alloy" as specified in the
Settlement Agreement.
EPA received only one comment on
the proposal, from Brash Wellman.
Brush Wellman supported the proposal
to exclude beryllium copper alloys from
the copper forming regulation as well as
the proposed definition of "beryllium
copper alloy." Accordingly, EPA is
promulgating the proposed provisions as
final amendments to the copper forming
regulation.
Below is a detailed explanation of
those sections of the copper forming
regulation subject to these final
amendments. All limitations and
standards contained in the final copper
forming regulation published on August
15,1983 which are not specifically listed
below are not affected by the
amendments.
A. Section 488.01 Applicability. EPA
is correcting a typographical error
-------
7570 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1986 / Rules and Regulations
changing the CFR unit from subpart to
part.
B.	Section 468.02 Specialized
Definitions. EPA is adding a definition
for the term beryllium copper alloy to
mean an alloy of copper which is
annoyed to contain 0.10 percent
beryllium or greater. In the proposal, we
explained that this definition would
cover all beryllium copper alloys that
are manufactured or will be
manufactured within the forseeable
future. Also, any alloy with beryllium
present in this amount is expected to
have the unique properties
characteristic of all beryllium copper
alloys. We used the term "alloyed to
contain" to specify that the beryllium
must be intentionally added.
C.	Section 468.10 Applicability;
description of the copper forming
subcategory. Section 468.10 of the final
copper forming rule contains only one
subcategory to cover discharges from
the forming of all copper and copper
alloys. This was based on information
available to the Agency at the time of
promulgation which indicated that
wastewater generated by forming any
copper alloy contained similar pollutant
constituents in amounts effectively
controlled by the same model
wastewater pollution control
technology. Accordingly, EPA
established a single subcategory in the
copper forming effluent limitations
guidelines and standards.
After promulgation, Brush submitted
information indicating that copper alloys
containing beryllium have unique
properties requiring different forming
tcchinques than the forming of other
copper alloys. These differences are
discussed in the preceding section of
this preamble. Because of these
differences, the Agency is excluding
beryllium copper forming from the
existing regulation and creating a new
subcategory reserved for effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for
all beryllium copper alloys. The Agency
made this change by adding "except
beryllium copper alloys" at the end of
§ 468.10, Applicability of Subpart A.
The final copper forming regulation
includes beryllium copper alloys in the
copper forming subcategory. EPA is
establishing a new Subpart B reserved
for a separate subcategory for beryllium
copper forming to account for significant
process differences from the forming of
other copper alloys. The Agency has
already begun gathering data relative to
beryllium copper forming and expects to
proposed limitations and standards for
this subcategory in the near future.
The unique physical properties of
beryllium copper alloys, which cause
unique forming problems, also apply to
other metal alloys containing significant
quantities of beryllium and pure
beryllium metal. Therefore, the Agency
may decide to combine the forming of
all alloys that are alloyed to contain
beryllium at 0.1 percent or greater under
one subcategory. Brush Wellman, in its
comments on both the notice of new
data for the nonferrous metals forming
category and the proposal to amend the
copper forming regulation (50 FR 26128,
June 24,1985). objected to this
suggestion. EPA is reserving judgment
on the appropriate categorization of
beryllium and beryllium alloys,
including beryllium copper, until it
gathers additional data and proposes
effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for beryllium copper.
IV.	Environmental Impact of the
Amendments to the Copper Forming
Regulation
These amendments will not increase
the discharge of pollutants generated by
copper forming plants which continue to
be covered by the copper forming
requirements of Subpart A. EPA
estimates that five to nine plants are
affected by today's final amendments.
Until beryllium copper forming effluent
limitations guidelines and standards are
established, these plants will be
regulated on a case-by-case basis. The
Agency does not expect a significant
increase of pollutants discharged.
V.	Economic Impact of the Amendments
The amendments will not alter the
recommended technologies for
complying with the copper forming
regulation. The Agency considered the
economic impact of the regulation when
the final regulation was promulgated
(see 48 FR 36948). These amendments
will not alter the determinations with
respect to the economic impact to
copper forming plants other than
beryllium copper forming and since
these amendments do not establish any
effluent requirements, they should have
no impact on beryllium copper forming
plants.
VI.	Executive Order 12291
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. Major rules are defined as
rules that impose an annual cost to the
economy of $100 million or more, or
meet other economic criteria. This
regulation, like the copper regulation
promulgated August 15, 1983, is not
major because it does not fall within the
criteria for major regulations established
in Executive Order 12291.
VII.	Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pub. L. 96-354 requires that EPA
prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis for regulations that have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. In the
preamble to the August 15,1983 final
copper forming regulation, the Agency
concluded that there would not be a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities (48 FR 36950).
For that reason, the Agency determined
that a formal regulatory flexibility
analysis was not required. That
conclusion is equally applicable to these
amendments, since the amendments
would not alter the economic impact of
the regulation. The agency did not,
therefore, prepare a formal analysis for
this regulation.
VIII.	OMB Review
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by Executive Order
12291. Any comments from OMB to EPA
and any EPA response to those
comments are available for public
inspection at Room M2404, U.S. EPA.
401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday, excluding federal
holidays.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 468
Copper forming, Water pollution
control, Waste treatment and disposal
Dated: February 24,1986.
Lee M. Thomas,
Administrator.
For the reasons state above, EPA is
amending 40 CFR Part 468 as follows:
PART 468—COPPER FORMING POINT
SOURCE CATEGORY
1.	The authority citation for Part 468
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 301, 304 (b), (c), (e), and
(g), 306 (b) and (c), 307 (b) and (c), 308, and
501 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 (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.
2.	Section 468.01 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
9 468.01 Applicability.
(a) The provisions of this part are
applicable to discharges resulting from
the manufacture of formed copper and
copper alloy products. The forming
operations covered are hot rolling, cold
rolling, drawing, extrusion, and forging.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 198ti / Rules and Regulations 7571
The ousting of copper and copper alloys
is not controlled by this part. (See 40
Cl'R P.irt 451.)
» « * » «
3.	Section 468.02 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (y) to read as
follows:
§ 468.02 Specialized Definition*. .
• * * * •
(y) The term "beryllium copper alloy"
shall mean any copper alloy that is
alloyed to contain 0.10 percent or
greater beryllium.
4.	Section 468.10 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 468.10 Applicability, description of the
copper forming subcatgory.
This subpart applies to discharges of
pullutants to waters of the United
States, and introduction of pollutants
into publicly owned treatment works
from the forming of copper and copper
alloys except beryllium copper alloys.
5.	Part 4G8 is amended by adding a
new subpart (D) as follows:
Subpart B—Beryllium Copper Forming
Subcategory
§ 468.20 Applicability; description of the
beiylliuin coppr forming subcategory.
This subpart applies to discharges of
pollutants to waters of the United
Slates, and introduction of pollutants
into publicly owned treatment works
from the forming of beryllium copper
alloys.
Il-'R Doc 4752 Filed 1-4-86, 8.45 am|
BILLING CODE 8S60-M-M
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
41 CFR Part 101-26
IFPMR Amdt. E-2591
Procurement Sources and Programs;
Dollar Thresholds, for Billing
Adjustments
agency: Federal Supply Service, CSA.
action: Final rule.
summary: This regulation deletes the
$25 threshold for billing adjustments
prescribed in the FPMR and replaces it
with a reference to the current
thresholds in the GSA Handbook,
Discrepancies or Deficiencies in GSA or
DoD Shipments, Material, or Billings
(FPMR 101-26.8). This will update and
simplfy the FPMR coverage on dollar
thresholds for billing adjustments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gary L. Hood, Deputy Director,
Inventory and Requisition Management
Division (703-557-8570).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
General Services Administration has
determined that this rul2 is not a major
rule for the purposes of Executive Order
12291 of February 17, 1981, because it is
•not likely to result in an annual effect on
the economy of S100 million or more; a
major increase in costs to consumers or
others; or significant adverse effects.
'1 he General Services Administration
has based all administrative decisions
underlying this rule on adequate
information concerning the need for and
consequences of this rule; has
determined that the potential benefits to
society from this rule outweigh the
potential costs and has maximized the
net benefits; and has chosen the
alternative approach involving the least
net cost to society.
List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 101-26
Government property management.
1.	The authority citation for Part 101-
26 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 205(i:), 63 Slut. 390; 40
U S.C 4fl6(c).
2.	Section 101-26.803-2 is revised to .
read as follows:
§ 101-26.803-2 Adjustments.
GSA and DoD will adjust billings
whenever the difference involved,
resulting from over or under charges or
discrepancies or deficiencies in
shipments or material, meets the dollar
value requirement prescribed in the
GSA Handbook, Discrepancies or
Deficiencies in GSA or DoD Shipments.
Material, or Billings (FPMR 101-26.8).
Dated: February 19, 1980.
T.C. Golden,
Administrator of General Services.
[FR Doc. Btt-1745 Filed 3-4- 80; 3:45 um|
BILLING COOS M20-24-M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Parts 25, 28 and 29
Easements, Clarification of
Jurisdiction; National Wildlife Refuge
System
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule revises portions of
50 CFR Subchapter C to clarify the
applicability of U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) regulations in
easement areas. These revisions clarify
misinterpretations that have arisen
concerning the application of certain
Service regulations to areas of the
National Wildlife Refuge System that
were acquired in less than fee title
through easement and are administered
by the Service. The rule adds und
defines the terms "easement" and
"coordination area," and redefines
"national wildlife refuge" and "wildlife
management area." It also states the
requirement for special use permits for
certain types of activities in easement
ureas, and the regional directors'
authority tu issue those permits.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 4, 1986.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
James F. Gillett, Chief, Division of
Refuge Management, Room 2343
Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Set vice,
Washington. DC 20240; Telephone (202)
343-4311.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Subchapter C, 50 CFR Parts 25 through
29 contain the administrative, public use
and land use management provisions for
the National Wildlife Refuge System
(NWRS). The purposes of those
regulations are to, among other things,
regulate general administration of
various units of the NWRS and provide
for issuing permits for activities
otherwise prohibited on such units. The
National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act (NRSAA), lb U S C.
668dd et seq.. defines these units as
ir.cluding land, water and interests
. therein which are administered as
national wildlife refuges, endangered or
threatened species habitat, wildlife
ranges, game ranges, wildlife
management areas and waterfowl
production areas. Consistent with tins
defintion in the NWRSAA, regulation's
in Subchapter C define the NWRS as
including any Service interest in land
and water, including less than fee
simple interests such as wetland
easements. Application of this definition
has been misconstrued by some to m>mii
that all of the general regulations for ihe
NWRS in subchapter C are applicable to
areas acquired by the Service through
easement agreement. This makes the
regulations subject to an overly
expansive interpretation. It was not :he
original intent of the rules, nor dues it
accurately reflect how the rules have
been either interpreted or administered
by the Service. Rather, the Service hus
always considered only some of the
regulations as applicable to NWRS
easement areas, given the limited
property interest the Service acquires in
those areas. In order to clarify which
regulations do or do not apply to less
than fee areas, the Service decided to
issue a revised set of regulations on this
subject.
-------
Monday
August 15, 1983
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
Effluent Limitations Guidelines,
Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards; Copper Forming
Point Source Category
-------
36942
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 158 / Monday, August 15. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 468
IOW-FRL-2401-3]
Copper Forming Point Source
Category; Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards,
and New Source Performance
Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
action: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
effluent limitations guidelines and
standards limiting the discharge of
pollutants into navigable waters and
into publicly owned treatment works
(POTW) by existing and new sources
that conduct copper forming operations.
The Clean Water Act and a consent
decree require EPA to issue this
regulation.
This regulation establishes effluent
limitations based on "best practicable
technology" and "best available
technology", new source performance
standards based on "best demonstrated
technology", and pretreatment
standards for existing and new indirect
dischargers.
dates: In accordance with 40 CFR
100.01 (45 FR 26048), this regulation shall
be considered issued for purposes of
judicial review at 1:00 p.m. Eastern time
on August 26,1983. This regulation shall
become effective September 26,1983.
The compliance date for the BAT
regulations is as soon as possible, but in
any event, no later than July 1,1984. The
compliance date for new source
performance standards (NSPS) and
pretreatment standards for new sources
(PSNS) is the date the new source
begins operations. The compliance date
for pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES) is three years after date
of publication in the Federal Register.
Under Section 509(b)(1) of the Clean
Water Act, judicial review of this
regulation can be made only by filing a
petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals within 90 days after
the regulation is considered issued for
purposes of judicial review. Under
Section 509(b)(2) of the Clean Water
Act, the requirements in this regulation
may not be challenged later in civil or
criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
The Record will be available for
public review not later than 65 days
after publication in the Federal Register
in EPA's Public Information Reference
Unit, Room 2404 (Rear) (EPA Library).
401 M Street, SW., Washington. D.C.
The EPA public information regulation
(40 CFR Part 2) provides that a
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
ADDRESSES: The basis for this regulation
is detailed in four major documents. See
Supplementary Information (under
"XIV. Availability of Technical
Information") for a description of each
document. Copies of the technical and
economic documents may be obtained
from the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (703/
487-4600). For additional technical
information, contact Mr. David Pepson,
Effluent Guidelines Division. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency^401 M
Street. SW., Washington, D.C. 20460
(Phone (20?) 382-7126). For additional
economic information contact Ms. Ann
Watkins, Economic Analysis Staff (WH-
586), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street. SW., Washington,
D.C. 20460 (Phone (202) 382-5387).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Ernst P. Hall, (202) 382-7128.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Organization of This Notice
I Legal Authority
II.	Scope of This Rulemaking
III.	Summary' cf Legal Background
IV.	Methodology and Data Gathering Efforts
V Control Treatment Options and
Technology Basis for Final Regulations
A.	Summary of Category
B.	Control and Treatment Options
C Technology Basis for Final Regulations
VI.	Economic Consideration
A Costs and Economic Impact
B Executive Order 12291
C.	Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
D SBA Loans
VII.	Nonwater Quahty Environmental
Impacts
A Air Pollution
B Solid Waste
C.	Consumptive Water Loss
D.	Energy Requirements
VIII.	Pollutants Not Regulated
IX.	Public Participation and Response to
Major Comments
X.	Beat Management Practices
XL Upset and Bypass Provisions
XII.	Variances and Modifications
XIII.	Implementation of Limitations and
Standards
A. Relationship to N'PDES Permits
B Indirect Discharges
XIV.	Availability of Technical Information
XV.	List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 468
XVI.	Appendices
A.	Abbreviations, Acronyms, arid Other
Terms Used in this Notice
B.	Toxic Pollutants Not Detected m Copper
Forming Wastewater
C.	Pollutants Present in Amounts Too
Small to be Treated Using Technology
Known to the Administrator
D Toxic Pollutants Controlled But Not
Specifically Regulated
E.	Toxic Pollutants Unique to One Plant
F.	Toxic Organics Comprising Toial Toxic
Organics (TTO)
I.	Legal Authority
This regulation is 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 USC 1251 et
seq.. as amended by the Clean Water
Act of 1977. Pub L. 95-217), also called
"the Act". It is also being promulgated
m response to the Settlement Agreement
in Natural Resources Defense Council.
Inc v. Tram. 8 ERC 2120 (D.D C. 1976).
modified. 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979),
modified by Order dated October 26,
1982.
II.	Scope of This Rulemaking
This final regulation, which was
proposed on November 12, 1982 (47 FR
51278) and corrected on January 14,1983
(48 FR 1769), establishes effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for
existing and new copper forming
facilities. Copper forming consists of the
five basic processes used to form copper
or copper alloys: hot rolling, cold rolling,
extrusion, drawing, and forging. Casting
of copper and copper alloys, even when
conducted in conjunction with copper
forming, is not covered by this ;
regulation; it is regulated under the
metal molding and casting regulation.
The manufacture of copper powders and
the forming of parts from copper or
copper alloy powders is to be regulated
under the nonferrous metals forming
regulation.
EPA is promulgating BPT, BAT, new
source performance standards (NSPS),
and pretreatment standards for existing
and new sources (PSES and PSNS,
respectively) for the copper forming
category.
III.	Summary of Legal Background
The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 established a
comprehensive program to "restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's
waters", Section 101(a). To implement
the Act, EPA was to issue effluent
limitations guidelines, 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 "Settlement
Agreement" which was approved by the
court. This agreement required EPA to
-------
36943
develop a program ar.d adhere to a
pct.eduie for controlling 65 "pr.onty"
Dollutants and classes of pollutants. In
cc. Trying out this program. EPA must
promulgate BAT effluent limitations
gv.doknts, pretreatment standards, and
new source performance standards for
major industries. See Natural
Resources Defense Council. Inc. v.
Train. 8 EKC 2120 (D D C. 19761.
modified, 12 ERC 1333 (D D.C. 1979],
modified by Order dated October 26,
ia32.
M;:ny of the basic elements of the
Settlement Agreement were
incorporated into the Clear: Water Act
c: 1977. Ijka 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 teaks. sludge or waste
disposav and drainage from raw
niaterial storage associated with, or
ancillary to. the manufacturing or
treatment process
Under the Act. the EPA is to set a
ivimber of different kinds of effluent
limitations. These are discussed in
detail in the preamble to the proposed
rr-gulation and m the Development
Document They are summarized briefly
below.
I 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
'ndustry or subcategory for control of
familiar (' e. classical) pollutants
in establishing BPT limitations, we
consider the total cost in relation to the
figejjfequipment and facilities involved,
the processes-employie.d.-proce^s—"
changes required, engineering aspects of
ir.e control technologies, and r.onwater
quality environmental impacts
(.ncluding energy requirements). We
balance the total cost of applying the
technology against the effluent
reduction.
J Rest Available Technology (BAT)
SAT limitations, in general, represent
the. best existing performance 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
iscili'.ies involved, the process
employed, the engineering aspecis of the
con; ol technologies, process changes,
the cost of achieving such effluent
reduction, and nor.water quality
environmental impacts. The Agency
retains considerable discretion in
assigning the weight to be accorded
thsst factors.
3 Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT)
The 1977 Amendments to the Clean
Water Act added Section 301(b)(2)(E),
establishing "best conventional
pollutant control technology" (BCT) for
discharge of conventional pollutants
from existing industrial point sources.
Section 304(a)(4) designated the
following as conventional pollutants.
EOD, TSS. fecal coliform. pH, and any
additional pollutants defined by the
Administrator as conventional The
Administrator designated oil and grease
"conventional" on July 30. 1979 (44 FR
44501).
ECT is not an additional limilauon but
replaces BAT for the control of
conventional pollutants. In addition to
other factors specified in Section
304(b)(4)(B). the Act requires that BCT
limitations be assessed in light of a two
part "cost-reasonableness" test
American Paper Institute v. EPA, 660
F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1981). The first teat
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 bo less
stringent than BPT.
EFA 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
ordered EPA to correct data errors
underlying EPA's calculation of the first
test, and to apply the second cost test.
(EPA argued that a second cost test was
not required.)
A revised methodology for the general
development of BCT limitations was
proposed on October 29, 1982 (47 FR
49176;. ECT limits for this industry are
accordingly deferred until promulgation
of the final methodology for BCT
development,
4. New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS)
NSPS are based on the best available
demonstrated technology (BDT], New
plants have the opportunity to install the
best and most efficient production
processes and wastewater treatmeni
technologies.
5	Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources (PSESj
PSES are designed to prevent the
discharge of pollutants that pass
through, interfere with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of
publicly owned treatment works
(POTW). They must be achieved within
three years of promulgation. The Clean
Water Act of 1977 requires pretreetmer.t
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 nationwide average
percentage 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 Regulation, which serves
as the framework for categorical
pretreatment regulations, is found at 40
CFR Part 403
6	Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources (PSNS)
Like PSES, PSNS are designed to
prevent the discharge of pollutants
which pass through, interfere with, or
are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of a POTW. PSNS are to be
issued at the 3ame time as NSPS. New
indirect dischargers, like new direct
dischargers, have the opportunity to
incorporate in their plant the best
available demonstrated technolgies. The
Agency considers the same factors in
promulgating PSNS as it considers in
promulgating PSES.
IV. 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 Copper
Forming Point Source Category Effluent
Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment
Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards" (47 FR 51278,
November 12. 1982), and described in
detail in the Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Copper Forming Point
Source Category. Since proposal, the
-------
36944 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
Agency has gathered some additional
data and performed additional
statistical and engineering analyses of
new and existing data. These activities
are discussed briefly below and in
substantial detail in the appropriate
sections of the development document.
These additional data are in the public
record supporting this rule.
The existing treatment effectiveness
data were reviewed thoroughly
following proposal in order to respond
to comments and assure that all data
were properly considered. As a result of
this review, minor additions and
deletions were made to the Agency's
treatment effectiveness data base.
These changes are documented in the
record along with responses to
comments. Following the changes,
statistical analyses performed prior to
proposal were repeated. Conclusions
reached prior to proposal were
unchanged and little or no effect on the
final limitations occurred as a result of
changes in the data.
EPA also collected discharge
monitoring reports (DMR) for 19
discharges from 15 copper forming
plants from state and regional EPA
offices. Discharge monitoring reports
provide monthly average effluent
concentrations of copper and some other
metals. These data were not used in the
actual development of the final
limitations but were used as a check on
the validity of the treatment
effectiveness values estimated by the
Agency. In general, the agreement
between EPA estimated values and the
DMR concentrations was good.
EPA conducted an engineering site
visit to a forging plant in order to gather
information regarding water use for both
baths and rinses of forged parts. In
addition, two plants submitted
production normalized flow data for
pickling and alkaline cleaning rinsing of
forged parts. The Agency relied upon
these data to reevaluate regulatory
flows for these processes when
performed on forged parts.
Additional data were obtained from
plants as to the disposal of wastewater
from drawing operations. We contacted
28 drawing plants to confirm, and if
appropriate, update the information
provided in the Agency's 1978 data
collection requests on their disposal
methods for drawing spent lubricant. Ln
addition, we contacted a number of
states to determine whether they require
disposal of drawing spent lubricants as
hazardous wastes.
Data relating to waste streams for
which flow allowances were not
provided by the proposed regulation
were obtained from industry. These data
consist of production normalized flow
data for tumbling or burnishing, surface
coating, hydrostatic testing, sawing,
surface milling, and'maintenance.
Additional data were provided by two
plants to support their individual
comments on the nature of wastewater
sludges. These data consist of the
results of EP toxicity testing performed
in accordance with federal hazardous
waste regulations (40 CFR 261.24).
Subsequent to proposal, the Agency
revised its analysis of the cost of model
treatment systems used as the basis for
limitations and standards. As a
consequence, estimated costs of
compliance were increased. Section VIII
of the technical development document
and related documents in the record
explain the basic for the revised costs
estimates.
EPA received economic surveys, since
proposal from two plants that had not
returned them prior to proposal and
identified one other copper former that
wa3 not in EPA's economic data base
prior to proposal. Also, a plant which
was not a copper former has been
excluded from the economic data base.
Thus, EPA's estimated number of copper
formers remains the same: 176.
V. Control Treatment Options and
Technology Basis for Final Regulations
A. Summary of Category
Copper forming is a term used to
describe five basic operations used to
form copper and copper alloys: hot
rolling, cold rolling, extrusion, drawing,
and forging. In addition to these forming
operations, there are nine surface
cleaning and heat treatment processes
which impart desired surface and
physical properties to the metal. These
ancillary operations are annealing with
oil, annealing with water, pickling bath
and rinse, pickling fume scrubber,
alkaline bath and rinse, extrusion press
solution heat treatment, and solution
heat treatment. In addition, copper
forming facilities may perform tumbling
or burnishing, surface coating,
hydrotesting, surface milling, and
sawing.
The Agency considered a number of
factors to determine whether
subcategorization is needed in the
copper forming category. After
consideration of these factors, the
Agency has determined that the copper
forming category is most appropriately
regulated as a single subcategory.
Raw materials used by copper forming
plants originate in the casting processes
of copper refineries and are commonly
in the form of wire bars, cakes or slabs,
and billets. In some instances they take
the form of rod, wire, or strip obtained
from another copper former. Copper
alloys are frequently employed by the
copper forming industry. For the
purposes of this regulation, copper
alloys include any alloy in which copper
is the major constituent. Principal alloys
processed by copper formers include
brass, bronze, leaded brass, leaded
brone, nickel silvers, phosphor bronze,
aluminum bronze, silicon bronze,
beryllium copper, and cuprcnickel.
Wastewater at copper forming plants
is generated from both the forming and
ancillary operations. Hot rolling, cold
rolling, and drawing utilize water, oil-
water emulsions, or soluble oil-water
mixtures as lubricants to reduce
frictional forces in the metal
deformation process. These waste
streams are termed hot rolling spent
lubricant, cold rolling spent lubricant,
and drawing spent lubricant,
respectively. After being hot rolled, cold
rolled, drawn, or extruded, copper
products can be cooled in a water bath.
This practice is termed solution heat
treatment and is considered an ancillary
operation. Some extrusion operations
utilize emulsified or soluble oils to
quench extruded parts, particularly
during submerged extrusion press
operations. This waste stream is termed
extrusion solution heat treatment
wastewater and is also considered an
ancillary waste stream.
The remaining ancillary operations
use water for cooling, cleaning, and
rinsing. Annealing operations involve
heating copper or a copper alloy to an
elevated temperature in order to reduce
stresses within the metal. The annealing
process generally includes a water, oil,
or oil-water quench to cool the annealed
product. When the quench is comprised
predominantly of water, the operation is
termed annealing with water: whereas,
when the quench is predominantly oil. it
is termed annealing with oil. Pickling
baths and rinses are used after forming
operations to remove oxidized metal
from the copper surfaces. These baths
and rinse tanks are periodically batch
dumped or continuously discharged,
resulting in pickling bath and pickling
rinse waste streams. In addition, some
plants use wet scrubbers to control the
release of pickling fumes resulting in a
fume scrubber wastewater stream.
Alkaline cleaning is not widely
practiced. When found, it precedes or
follows annealing and is used to remove
oil, tarnish, and smut from the copper
surface. It may also precede pickling
operations. Alkaline cleaning baths and
rinses are periodically batch dumped or
continuously discharged resulting in
wastewater discharges.
A number of other waste streams can
be generated at copper forming
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 38945
facilities. Tumbling or burnishing is used
to polish, debur. remove sharp corners,
and generally smooth parts for cosmetic
and functional purposes. Water or oil-
water lubricants are sometimes used to
lubricate and cool the process which
generally is done in vibrating trays or
rotating drums. In addition, water is
used to rinse the finished parts and
clean the abrasive media. Surface
coating involves coating a newly formed
copper sheet in a bath of molten metal.
Waste streams associated with this
operation include a flux bath used to
prepare the sheet for coating, emission
scrubbing water generated by
controlling vapors over the flux bath,
and spent abrasive used to finish the
surface of the coated sheet.
Hydrotesting operations are used to
check copper parts for surface defects or
subsurface imperfections. Parts are
submerged in a water bath and
subjected to ultrasonic signals, high
pressure, or air pressure. Such baths are
periodically discharged, Sawing is
performed on copper parts to remove
defects and for cutting to size. Milling is
used to remove surface irregularities
and oxidation from copper and brass
sheet. Sawing and milling operations use
water soluble oil lubricants to provide
cooling and lubrication. Maintenance
operations such as machinery repair
may generate a variety of wastewaters,
usually associated with the removal of
production related soils and dirt so that
the maintenance functions can be
performed.
Pollutants found in significant
amounts in copper forming waste
streams include: chromium, copper,
lead, nickel and zinc; toxic organics; and
suspended solids, pH, and oil and
grease. In addition, the sludges
generated by treatment of these
wastewaters usually contain large
quantities of toxic metals.
There are 176 facilities in the copper
forming category; these facilities employ
a total of 43,000 people. Total production
capacity is approximately 3.5 million
kkg/yr. Within the category, 37 facilities
discharge to navigable wastewaters, 45
facilities discharge to POTW's, and 94
plants do not discharge wastewater.
B. Control and Treatment Technologies
Prior to proposal of the copper
forming regulation, EPA considered a
wide range of control and treatment
options including both in-process
changes and end-of-pipe treatment.
These options are discussed in detail in
the preamble to the proposed copper
forming regulation and in the
development document. No major
changes have been made to the
technology options considered for the
final rule from those considered for the
proposed rule. The control and
treatment technologies used as the basis
for the final limitations and standards
are described below.
In-process controls include a variety
of flow reduction techniques and
process changes such as countercurrent
cascade rinsing, spray rinsing, recycle of
treated lubricants and cooling water,
and recycle of bath and rinse water.
End-of-pipe treatment includes:
Chemical reduction of chromium:
chemical precipitation of metal ions
using hydroxides or carbonates; removal
of precipitated metals by settling; pH
control; oil skimming; chemical emulsion
breaking; and filtration. These treatment
technologies are described in detail m
Section VII of the development
document.
The treatment effectiveness of the
above treatment technologies has been
evaluated by observing the performance
of these technologies on copper forming
and other similar wastewaters.
The data base for the performance of
hydroxide precipitation—sedimentation
technology is a composite of data drawn
from EPA sampling and analysis of
copper forming, aluminum forming,
battery manufacturing, porcelain
enameling, and coil coating
wastewaters. These data, collectively
called the combined metals data base,
report influent and effluent
concentrations for nine pollutants. The
wastewaters are judged to be similar for
treatment in all material respects
because they contain a range of
dissolved metals which can be removed
by precipitation and solids removal.
We regard the combined metals data
base as the best available measure for
establishing the concentrations
attainable with hydroxide precipitation
and sedimentation. Our determination is
based on the similarity of the raw
wastewaters as generally determined by
statistical analysis for homogeneity (a
separate study of statistical
homogeneity of these wastewaters is
part of the record of this rulemaking),
the larger number of plants used (20
plants versus four copper forming plants
available), and the larger number of
data points available for each pollutant.
The larger quantity of data in the
combined metals data base, as well as a
greater variety of influent
concentrations, enhances the Agency's
ability to estimate long-term
performance and variability through
statistical analysis.
The Agency also examined the
performance of lime, settle, and filter
technology based on the performance of
full-scale commercial systems treating
porcelain enameling and nonferrous
wastewaters. Two copper forming
plants reported that they are using a
filter. Thus this technology is
demonstrated on copper forming
wastewaters. The Agency made the
determination that wastewaters from
porcelain enameling and copper forming
are similar in all material respects based
on engineering considerations and the
analysis of the combined data set for
lime and settle treatment. Similarly, the
Agency determined that the wastewater
from one nonferrous metals plant that
uses lime, settle and filter is similar in
all material respects to the raw
wastewaters in the combined metals
data base. Therefore, the performance of
lime, settle, and filter technology can be
applied to copper forming wastewaters.
The combined metals data is discussed
in more detail in Section IX. Public
Participation and Response to
Comments, in Section VII of the
development document and m the
document "A Statistical Analysis of the
Combined Metals Industries Effluent
Data" in the administrative record.
Flow reduction is a significant part of
the overall pollutant reduction
technology. Because of this the Agency
is promulgating mass-based limitations
and standards which take into account
significant flow reduction thereby
ensuring that adequate pollution control
is achieved. The limitations and
standards established for this category
are mass-based (mass of pollutant
allowed to be discharged per unit of
production) and are derived as the
product of the regulatory flow and the
overall treatment effectiveness. The
regulatory flows are based on flow data,
normalized to production, supplied by
the industry.
C. Technology Basis for Final
Regulations
A brief summary of the technology
basis for the regulation is presented
below. A more detailed summary is
presented in the "Preamble to the
Proposed Copper Forming Point Source
Category Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and
New Source Performance Standards" (47
FR 51278 (November 12. 1982)) and the
Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Copper Forming Point Source
Category.
BPT: EPA is promulgating BPT mass
limitations based on end-of-pipe
treatment, which consists of lime
precipitation and settling, and, where
necessary, preliminary treatment
consisting of chemical emulsion
breaking, oil skimming! and chemical
-------
36946 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
reduction of chromium. The end-of-pipe
treatment technology basis for the BPT
limitations being promulgated ia the
same as that for the proposed
limitations.
In developing BPT limitations, the
Agency considered the amount of water
used per unit of production (liters per
metric ton) for each wastewater stream.
The regulatory flow allowances for BPT
remain the same as those proposed with
the exception of the regulatory flow
allowances for pickling and alkaline
rir.se waters for forged parts and
drawing spent lubricant. In addition, we
are adding discharge allowances for six
copper forming operations which
generate small amounts of wastewater.
These flow allowances are discussed
briefly below and in more detail in
Section IX of this preamble and in
Section IX of the development
document. The limitations presented in
the final BPT regulation reflect these
changes.
The flow allowances for pickling and
alkaline rinse waters were increased
over the proposed allowances in the
case of forged parts. These changes are
made because these parts have cavities
which trap and carry significant
amounts of pickling and alkaline
cleaning bath to the rinse stage. This
added carry out requires more rinse
water to achieve required product
cleanliness than that required for flat
and simple shapes of parts.
Two plants submitted production
normalized flow data which we
averaged to obtain the BPT regulatory
flows for pickling and alkaline cleaning
for forged parts. These flows are 3,918 1/
kkg and 12,642 l/kkg, respectively. The
technology basis for these flows is
equivalent to the technology which
these plants presently employ: spray
rinsing and recirculation for pickling
rinse and flow normalization for
alkaline cleaning rinse. Our review of all
flow data for these operations shows
that these flow allowances represent the
average of the best.
The final rule provides a regulatory
flow allowance and discharge
limitations for drawing spent lubricant.
At proposal, EPA established-a zero
discharge flow allowance for drawing
spent lubricant based on the industry
reported practice of contract hauling.
Commenters requested that a flow
allowance be established, as an
alternative to contract hauling, bo that
drawing spent lubricant could be treated
and discharged. The commenters
asserted, among other things, that zero
discharge for this stream based on
contract hauling may not provide any
environmental benefit and only requires
copper formers tcxpay for a service they
can in many instances provide for
themselves. The basis for their assertion
is that contract haulers merely transfer
the waste to a waste treatment facility
or an oil reclaimer who in turn
processes the waste by recovering the
oil component and discharging the water
fraction either with or without
treatment. The commenters further point
out that the model treatment
technologies used to establish BPT limits
would effectively treat drawing spent
lubricants. The oil-water mixture is
separated by chemical emulsion
breaking. The oil fraction is then
removed by skimming, while the
remaining water fraction is discharged
to lime and setde treatment for toxic
metals removal. Any remaining
pollutant discharged would be
approximately the same as ultimately
discharged by a reclaimer or treatment
facility.
We believe that these comments
support a flow allowance and that a
discharge limitation for drawing spent
lubricant is justified for all plants that
actually treat and discharge this stream.
The BPT regulatory flow for drawing
spent lubricant is 85 l/kkg. This flow is
based on the average of all plants which
reported a discharge for their drawing
operation in EPA's 1978 data gathering
effort. The regulatory flow is based on
recycle because this in-process control
was reported by all of the plants. A
further discussion of the drawing spent
lubricant flow allowance can be found
in Section IX of this preamble. Section
IX of the development document, and in
EPA's response to comment document
The Agency is also providing flow
allowances for some waste streams
which were not covered in the proposed
copper forming regulation. These flow
allowances are being made in response
to comments that these wastewater
streams result from copper forming
processes and therefore should be given
flow allowances to ensure that mass-
based effluent limitations and standards
equitably reflect the amount of water
required by a plant for its manufacturing
operation. The technology basis for each
of the flows is flow normalization and
the regulatory flows for each are based
on plant data submitted in support of
comments.
Flow allowances for tumbling and
burnishing and surface coating are
established at 583 l/kkg and 743 l/kkg,
respectively. Hydrotesting, sawing,
surface milling, and maintenance are
covered under a miscellaneous waste
stream allowance of 21.8 l/kkg. Since
maintenance covers a wide range of
operations or functions which are not
and probably can not be specifically
enumerated in all cases, we intend the
miscellaneous allowance to include any
maintenance related wastewaters not
specifically regulated in other specific
wastewater streams. This miscellaneous
allowance is applicable to airy plant
with any or all of the four operations
The pollutants selected for limitation
at BPT are: chromium, ropper, lead,
nickel, zinc, oil and grease, total
suspended solids (TSS], and pH. These
are the same pollutants that were
selected for regulation in the proposed
rule.
Implementation of the BPT limitations
will remove annually an estimated
27,000 kg of toxic pollutants (metals and
organics) and 56.000 kg of conventional
pollutants (from estimated current
discharge) at a capital cost, above
equipment in place, of $6 4 million and a
total annual cost of $6.6 million. The
Agency estimates that 11 of the 37 direct
dischargers presently or would with
minor modifications meet the BPT
limitations. The Agency has determined
that the effluent reduction benefits
associated with compliance with BPT
limitations justify the costs.
BAT: EPA is promulgating BAT mass
limitations based on the BPT model end-
of-pipe treatment and flow reduction by
approximately 60 percent of the BPT
flow. The treatment technology basis for
the promulgated BAT is the same as that
for the proposed limitation.
In developing BAT limitations, the
Agency considered the amount of water
used per unit of production (liters per
metric ton) for each wasterwater stream.
The BAT regulatory flow allowances
reflect those changes made since
proposal for BPT as discussed in the
preceding section.
In the case of pickling and alkaline
cleaning rinse allowances for forged
parts, the Agency considered the option
of countercurrent rinsing at BAT for
additional reduction of the BPT flow.
However, as discussed in the proposed
rule, most existing plants that perform
forging operations do not have sufficient
space to install countercurrent rinse
tanks. Therefore the BAT regulatory
flow allowances for these streams are
equivalent to those provided at BPT.
The BPT regulatory flow allowance
provided for drawing spent lubricants is
based on extensive recycle. The Agency
has no data available to support flow
reduction beyond that required at BPT.
Accordingly, the BAT regulatory flow
allowance for drawing spent lubricant is
equivalent to the BPT regulatory flow
allowance.
Tumbling or burnishing, surface
coating, and miscellaneous waste
stream allowances are based on current
reported industry practice and do not
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 36947
require in process flow reduction
controls These streams have low flows
and will only increase BAT pollutant
discharges above proposed levels by
less than 2 percent. We have no data to
support reduction of these flows and
believe that further flow reduction
would not significantly affect pollutant
removal. Therefore BAT flows are
equivalent to BPT. The limitations
presented in the final BAT regulation
reflect these changes.
The pollutants selected for regulation
are: chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and
zinc. These are the same pollutants that
were selected for regulation in the
proposed rule. Toxic organics are not
regulated at BAT because the oil and
grease limitation at BPT should provide
adequate removal (approximately 97
percent). Similarly, the toxic metals
antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
silver, and selenium will be adequately
controlled when the regulated toxic
metals are treated to the levels
achievable by the model treatment
technology.
Implementation of the BAT limitations
will remove annually an estimated
31,000 kg of toxic metal and organic
pollutants (from estimated current
discharge) at a capital cost, above
equipment in place, of S6.5 million and a
total annual cost of S6.3 million.
BAT will remove 4.000 kg/yr of toxic
pollutants (metals and organics)
incrementally above BPT; the
incremental investment cost is $0.1
million. Total annual costs for BAT are
less than BPT because the lower flows
allow for smaller equipment and thereby
smaller operating and maintenance
costs. The Agency projects no plant or
line closures as a result of these costs.
Therefore, the BAT limitations are
economically achievable.
The Agency has decided not to
include filtration as part of the model
BAT technology. We estimate that 8,000
kg/yr of toxic pollutants will be
discharged after the installation of BPT
treatment technology; the model BAT
treatment technology is estimated to
remove an additional 4,000 kg/yr of
toxic pollutants. The total removal after
BAT is 89 percent of the total current
discharge. The addition of filtration
would remove approximately 5.000 kg/
yr of toxic pollutants discharged after
BPT or a total removal of 91 percent of
the total current discharge. This
additional removal of 1000 kg per year
achieved by filtration is equal to an
additional removal of approximately 0.1
kg of toxic pollutants per day per
discharger. The incremental costs of
these effluent reductions are $1.4 million
in capital cost and $1.1 million in total
annual costs for all direct dischargers.
The Agency received four comments on
BAT technology option selection all of
which opposed the inclusion of filtration
as part of the BAT model technology.
Commenters urged the Agency not to
include filtration as the basis for BAT
because of the costs and the small
incremental pollutant removal. The
Agency believes that given all of these
factors, the costs involved do not
warrant selection of filtration as a part
of the BAT model treatment technology.
NSPS: EPA is promulgating NSPS
based on end-of-pipe treatment which
consists of lime precipitation, settling,
and filtration, and, where necessary,
preliminary treatment consisting of
chemical emulsion breaking, oil
skimming, and chromium reduction. This
is identical to BAT with the addition of
a polishing filter and is the same as the
end-of-pipe model treatment technology
proposed. The Agency has determined
that these technologies are the best
demonstrated technologies for this
industrial category.
In developing NSPS, the Agency
considered the amount of water used
per unit of production for each
wastewater stream. We have made
three changes to the NSPS flow
allowances since proposal; these include
drawing spent lubricant, additional flow
allowances, and pickling and alkaline
cleaning rinse following forged parts.
With the exception of pickling rinse for
forged parts, the NSPS regulatory flows
for these streams are the same as those
at BPT and BAT discussed in preceding
sections of this preamble. The pickling
rinse flow allowance for forged parts
has been increased to 1,755 l/kkg for the
reasons presented in the EPT and BAT
discussions. The technology basis is the
same as proposed, countercurrent
rinsing. The revised flow allowances are
described in Section IX of this preamble
and in Section XI of the development
document. The NSPS presented in the
final regulation reflect these changes.
Filtration has been retained in the
NSPS model technology because the
additional cost of filtration will be offset
by the lower treatment costs associated
with smaller waste water flows based
on countercurrent rinsing. As discussed
in proposal, countercurrent rinsing is
included in NSPS because, unlike
existing plants, new plants will be able
to design plants with countercurrent
rinse tanks and will therefore not
encounter space or retrofit difficulties.
The pollutants selected for regulation
are: chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc,
oil and grease, TSS, and pH. These are
the same pollutants that were selected
for regulation in the proposed rule.
Specific toxic organics are not being
regulated because, as discussed under
BAT. the removal of oil and grease to
meet the oil and grease limit will
adequately control the toxic organic
found in copper forming wastewaters.
Similarly, the toxic metals antimony,
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, silver, and
selenium will be adequately controlled
when the regulated toxic metals are
treated to the levels achievable by the
model treatment technology.
In order to estimate pollutant
removals and costs for new sources, the
Agency developed a "normal" plant. A
normal plant is a theoretical plant which
has each of the manufacturing
operations covered by the category and
production that is the average level of
the industry as a whole. Section V'lII of
the development document presents m
detail the composition of the copper
forming normal plant. A new direct
discharge normal plant having the
industry average annual production
level would generate a raw waste of
1,837 kg per year of toxic metal and
organic pollutants. The NSPS technology
would reduce these pollutant levels to
75 kg per year of these same toxic
pollutants. The total capital investment
cost for a new normal plant to install
NSPS technology is estimated to be
$1.23 million, compared with investment
costs of $1.18 million to install
technology equivalent to BAT. Similar
figures for total annual costs are Sl.05
million for NSPS and $1 02 million for
BAT. As NSPS costs are approximately
the same as BAT costs for existing
sources, the new source performance
standards will not pose a barrier to
entry.
PSES; In the copper forming category,
the Agency has concluded that the toxic
metals regulated under these standards
(chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and
zinc) pass through the POTW. The
nationwide average percentage of these
same toxic metals removed by a well-
operated POTW meeting secondary
treatment requirements is about 50
percent (ranging from 20 to 70 percent),
whereas the percentage that can be
removed by a copper forming direct
discharger applying the best available
technology economically achievable is
about 90 percent. Accordingly, these
pollutants pass through a POTW.
To regulate the toxic metals that pass
through a POTW, EPA is promulgating
PSES based on the application of
technology equivalent to BAT, which
consists of end-of-pipe treatment
comprised of lime precipitation and
settling, flow reduction, and preliminary
treatment, where necessary, consisting
of chromium reduction, chemical
emulsion breaking, and oil skimming. In
the proposed rule we stated that if BAT
-------
36948
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
was promulgated with filters, then PSES
would need to include filtration to
prevent "pass through." Because this is
not the case, PSES does not include
filtration.
In addition to pass through of toxic
metals, available information from an
EPA study on POTWs shows that many
of the toxic organics from copper
facilities will pass through a POTW
Removal of those toxic organic
pollutants by well operated POTW
achieving secondary treatment averaged
62 percent, while the oil skimming
component of the BPT technology basis
achieves removals ranging from 85 to 97
percent. Accordingly, EPA Is
promulgating a pretreatment standard
for toxic organics.
At proposal, we stated that toxic
organic pollutants would be regulated as
total toxic organics (TTO) and defined
TTO as 12 specific compounds which
were found at the sampled copper
forming plants at concentrations greater
than the quantification level of 0.01 mg/
1. Appendix F of this preamble and
Section 468.02 of the regulation lists
those toxic organics which comprise
TTO. The list of TTO presented in this
regulation reflects all the toxic organic
pollutants found at concentrations
above the quantification level at
sampled plants. However, other toxic
organics may be found in copper
forming wastewaters even though they
were not found in the sampled waste
streams. This is because toxic organic
compounds originate in lubricants and
these compounds can vary depending
upon the formulation of the lubricant.
Many polyaromatic hydrocarbons and
organic solvents can be substituted for
one another to perform the same
function. If substitution does occur, the
Agency believes that these other toxic
organics are likely to be adequately
controlled by the PSES model treatment
technology and that the same
pretreatment standards on TTO should
apply. However, toxic organics not
covered by this regulation at copper
forming facilities should be considered
by the control authority on a case-by-
case basis.
The analysis of wastewaters for toxic
organics is costly and requires
sophisticated equipment. Therefore the
Agency is establishing as an alternative
to monitoring for TTO a monitoring
parameter for oil and grease. Data
indicate that the toxic organics are in
the oil and grease and by removal of the
oil and grease, the toxic organics should
also be removed. All comments received
in response to this issue support the
establishment of the alternative
monitoring parameter for oil and grease.
In developing these standards, the
amount of water used per unit of
production is considered for each waste
stream. The flow allowances
established for PSES are the same as
those established for BAT.
The pollutants selected for regulation
are: chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc,
and TTO. Six toxic metals, antimony,
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, silver and
selenium, which are not specifically
regulated will be adequately controlled
when the regulated metals are treated to
the levels achievable by the model
treatment technology.
The PSES set forth in this final rule
are expressed in terms of mass per unit
of production rather than concentration
standards. Regulation on the basis of
concentration is not appropriate
because concentration-based standards
do not restrict the total quantity of
pollutants discharged. Flow reduction is
a significant part of the model
technology for pretreatment because it
reduces the amount of toxic pollutants
introduced into a POTW. For this
reason, no alternative concentration
standards are promulgated for indirect
dischargers.
Implementation of the PSES will
remove annually an estimated 18.700 kg
of toxic metal and organic pollutants
(from estimated current discharge) at a
capital cost, above equipment in place,
of $9.2 million and a total annual cost of
$7.7 million. The Agency believes that
implementation of PSES will not result
m any plant closures or job losses.
The Agency has considered the
deadline for compliance for PSES. Few if
any of the copper forming plants have
installed and are properly operating the
treatment technology for PSES.
Additionally, the readjustment of
internal processing conditions to
achieve reduced wastewater flows may
reqiure more time than for only the
installation of end-of-pipe treatment
equipment. Additionally, many plants in
this and other industries will be
installing the treatment equipment
suggested as model technologies for this
regulation and this may result in delays
in engineering, ordering, installing, and
operating this equipment. For all these
reasons, the Agency has decided to set
the PSES compliance date at three years
after promulgation of this regulation.
PSNS: EPA is promulgating PSNS
based on end-of-pipe treatment and in-
process controls equivalent to that used
as the basis for NSPS. The flow
allowances for PSNS are also the same
as those for NSPS. As discussed under
PSES. pass through of the regulated
pollutants will occur without adequate
pretreatment and. therefore,
pretreatment standards are required.
The pollutants regulated under PSNS
are chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc,
and TTO. Six toxic metals, antimony,
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, silver and
selenium, which are not specifically
regulated will be adequately controlled
when the regulated metals are treated to
the levels achievable by the model
treatment technology. Monitoring for oil
and grease has been established as an
alternative to monitoring for TTO as
discussed under PSES.
In order to estimate costs and
pollutant removals for new sources, the
Agency used the "normal plant" as
discussed in this preamble under NSPS.
A new indirect discharge normal plant
having the industry average annual
production level would generate a raw
waste of 1,837 kg per year of toxic metal
and organic pollutants. The PSNS
technology would reduce these pollutant
levels to 75 kg per year of these same
toxic pollutants. The total capital
investment cost for a new normal plant
to install PSNS technology estimated to
be $1.23 million, compared with
investment costs of $1.18 million to
install technology equivalent to PSES.
Similar figures for total annual costs are
S1.05 million for PSNS and $1.02 million
for PSES. As PSNS costs are
approximately the same as PSES costs
for existing sources, the new source
performance standards will not pose a
barrier to entry.
VI. Economic Consideration
A Costs and Economic Impact
The Agency's economic impact
assessment of this regulation is
presented in the report entitled
Economic Impact Analysis of Effluent
Standards and Limitations for the
Copper Forming Industry. This report
details the investment and annual costs
for the copper forming category.
Compliance costs are based on
engineering estimates of capital
requirements for the effluent control
systems described earlier in this
preamble. The report assesses the
impact of effluent control costs in terms
of price changes, production changes,
plant closures, employment effects, and
balance of trade effects. The impacts for
each of the regulatory model treatment
technologies are discussed in the report.
The economic analysis also reflects
other industry comments, additional
information provided since proposal,
and the use of current information on
financial and economic characteristics
of the industry. Since proposal,
compliance costs have been revised as
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 36949
discussed in Section IX of this preamble
and in Section VIII of the development
document. As a consequence, estimated
costs of compliance have increased.
Since proposal, economic surveys
were received from two additional
plants. Data from these plants have
been added to our data base and
incorporated into our economic analysis.
EPA has identified 176 plants in the
copper forming category that are
covered by this regulation. Of these 176
plants, 37 are direct dischargers and 45
are indirect dischargers. The remaining
94 plants do not discharge wastewater.
Total investment for combined BAT and
PSES is estimated to be S15.7 million
with annual costs of $14.0 million,
including depreciation and interest.
These costs are expressed in 1982
dollars as are all the following costs.
No plant closures or job losses are
projected as a result of compliance costs
for this regulation. If all costs were
passed on to consumers, price increases
would be less than one percent. The
above costs reflect EPA's estimate of
required monitoring, i.e.. 12 days per
month for large plants and one day per
month for small plants. If all plants are
required either by their control authority
or their permit writer to monitor at least
10 days per month, then total annual
costs would increase by 0.8 million, from
S14 Q million to $14.8 million. No
closures or unemployment effects are
projected to result from this level of
monitoring; the average increase in the
cost of production would be negligible.
Our analysis shows that changes in
price due to changes m cost would be
very small because of the demand and
supply elasticities for copper forming
products. No measurable balance-of-
trade effect is expected from this
regulation due to the insignificance of
the estimated change in the price of
copper forming products, and due to the
absence of projected plant closures. EPA
has determined this regulation is
economically achievable.
The methodology for the economic
analysis is the same as that used at
proposal. It is detailed in Chapter II of
the Economic Impact Analysis. Using
revised compliance costs and financial
information for each plant, we
performed a capital availability analysis
and plant closures analysis.
The capital availability analysis uses
a capital budgeting approach. Given the
profitability of the plant and the cost of
pollution control, if the plant has a
positive cash flow after investment, it
can afford the pollution control.
Implicitly, then, that plant can obtain
financing for the pollution control
investment. In the plant closure
analysis, plants are assumed to close if
the expected discounted cash return of
the plant, less the investment costs of
the pollution control equipment. i3 lass
than the salvage value of the plant. The
results of the closure analysis were
extrapolated to include all 82 copper
forming plants that discharge
wastewater.
BPT: the BPT regulation is expected to
affect all 37 direct discharging plants.
BPT for these 37 plants is projected at
S6.4 million in investment costs and $6.6
million in annual costs (including
depreciation and interest). These costs
are the engineering compliance cost
estimates presented earlier m the
preamble and are conservative because
they are based on the assumption that
all plants not presently in compliance
will install BPT technology without flow
reduction, even in cases where it may be
less expensive to reduce flows prior to
end-of-pipe treatment. According to the
analysis of economic impact, no plant
closures or job losses are associated
with the BPT treatment option. If all
costs were passed on to consumers,
price increases would be 0.2 percent.
We believe facilities will choose the
most economical means of compliance
with BPT and. if going directly to BAT is
less expensive, will choose to install
BAT technology with flow reduction.
The reduced BAT regulatory flows allow
installation of smaller treatment systems
with less capital expenditures and
annual cost. These costs are projected to
be S5.8 million in investment costs and
S6.1 million in annual costs (including
depreciation and interest). Again, no
pbnt closures or job losses are
projected. Lf all costs were passed on to
consumers, price increases would be 0.2
percent. The Agency has determined
that the effluent reduction benefits
associated with compliance with BPT
justify the costs.
BAT. Compliance costs and resulting
economic impacts for BAT are based on
going from existing treatment to
installing BAT. All 37 direct dischargers
will be affected by the BAT limitations.
These 37 plants would share investment
costs estimated at $6.5 million and total
annual costs of S6.3 million, including
depreciation and interest. The Agency
believes that this option will not result
in any plant closures or job losses. If all
costs were passed on to consumers,
price increases would be 0.2 percent.
Therefore, the Agency believes that
compliance with BAT will be
economically achievable.
PSES: All 45 indirect dischargers will
incur costs to comply with this
regulation. These 45 plants will share
investment costs of $9.2 million and
annual costs of $7.7 million, including
depreciation and interest. The Agency
believes that this option will not result
in any closures on job losses. If all costs
were passed on to consumers, price
increases would be 0.7 percent.
Therefore, the Agency believes that
compliance with PSES will be
economically achievable.
NSPS-PSNS: The copper forming
category i3 a very mature industry and
has not grown rapidly during the last
decade. This trend is expected to
continue. The copper forming category is
also very sensitive to the behavior of the
U.S. economy. The demand for copper
products has declined during the current
recession during which all copper
forming major end-use markets have
been depressed, including construction,
transportation, and electrical and
electronic products. According to EPA's
analysis, this is a temporary condition
and the demand for copper formed
products will recover. The baseline
supply and demand forecasts are based
upon empirical models developed over
the 1960 to 1979 historical period. While
growth in the demand for copper formed
products is projected during the next
decade, it is expected to be met through
expanded capacity at domestic plants
and from overseas operations. During
the next decade, some existing plants
may be modified or replaced and some
new plants may be built. The total
number of copper forming plants in the
U S. are projected to be the same.
The Agency has estimated that the per
plant costs associated with NSPS and
PSNS will be approximately equal to
those for BAT and PSES as previously
discussed in Section V. BAT and PSES
are based on technology consisting of
flow reduction, lime and settle, and.
where necessary, preliminary treatment
with chromium reduction, chemical
emulsion breaking, and oil skimming.
NSPS adds filtration and greater flow
reduction achieved by countercurrent
rinsing of the pickling rinse stream. The
Agency believes that the additional
costs of filtration for NSPS will be offset
by the lower treatment costs associated
with smaller wastewater flows using
countercurrent rinsing. Therefore, new
sources, regardless of whether they
result from major modifications of
existing facilities or are constructed as
greenfield sites, will have costs
approximately equivalent to the costs
existing sources will incur in achieving
BAT and PSES. The Agency believes
that neither NSPS nor PSNS will deter
entry into copper forming. The Agency
requested but received no comment on
the conclusions that costs for PSNS and
NSPS are approximately equal to BAT
and PSES costs and that greenfield and
-------
36950 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
major modification plants will incur
similar costs.
B.	Executive Order 12291
Executive Order 12291 requires EPA
and other agencies to perform regulatory
impacts analyses of major regulations.
Major rules are those which impose a
cost on the economy of $100 million a
year or more or have certain other
economic impacts. This regulation is not
a major rule because its annualized cost
of $14.0 million is less than $100 million
and it meets none of the other criteria
specified in Section I paragraph (b) of
the Executive Order. The economic
impact analysis prepared for this
proposed rulemaking meets the
requirements for non-major rules.
C.	Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pub. L. 96-354 requires EPA to prepare
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
for all proposed regulations that have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This analysis
may be done in conjunction with or as a
part of any other analysis conducted by
the Agency. The economic impact
analysis described above indicates that
there will not be a significant impact on
any segment of the regulated population,
large or small. Therefore, a formal
regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
D.	SBA Loans
The Agency is continuing to
encourage copper formers to use Small
Business Administration (SBA)
financing as needed for pollution control
equipment. The three basic programs
are: (1) The Guaranteed Pollution
Control Bond Program, (2) the Section
503 Program, and (3) the Regular
Guarantee Program. All the SBA loan
programs are only open to businesses
that have: (a) Net assets less than $6
million, (b) an average annual after-tax
income of less than $2 million, and (c)
fewer than 250 employees. The
estimated economic impacts for this
category do not include consideration of
financing available through these
programs.
The Section 503 Program, as amended
in July 1980, allows long-term loans to
small and medium sized businesses.
These loans are made by SBA approved
local development companies. For the
first time, these companies 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 Desselle
who may be reached at (202) 382-5373.
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.
VII. Nonwater Quality Environmental
Impacts
Eliminating or reducing one form of
pollution may cause other
environmental problems. Sections 304(b)
and 306 of the Act require EPA to
consider the nonwater 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 nonwater 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 nonwater 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
Imposition of BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES,
and PSNS will not create any
substantial air pollution problems
because the wastewater treatment
technologies required to meet these
limitations and standards do not cause
air pollution.
B.	Solid Waste
EPA estimates that copper forming
facilities generated 39,000 metric tons of
solid wastes (wet basis) in 1978 as a
result of wastewater treatment in place.
These wastes were comprised of
treatment system sludges containing
toxic metals, including chromium,
copper, lead, nickel, and zinc; and oil
removed during oil 3kimming and
chemical emulsion breaking that
contains toxic organics.
EPA estimates that BPT will
contribute an additional 13,000 metric
tons per year of solid wastes over that
which is currently being generated by
the copper forming industry. BAT and
PSES will increase these wastes by
approximately 11.000 metric tons per
year beyond BPT levels. These sludges
will necessarily contain additional
quantities (and concentrations) of toxic
metal pollutants. The normal plant was
used to estimate the sludge generated at
NSPS and PSNS and we estimate that
NSPS and PSNS will generate 10 percent
more sludge over BAT and PSES. The
final rule provides a flow allowance for
drawing spent lubricant, in contrast to
the proposed rule which was based on
contract hauling of this wastewater
stream. The decrease in the total
amount of sludge generated from this
change will not be significant.
The Agency examined the solid
wastes that would be generated at
copper forming plants by the suggested
treatment technologies and believes
they are not hazardous under Section
3001 of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). This judgment is
made based on the recommended
technology of lime precipitation. By the
addition of a small excess of lime during
treatment, similar sludges, specifically
toxic metal bearing sludges, generated
by other industries such as the iron and
steel industry passed the EP toxicity
test See 40 CFR 261.24 (45 FR 33084
(May 19,1980)). Thus, the Agency
believes that the copper forming
wastewater sludges will similarly not be
found hazardous if the recommended
technology is applied. Since the copper
forming solid wastes are not believed to
be hazardous, no estimates were made
of costs for disposing of hazardous
wastes in accordance with RCRA
requirements.
Although it is the Agency's view that
solid wastes generated as a result of
these guidelines are not expected to be
classified as hazardous under the
regulations implementing Subtitle C of
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, generators of these
wastes must test the waste to determine
if the wastes meet any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste. See
40 CFR 262.11 (45 FR 12732-12733
(February 20,1980)). The Agency may
also list these sludges as hazardous
pursuant to 40 CFR 261.11 (45 FR 33121
(May 19. 1980), as amended at 45 FR
76624 (November 19,1980)).
If these wastes are identified as
hazardous, they will come within the
scope of RCRA's "cradle to grave"
hazardous waste management program,
requiring regulation from the point of
generation to point of final disposition.
EPA'3 generator standards would
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, Mo. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1933 / Rules and Regulations 36951
require generators of hazardous copper
forming wastes to meet containerization.
labeling, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. In addition, if copper
formers dispose of hazardous wastes
off-site, they would have to prepare a
manifest which would track the
movement of the wastes from the
generator's premises to a permitted off-
site treatment, storage, or disposal
facility. See 40 CFR 262 20 {45 FR 33142
(May 19, 1980)). The transporter
regulations require transporters of
hazardous wastes to comply with the
manifest system to assure that the
wastes are delivered to a permitted
facility. See 40 CFR 263.20 (45 FR 33151
(May 19,1980)), as amended at 45 FR
86973 (December 31, 1980)). Finally,
RCRA regulations establish standards
for hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities allowed to
receive such wastes. See 40 CFR Part
464 (46 FR 2802 (January 12. 1981J, 47 FR
32274 (July 23, 1982)).
Waste3 which are not hazardous must
be disposed of in a manner that will not
violate the open dumping prohibition of
4005 of RCRA. See 44 FR 53438
(September 13,1979). The Agency has
calculated as part of the costs for
wastewater treatment the cost of
hauling and disposing of these wastes in
accordance with these requirements. For
more details, see Section VIII of the
technical development document
C. Consumptive Water Loss
Treatment and control technologies
thai require extensive recycling and
reuse of water may require cooling
mechanisms. Evaporative cooling
mechanisms can cause water loss and
contribute to water scarcity problems—
a primary concern in arid and semi-arid
regions. While this regulation assumes
water reuse, the quantity of water
involved is not regionally significant.
We conclude that the pollution
reduction benefits of recycle
technologies outweigh their impact on
consumptive water loss.
D Energy Requirements
EPA estimates that the achievement
of BAT effluent limitations will result in
a net increase of electrical energy
consumption of approximately 0.6
million kilowatt-hours per year. To
achieve the BAT effluent limitations, a
typical direct discharger will increase
total energy consumption by less than 1
percent of the energy consumed for
production purposes. NSPS will not
significantly add to total energy
consumption since new source
equipment and pumps will be smaller
and therefore use less energy due to the
decreased flows resulting from flow
reduction. A normal plant was used to
estimate the energy requirements for a
new source. A new source wastewater
treatment system will add 122,000
kilowatt-hours per year to the total
industry energy requirements.
The agency estimates that PSES will
result in a net increase in electrical
energy consumption of approximately
0.5 million kilowatt-hours per year To
achieve PSES, an indirect discharger
will increase energy consumption by
less than 2 percent of the energy
consumed for production purposes.
PSNS, like NSPS, will not significantly
add to total energy consumption based
on a normal plant calculation.
VIII. Pollutants Not Regulated
The Settlement Agreement in N'RDC
v. Train, supra contains provisions
authorizing the exclusion from
regulation in certain instances of toxic
pollutants and industry subcategories.
These provisions have beer: rewritten in
a Revised Settlement Agreement which
was approved by the District Court for
the District of Columbia on March 9.
1979. See NRDC v. Costle, 12 ERC 1833
(D.D.C. 1979). Because the Agency is
regulating the copper forming industry
as a single category, no subcategories
are excluded from regulation. Data
supporting exclusion of the pollutants
identified below are presented in
Sections V and IX of the development
document.
The Agency has deleted the following
three pollutants from the toxic pollutant
list' Dichlorofluoromethane (50) and
tnchlorofluoromethane (40), 46 FR 796S2
(January 8, 1981); and bis
(chloromethyl)ether (17), 46 FR 10723
(February 4,1981).
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. The toxic pollutants not
detected and, therefore, excluded from
regulation are listed in Appendix B to
this preamble.
Paragraph 8(a)(iii) also allows the
Administrator to exclude from
regulation toxic pollutants detected in
amounts too small to be effectively
reduced by technologies known to the
Administrator. Appendix C to this
preamble lists the toxic pollutants which
were detected in the effluent in amounts
at or below the nominal limit of
analytical quantification, which are too
small to be effectively reduced and
which, therefore, are excluded from
regulation.
Paragraph 8(a)(iii) also allows the
Administrator to exclude from
regulation toxic pollutants which will be
effectively controlled by the
technologies used as the basis for other
effluent limitations guidelines, standards
of performance, or pretreatment
standards. Appendix D list those toxic
pollutants which will be effectively
controlled by the other limitations or
standards being promulgated even
though they are not specifically
regulated.
Paragraph 8(a)(in) also allows the
Administrator to exclude from
regulation toxic pollutants dt-Sectable in
the effluent from only a small number cf
sources within the subcategory because
they are uniquely related to these
sources. Appendix E to this notice lists
For the toxic pollutant which was
detected in the effluents of only one
plant, is uniquely related to that plant,
and is not related to the manufacturing
processes under study.
IX. Public Participation and Response to
Major Comments
Industry and government groups have
participated during the development of
these effluent guidelines and standards.
Following the publication of the
proposed rule on November 12, 1982 in
the Federal Register, we provided the
development document and the
economic impact analysis supporting the
proposed rule to industry, government
agencies, and the public sector. On
January 14, 1983, corrections to the
proposed ruie were published m the
Federal Register and the comment
periud was extended until February 14,
1S83. A permit writers workshop was
held on the copper forming rulemaking
in Boston, Massachusetts on January 4,
1983 On January 10,1983 in
Washington. D.C., a public hearing was
held on the proposed pretreatment
standards at which one person
presented testimony. Twenty-two
commenters submitted a total of
approximately 125 individual comments
on the proposed regulation.
All comments received have been
carefully considered, and appropriate
changes in the regulation have been
made whenever available data and
information supported those changes.
Major issues raised by the comments
are addressed in this section of the
preamble. A summary of all comments
received and our detailed responses to
these comments is included in a
document entitled Response to Public
Comments, Proposed Copper Forming
Effluent Limitations and Standards
which has been placed in the public
record for this regulation.
-------
36952 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
The following is a discussion of the
Agency's responses to the principal
comments.
1. Combined Metals Data Base
(CMDB). The Agency received several
comments on the copper forming
proposal relating to the use of the CMDB
to determine treatment effectiveness for
lime and settle treatment. Comments on
the CMDB also were submitted on other
proposed regulations. The Agency has
considered all the comments submitted
on ihe copper forming proposal and
comments on other proposals that are
relevant to copper forming. Summaries
of specific comments submitted on
copper forming proposal and the .
Agency's responses are set forth below.
Other comments and responses on the
CMDB can be found in the Response to
Public Comments. Proposed Copper
Forming Effluent Limitations and
Standards.
a. Comment: One commenter
complained about the small size of the
data base and the statistical methods
used in analyzing it. Specifically, the
commenter stated that the data base
was too limited to reflect the
effectiveness of lime and settle
treatment and that variability was ill-
defined by the available data and
asserted that the statistical methods
were too complicated.
Response: The CMDB includes 162
data points from 20 plants in five
industrial categories with similar
wastewaters. All plants in the data base
have the recommended end-of-pipe
treatment technology. Four of the plants
in the data base are copper forming
plants. These data were evaluated and
analyzed to establish comparability of
wastewater characteristics across
categories and establish effluent
limitations on the basis of data that
represent good operation of the
recommended technology. The use of
comparable data from several categories
enhances the estimates of treatment
effectiveness and variability over those
that would be obtained from data from
any one category alone. The statistical
methods used to assess homogeneity
among the categories in the CMDB .and
to determine limitations are appropriate
and are well known to statisticians.
The methods used to analyze
homogeneity are known generally as
analysis of variance. Effluent limitations
were determined by fitting the data to a
lognormal distribution and using
estimation techniques that possess
desirable statistical properties. These
methods are described in detail in the
document entitled A Statistical Analysis
of the Combined Metals Industries
Effluent Data which includes
appropriate references to statistical
texts, journal articles and monographs.
The Agency confirmed that copper
forming plan'3 were achieving results
that were consistent with the values
determined from the CMDB by
examining discharge monitoring reports
(DMR) from 19 discharge points in 15
copper forming plants. Although
reported in summary forms (usually as
monthly averages). DMR data can be
used to construct annual average
effluent concentration values.
The DMR's provided sufficient data to
construct 42 annual average values for
copper from the 19 discharge points.
From one to four annual averages from
each discharge point were available;
most supplied three annual averages.
These 42 averages were compared to the
copper mean of 0.58 mg/1 calculated
from the CMDB.
Thirty-three of these 42 copper
averages were less than the CMDB long-
term average of 0 58 mg/1. All of the
available annual averages for 11 of the
discharge points were lower than the
CMDB long-term average. The remaining
eight discharge points had annual
averages lower than the CMDB average
in some years: of the eight discharge
points, seven had only one year in
which the annual average was greater
than the CMDB average and the other
discharge point reported two of four
annual averages only slightly greater
than the CMDB average.
In a similar manner, we compared
DMR data on four other regulated
pollutants and found that the annual
averages are generally smaller than the
values estimated from the CMDB for
chromium, nickel, zinc, and TSS. This
supports the use of the CMDB as the
basis for treatment effectiveness of lime
and settle technology in the copper
forming category.
b. Comment: One commenter
recommended that EPA use the
electroplating (metal finishing) data
base to establish limitations and
standards.
Response: The Agency at one time
considered including electroplating data
in the CMDB, however, statistical
analysis indicated that these data were
not homogeneous with other metals
industries data including copper forming
data. Therefore, electroplating data
were removed from the CMDB.
Consistent with this analysis, the use of
these data alone is not an appropriate
means of determining lime and settle
treatment effectiveness for the copper
forming category.
C. Comment: Another commenter
criticized the inclusion of certain data
points in the CMDB because they did
not meet the Agency's pH criteria, Other
effluent data points were criticized
because the corresponding influent to
treatment concentration was lower than
the treated effluent.
Response: The Agency carefully
reexamined the specific data points
identified in comments as being
incorrectly included in the combined
metals data base. Of the four copper
forming plants in the combined metals
data base, four data days show a pH
below 7 0. In eliminating data from use
in the data base, EPA used a pH editing
rale which generally excludes data in
cases where the pH is below 7.0 for
extended periods of time (i.e., over two
hours). The rationale for this rule was
that low pH over a long period of time
often indicates improper functioning of
the treatment system. The time periods
of low pH for the points in question
cannot be determined from existing
data; however, because large amounts
of metals were removed and low
effluent concentrations were being
achieved, the pH at the point of
precipitation necessarily had to be well
above pH 7.0. The reason for the effluent
pH falling below 7.0 cannot be
determined from the available data, but
it is presumed to be a pH rebound. This
phenomenon is ofter encountered where
a slow reacting acidic material is
neutralized or reacts late in the
treatment cycle. The Agency believes
that the data in question are
representative of a lime and settle
treatment process which is being
operated in an acceptable manner.
Accordingly, the data have been
retained in the CMDB.
The commenter states that two
effluent data points should have been
excluded because the corresponding
influent concentration was lower. In the
case of one of the points, the commenter
apparently made an error since the
influent concentration listed by the
commenter as 0.0 mg/1 was listed as 60.0
mg/1 in both the development document
and the statistical analysis report. This
data point is, accordingly, properly
included. With regard to the second
point, the effluent value for copper
referred to by the commenter is larger
than the influent value recorded on the
same day. There was, however, no
indication of treatment malfunction
and/or mislabelling of the sample. The
value was left in the data base because
such values can occur in the course of
normal operation. Deletion of the copper
effluent value referred to by the
commenter would result in a more
stringent limitation for copper which the
Agency does not believe would
appropriately reflect treatment of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 36953
copper. Other comments on the CMDB
raised the issue of the use of effluent
measurements that were larger than
influent measurements taken on the
same day. In general, where there was
no indication of treatment malfunction
and/or mislabelling of the sample the
values were retained in the data base.
d. Comment: One commenter
questioned the achievability of specific
metal concentrations considering the
spread of minimum solubilities for
different metals at a range of pH values.
Response: The treatment effectiveness
values derived from the CMDB are
based on observed performance of
treatment systems rather than
theoretical calculations. Use of
theoretical solubility of pollutants alone
is not appropriate for determining actual
treatment effectiveness. We believe that
the actual performance data in the
CMDB reflect these theoretical
considerations.
2.	Comment: The Agency received 13
comments criticizing the zero discharge
allowance for drawing spent lubricant.
All of these c.ommenters requested that
the Agency provide a flow allowance as
an alternative to zero discharge, so that
plants could treat their waste using lime
and settle technology.
Response: As discussed in Section V
of this preamble, the Agency is
promulgating a flow allowance for the
drawing spent lubricant operation. For a
detailed discussion on this and our
response see the Agency's Response to
Comments Document.
3.	Comment: Several commenters
objected to the use of filtration in the
model technology used as a basis for
BAT and PSES. They stated that the
addition of filtration to the treatment
train would not substantially reduce the
metals content of the effluent and that
the cost of filtration is not justified by
the additional pollutant removal it
provides.
Response: The Agency is not
promulgating BAT and PSES based on
model treatment technology including
filtration for the reasons stated earlier in
Section V of this preamble.
4.	Comment: Two commenters assert
that the proposed pickling and alkaline
cleaning rinse allowances were
inadequate for forged parts. They stated
that these regulatory flows are almost
entirely based on data from other
forming operations and that these other
operations do not accurately reflect the
amount of water needed for adequate
rinsing of forged parts. The basis for
their assertions is that forged parts are
often small with intricate shapes. As a
result, these parts have cavities and
other configurational peculiarities that
trap and carry significant amounts of the
pickling and alkaline cleaning bath
water to the rinse stage. To offset the
additional "drag-out" and thereby
maintain the same degree of product
cleanliness for forged parts as with
other formed products, plants need to
use and discharge greater quantities of
rinse water.
Response: The Agency agrees with the
commenters that rinsing of forged parts
requires a greater amount of water and
is promulgating larger flow allowances
for pickling and alkaline cleaning rinse
See Section V of this preamble for
additional discussion.
5. Comment: The Agency received
seven comments from four commenters
criticizing the use of m-.ss-based
limitations and standards. The
commenters stated that: (a) mass-based
controls could require disclosure of
confidential information; (b) they are not
enforceable by a POTW because
production data are needed: (c) they
cannot be reconciled with
concentration-based limitations and
standards under the combined waste
stream formula; and (d) concentration
only standards rather than mass-based
standards are adequate because plants
are forbidden to use dilution to comply
with the concentration-based standards.
Response: The Agency is
promulgating mass-based limitations
and standards because flow reduction is
an integral part of the treatment
technology which must be included to
reduce the quantity of pollutants
discharged to the required level In
developing the copper forming
regulation, the Agency examined the
sources and amounts of water used in
the various manufacturing operations.
EPA found that for all process
operations a significant number of
plants used more water than the process
required, and further, that for a number
of processes, water was being recycled
by many plants in the category.
Accordingly, flow reduction was
incorporated as an integral part of the
model treatment technology for copper
forming. Mass-based limitations are
necessary for this category to
adequately control the total discharge of
pollutants With respect to specific
comments above:
(a)	A company may have to provide
the POTW production information that
it may wish to have considered
confidential. Such information is
generally reported in a manner not
readily usable by competing companies.
More importantly, this information is
necessary to calculate the individual
discharge limits and to determine
compliance with the regulation.
(b)	The standards are independently
enforceable. Pretreatment standards are
calculated using the average rate of
production for each operation. See 40
CFR 403.12(b)(3). The average rate of
production should represent a
reasonable measure of actual facility
production.
(c)	The combined waste stream
formula as described in the General
Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR Part
403) provides for the calculation of
limitations for combined streams for
both mass-based and concentration-
based standards.
If an integrated plant is required to
comply with a categorical pretreatment
standard expressed only in mass-based
limits and another categorical
pretreatment standard expressed only in
concentration-based limits, a mass-
based limit should be applied to the
combined flow. To accomplish this
under the formula, the concentration
limit may be converted to a mass limit
by multiplying the concentration limit by
the average or other appropriate flow of
the regulated stream to which the limit
applies.
(d)	Mass-based standards incorporate
technology which reduces the amount of
process wastewater discharged from
certain manufacturing operations. While
plants are forbidden to use dilution to
comply with pretreatment standards, the
mass-based standards are intended to
further ensure that the Agency's
standards are met.
6. Comment: Four commenters
responded to the Agency's request for
comments on whether copper forming
wastewater treatment sludges are
hazardous as defined under RCRA. One
commenter expressed agreement with
EPA that these wastes are not
hazardous. One commenter estimated
that 50 percent of these sludges would
be hazardous with respect to the EP
Toxicity Test outlined in the federal
hazardous waste regulations.
Response: The Agency contacted the
commenter who asserted that copper
forming wastewater treatment sludges
would be hazardous and requested that
this commenter submit data supporting
this assertion. The commenter submitted
information pertaining to the toxicity of
sludges from four plants; only one of
which was shown to be hazardous with
respect to the RCRA EP Toxicity Test
outlined at 40 CFR Part 261. This sludge
was generated by a plant processing
leaded brass. Of the remaining three
plants, the sludges from one are
considered hazardous by the state,
while sludges from the other two plants
are not presently considered hazardous.
In regard to the leaded brass facility,
the Agency contacted the commenter by
telephone in order to inquire whether
-------
36954 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
excess of lime was employed in the
chemical precipitation unit The plant
has been operating its treatment without
excess lime in order to avoid exceeding
the states' pH limitation of 9.0. The
copper forming regulation establishes a
higher pH limit for discharged waters.
Should the permitting authority refuse to
accept the higher pH waters, the copper
former could add acid to reduce the pH
before discharge at a substantially
smaller cost than the added cost of
disposal of the sludge as a hazardous
material. Therefore, the hazardous
nature of this sludge is a site-specific
problem. The Agency does not believe it
is necessary to cost leaded brass
sludges or any copper forming sludges
as hazardous.
a.	Comment: Two comments were that
these sludges would not be hazardous
under RCRA, but would be considered
hazardous by the states.
Response: The Agency is aware that
some states have more stringent solid
waste disposal laws than required by
EPA and therefore, copper forming
wastewater treatment sludges may be
considered hazardous by these states
even though they would not be
considered hazardous under RCRA. The
cost to dispose of such sludges as
hazardous is a state-specific cost and is
not a cost associated with this federal
regulation.
b.	Comment: One commenter asserted
that the classification of copper forming
treatment sludges as nonhazardous is in
conflict with EPA's classification of
battery and coil coating sludges as
hazardous. Sludges from these
categories should have the same
classification because the Agency, in
using data from all these categories in
the CMDB, has claimed that these
wastewaters are similar in all material
respects.
Response: The commenter's statement
that the nonhazardous classification of
copper forming wastes is in conflict with
other categories is an error. EPA points
out that with the exception of a small
segment of plants in the coil coating
category (aluminum coil coating) and
mercury containing battery wastewater
sludges, sludges from these categories
have also been determined to be non-
hazardous.
7. Comment: Copper and Brass
Fabricator's Council (CBFC) asserted
that EPA did not provide flow
allowances for all copper forming
operations which generated wastewater.
The specific operations described are
hydrotesting, sawing, surface milling,
surface coating, tumbling or burnishing,
and maintenance.
Response: The Agency contacted all
companies identified by CBFC as having
data on these operations. After review
of the data and information submitted
we agree with the comment that flow
allowances should be established for the
above operations. See BPT section of the
preamble for a further discussion. The
final regulation provides regulatory
flows for these operations based on the
data submitted in support of their
comment While the addition of these
flow allowances is justified, this change
has little impact on the overall
regulation, in that total pollutant
discharges after BAT are only increased
by less than 2 percent.
8. Comment: Copper and Brass
Fabricator's Council (CBFC) criticized
the Agency's estimate of compliance
costs. They staled that the costs are not
well founded and are based on limited
data. Further, they asserted that the
costs are underestimated. As an
example, one of its members spent $2
million on a system comparable to PSES
model technology while the Agency's
estimated compliance costs for all
indirect dischargers is $8.0 million for
capital costs and $5.3 million for annual
costs.
Response: Since proposal, the Agency
expanded the number of plants costed
from 16 to 31. We believe the number of
plants is wholely adequate as a base for
estimating compliance costs. BPT capital
costs have increased from $2.4 to $6.4
primarily because we modified our
engineering approach for estimating the
additional wastewater treatment
technology that a plant would need to
comply with the regulation. At proposal,
we adjusted costs for equipment in
place and for specific process operating
conditions which lowered overall
treatment costs for a particular plant,
but may not have been applicable to all
plants in the category. Final compliance
costs reflect adjustments made for
equipment in place and so BPT costs
estimates ae higher than they were at
proposal. BAT and PSES costs did not
increase as much from proposal ($0.3 for
BAT and $1.2 million for PSES) because
the site specific changes made at BPT
were not used for BAT and PSES.
Annual costs for BPT, BAT and PSES
are higher because the revised costs
include operating and maintenance
costs for equipment-in-place and not
only costs for additional treatment as do
the proposed annual costs. Annual costs
have increased by $5.0 million for BPT,
4.3 for BAT, and $2.4 million for PSES.
For a detailed discussion of the
Agency's estimate of compliance costs
see Section 8 of the development
document
We interpret CBFC's second comment
to mean that since one plant incurred
costs of $2.0 million, the total cost for all
indirect dischargers should be $2.0
million multiplied by all indirect
dischargers. This method of estimating
compliance costs does not accurately
reflect costs of compliance of this
regulation because it does not take
existing treatment in-place into account
when the Agency considers capital costs
associated with additional treatment
equipment which must be installed to
meet this regulation. The total costs of
PSES is $9.2 million which we believe
fairly represents the capital cost
attributable to this regulation.
X.	Best Management Practices
Section 304(e) of the Clean Water Act
gives the Administrator authority to
prescribe "best management practices"
(BMP). EPA is not promulgating BMP
specific to copper forming.
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 in EPA's effluent
limitations is necessary 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 exercise of
EPA's enforcement discretion. Compare
Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA. 564 F.2d 1253
(9th Cir 1977) with Weyerhaeuser v.
Costle. supra, and Com Refiners
Association, et. al. v. Costle. No. 78-1069
(8th Cir., April 2,1979). See also
American Petroleum Institute v. EPA,
540 F.2d 1023 (10th Cir. 1978); CPC
International, Inc. v. Train. 540 F.2d 1320
(8th Cir. 1976); FMC Corp. v. Train. 539
F.2d 973 (4th Cir. 1976).
An upset is an unintentional episode
during which effluent limits are
exceeded; a bypass, however, is an act
of intentional noncompliance during
which waste treatment facilities are
circumvented in emergency situations.
We have, in the past, included bypass
provisions in NPDES permits.
We determined that both upset and
bypass provisions should be included in
NPDES permits and have promulgated
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 36955
permit regulations that include upset
and bypass permit provisions (see 40
CFR 122.41, 45 FR 14166 (April 1,1983)).
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 permittees in the copper
forming industry will be entitled to upset
and bypass provisions in NPDES
permits, this final regulation does not
address these issues.
XII. Variances and Modifications
Upon the promulgation of this
regulation, the appropriate effluent
limitations must be applied in all
Federal and State NPDES permits
thereafter issued to direct dischargers Ln
the copper forming industry. In addition,
on promulgation, the pretreatment
limitations are directly applicable to any
indirect dischargers.
For the BPT effluent limitations, the
only exception to the binding limitations
is EPA's "fundamentally different
factors" variance. See E. I. duPont
deNemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112
(1977); Weyerhaueser 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 to 1976 industry
regulations, it is now included in the
NPDES regulations and will not be
included in the copper forming or other
industry regulations. See the NPDES
regulations at 40 CFR Part 125, Sub-
part D.
The BAT limitations in this regulation
are also subject to EPA's
"fundamentally different factors"
variance. In addition, BAT limitations
for nonconventional pollutants are
subject to modifications under Sections
301(c) and 301(g) of the Act: however,
we are not regulating any
nonconventional pollutants for the
copper forming category.
Pretreatment standards for existing
sources are subject to the
"fundamentally different factors"
variance and credits for pollutants
removed by POTW. (See 40 CFR 403.7,
403.13.) 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" variance or any
statutory or regulatory modifications.
See E. I. duPont DeNemours & Co. v.
Tram, supra.
Xffl. Implementation of Limitations and
Standards
-4. Relationship to NPDES Permits
The BPT and BAT limitations and
NSPS in this regulation will be applied
to individual copper forming plants
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 m all
Federal and State NPBES permits
except to the extent that variances and
modifications are expressly authorized.
Other aspects of the interaction between
these limitations and NPDES permits are
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
policy. For example, even if this
regulation does not control a particular
pollutant, the permit issusr may still
limit such pollutant on a case-by-case
basis when limitations are necessary to
carry out the purposes of the Act. Ln
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. We
emphasize that although the Clean
Water Act is a strict liability statute, the
initiation of enforcement proceedings by
EPA is discretionary. We have exercised
and intend to exercise that discretion in
a manner that recognizes and promotes
good-faith compliance efforts.
B. Indirect Dischargers
For indirect dischargers, PSES and
PSNS are implemented under National
Pretreatment Program procedures
outlined in 40 CFR 403. The table below
may be of assistance in resolving
questions about the operation of that
program. A brief explanation of some of
the submissions indicated on the table
follows:
A "request for category
determination" is a written request,
submitted by an indirect discharger or
its POTW, for a determination of which
categorical pretreatment standard
applies to the indirect discharger. This
assists the indirect discharger in
knowing which PSES or PSNS limits it
will be required to meet. See 40 CFR
403.6(a).
A "request for fundamentally different
factors variance" is a mechanism by
which a categorical pretreatment
standard may be adjusted on a case-by-
case basis, making it more or less
stringent. If an indirect discharger, a
POTW, or any interested person
believes that factors relating to a
specific indirect discharger are
fundamentally different from those
factors considered during development
of the relevant categorical pretreatment
standard and that the existence of those
factors justifies a different discharge
limit from that specified in the
categorical standard, then they may
submit a request to EPA for such a
variance. See 40 CFR 403.13.
A "baseline monitoring report" is the
first report an indirect discharger must
file following promulgation of an
applicable standard. The baseline report
includes: an identification of the indirect
discharger: a description of its
operations: a report on the flows of
regulated streams and the results of
sampling analyses to determine levels of
regulated pollutants in those streams; a
statement of the discharger's
compliance or noncompliance with the
standard: and a description of any
additional steps required to achieve
compliance. See 40 CFR 403.12(b).
A "report on compliance" is required
of each indirect discharger within 90
days following the date for compliance
with an applicable categorical
pretreatment standard. The report must
indicate the concentration of all
regulated pollutants in the facility's
regulated process wastestreams; the
average and maximum daily flows of the
regulated streams; and a statement of
whether compliance is consistently
being achieved, and if not, what
additional operation and maintenance
and/or pretreatment is necessary to
achieve compliance. See 40 CFR
403.12(d).
A "periodic compliance report" is a
report on continuing compliance with all
applicable categorical pretreatment
standards. It is submitted twice per year
(June and December] by indirect
dischargers subject to the standards.
The report shall provide the
concentrations of the regulated
pollutants in its discharge to the POTW;
the average and maximum daily flow
rates of the facility; the methods used by
the indirect discharger to sample and
analyze the data, and a certification that
these methods conform to the methods
outlined in the regulations. See 40 CFR
403.12(e).
-------
36956 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 158 / Monday. August 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
Indirect Dischargers Schedule for Submittal and Compuance
Item/event
Applicable sources
Dale or time penod
Measured—
Item sub nutted to—
Request for
Existing	..	
60 days.....
From effective date of standard 		
~vector 1
category

Or 60 days.. ... _ .
From Federal RcotSTen Development

detenrs-


Document Avaftabftty.

natron





New 	..	
Prior to
				



cofwnsncefflsflt of




discharge to




POTW


Request for
Basting.		
180 days			 .
From effective date »tandard	
Director 1
funda-

O 30 days.	
From dectston on category deter-

mentally


mination.

different




factors




variance




Basehne
All. . _		 .
180 days . .
From effective Hjata of standard or...
Control authonty •
monitor-




ing report







Final decision on category determina-




tion

Report on
Enstmg		
90 days	 . ...
From date for final compliance
Control authority ¦
comply



ance.





New ...		 			 .
90 days 	
From commencement of riscttarge to




POTW

Penodtc
An		
June and December. .
	 .. _ 	
Control authority •
comptw




ance




reports




1 Dvector»faj Chtet AdmtmstraOve Officer of a Stan water pollution control agency with an approved pretreatment program
or (b) EPA Regional Water Division Director, rf State does not have an approved pretreatment program.
1 Control Authonty-»(a) POTW 4 pretreatment program ftaa been approved or (b) Director of Stat® water pollution control
agency an approved pretreatmeni program or (g EPA Regional Administrator, rf State does not have tn approved
pretreatment program
XIV. Availability of Technical
Information
The basis for this regulation is
detailed in four major documents.
Analytical methods are discussed in
"Sampling and Analysis Procedures for
Screening of Industrial Effluents for
Priority Pollutants." EPA's technical
conclusions are detailed in
"Development Document for Effluent
Guidelines, New Source Performance
Standards and Pretreatment Standards
for the Copper Forming Point Source
Category." The Agency's economic
analysis is presented in "Economic
Impact Analysis of Effluent Limitations
and Standards for the Copper Forming
Industry." A summary of the public
comments received on the proposed
regulation is presented in a report
"Responses to Public Comments.
Proposed Copper Forming Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards,"
which is a part of the public record for
this regulation. Copies of the technical
and economic documents may be
obtained from the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia 22101. (703) 487-4600.
Additional information concerning the
economic impact analysis may be
obtained from Ms. Ann Watkins,
Economic Analysis Staff (WH-586), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW., Washington. D.C. 20460 or
by calling (202) 382-5387. Technical
information may be obtained by writing
to David Pepson. Effluent Guidelines
Division (WH-552), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington. D.C. 20460 or by calling
(202) 382-7126.
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by Executive Order
12291.
This rule does not contain any
information collection requirements
subject to OMB review under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
XV
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 468
Copper forming. Water pollution
control Waste treatment and disposal.
Dated: August 4. 1983.
William D. Ruckehhaus,
Administrator.
XVI. Appendices
Appendix A—Abbreviations, Acronyms, and
Other Terms Used in this Notice
Act—The Clean Water Act.
Agency—The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
BAT—The best available technology
economically achievable under Section
304(b)(2)(B) of the Act
BCT—The best conventional pollutant
control technology under Section 304(b)(4) of
the AcL
BMPs—Best management practices under
Section 304(e) of the AcL
BPT—The best practicable control
technology currently available under Section
304(b)(1) of the Act.
Clean Water Act—The Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(33 U.S.C 1251 et. seq.). as amended by the
Clean Water Act of 1977 (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.
i\'PDES permit—A National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit issued
under Section 402 of the Act.
NSPS—New source performance standards
under Section 308 of the Act.
POTW—Publiclyjjwned 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 indirect discharges under Section
307 (b) and (c) of the Act
RCRA—Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act [Pub. L 94-580) of 1970,
Amendments to Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Appendix B—Toxic Pollutants Excluded
From Regulation Because They Were Not
Detected in Copper Forming Wastewater
The following one hundred (100) pollutants
are being excluded under Paragraph 8(a](iii)
because ihey were not detected m ihe
effluent of sampled copper forming facilities.
1.	acenaphthene
2.	acrolein
3.	acrylooitrile
5. benzidei
8. carbon t
7 chlorobe
8.	1.2.4-tncium
9.	hexachlorobenzene
10.	1,2-dichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1.1.2-trichloroethane
15 1.1.2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
18.	bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
19.	2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20.	2-cnloronaphthalene
21 2.4.6-tnchlorophenol
22. parachlorometa cresol
24 2-chlorophenol
25. 1.2-dichlorobenzene
28. 1.3-dichlorobenzene
27 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28.	3.3'-dichlorobenzidine
29.	1.1-dichloroethylene
30.	1.2-trans-dichloroethylene
31 2.4-dichlorophenol
32.	1.2-dichloropropane
33.	1.3-dichloropropylene
34.	2,4-dimethyiphenol
35.	2.4-dinitrotoluene
37 1.2-diphenylhydrazine
39.	fluoranthene
40.	4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41.	4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42.	bis(2-chloroisopropyi) ether
43.	bis(2-choroethoxy) methane
45. methyl chloride
48. methyl bromide
47.	bromoform
48.	dichlorobromomethane
51.	chlorodibromomethane
52.	hexachlorobutadiene
53.	hexachlorocyclopentadiene
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 36957
54.	isophorone
55.	nitrobenzene
57	2-nitrophenoI
58	4-nitrophenoI
59	2.4-dinitrophenol
feo 4.6-dinitro-o-cresol
61 N-mtrosodimethylamine
63	N-mtrosodi-n-propylamine
64	pentachiorophenol
65. phenol
66	b:s(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67	butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69	di-n-oclyl phthalate
70	diethyl phthalate
71	dimethyl phthalate
72	benzo(a)anthracene
73.	benzo(a)pyrene
74.	3.4-benzofluoranihene
75 benzo(k)P.uoranthane
76. chrysene
77 ncenaphthylene
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
BO fluorene
82. dibenzo(a.h)anthrdcene
83 ir.deno(l.Z3-c.d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85 tetrachloroethylerie
88 v-.nyl chlonde
89.	aliinn
90.	dieldnn
91	chlorodane
92	4.4-DDT
93	4,4-DDE
94	4.4 -DDD
95.	alpha-endosulian
96.	beta-endosulfan
97 endosulfan sulfate
98. endnn
99	endnn aldehyde
100	heptachlor
101.	heptachlor epoxide
102.	alpha-BHC
103 beta-BHC
104.	gamma-BHC
105.	delta-BHC
106.	PCB-1242(a)
107 PCB-1254(a)
108. PCB-1221(a)
109	PCB-1232(b)
110	PCB-1248(b)
111. PCB-1260(b)
112	PCB-1016(b)
113	'.oxapher.a
116. asbestos
129. 2.3.7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo p-dioxin
Appendix C—Pollutants Preaont in Amounts
Too Small To Be Treated Using Technology
Known to the Administrator
The following three (3) pollutants are being
excluded under Paragraph 8(a)(iii) because
they are present in amounts too small to be
effectively reduced by technologies known to
the Administrator.
123 mercury
127. thallium
Appendix D—Toxic Pollutants Controlled But
Not Specifically Regulated
Tovc pollutants controlled but not
specifically regulated at BPT. NSPS. PSES
and PSNS.
114.	antimony
115.	arsenic
118. beryllium
119. cadmium
125.	selenium
126.	silver
Toxic pollutants controlled but not
specifically regulated at BPT. BAT and NSPS.
4. benzene
11. 1. 1.1-tnchloroethane
23, chloroform
36. 2. B-dinitrotoluene
38. ethylbenzene
44. methylene chloride
55. naphthalene
62 N-nitrosodiphenylamine
78. anthracene
81.	phenanthrene
86	toluene
87	trichloroethylene
Appendix E—Toxic Pollutants Detected in
the Effluents of Only One Plant. Uniquely
Related to That Plant and Not Related to the
Manufacturing Process Under Study
121. cyanide
Appendix F—Ust of Toxic Organics
Comprising Tctal Toxic Organics (TTO):
These are the twelve (12) pollutants that
comprise total toxic organics. or TTO'
4 benzene
11. 1.1. l-trichloroethane
23. cnloroform
36. 2. 6-diaitrotoluene
38 ethylbenzene
44. methylene chlonde
55. naphthalene
82.	N-nitrosodiphenylamine
78 anthracene
81. phenanthrene
86	toluene
87	trichloroethylene
A new Part 468 is added in 40 CFR lo
read as follows:
PART 468—COPPER FORMING POINT
SOURCE CATEGORY
General Provisions
468.01 Applicability.
468 02 Specialized definitions
468.03 Monitoring and reporting
requirements.
468 04 Compliance date for PSES
Subpart A—Copper Forming Subcategory
468.10	Applicability, description of the
copper forming subcategory
458.11	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
468 12 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available control
technology economically achievable (BAT).
468.13	New source performance standards
(NSPS).
468.14	Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES)
468.15	Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
468.18 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollution control technology (BCT).
[Reserved]
Authority: Sees. 301. 304 (b). (c). (e). and
(g). 306 (b) and (c). 307 (b) and (c), and 501 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 (g). 1316 (b) and (c), 1317 (b) and (c). and
1361; 86 Stat. 816. Pub L 92-500: 91 Stat 1567
Pub L 95-217.
General Provisions
5 468.01 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpar! are
applicable to discharges resulting from
the manufacture of formed copper and
copper alloy products. The forming
operations covered are hot rolling, cold
rolling, drawing, extrusion, and forging.
The casting of copper and copper alloys
is not controlled by this part. (See 40
CFR 451.)
^ 468.02 Specialized definitions.
In addition to the definitions set forth
in 40 CFR Part 401 and the chemical
analysis methods in 40 CFR Part 136. the
following definitions apply to this part:
(a)	The term "alkaline cleaning bath"
shall mean a bath consisting of an
alkaline cleaning solution through which
a workpiece is processed.
(b)	The term "alkaline cleaning, rinse"
shall mean a rinse following an alkaline
cleaning bath through which a
workpiece is processed. A rinse
consisting of a serie3 of rinse tanks is
considered as a single rinse
(c)	The term "ancillary operation"
shali mean any operation associated
with a primary forming operation These
ancillary operations include surface and
heat treatment, hydrotesting, sawing,
and surface coating.
(d)	The term "annealing with oil" shall
mean the use of oil to quench a
workpiece as it pa3se3 from an
annealing furnace.
(e)	The term "annealing with water"
shall mean the use of a water spray or
bath, of which water is the major
consUtuent, to quench a workpiece as it
passes from an annealing furnace.
(f)	The ferm "cold rolling" shall mean
the process of rolling a workpiece below
the recrystallization temperature of the
copper or copper alloy.
(g)	The term "drawing" aha I! mean
pulling the workpiece through a die or
succession of dies to reduce the
diameter or alter its shape.
(h)	The term "extrusion" shall mean
the application of pressure to a copper
workpiece, forcing the copper to flow
through a die orifice.
(i)	The term "extrusion heat
treatment" shall mean the spray
application of water to a workpiece
immediately following extrusions for the
purpose of heat treatment.
-------
36958
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
(j) The term "heat treatment" shall
mean the application or removal of heat
to a workpiece to change the physical
properties of the metal.
(k) The term "pickling bath" shall
mean any chemical bath (other than
alkaline cleaning) through which a
workpiece is processed.
(1) The term "pickling fume scrubber"
shall mean the process of using an air
pollution control device to remove
particulates and fumes from air above a
pickling bath by entraining the
pollutants in water.
(m) The term "pickling rinse" shall
mean a rinse, other than an alkaline
cleaning rinse, through which a
workpiece is processed. A rinse
consisting of a series of rinse tanks is
considered as a single rinse.
(n) The term "off-kilogram (off-
pound)" shall mean the mass or copper
of copper alloy removed from a forming
or ancillary operation at the end of a
process cycle for transfer to a different
machine or process.
(o) The term "rolling" shall mean the
reduction in the thickness or diameter of
a workpiece by passing it between
rollers.
(p) The term "solution heat treatment"
shall mean the process introducing a
workpiece into a quench bath for the
purpose of heat treatment following
rolling, drawing or extrusion.
(a) The term "spent lubricant" shall
mean water or an oil- water mixture
which is used in forming operations to
reduce friction, heat and wear and
ultimately discharged.
(r) The term "Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)" shall mean the sum of the
masses or concentrations of each of the
following toxic organic compounds
which is found at a concentration
greater than 0.010 mg/1.
benzene
l.l.l-trichloroethane
chloroform
2,6-dinitrotoluene
ethylbenzene
methylene chloride
napthalene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
anthracene
phenanthrene
toluene
trichloroethylene
(s) The term "alkaline cleaning rinse
for forged parts" shall mean a rinse
following an alkaline cleaning bath
through which a forged part is
processed. A rinse consisting of a series
of rinse tanks is considered as a single
rinse.
(t) The term "pickling rinse for forged
parts" shall mean a rinse, other than an
alkaline cleaning rinse, through which
forged parts are processed. A rinse
consisting of a series of rinse tanks is
considered as a single rinse.
(u) The term "tumbling or burnishing"
shall mean the process of polishing,
deburring, removing sharp corners, and
generally smoothing parts for both
cosmetic and functional purposes, as
well as the process of washing the
finished parts and cleaning the abrasion
media.
(v) The term "surface coating" shall
mean the process of coating a copper
workpiece as well as the associated
surface finishing and flattening.
(w) The term "miscellaneous waste
stream" shall mean the following
additional waste streams related to
forming copper hydrotesting, sawing,
surface milling, and maintenance.
§ 468.03 Monitoring and reporting
requirements.
The following special monitoring
requirements apply to all facilities
controlled by this regulation.
(a)	The "monthly average" regulatory
values shall be the basis for the monthly
average discharge in direct discharge
permits and for pretreatment standards.
Compliance with the monthly discharge
limit is required regardless of the
number of samples analyzed and
averaged.
(b)	As an alternate monitoring
procedure for TTO, indirect dischargers
may monitor for oil and grease and meet
the alternate monitoring standards for
oil and grease established for PSES and
PSNS. Any indirect discharger meeting
the alternate monitoring oil and grease
standards shall be considered to meet
the TTO standard.
§ 468.04 Compliance date for PSES.
The compliance date for pretreatment
standards for existing sources is August
15,1986.'
Subpart A—Copper Forming
Subcategory
§ 468.10 Applicability; description of the
copper forming subcategory.
This subpart applies to discharges of
pollutants to waters of the United
States, and introduction of pollutants
into publicly owned treatment works
from the forming of copper and copper
alloys.
1 The Consent Decree in NRDC v. Train. 12 ERC
1833 (D.D.C. 1979) specifies a compliance date for
PSES of no later than June 30,1984, EPA has moved
for a modification of that provision of the Decree.
Should the Court deny that motion. EPA will be
required to modify this compliance date
accordingly.
§ 468.11 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR Part
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:
(a) Subpart A—Hot Rolling Spent
Lubricant BPT Effluent Limitations.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monmfy
day
average

Metnc urot»—mg/otf-kg of

copper or
copper alloy

hot rolled


English units—pounds per

1,000,000 ofl-pounCs of

copper or
copper alloy

hot roiled

Chromium	 _..
0 045
0018
Copper	-	—
0 19S
0103
Lead	 		—
0015
0013
Nickel 		
0 197
0.130
Z-nc				
0 150
0.062
Oil and Grease			
2 060
1 236
TSS .....	 -		
4 223
2008
P"						
(')
(l>
1 Wrthin the range of 7 5 to 10 0 at a!l times.
(b) Subpart A—Cold Rolling Spent
Lubricant BPT Effluent Limitations.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monthly

day
average
Metnc units—mg/off-kg ot-
copper or copper aJloy
cokJ rotted
English units—pounds per
1.000.000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
cold rolled
Chromtum						
0 166
0 068
Copper 		 				
0.720
0.379
Lead 		
0.056
0 049
Nickel	 		—
0 727
0 481
Zinc ...~		„	,		
0.553
0.231
O! and Grease			
7580
4 548
TSS	.		.... ~ 	
15.539
7.390
pH	-		
(')
(')
1 Wrtfnn the range of 7 5 to 10 0 at an times
(c) Subpart A—Drawing Spent
Lubricant BPT Effluent Limitations.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for month fy

day
average
Metric units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper aHoy
Enghsh units—pounds per
1,000,000 off-pounda of
copper or copper alloy
drawn
Chrommm		0.037	0015
Copper 			 I 0 161 I 0.085
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 36959

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
lor any t
for monthly

oav
average
Lead 	
0012
0011
Nickel... . 	 				
0 163
0 107
Zinc . 	 . ..			
0 124
0051
CM and grease		 	
1 700
1 020
TSS „ 	
3 485
1 657
pH 	 		
(')
(')
1 Witfnn the range of 7 5 to 10 0 at all umes
(d) Subpart A—Solution Heat
Treatment BPT Effluent Limitations

Maximum
I Maximum
3oiiutant or pollutant property
lor any i
j lor monthly

day
average
Metnc units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
heal treated
English units—pounds per
1.000.000 off-pounds of
cooper or copper alloy
heat treated
Chrom.um				
1 118
0 457
Copper	 „
4 827
2 541
Lead	 	
0381
0 330
Nickel				 		...
4 878
3 227
Zinc . . 		 		..	
3 709
1 550
Oil and grease				
50 820
30.492
TSS 	-	 	 .
104 181
49 549
pH 	 — 		-	
(')
H
1 Within the range of 7 5 to 10 0 at all times
(e) Subpart A—Extrusion Heal
Treatment BPT Effluent Limitations.
Po^uiant or pollutant property
Max-mum for [
any 1 day |
Wax [mum for
monthly
average
Metnc units—mg/otf-kg of
copper or copo«r alJoy
heat treated on an extru-
sion press
English units—pounds per
1.000.000 off-pound* of
copper or copper alloy
heat treated on an extru-
sion presa
Chromium .. 					 ..
0 00088
000036
Cooper 				
0 003
0 002
Lead				
0 0003
0 00026
Nickel 			
0 003
0 002
Zinc				
0 002
0 001
Oil and grease		 . 		
0 040
0 024
TSS ~ 			 _.. ....
0 082
0 039
pH		
(')
(')
' Within the range of 7 5 to 10 0 at ail times
(f) Subpart A—Annealing With Water
BFT Effluent Limitations.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
tor any t
for monthly

dav
average
Metnc units—mg/off-kg of
copoer or copper an-
nealed with water
English units—pounds per
1.000,000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
annealed with water
Chromium
Copper .
Lead	
Nickel
2.493
10 707
0 850
10.880
1 020
5 667
0 736
7 197

Maximum
Maximum

Maximum i
Maximum
PoOutant or pollutant property
for any t
for monthly
Polkitar.t or pollutant property
for ary 1 |
~or monthly

day
average

day |
average
Zinc 	
3 273
3 456
TSS 	 . 	
518 322
246 519
Otl and grease	- 	
113 340
68 004
pH 		 . . .
V) |
(')
TSS		 	 _
232 347
110 506
<¦>

I


n
1 Within the range of 7 5 to 10 0 at all times.
1 Within the range of 7 5 to '0 0 at ail times.
(g) Subpart A—Annealing With Oil
BFT Effluent Limitations.

Maximum
Maximum
Podutan: or pollutant property
tor any 1
for monthly

day
average
Metnc units—mg/off-kg of
cooper or copper alloy
annealed with oil
English unrt»—pounds par
1.000,000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
annealed with otl
Chromium-.. 			 		
0
0
Copper. .....		 . ~
0
0
1 aaH
0
0
Nickel-				
0
0
Zinc 	-			
0
0
Oft and grease		_...
0
0
TSS				
0
0
PH 	 	
t1)
H
' Within the range of75tol00atafl tames.
(h) Subpart A—Alkaline Cleaning
Rinse BPT Effluent Limitations.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monthly

day
average
Metnc units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copoer liloy
alkalme cleaned
English units—pounds per
1.000.000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
alkaline cleaned
Chromtum		 	
1 854
0 758
Copper .... 		..	
8006
4.214
Lead 							
0 632
0 547
Ntcnet	
8090
5.351
Zinc	 ~ „ 				
6 152
2.570
Oil and grease	-		 j
84 260
50 568
TSS			
172.774
82 173
pH 	 		 _
t1)
(')
1 Withm the range of 7 5 to to 0 al All times.
(i) Subpart A—Alkaline Cleaning
Rinse for Forged Parts BPT Effluent
Limitations.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monthly

day
average
Metnc units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
forged parts aikahne
cleaned
English units—pounds per
1,000,000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
forged parts aikahne
cleaned
Chromium
Copper	
Lead.. .
Nickel		 	
Zinc	
Otl and grease 		
5562
2.275
24.019
12.642
1 896
1 643
24 272
16.055
18.457
7 711
252.840
151 704
(j) Subpart A—Alkaline Cleaning Bath
BPT Effluent Limitations.
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum | Maximum
for any 1 for monthly
day ' average
Metnc units—mg/off-kg
of cooper or copper
alloy parts alkaline
dearwd
English units—pounds
per 1,000.000 off-
pounds of copper or
copper aitoy (orged
parts alkaline cleaned
Chromium > 			 . _ 		 _.
0020
0 0084
Copper	 	
0 089
0046
Lead				
0 0070
00060
Nicfcat		-	
0 089
0 059
7"«c	 ,,, ,
0 068
0 028
Oil and grease .. 		..	...
0 93
056
TSS 			
1 91
091
PH. „ _ „ 		 				
<')
(')
| Within the range of 7 5 to 100 at all times.
(k) Subpart A—Pickling Rinse BPT
Effluent Limitations.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monthly

day
average

Metnc units—mg/off-kg of

copper or
copper alloy

pickled


English units—pounds

per/1.000.000 off-

pounds of
copper or

copper attoy ptckled
Chromtum _ 				
1 593
0651
Copper 	
6 881
3622
Lead 			
0 543
0 470
Ntckei		 	
6 954
4 599
7inc 	
5.288
2.209
OW and Grease 	 -	......
72.440
43.464
TSS		 . „ .
146.502
70.629
pH	-		
(')
C>
1 Within the range of 7 5 to 100 at aH times.
(1) Subpart A—Pickling Rinse for
Forged Parts BPT Effluent Limitations.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant properly
tor any 1
for monthly

day
average
Metnc units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
forged parts ptcfcled
Engflsh units—pounds
per/1.000.000 off-
pounds of copper or
copper alloy forged
parts ptcMed
Chromium 		
Copper. 		
Lead		
Ntckel. ...		
Zinc			
Otl and Grease	
TSS 			
1 723
0 705
7 444
3 918
0 587
0 509
7 522
4 975
5.720
2.389
78 360
47 016
160.638
76 401
-------
36960 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum
for any 1
day
Maximum
(or monthly
average
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum
for any 1
day
Maximum
for monthly
average
PH	
(')

(')
1 Within the range of 7 5 to 10 0 at ail times
§ 468.12 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by tf» application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
Except as provided in 40 CFR Part
125.30-32, any existing point source
subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT]:
(a) Subpart A—Hot Rolling Spent
Lubricant BAT Effluent Limitations.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any.1
for monthly

day
average

Metnc units—mg/off-kg of

copper or copper alloy

hot rolled


English Units—pounds per

1,000.000 off-pounds of

copper or
copper alloy

hot rolled

Chromium			
0.045
0.018
Copper....-	-	..	
0 195
0.103
Lead					
0015
0.013
Nickel		-	
0.197
0 130
Zinc 		
0150
0 062
(b) Subpart A—Cold Rolling Spent
Lubricant BAT Effluent Limitations.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monthly

day
average

Metnc units—mg/off-kg of

cooper or
copper alloy

cold rolled


English units—pounds per

1.000 000
off-pounds of

copper or
copper alloy

cold rolled

Chromium 	
0 166
0068
Copper 	
0 720
0 379
Lead. . 	
0 056
0 049
Nickel			
0 727
0481
Zinc	 		
0 553
0 231
(c) Subpart A—Drawing Spent
Lubricant BAT Effluent Limitations.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monthly

day
average
Metnc units— mg/otf-kg of
copper or copper alloy
drawn
English units—pounds per
1.000,000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
drawn
Chromium . 		
0 037
0015
Copper	
0 161
0 085
Lead	
0012
0011
Nickel 	
0 163
0 107
Zinc			
0 124
0.051
(d) Subpart A—Solution Heat
Treatment BAT Effluent Limitations.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monthly

day
average
Metnc units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
heat treated
Engitsh units—pounds per
1,000,000 off-pounds of
copoer or copper alloy
heat treated
Chromium		
0284
0 116
Copper	
1 227
0 646
Lead	
0 096
0 083
Nickel	
1 240
0 820
Zinc 	
0 943
0 394
(e) Subpart A—Extrusion Heat
Treatment BAT Effluent Limitations.
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Maximum for
monthly
average
Metnc Units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
heat treated on an extru-
sion press
English Units—pounds per/
1,000,000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
heat treated on an extru-
sion press
Chromium	..	
000088
0 00036
Coppar	 -	—	
0003
QC020
L Aari
00003
0 00026
Nickel	
0 003
0 002
Zinc	
0.002
0 001
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 43, No. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 36961
(f) Subpart A—Annealing with Water
BAT Effluent Limitations.
PC-tanl or pollutant property
Maximum
• Maximum
for any 1
i lor monthly

day
i average
Metnc Units—mg/off-*g cf
copper or conoer alloy
annealed witn water
English Units—pounds
per/1 000.000 orf-
pounds of copper or
copper alloy annealed
with water
Chromium . . ..
j 0.545
0 223
Chromium,
5 562 |
2 275
Copper
. ! 2356
1 240
Copper
! 24019 1
12842
Lead.
i 0
0 161
Lead
, 1 896 1
1 640
Nickel
. . J £380
1 574
Nickel . .
24 272 |
16 055
Zinc
1 810
0,756
Zinc
. | 18 457
7711
(gj Subpart A—Annealing with Oil
BAT Effluent Limitations.
Maxtmum 1 Maximum
Po'lutant or pollutant property for any 1 I lor monthly
day J average
Metnc units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
annealed with oil
English units—pounds per
1.000,000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
annealed with od
Chromtum
0
0
Copper ...
0
0
l%ad
0
0
N»c«al ...
0
0
Zirc	
0
0
(h) Subpart A—Alkaline Clearing
Rinse BAT Effluent Limitations.
Pol'utant or pcilutant property
Maximum Maximum
for any 1 ! for monthly
day j average
Metnc units—mg/ofl-kg of
copper or copper alloy
alkaUne cleaned
English units—pounds per
1,000,000 off pounds of
copper or copper alloy
alkaitne cleaned
Chromium 	
1 8&d
0 758
Copper	
8006
4 214
Lead 	
0 632
0 547
N>ckel . ... 	
8 090
5351
Zmc	
5 152
2 570
(i) Subpart A—Alkaline Cleaning
Rinse for Forged Parts BAT EFfluent
Limitations.
( Maximum j Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property ( for any 1 ¦ for monthly
	i day j average
Metnc Units—mg/off-*g of
cooper or cooper alloy
forged parts alkaline
cleaned
English Units—pounds per
1 OCO.OOO ofi-pounds of
copper cr coopor alloy
forged parts alkaline
cleaned
(j) Subpart A—Alkaline Cleaning Bath
BAT Effluent Limitations.
Pollutant or pollutant property
1 Maximum for
j any 1 day
! Maximum tor
monthly
average
Metnc Units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy al-
kaline cleaned
English Units—pounds per
1,000,000 ott-pounds of
cooper or copper alloy al-
kaline cleaned
Chromium ....
0 020
0 0064
Copper
0 068
0 046
Lead	
0 0070
0 C060
Nickel 	
0 089
0 359
Zinc .
0068
0 028
(k) Subpart A—Pickling Rinse BAT
Effluent Limitations.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monthly
. _
day
average
Chromium
0 574
0 235
Copper
2 481
1 306
Lead 	
0 195
0 169
Nickel
2 507
1 658
Zinc ....
1 906
0 736
(I) Subpart A—Pickling Rinse for
Forged Parts BAT Effluent Limitations.
Metnc Units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
pickled
Engl'sh Unrts—pounds per
1,000 000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
ptckled
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum
for any 1
day
Maximum
for monthly
average
Metnc Units—mg/off-kg of
copoer or copper alloy
forged parts otckied
English Urvts—pounds per
i.OOO COO oH-oounas of
copper or cccoer alloy
forged parts picked
Chromtum . . .
1 723 0 705
Coooer 	
7 444 1 3 9»8
Load ,, .,
0 587 , 0 509
Nickel ...
7:z2 : 4 575
Zinc
5 720 I 2 389
i
(m) Subpart A—Pickling Bath BAT
Effluent Limitations.


Maximum ' Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1 for monthly

day I average

Metnc units—mg/off-kg of

cooper or cooper alloy

p+c«led

Enghsh unns—pounds per

1.000,000 otf-pounds of

coooer or copoor alloy

picxled
Chromtum . .
0 051 ' 0 020
Cooper	_..
0 220 j 0116
Lead 	
0017 j 0015
Ntckel .... 	
0.222 | 0147
Ztnc 	
0.169 1 0 070
(n) Subpart A—Pickling Fume
Scrubber BAT Effluent Limitations.
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum
for dry t
day
Maximum
for monthly
average
Metnc units—mg/ofl-kg of
copper or cooper alloy
ptckled
English units—pounds per
1.000 000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
ptckled
Chromtum	
0 275
0 112
Copper ... . ...
1 169
0 626
Lead 	
0 093
0 081
Nickel. ...
1 201
0 795
Zinc
0,913
0 381
(o) Subpart A—Tumbling or
Burnishing BAT Effluent Limitations.
Pollutant or pollutant properly
Maximum [ Maximum
for any i J for monthfy
day j average
Metnc units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper a'loy
tumbled or burnished
English units—pound per
t.000,000 otl-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
tumbled or burnished
Chromium . . .
- j 0 256
0 104
Copper
1 107
0 583
Lead . .
, I 0 007
0 075
Nickel
I 1 119
0 740
Zinc
0 851
0 355
-------
36962 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1983 / Rules ana Regulations
(p) Subpart A—Surface Coating BAT
Effluent Limitations.

Maximum
Maximum
Pottuiant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monthly

day
average
Memo units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
Surface coated
English units—pound per
1,000.000 off-pounds of
ccpDer or copper artoy
surface coated
Chromium		 .
0 326
0 133
Cooler 	
t 411
0 743
Lead 			
Q.I 11
0 OSS
Nickel 		 .
1 426
0943
Zinc 	
1 084
0 4S3
(q) Subpart A—Miscellaneous Waste
Streams BAT Effluent Limitations.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for montniy

day
average
Metre units—mg/oft-kg 0*
copper or copper altoy
formed
English units—pounds per
1,000.000 off-pounds Of
copper or copper alloy
formed
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
0 009
0 003
0041
0 021
0 003
0 002
0041
0 027
0 031
0013
§466.13 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
The following standards of
performance establish the quantity or
quality of pollutants or pollutant
properties, controlled by this section,
which may be discharged by a new
source subject to the provisions of this
subpart:
(a) Subpart A—Hot Rolling Spent
Lubricant NSPS.

Maximum
Maximum for
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any t
monthly

day
average
Metnc units—mg/orf-kg of
copper or copper alloy
hot rotted
Engfish units—pounds per
i,000,000 off-pounds of
copper or copper altoy
hot rotted
Chromium			
0 038
0015
Copper... 				
0 131
0 062
Lead 			
C010
0 0092
Nickel 	 		
0 056
0 038
Zinc 	...... 	
0 105
0 043
Ol and grease	
1030
1 030
TSS 			
1 545
1.236
pri 	-	
I1)
n
[b] Subpart A—Cold Rolling Spent
Lubricant NSPS.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monthly

day
average
Metnc unrts—mg/off-kg of
copper or copoer alloy
cold rolled
English urwts—pounds per
t,000.000 off-pounds ol
copper or cooper alloy
cold rolled
Chromium	
O.MO
0 056
Copper	
0 4es
0 231
Lead	 .. .
0 037
0 034
Nickel 		 .... ....
0 208
0 140
Zinc .. -	
0 366
0.159
Oil ar>d grease 	
3 790
3 790
TSS . - . 				
5 665
4548
PH 	
{')
(')
1 Wtthm the range of 7 5 to 10 0 at all tines
(c) Subpart A—Drawing Spent
Lubricant NSPS.
1 Within the range of 7 5 to 10 0 at aH times.
Metnc units—mg/otf-kg of
copper or coppor alloy
drawn
English unrts— pounds per
1.000,000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
drawn
Chromium
0 031
0012
Copper	
0 108
0051
Lead. . 	
0 0085
0 0076
Nickel 			
0 046
0 031
Zinc 	
0 086
0 035
Oil and grease	..	
0 85
0 85
TSS 	
1 275
1 020
PH 	
I1)
(l)
1 Withm the range of 7 5 to 10 0 at all times
(d) Subpart A—Solution Heat
Treatment NSPS.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monthly

day
average
Metnc units—mg/off-kg of
capoer or copper alloy
drawn
English units—pounds per
1,000,000 off-pounds of
copper or copper aboy
heat treated
Chromium 	
0 239
0 096
Copper	
0 826
0394
Lead 	-	
0 064
0 058
Nickel 	
0 355
0 239

0658
0.271
Oil and grease .... -	......
6460
6460
TSS 				
9.690
7 752
PH		
(')
(M
1 Wrthm the range of 7 5 to 10 0 at all times
(e) Subpart A—Extrusion Heat
Treatment NSPS.
Metnc unrts—mg/off-kg of
cooper or copper alloy
heat treated on an extru-
sion press
English units—pounds per
1.000,000 off-oounds of
copoer or copper adoy
heat treated on and ex-
trusion press
Chromium			 .
00GQ74
000030
Copper			
0 0020
00010
Lead	 ... 		
0 00020
0 00018
Nickel .. 		
00010
0 00074
Zinc			
0 0020
0 00084
Ol and grease.
0 020
0 020
TSS ... . - . ..
0 030
0 024
pH 	....
n
V)
1 Wtthin the range of 7 5 to 10 0 at ail times
(f) Subpart A—Annealing with Water
NSPS.
Pollutant or pollutant property
Max»mum for
any 1 day
Maximum tor
monthly
average
Metnc unrts—mg/oH-kg oi
cooper or copper alloy
annealed with water
English unrts—pounds per
1,000.000 off-pounds of
copper or copoer altoy
annealed with water
Chromium 				
0 458
0 186
Copper .. . . 		.. ..
10 587
0 756
Lead 	
0 124
0 111
Nickel 	
0 682
0 458
Zinc	
0 264
0 520
Ol and grease	
12 400
l£400
TSS _ 	
18600
14 880
pH	

n
> Wtthm the range of 7 5 to 10.0 at all times.
(g) Subpart A—Annealing with Oil
NSPS.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for montniy

day
average
Metnc units—mg/otf-kg of
copper or copper alloy
annealed with oil
English unrts—pounds per
1.000,000 off-pounds ol
copper or copper alloy
annealed wth Oft
Chromrum . .
0
0
Copper. 	
0
0
Lead	... .
0
0
Nickel 	
0
0
Zinc 	
0
0
Oil and grease 	
0
0
TSS 	
0
0
pH		
V)
H
1 Within the range of 7,5 to 10 0 at aH times.
(h) Subpart A—Alkaline Cleaning
Rinse NSPS.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 36963
Pollutant a pollutant property
I
Maximum j Maximum
lot any 1 i lot monthty
day I average
Metnc unrts—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
alkaline cleaned
Chromium ..
Ccpoor
Lead
Nickel .
Zioc
Oil and grease .
TSS . _ _ .
•
1 559
0 632
5 393
2 570
0 421
0:79
2 317
1 559
4 298
1 759
42 U0
42.140
6 3 210
(')
SC 563
1 Within me range of 7 5 to »0 0 at ail times
10 Subpart A—Alkaline Cleaning
Rinse for Forged Parts NSPS.
Pollutant or pollutant property
Ma
1 With.n the range of 7 5 to 10 0 at all times
(m) Subpart A—Pickling Bath NSPS.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monthly

day
average
Metnc units—mg/off-kg of
cooper or copper alloy
pjcxiad
English unrts—pounds per
1 000,000 of-pounds of
coooer or copper alloy
piCKied
Chromium ...
0017
0 0070
Chromium
. j 0 042
0017
Cooper	
0 059
0 028
Copper	
I 0 148
0 070
lead
00046
0 0042
Lead...
. | 0011
0010
Nickel. . 	
0 025
00:7
Nickel
j 0 063
0 042
Zinc 	 	
0 047
0019
Zmc
| 0 118
0 048
Oil and grease 	
046
0 46
Oil and grease.
; 1 160
1 160
TSS ... ...
0 70
0.56
TSS	
| t 740
1 392
pH ...
(l)
n
pH . . .. ... .
: (>
(')
1 Within the range of 7 5 to 10 0 at ail times.
(n) Subpart A-
Scrubber NSPS.
-Pickling Fume

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or ooHutant property
for any \
tor montnly

day
average
Metnc units—mg/off kg of
cooper or copper alloy
pickled.
English units-oounds per
1,000.000 ort-pounds of
coooer or copper aitoy
pickled
Chromtum	
0 216
0 087
Chromium
0 231
0 093
Cooper	
0 748
0 356
Copper, . . 	
0 801
0381
Lead. 	
0 058
0 052
Lead	
0 062
0 056
Nick8l ... -
0 321
0216
Nickel _ _ 	
0 344
0231
Zinc	
0 596
0 245
Z.nc
0 638
0 262
Oil and grease 	
5 850
S 850
Oil and grease .
6 260
6 260
TSS	
8,775
7 020
TSS-	
9 390
7 512
pH . .. .
n
{')
pH 	
(')
i1)
1 Within the range of 7 5 to 10 0 at ail times
(0) Subpart A—Tumbling or
Burnishing NSPS.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or poliutant prooerty
tor any I
for monthly

day
average

Metnc units—mg/off-kg o1

copper or
copper Tum-

pled or ourrushed

English units—pounds per

1,000 000 ort-pounos of

copper or
copper alloy

tumbled or burnished
Chromium-	
0 215
0 067
Copper			
0 746
0 355
Lead.. 	-
0 058
0 052
Nickel				
0 320
0215
Zinc	
0 594
0.244
Oil and grease	
5 830
5 830
TSS . .. 		
8.745
8 396
PH	
(')
(l)
1 Within me range o( 7 5 to 10 0 at all times.
(p) Subpart A—Surface Coating NSPS.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monthly

day
average
Metnc units—mg/otf-kg o*
copper or cooper alloy
surface coated
English units—pounds per
1.000,000 ort-pounds of
coooer or cooper alloy
surface coated
Chromium 	
0 274
0 111
Copper 	-	
0 951
0 453
Lead -
0 074
0066
Nickel		 . .
0 408
0 274
Zinc 	 -	
0 757
0312
Oil and grease.... -
7 430
7 430
TSS. 	
11 145
8916
p*	
(')
(')
' With.n the range of ~ o to 10 0 at all time#
(q) Subpart A—Miscellaneous Waste
Streams NSPS.
-------
36964 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
	1	1	
hjav.m.,m , Maximum for
Potlutant or pollutant property |	' monttily
Metnc units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
formed
English units—pounds/
1.000,000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
termed
Chromium			
0 008
0 003
Copper			
0 027
1.013
Lead	
0 0021
0 0019
Nickel			
0011
0.008
Zinc	..	
0 022
0009
Oil and grease	
0218
0218
TSS	
0 327
0,261
PH 	
(')
<¦}
Wtttim ttie range of 7 5 to 10 0 at all times.
§ 460.14 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR Parts
403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart which introduces
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
CFR Part 403 and achieve the following
pretreatment standards for existing
sources:
(a) Subpart A—Hot Rolling Spent
Lubricant PSES.

Maxrmtmi
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
tor any i
for monthly

day
average
Meinc unrts—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
hot roiled
English units—pounds per
1.000.000 off-pounds at
copper or copper ailoy
hot rofted
Chromium . .... ... .

0045
0016
Copper 	

0 195
0 103
Lead 		
	
0015
0013
N>ckel_\			
~....... .....
0.197
0 130
Zinc	 ...„		

0 150
0 062
TTO	

0 066
0 035
OU and grease 1 . .
.. . ....
2060
1 236
1 For alternate momtonn©.
(b) Subpart A—Cold Rolling Spent
Lubricant PSES.

Maximum
i 		
1 Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monthly

day
1 average
Metnc unfts—mg/otf-kg of
copper or copper alloy
cotd rolled
Engtsh units—pounds per
1.000.000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
cotd rotted
Chromium	 	
0.166
0068
Copper 	
0 720
0 379
Lead 	
0 056
0 049
Nickel.... 	
0 727
0461
Zinc 	
0 553
0 231
TTO	
0 246
0 128
Otl ano grease' 	
7 560
4 548
1 For alternate monrtonng
(c) Subpart A—Drawing Spent
Lubricant PSES.
Maximum I Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property tor any 1 for monthly
day	average
l
Metnc unns—mg/otl-kg of
copper or copper alloy
drawn
English units—pounds per
1.000.000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
drawn
Chromium 	
0 037
0,015
Copper 	
0 161
0 085
Lead	
0012
0011
Nickel 	
0 163
0 107
Zinc 	..	
0 124
0 051
TTO	
0 055
0 028
Oil and grease1 	
t 700
1 020
1 For alternate monitoring
(d) Subpart A—Solution Heat
Treatment PSES.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
tor any 1
for monthly

day
average
Metnc unrts—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
heat treated
English units—pounds per
1,000,000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
heat treated
Chromium	
0 284
0 116
Copper 	......
1 227
0 646
Lead 				
0096
0 063
Nickel 	..	
1 240
0 820
Zinc					
0943
0 394
TTO 	
0.419
0219
Oil and grease 1 	... .
12 920
7 752
' For alternate monrtonng.
(e) Subpart A—Extrusion Heat
Treatment PSES.
Pollutant or poHutani property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Maximum for
monthly
average
Metnc units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
heat treated on an extru-
sion press
English unrts—pounds per
1,000,000 off-pounds oi
copper or copper alloy
heat treated on an extru-
sion press
Chromium 			
000088
0 00036
Copoer ... 			
0 0030
0 0020
Lead 	 	..	
000030
0 00026
Nickel	
0.0030
0 0020
Zinc 	 	
0.0020
o.ooto
TTO	
0.0010
000068
Oil and grease 1	
0.040
0 024
1 For alternate momtonng.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or poilulam property
for any 1
for mcntnly

day
average

Metnc units—mg/off-kg of

copcer or
cooper alloy

anneaied *ftn water

English units—pounds per

1 000,000
o
s
o

copper or
copper alloy

annealed with water
Chromium
0 545
0 223
Copper 	
2 356
1 240
Lead . 	
0 136
0 161
Nickel 	
2 280
1 574
Zinc ... 	
1 810
0 756
TTO 	
0 806
0*21
Oil and grease 1 	
24 800
14 880
1 For alternate monrtonng.
(g) Subpart A—Annealing With Oil
PSES.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monthfy

day
average
Metre unrts—mg/off-kg of
copper or coooer alloy
annealed with otl
English unrts—pounds per
1,000,000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
annealed with ort
Chromium	..	
0
0
Copoer.. 		
0
0
Lead	-... 			
0
0
Nickel 		-	...
0
0
Zinc	
0
0
TTO -	
0
0
Orl and grease' 	
0
0
1 For alternate monrtonng.
(h) Subpart A—Alkaline Cleaning
Rinse PSES.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pditutam property
for any 1
for monthly

oay
average
Metric units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
alkaline cleaned
English unrts—pounds per
1.000.000-o<1 pounds of
cooper or copper ailoy
alkaline cleaned
Chromium 	-	
1 854
0 758
Copper ......
8006
4214
Lead .... -	
0 632
0 547
Nickel	
8 090
5 351
Zinc	
6 152
2 570
TTO	..	
2 739
t 432
0«l and grease1	
84.280
50 568
' For alternate monrtonng.
(i) Subpart A—Alkaline Cleaning
Rinse for Forged Parts PSES.
(f) Subpart A—Annealing with Water
PSES.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
36965

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monthly

day
average
Metnc units—mg off-kg of
copper or copper afloy
forged parts alkaline
cleaned
English units—pounds per
1,000.000 off—pounds
of copper or copper
alloy forged parrs alka-
line cleaned
Chromium 	
Copper 	 .
Laad._ 	
Nickel. . 	
Zinc . 	
TTO	
Oil and grease 1
r~
5 562
2 275
24 019
12.642
1 896
1.643
24 272
16.055
18 457
7711
8217
4298
252. £40
151 704
' For alternate monrtonng.
(j) Subpart A—Alkaline Cleaning Bath
PSES.
PoUuiant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Maximum for
monthly
average
Metnc unrts—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy al-
kaline cleaned
English unrts—pounds per
1.000.000 off—pounds of
copper or copper afloy ai>
kame cleaned
Chromium	
0.020
O.OOM
Copper		
0.088
0 046
lead	 _ 		 ...... .....
0 0070
0 0060
NlC^ 64		
0.089
0.059
Zinc.. 				
0.088
0 028
TTO					
0030
0015
Oil and grease1 	
093
0.56
' For alternate monrtonng
(k) Subpart A—Pickling Rinse PSES.

Maximum
Maximum
PoQutant or pofiutant property
tor any t
for monthly

day
average
Metre urxts—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper aUoy
ptckled
Enghsh units—pounds per
1.000,000 of pounds of
copper or copper alloy
pickled
Chromium 			
0 574
0 235
Copper			
2 461
1 306
Lead 			
0.195
0169
Nickel		
2307
1£58
Znc		
1.906
0 796
TTO		
0.648
0444
Oil and grease 1 			j
26.120
15672
1 For attentate monrtonng.
(1) Supart A—Pickling Rinse for
Forged Parts PSES.
Pollutant or poButant property
Maximum
for any I
day
Maximum
for monthly
average
Metnc untts—rrtg/otf-kg of
copper or copper alloy
forged pans ptckled
English units—pounos per
1.000.000 off-pounds of
cooper or cooper ailoy
forged parts ptckled
1 For altamate monrtorng
(n) Subpart A—Pickling Fume
Scrubber PSES

Maximum
Maxwnum
Pollutant or pofiutant properly
for any 1
for monmty

day
average

Metnc umls—mg/off-kg of

copper or
copper alloy

ptckled


English units—pounds per

1,000.000 off-pounds at

copper or
copper alloy

pickled

Chromium			
0 275
0.112
Copper		 .
0 >89
0 626
Lead	 	
0 093
0 081
Nickel		 .
1 201
0 795
Z3nc-
0913
0 381
TTO..	—
0 406
0212
CU and grease 1		
2.520
7 512
1 For alternate monrtonng
(o) Subpart A—Tumbling or
Burnishing PSES.
Pollutant or pofiutant property
Metnc units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
tumoled or burnished
English units—pounds per
1.000.000 off-pounds of
cooper or copper alloy
tumbled or burnished
Chromium.
Copper
0	256
1	107 I
0 104
0 583
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum , Maximum
for any 1 , for monthly
day i average
Lead... .
Ntckel		
Zinc
TTO-.. ~.
Oil and grease 1
0	087 ,
1	M9
0051
0 378
11 660 '
0 075
0 7\ 0
0 355
0 198
6 996
Chromium 	 	
i 723
0 705
Copper —		
7444
3.918
Lead	-		
0 587
0 509
Nickel. - 		
7 522
4 975
Zinc
5 720
2.389
TTO.. - . -	
2 546
1 332
Od and grease 1	 _
78 360
47016
1 For alternate monrtonng


[m] Subpart A—Pickling Bath PSES.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any t
for monthly

day
average

Metnc unit9—mg/otf-kg of

copper or
copoer afloy

pick! Ad


English units—pounds p«r

1 000.000
off-pounds of

copper or
copper alloy

ptckled

Chromium		
0.05!
0 020
Copper.™			
0 220
0 116
Lead	
0017
0015
Ntckel	
0 222
0 147
75nc 	
0 169
0 070
TTO	
0 075
0 039
Oil and grease l.
2.320
1.392
1 For alternate monrtonng
[p) Subpart A—Surface Coating PSES.
Maximum I Maximum
Polhjtant or pollutant property j for any 1 I tor monthly
	; day i average
Metnc units—mq/otf-kg 01
copper or copper alley
surface coated
English units— pounos per
1,000.000 off-pounds of
copoer or coooer alloy
surface coatee
Chromium 		
0.326
0 133
Copper 		— . . ..
1 411
0 743
Lead 	..	
0 111
0 096
Nickef	- 		
i 426
0 943
Zinc 			
1 084
0 453
TTO		 ..„	
0 482
0 252
Oil and grease 1 . ...
14 960
B 916
1 For alternate morntonng.
(q) Subpart A—Miscellaneous Waste
Streams PSES.
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum
tor any 1
day
Maximum
for mo^hty
average
Metnc units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
formed
English unrts—pounds oer
t ,000,000 oft pounds of
copper or copper alloy
formed
Chromium	 	 _
0,009
0 003
Copper	 _. -	-		
0041
0 021
Lead . 						
0003
0.002
Nickel-.. 			
0 041
0 027
Zinc 		 		
0C31
0013
TTO ...			
0014
0 007
Oil and grease 1 - — — - - - -
0 436
0261
1 For alternate monrtonng
§ 468.15 Pretreatmerrt standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR Part
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
sources for new sources:
(a) Subpart A—Hot Rolling Spent
Lubricant PSNS.'
-------
36966 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 158 / Monday, August 15. 1983 / Rules and Regulations

Maximum
Maximum for
PoMutant or pollutant property
tor any one
monthly

day
average
MoWc units—mg/ott-kg of
copper or copper alloy
hot rofled
En^isft	pounds per
1,000,000 off-pounds erf
copper or copper aHoy
hot rolled
Chromium	..	
0.038
0015
Chromium 	
0.239
0096
Copper	 „.
0131
0 082
Copper	
0.826
0 394
Lead 			
0.010
0 0092
Lead	
0 064
0 058
Nickel .. . 	
0.056
0038
Nickel	
0.355
0 239
Zinc.. .. 		
0 105
0 043
Zinc 		-	
0 668
0.271
TTO	 .
0 035
0 035
TTO... 		
0219
0219
Ol and grease 1 .. -	
t 030
1 030
CM and grease1	
6 460
6460
* For alternate monitoring.
(b) Subpart A—Cold Rolling Spent
Lubricant PSNS.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any one
for monthly

day
average
Metnc units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
cold rolled
English units—pounds per
1,000.000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
cold rolled
Chromium 	
0 140
0.056
Copper ... . ..			
0 485
0 231
Lead 	
0 037
0034
Nickel 		 ....
0200
0 140
Zinc 	 -	
0.386
0 159
TTO... 		
0128
0128
Oil and grease 1 .. -	
3.790
3 790
1 For alternate monitoring.
(c) Subpart A—Drawing Spent
Lubricant PSNS.
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Maximum for
monthly
average
Metric units—mg/otf-kg of
copper or copper alloy
drawn
English units—pounds per
1,000.000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
drawn
Chromium -	
0 031
0012
Copper 	..	
0 108
0 051
Lead 	
0.0085
0 0076
Nickel.... 		
0 046
0 031
Zinc ...	..	
0.086
0.035
TTO	
0.028
0 028
Oil and grease1	.....
0.850
0 050
1 For alternate momtonng.
(d) Subpart A—Solution Heat
Treatment PSNS.

Maximum
Maximum

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
lor any 1
for monthly
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monthly

day
I average

day
average
Metnc units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
heat treated
English units—pounds per
1,000.000 off—pounds of
copper or copper ailoy
heat treated
1 For alternate monitonng
(e) Subpart A—Extrusion Heat
Treatment PSNS.
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Maximum for
monthly
average
Metnc units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper ailoy
heat treated on an extru-
sion press
Enghsh units—pounds per
1,000,000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
heat treated on an extru-
sion press
Chromium.,	
0 00074
0 00030
Copper		
0 0020
00010
Lead .... - 			
000020
0 00018
Nickel			 _ . .
00010
0 00074
Zinc 			-	
0 0020
0 00084
TTO	-	
0 00068
0 00068
Oil and grease1 			
0 020
0 020
1 For alternate monitonng.
(f) Subpart A—Annealing with Water
PSNS.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monthly

day
average
Metnc units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper ailoy
annealed with water
English units—pounds per
1.000,000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
annealed wrth water
Chromium		
0.458
0 186
Copper	
1 587
0,756
Lead	
0 124
0 111
Nickel	
0 682
0.458
Zinc	
1 264
0 520
TTO	 -	
0 421
0 421
Oil and grease1	
12 400
12400
1 For alternate monitonng
(g) Subpart A—Annealing With Oil
PSNS.
Metnc urnts—mg/off-kg cf
copper or copper alloy
annealed wrth oil
English units—pounds per
1,000.000 off-pounds of
copper or copper ailoy
annealed with oil
Chromium ... ...
0
0
Copper 	
0
0
Lead 	
0
0
Nickel		
0
0
Zmc 	
0
0
TTO	
0
0
Oil and grease 1 . ...
0
0
1 For alternate monitonng
(h) Subpart A—Alkaline Cleaning
Rinse PSNS.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monthly

day
average
Metnc units—mg/ott*kg of
cooper or copper alloy
alkaline cleaned
English units—pounds per
1.000.000 off-pounds of
coooer or copper alloy
alkaline cleaned
Chromium 	
i 559
0 632
Copper 	..	
5 393
2 570
Lead	-	
0 421
0 379
NtcHel -		 -	
2.317
1 559
Zinc					 ...
4 298
1 769
TTO 		
i *32
1 432
Ort and grease 1	 -	-
42 140
42 140
1 For alternate monitonng
(i) Subpart A—Alkaline Cleaning
Rinse for Forged Parts PSNS.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monthly

day
average
Metnc units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
forged parts alkaline
cleaned
English units—pounds per
1,000.000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
forged parts alkaline
cleaned
Chromium 	
4.677
1 896
Copper 	
16 181
7711
Lead	
1 264
1 137
Nickel 	 -	
6,953
4 677
Zinc	-	—	
12 894
5309
TTO 	
4 298
4 298
Oil and grease 1 		
126 420
126 420
1 For alternate momtonng.
(j) Subpart A—Alkaline Cleaning Bath
PSNS.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 158 / Monday, August 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 36967
Pollutant or pollutant property
! Maximum lor i M"fn"S'0f
(m) Subpart A—Pickling Bath PSNS.
Metnc units—mg/oft-kg of
copper or copper alloy al-
kaline cleaned
English units—pounds per
1,000 000 off-pounds of
cooper or copper aJtoy al-
kaline cleaned
Chromium . ..
Copper
Lead	
Nickel .. .
Zinc
TTO
Oil and grease 1
0017
0 059
0 0046
0 C25
0 047
0015
0 46
0 0070
0 028
0 0042
00T7
0019
0015
0 46
' For alternate monrtonng
(k) Subpart A—Pickling Rinse PSNS.
Maximum [ Maximum
Pedant or pollutant property tor any 1 for monthly
	\ day 1 average
Metnc units—rrg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
ptckled
English units—pounds per
1.000 000 off-pounds erf
cooper or copper alloy
ptckled
Chromium
Cocoer 	
Lead . ..
Nickel 	
Zinc 	
rro.. .
Oil and grease 1
0216
0 748
0 053
0 321
0 596
0 198
5 850
0 087
0 356
0 052
0216
0 245
0 196
5 350
' For aftemate monttonng
(1) Subpart A—Pickling Rinse for
Forged Parts PSNS.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or poftutant property
for any J
for monthly

day
average
Chromium 				
Copper	
Lead .. 			 . .
Nicnel 	 	
Zinc		
TTO ... ... .		
Od and grease 1 		
' For alternate monitoring.
0 649
0 263
2 246
1 070
0 175
0 157
0 965
0 649
1 790
0 -37
0 596
0 596
17550
17 550
Metnc unrts—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
forged parts piCKled
English units—pounds per
1.000,000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
forged parts pickled
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum
~or any 1
day
Maximum
lor monthly
average
Chromium
Copper
Lead	
Ntckel . ..
Zinc
TTO	
Oil and grease ' _
0042 I
0 144 !
oon I
0 063 I
0 118!
0 039 I
1.160 !
0017
0 070
0010
0 042
0 046
0	039
1	160
1 For alternate monitoring
(n) Subpart A—Pickling Fume
Scrubber PSNS.
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum | Maximum
for any t i for monthly
day	average
Chromium . . . _
. .. ! 0 231
0 093
Cooper 	
. 0 801
0381
Lead 	
I 0 062
0 056
Nicxel , .
( 0 344
0 231
Zinc .
. . j 0 638
0 Z62
TTO	 	
0212
0^2
Oil and grease 1 		
. I 6.260
6 260
1 For alternate monitonng.
(o) Subpart A—Tumbling or
Burnishing PSPS.

Maximum
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant property
for any 1
for monthly

day
average
Chromium . .
0215
0.087
Copper 	
0 746
0 355
Lead
0 058
0 052
Metric units—mg/ofr-^g of
copper or copper aUoy
ptckled
English units—rounds per
1,000,000 ofl-pounas Of
cooper or copper alloy
picKted
Metric units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
ptckled
English units—pounds per
1,000,000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
pickled
Metnc units—mg/off-kg of
copper or copper alloy
tumbled or burnished
English units—pounds per
1,000,000 off-pounds of
copper or copper alloy
tumbled or burnished
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum
for any i
day
Maximum
for monthly
average
Cil and grease '
0 320
0 594 '
0 198 '
5 830
0215
0 244
0 ' 98
5 830
' For alternate monitoring
(p) Subpart A—Surface Coating PSN'S
I	Maximum Maxir-um
(	Pollutorl or pollutant property | for anv i for montnty
j	i aay	a\erage
i	Metnc jnits—mg/Ofi-«g ol
.	copper or coDoer alloy
I	surface coated
i	English units—pounds oer
j	1,000,000 off-pounds of
'	cocoer or copoer alloy
surface coated
Chromium ...
0 274 j
0 111
Copper	
0 951 1
0 453
Lead 	
0 074 ,
0 066
Nickel . 		 _...
0 408 1
0 274
Zinc . „ .
0 757 1
0312
TTO		
0252;
0 252
Oil and grease ' 		 .
7 430 •
1
7 430
1 For alternate monitonng
(q) Subpart A—Miscellaneous Waste
Streams PSNS.
Pollutant or pollutant property
I Maximum for
| any 1 day
Maximum tor
montWy
average
Metnc units—rrg'oH-kg of
copper or copper xnoy
formed
English units—pounds per
1,000.000 ofl-pounds of
copper or copper alley
formed
Chromium „
Copoer . ..
Lead . .
Nickel 	
Zinc	... .
TTO	
Oil and grease 1
0 008
0,003
0 027
0013
0 0021
0 0019
0011
0008
0 022
0 009
0 007
0 007
0218
0218
1 For alternate monitonng
§ 488.16 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best conventional
pollution control technology (BCT).
[Reserved]
[FR Doc 83-21913 Filed 8-12-83: 8.45 am)
BILLING CODE 6560-50-41
-------
\	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
?	WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
V.
CATE : December 16, 1983	office of
WATER
SUBJECT: Copper Forming/Metal Finishing Workshop - a
¦' ¦
FRCM : Jeffery D. Denit, Director _ -4 /J ,
Effluent Guidelines Division
Martha Prothro, Director
Martha prothro, Director \,^ \ '¦	, j, \ r
Pennits Division (EN-336) v	\
TO : Addressees
Attached is a report on the EPA vcrkshop for the application of final regulations
for two industrial categories, specifically (1) Copper Forming ana (2) Metal
Finishing. This combined workshop was held in Philadelphia on November 16th & 17th.
Participants came frar. EPA regional offices, State offices and municipal control
authorities. A brief sunmary is provided for the topics and issues discussed at
the workshop.
Individuals who attended the workshop as well as key Regional, State and munici-
pal control authority personnel who were not able to attend will receive this
summary. Hopefully, this surtmary will be useful for those individuals whose
main concern is the implementation of guidelines and standards for both
industries.
We we 1 cane additional ccrraents and questions on both the summary report and the
ccpper forming/metal finishing guidelines. A list of materials distributed at
the workshop is attached at the end of this report. Please oontact Sidney Jackson
at (202) 382-7191 if you would like to obtain any of these.
Attachments
-------
Addressees:
All Workshop Attendees
All CWEP Branch Chiefs
All EGD Branch Chiefs
All EPA Regional Water Division Directors
All State NPDES Program Directors
State Pretreatment Coordinators
National Enforcement Investigations Center, Thcmas Gallagher, Director
Water Enforcement Division, Robert Zeller, Director (EN-338)
Monitoring and Data Support Division, Edmund Notzon, Director (WH-553)
Criteria and Standards Division, Patrick Tobin, Acting Director (WH-585)
Office of Analysis and Evaluation, Peter Wise, Acting Director (WH-586)
Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division, John Lehman, Director (WH-586)
State Programs and Resources Recovery Division, John Skinner, Director (WH-586)
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, Bruce Barrett, Director (EN-335)
Industrial Environmental Research Lab, David G. Stephan, Director, Cinn., OH
Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Steven Schatzow, Director, (WH-551)
Assistant Administrator for Water, Jack Ravan, (WH-556)
-------
SUMMARY REPORT
For Copper Forming and For Metal Finishing Industries..
Permit Writers' Workshop held at the Holiday Inn Center City,
Philadelphia, PA., November 16-17, 1983
OVERVIEW
This workshop provided two briefings: one on the final regulations for the
copper forming industry by Jan Goodwin/Ernst Hall and the other for the metal
finishing industry by Richard Kinch/Ed Stigall. All four speakers are members
of the EPA Effluent Guidelines Division (EGD).
In addition, a panel discussion was held to promote an open exchange of ideas
in developing permits at the Local, State and Regional levels for these two
industries. The overall program was moderated by Linda Wilbur fran EGD. The
panel discussion, held on the second day, was moderated by Harry Harbold and
focused on program implementation. Members of this panel included Pete Eagen,
EPA Headquarters/NPDES Program Branch/Permits Division and Charles Strehl,
City of York, PA. The full agenda and list of attendees are attached.
Introduction
The introductory remarks and welcome were delivered by Jeff Haas, EPA Region III.
Jeff noted that Al Aim had visited the Region III office on the previous day in
connection with the second round permits. He noted that the excuse for not
issuing permits based on the absence of effluent guidelines and standards had
all but disappeared with issuance of numerous final regulations by EGD.
Linda Wilbur, spokesperson for EGD, added her welcome and addressed the EGD per-
mit support program briefly. She noted that EGD will 'supply assistance to con-
trol authorities at all levels and suggested that problems with, or clarification
of, categorical standards and guidelines should be directed to the responsible
BSD project officer. She identified Denise Beverly, EGD distribution officer as
the appropriate contact for Development Documents and Guidance Documents. Denise's
phone number (202) 382-7115 was provided for future reference. Before she intro-
duced the main program, Linda pointed out that Sid Jackson (202) 382-7191 and
Joe Vitalis (202) 382-7172 will provide back-up when EGD project officers are
unavailable.
Briefing - Copper Forming
Ernst Hall, Chief Metals & Machinery Branch, began the copper forming presentation
by pointing out that Dave Pepson, the former project officer, had been reassigned
and replaced by Jan Goodwin. He noted that she also is the project officer for
the aluminum forming category. Jan led off the slide presentation and Ernst used
the last few slides to explain the building block approach used in the regulation.
Making a number of simplifying assumptions he demonstrated how to set permit dis-
charges for regulated pollutants.
-1-
-------
The workshop packet for the copper forming category included: the Federal Register
reprint of the final regulation (48 FR 36942, 8/15/83); a reprint of a correction
notice fran. the Federal Register to correct the.final rule (48 FR 507.17, 11/3/83);
a four page booklet titled "Proposed Effluent Guidelines"; and a set of copies of
the slides used in the briefing (blue covered booklet called "Promulgated Regulation
For The Copper Forming Industrial Point Source Category"). Copies of the final
Development Document were not available for distribution; however, a reference copy
of the proposed Development Document issued in October 1982 was available for
reference purposes. Final Development Document will be printed by January, 1984.
Following Are the Key Points Discussed:
.The plant population for this category is 176 of which 37 are direct dis-
chargers and 45 are indirect dischargers (go to POTWs). The balance (94)
do not discharge any wastewater.
.Two thirds of the plants are concentrated in the north central midwest and
northeast states.
.Copper forming (40 CFR Part 468) is the process of shaping cast copper or
copper alloy into mill products. Five principal forming operations are
hot rolling, cold rolling, drawing, extrusion, and forging. No flow
allowance is established for the forging operation, since forging is a
dry process. Flow allowances are established for hot rolling, cold rol-
ling, drawing and extrusion (a thru d shown below).
.Nine ancillary surface cleaning and heat treatment operations (e thru m
listed below) can be conducted at copper forming plants. Additional an-
cillary flow allowances developed after issuing the proposed rule include
(n) pickling fume scrubbing, (o) tumbling or burnishing, (p) surface coat-
ing, and (q) miscellaneous waste streams.
.The full set of flow allowances then beccnes (a thru q) for a total of seven-
teen discrete limitations for the five metals and three conventional pollutant
properties controlled under best practicable control technology currently
available (BPT). These are (a) hot rolling spent lubricant, (b) cold rolling
spent lubricant, (c) drawing spent lubricant, (d) extrusion heat treatment,
(e) solution heat treatment, (f) annealing with water, (g) annealing with
oil, (h) alkaline cleaning rinse, (i) alkaline cleaning rinse for forged parts,
(j) alkaline cleaning bath, (k) pickling rinse, (1) pickling rinse for forged
parts, (m) surface coating, (n) pickling fume scrubbing, (o) tumbling or burn-
ishing, (p) surface coating, and (q) miscellaneous waste streams.
.See 48 FR 36957 & 36958, August 15, 1983, for specialized definitions and
48 FR 26958 to 36967, August 15, 1983, for numerical limits for BPT (best
practicable control technology currently available), BAT (best available
technology economically achievable), NSPS (new source performance standards),
PSES (pretreatment standards for existing sources), and PSNS (pretreatment
standards for new souroes).
.BCT (best conventional pollutant control technology) for this category is
deferred until a final methodology for BCT is promulgated.
-2-
-------
.The copper forming category is regulated as a single subcategory and utilizes
mass-based limits (mass of pollutant allowed to be discharged per unit of
production) based on both in-plant and end of pipe treatment_,technologies.
.Operations excluded from the copper forming regulation Part 468 are (1) the
casting of copper & copper alloys which will be regulated under metal molding
& castircj (Part 428) and (2) the manufacture of copper powders and forming
parts fran copper or copper alloy powders which will be part of the nonferrous
metals forming regulation (Part 421).
.For BFT the regulated pollutants are the conventional pollutant properties
(pH and TSS) plus five toxic metals (copper, chrcmiun, lead, nickel and
zinc). It was stated that by direct regulation of these five metals another
six metals antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, selenium and silver would
be adequately controlled without being specifically regulated at BPT, BAT,
NSPS, PSES and PSNS.
.The pollutant property called "Total Toxic Organics" (TTO) shall mean the
sum of the masses or concentrations of each of the following twelve specific
toxic organic canpounds which are found at a concentration greater than 0.010
mg/1.
benzene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
chloroform
2,6-dinitrotoluene
ethylbenzene
methylene chloride
naphthalene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
anthracene
phenanthrene
toluene
trichloroethylene
.Ttoxic organics found but not specified in the TTO should be handled by the
control authority on a case-by-case basis.
.TIO is adequately controlled for direct dischargers by the BPT limitation
on oil and grease. Likewise, NSPS relies on the removal of oil and grease
limit in order to adequately control toxic organics found in copper forming
wastewaters. TTO (utilizing a numerical limit) applies to indirect dischargers
subject to PSES/PSNS. Hovever, as an alternate to using GC/CID or GC/MS for
monitoring the individual compounds in the TTO, indirect dischargers may
monitor for oil & grease (0 & G). Any indirect discharger meeting alternate
monitoring provisions for O & G shall be considered to meet the TTO standard.
This is done to avoid the high cost and need for sophisticated analytical
equipment to analyze wastewater for toxic organics.
•The copper forming regulation does not establish a monitoring frequency.
The maximum for monthly average values are based on the average of 10 con-
secutive samples. However, compliance with the monthly discharge limit is
required regardless of the number of samples analyzed and averaged.
-3-
-------
.For BFT and MSPS the pollutant parameter pH is specified to be within the
range 7.5 to 10.0 at all times. This pH range is established to ensure
adequate metals rsnoval through precipitation for which the optimum pH
is 8 to 9. For econcmic benefits and reduction of "dissolved"salts that
would be formed, acid normally added to lover the pH to the more tradi-
tional range of 6 to 9 will generally not be required to comply with the
7.5 to 10 range specified in this regulation.
.Ftor BFT, BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS, all pollutants and pollutant properties
(except for pH) are set at zero for the wastewater stream called "Subpart
A-Annealing With Oil Effluent Limitations" since the indicated treatment
technology is contract waste hauling.
An example of the application of the copper forming regulation to determine the
permissible discharge of copper (Cu) using building block approach was danonstrated
by E. Hall and is shown belcw:
Basis: Operations used in the exanple are shown on a block diagram on slide
#16, "Representative Flow Sheet For Plate, Sheet & Strip," and consists
of eight operations shown below.
Assumpt ions:
(1)	Limit is for BAT only.
(2)	Product throughput (off-kilograms) equals 10 kkg for all operations.
(3)	Single pollutant present in wastewater is copper.
(4)	[Determine one. day maximum only.
Effluent Limitation
48 FR 36960	Maximum for
Operation
Description
Reference

Any (1)
dav
#1
Hot Rolling
Section
468.12
(a)
0.195 mg/off-kg
#2
Solution Heat






Treatment
It
468.12
(d)
1.227
n
#3
Pickle &
H
468.12
(m)
0.220
M

Rinse
n
468.12
(k)
2.481
II
#4
Cold Rolling
n
468.12
(b)
0.720
II
#5
Alkaline Cleaning
n
468.12
(j)
0.088
If

" Rinse
it
468.12
(h)
8.006
II
#6
Annealing with Vfeter
n
468.12
(f)
2.356
II
#7
Pickle &
i«
468.12
(m)
0.220
II

Rinse
ii
468.12
(k)
2.481
II
#8
Bright Dip (Pickle)
it
468.12
(m)
0.220
If

& Rinse
n
468.12
(k)
2.481
n
*
Miscellaneous W&ste
n
468.12
(q)
0.041
n
-4-
-------
(a)	Subtotal/Operation #1 thru #8 except Miscellaneous= 20.695 mg/off-kg
(b)	Misc. Waste Stream Allow. (0.041) X (8 operations)= 0.328 "
(c)	Total Unit Amount (a) + (b)	=21.023 "
*Ihe term "miscellaneous waste stream," shall mean the following additional waste
streams related to forming copper: hydrotesting, sawing, surface millings and
maintenance. In this example the miscellaneous allowance is applied to the off-
mass frcm each operation.
Building Block Effluent Limit/Daily Max.
Fbr 8 operations above allowed Cu discharge = 21.023 mg/off-kg of Cu
Conversion Factors
2.205 lbs. = 1 kg
1.0 lb. = 453.5 gm
Calculation of Allowed Daily Discharge of Copper (Cu);
210.23 gm/day
0.463 lbs/day
ANS.
An additional example of the building block technique has been provided by Jan
Goodwin and is presented as an appendix at the end of this report.
Briefing-Metal Finishing
Rich Kinch started the metal finishing briefing with slides that discussed the
relationships between metal finishing and electroplating coverage and showed the
main features of the final regulation which are listed under "key points discussed"
below. At the conclusion of Kinch's slide presentation Ed Stigall folloved Kinch
with a continuing explanation of the impact of strategies for various monitoring
frequencies. Eld discussed the underlying statistical basis of the metal finish-
ing regulations and then opened the meeting to emerging issues and current issues
covered under comments & concerns. Reference materials in the workshop packet
that were identified by the briefing team included: a reprint of the final rule
(48 FR 32462, 7/15/83), a four page booklet titled "Final Effluent Guidelines -
Rulemaking for the Metal Finishing Point Source Category - Fall 1983", and the
Development Dociinent (EPA 440/1-83/091).
following Are The. Key Points Discussed:
.Concentration based limits are used instead of production based limits
because a consistent relationship between flow and production could
not be developed for this industry.
-5-
21.023 mq	1 gm „ 10 off-kkg	1000 kg _
off-kg	1000 mg	day	kkg
Allowed Max Daily Discharge of Cu =	X
-------
.Plant coverage was expanded frcm six unit operations in the electroplating
category to 46 for the metal finishing category. When plants in the
metal-finishing category perform one or more of the. following six opera-
tions: (1) electroplating, (2) electroless plating, (3) anodizing, (4)
coating (phosphating, chrcmating, and coloring), (5) chemical etching
and milling, and (6) printed circuit board manufacture; then these regula-
tions apply to wastewater from any of the 46 listed metal finishing opera-
tions. See Appendix C on p. 32482 in 40 FR 32462.
.These final regulations establish Part 433 Metal Finishing BAT and BAT-
equivalent PSES to limit the discharge of toxic metals, toxic organics,
and cyanide, which will apply to most of the facilities kncwn to exist in
the electroplating/metal finishing categories.
.Seven metals (Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Ag & Zn) plus total cyanide and cyanide
(A) utilize maximum daily limits and maximum monthly averages expressed in
metal finishing slide #1.
.Conventional pollutants controlled for direct dischargers in metal finishing
are TSS, oil & grease and pH. Concentration limits are shown in slide #2.
.Existing indirect discharging job shop electroplaters and independent
printed circuit board manufacturers (IPCBM), however, remain subject only
to the existing Part 413 PSES for electroplating.
.If a job shop or IPCBM facility is characterized as a direct or new source
then it is covered under this final metal finishing regulation (40 FR 32462).
.The proposed limits included a 30 day average based on 30 consecutive samples.
For the final metal finishing regulation this was changed to a monthly
average which was statistically based on 10 samples per month.
.To address facilities with canplexed cyanide which can not be destroyed by
the technology basis it was decided to use Cyanide (A) as an alternative to
Cyanide (T) for industrial facilities with cyanide treatment upon agreement
between the plant and the control authority.
.The electroplating (Part 413) compliance deadline for metals and cyanide at
integrated facilities is 6/30/84 and for non-integrated facilities the date
is 4/27/84.
.The term TTO shall mean total toxic organics, which is the summation of all
quantifiable values greater than 0.01 mg/1 for 110 toxic organics frcm the
list of 126 toxic pollutants. In Part 433 (metal finishing point source
category) the TTO maximum for any one day is 2.13 mg/1 for BPT, BAT, PSES,
NSPS and PSNS. For Part 433 PSES also has a daily interim limit of 4.57 mg/1.
There is no monthly maximum limit. See metal finishing slide #1.
.In Part 413 (electroplating point source category) the TTO maximum for any one
day is 2.13 mg/1 for PSES vdiere plants are discharging more than 38,000 liters
(10,000 gallons) per day the TTO maximum for any one day is 4.57 mg/1 for plants
discharging less than 38,000 liters (10,000 gallons). This is the only addi-
tional requirement promulgated for Part 413 in this final regulation.
-6-
-------
.An existing source submitting a certification in lieu of monitoring pursuant
to section 413.03 or 433.12 of this regulation must implement the toxic or-
ganic-.management plan approved by the control authority; however, if moni-
toring is necessary to measure compliance with the TTO standard, the industrial
user need analyze only for those pollutants which would reasonably be
expected to be present.
.Compliance with TTO for existing indirect discharging job shops and indepen-
dent printed circuit board manufacturers is 7/15/86. See slide #4.
.To avoid overlap, Part 413 standards will not apply after February 15, 1986
to a facility which must comply with all pollutant limitations listed in
section 433.15 (metal finishing PSES).
Metal Finishing Slide #1
METAL FINISHING - TOXIC POLLUTANTS
Eaily Maximum	Monthly Average
Pollutant	(mg/1)	(rog/1)	
Cadmium	0.69	0.26
Chrcmium	2.77	1.71
Copper	3.38	2.07
Lead	0.69	0.43
Nickel	3.98	2.38
Silver	0.43	0.24
Zinc	2.61	1.48
Cyanide (T)	1.20	0.65
Cyanide (A) Alternate	0.86	0.32
Total Tbxic Organics
Interim	4.57
Final	2.13
Metal Finishing Slide #2
METAL FINISHING - CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Maximum
Daily Maximum	Monthly Average
Pollutant (mg/1)	(mg/1)
TSS 60	31
Oil & Grease 52	26
pH (1)	(1)
Note: (1) equals pH within 6.0 to 9.0 in standard units.
-7-
-------
Metal Finishing Slide #3
METAL FINISHING - COMPLIANCE DATES-
New Sources	Direct Dischargers
Metal Finishing	On Ccmmsncement	July 1, 1984
(Part 433)	of Discharge
Metal Finishing Slide #4
METAL FINISHING - COMPLIANCE DATES
Existing Indirect Dischargers
Electroplating
(Part 413)
Metals and Cyanide
Metal Finishing
(Part 433)
Interim TTO
Metal Finishing
(Part 433)
Metals, Cyanide,
and Final TTO
Electroplating
(Part 413)
Final TTO
Non-Integrated
Job Shops &
IPCBMs
4/27/84
Integrated
Job Shops &
IPCBMs
6/30/84
Non-Integrated
Captives
4/27/84
6/30/84
Integrated
Captives
6/30/84
6/30/84
2/15/86
2/15/86
7/15/86
7/15/86
Panel Presentation & Discussions
Harry Harbold, EPA Region III, introduced Pete Eagen frcm the EPA Washington Permits
Division. After stating initially that he would take any issues that emerged in the
workshop back to the Permits Division, Pete outlined the present status of the
national pretreatment program. He used overhead slides to depict the following:
.The total number of local pretreatment programs required in FY 82 &
FY 83 is 1675. As of 10/1/82 sixty-five programs (4% of total) had
been approved. This number grew to 22% (371 programs) as of 10/1/83.
Pete estimates that the approved programs will reach 68% (1150 pro-
grams) by 10/1/84.
-8-
-------
.Nineteen states now have the approved state pretreatment program.
Examples given for states that issue permits directly to control
authorities are Connecticut, Vermont and Mississippi.
.Eagen stated that the General Pretreatment Regulations provide POIWs
with a great deal of flexibility; however, there will be constraints
in seme areas such as with categorical standards developed by EGD.
.Where local limits are more stringent than categorical, then local
limits will prevail.
Chuck Strehl, Water Quality Specialist for the City of York, PA, followed Pete Eagen
with a presentation based on pretreatment at the local level. He expressed sane con-
cern about the uncertainty of the federal pretreatment program and then launched into
a chronological discussion of the growth of his department. To facilitate the dis-
cussion which followed his presentation, Strehl distributed a hand-out that had an
outline of his talk and a list of local industries affected by categorical guidelines
and standards. Salient points made by Chuck are shown belcw.
.As recent as 1978 the City of York had only two people involved in the
pretreatment program.
.Initially the pretreatment program started in-house with an industrial
survey and an attempt to establish pollutant limits. .
.In May 1983 the City of York sent in its pretreatment packet to EPA
Region III.
.In July 1983 EPA mandated nationwide all POTWs with industrial contri-
butions have an approved program.
•In August 1983 the City of York received notification frcm Region Ifl
that it had an approved program and was now responsible for pretreatment
standards for all categorical industries under its jurisdiction.
.Strehl noted that the biggest responsibility added by approval is the
enforcement of the federal categorical standards which involves:
1.	Determining which industries are subject to what standards.
2.	Obtaining baseline reports.
3.	Establishing monitoring programs that canply with the regulations.
4.	Obtaining compliance where it does not exist.
5.	Permitting new industries.
6.¦	Keeping up with regulations.
-9-
-------
.To expedite the passage of ordinances through the City Council a public
advisory committee was formed and within this committee three of the
major regulated industries were represented. Enactment .of the local
ordinance went promptly and smoothly.	- - -•
.The City of York ordinance which was developed for the control of indi-
rect dischargers referenced the federal pretreatment statutes. Other
communities that utilize the wastewater treatment facilities operated
by the City of York linked their ordinance to those of the City of York
by reference.
.In the months immediately ahead Strehl indicated that a major effort
would be mounted to generate baseline reports fran the regulated in-
dustries serviced by the City of York.
.Initial analyses vrere done by and paid for by the City of York. Future
analyses are expected to be provided by regulated companies, at their ex-
pense for normal monitoring. Vfrienever enforcement actions are anticipated,
the City of York will pay for these analyses. Eventual recovery of costs
should then be achieved by successful prosecution and associated fines.
.Strehl indicated that the City of York had been approached by an in-
dustry which wants to consolidate several of its plating operations.
This will be the first new source for the City of York which will
involve a "start to finish" permitting process for a metal finishing
firm. Vfrien the application arrives Strehl stated that the City of York
will require the submission of a determination request and a baseline
report. He anticipates no major problems and expects to work closely
with EPA throughout the entire process. The "new source" firm looks
forward, according to Strehl, to a single point of contact - the City
of York.
CCMMENTS, CONCERNS & ISSUES
General
This section has been assembled to draw attention to discussions that occurred dur-
ing the industry briefings, the panel discussion and the "wrap-up" session. Within
these discussions there were points that could-arterge eventually as fundamental
points in future workshop sessions. In addition, this space is directed towards
those subjects or items of interest that need to be highlighted for those partici-
pants that attended this particular workshop.
Cboperative Agreements Between Municipalities
In order to achieve economies of scale neighboring municipalities sometimes engage
in sharing publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). Tto accomplish this it is im-
portant that the ordinances be referenced to each other and to the federal statutes
90 that the local control authority can do its job effectively and legally. For
instance, in the panel discussion about the City of York, it was pointed out that
the State of Pennsylvania gives a "Third class city" the power to impose a fine of
-10-
-------
$300 per day per violation. Hence, if a zinc limit, an oil & grease limit and
the pH range were all exceeded by an indirect industrial source (an electroplater,
for instance), then the City of York could reccrtinend a fine of $900 per day
($300 X 3). In this case the fine would be issued through the Magistrate Court.
In a situation where a neighboring municipality has the need to prove that a vio-
lation is occurring, the municipality may rely on the host municipality (or control
authority) to do the leg work to prove that a violation has occurred by gathering
samples and running the necessary analyses. In the City of York discussion it was
pointed out that this relationship exists betveen the Township of Manchester and
the City of York. After the City of York gathers the facts and makes them available
to the Township of Manchester, the Township of Manchester pursues the case in the
Magistrate Court with the assistance of the City of York.
Cbmpensation For Services Rendered By the Control Authority
Vho pays for sampling and/or analytical costs seems to depend on -the ultimate use
of the acquired data. If the data are needed by the control authority to develop
local pollution control limits or to bring about an enforcement action then the
control authority tends to absorb the cost in its budget. Cn the other hand, if
the sampling and analysis is for routine monitoring as a condition of a permit,
then the regulated industry would be expected to pay for its own monitoring costs.
Surcharges currently offset only one third of the cost to treat wastewater at the
City of York POTW. In January 1984 the surcharge will be increased to recover two
thirds of the treatment cost and in 1985 it is expected that the surcharge rate
will be adjusted to cover the full cost of treatment. This example illustrates
how municipalities and control authorities can cope with expanding operational bud-
gets.
Permit Writing Process
The issue of how to handle categorical standards surfaced again in the Philadelphia
workshop. As expected, several differences of opinion were expressed regarding
vhether or not all the parameters that are published in the Federal Register for
a given point source category should be specified in the permit even though seme of
the pollutants specified in the categorical standard had not been used, had not
been detected and were not expected to be detected at the plant site being permit-
ted. Linda Wilbur stated that a clarifying policy memo would be issued from EGD
and the Permits Division on this. However, it is believed that once you have a
national standard it is legally binding for the permit writer to specify a number.
In short, the pollutant must appear in the permit and the minimum frequency of
once per year is required. Reference is 40 CFR 122.44 (i)(2).
-11-
-------
(Revised 4/6/84)
COPPER FORMING
CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
This summary provides industries in the Copper Forming category and
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) with the information necessary to
determine compliance with standards for this industrial category. The Copper
Forming categorical standards were established by the Environmental Protection
Agency in Part 468 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR
468). This summary is not intended to substitute for the regulations pub-
lished in the Code of Federal Regulations or the Federal Register. For spe-
cific information, refer to the Federal Register citations given below.
Important Dates
Proposed Rule: November 12, 1982
Correction: January 14, 1983
Final Rule: August 15, 1983
Amendment: September 15, 1983
Correction: November 3, 1983
Effective Date: September 26, 1983
Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR)
Due Date: March 25, 1984
Compliance Dates:
Federal Register Citation
Vol. 47,	page 51278 November 12, 1982
Vol.	48,	page 1769, January 14, 1983
Vol.	48,	page 36942, August 15, 1983
Vol. 48,	page 41409, September 15, 1983
Vol. 48,	page 50714, November 3, 1983
-	Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES): August 15, 1986
-	Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS): From commencement of
discharge
SUBCATEGORIES
The Copper Forming industry is regulated as a single subcategory. Dis-
charges resulting from hot rolling, cold rolling, drawing, extrusion, and
forging operations are covered under this subcategory. PSES and PSNS have
been established for wastewaters generated by these five principal forming
operations and several different ancillary copper forming processes.
REGULATED POLLUTANTS
The pollutants regulated by the Copper Forming categorical standards are
chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, total toxic organics (TTO), and oil and
grease. For this category, the term total toxic organics (TTO) refers to the
sum of the masses or concentrations of each of the following compounds found
at a concentration greater than 0.01 mg/1.
benzene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
chloroform
2,6-dinitrotoluene
ethylbenzene
methylene chloride
naphthalene
N-nitro8odiphenylamine
anthracene
phenanthrene
toluene
trichloroethylene
-1-
-------
COPPER FORMING (cont.)
Indirect dischargers may monitor their discharges of oil and grease and
meet the alternative monitoring levels established for oil and grease rather
than monitoring for TTO. Any indirect discharger meeting the alternative oil
and grease monitoring level will be considered to meet the TTO standard;
All limits established by the copper forming standards are mass-based and
are expressed in units of mg/off-kg (equivalent to lbs/1,000,000 off-lbs).
Off-kg and off-lb are measures of the mass of copper or copper alloy formed
and removed from one process for transfer to another process.
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES (PSES)
FOR HOT
ROLLING SPENT LUBRICANT
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0. OAS
0.018
Copper
0.195
0.103
Lead
0.015
0.013
Nickel
0.197
0.130
Zinc
0.150
0.062
TTO
0.066
0.035
Oil and Grease
2.060
1.236
PSES FOR COLD ROLLING SPENT LUBRICANT

Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.166
0.068
Copper
0.720
0.379
Lead
0.056
0.049
Nickel
0.727
0.481
Zinc
0.553
0.231
TTO
0.246
0.128
Oil and Grease
7.580
4.548
-2-
-------
COPPER FORMING (cont.)
PSES FOR
DRAWING SPENT .LUBRICANT





Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average
: (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.037

0.015
Copper
0.161

0.085
Lead
0.012

0.011
Nickel
0.163

0.107
Zinc
0.124

0.051
TTO
0.055

0.028
Oil and Grease
1.700

1.020
PSES FOR
SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT





Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.284

0.116
Copper
1.227

0.646
Lead
0.096

0.083
Nickel
1.240

0.820
Zinc
0.943

0.394
TTO
0.419

0.219
Oil and Grease
12.920

7.752
PSES FOR
EXTRUSION HEAT TREATMENT





Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.00088

0.00036
Copper
0.0030

0.0020
Lead
0.00030

0.00026
Nickel
0.0030

0.0020
Zinc
0.0020

0.0010
TTO
0.0010

0.00068
Oil and Grease
0.040

0.024
-3-
-------
COPPER FORMING (cont.)
PSES FOR ANNEALING WITH WATER
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any

Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.545

0.223
Copper
2.356

1.240
Lead
0.186

0.161
Nickel
2.380

1.574
Zinc
1.810

0.756
TTO
0.806

0.421
Oil and Grease
24.800

14.880
PSES
FOR ANNEALING WITH
OIL

Pollutant or
Maximum for Any

Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0

0
Copper
0

0
Lead
0

0
Nickel
0

0
Zinc
0

0
TTO
0

0
Oil and Grease
0

0
PSES FOR
ALKALINE CLEANING
RINSE

Pollutant or
Maximum for Any

Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
1.854

0.758
Copper
8.006

4.214
Lead
0.632

0.547
Nickel
8.090

5.351
Zinc
6.152

2.570
TTO
2.739

1.432
Oil and Grease
84.280

50.568
-A-
-------
COPPER FORMING (cont.)
PSES FOR ALKALINE CLEANING
RINSE FOR FORGED PARTS
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
5.562
2.275
Copper
24.019
12.642
Lead
1.896
1.643
Nickel
24.272
16.055
Zinc
18.457
7.711
TTO
8.217
4.298
Oil and Grease
252.840
151.704
PSES FOR
ALKALINE CLEANING BATH

Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.020
0.0084
Copper
0.088
0.046
Lead
0.0070
0.0060
Nickel
0.089
0.059
Zinc
0.068
0.028
TTO
0.030
0.015
Oil and Grease
0.93
0.56
PSES
FOR PICKLING RINSE

Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.574
0.235
Copper
2.481
1.306
Lead
0.195
0.169
Nickel
2.507
1.658
Zinc
1.906
0.796
TTO
0.848
0.444
Oil and Grease
26.120
15.672
-5-
-------
COPPER FORMING (cont.)
PSES FOR PICKLING
RINSE FOR FORGED PARTS
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
1.723
0.705
Copper
7.444
3.918
Lead
0.587
0.509
Nickel
7.522
4.975
Zinc
5.720
2.389
TTO
2.546
1.332
Oil and Grease
78.360
47.016
PSES
FOR PICKLING BATH

Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.051
0.020
Copper
0.220
0.116
Lead
0.017
0.015
Nickel
0.222
0.147
Zinc
0.169
0.070
TTO
0.075
0.039
Oil and Grease
2.320
1.392
PSES FOR
PICKLING FUME SCRUBBER

Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.275
0.112
Copper
0.189
0.626
Lead
0.093
0.081
Nickel
1.201
0.795
Zinc
0.913
0.381
TTO
0.406
0.212
Oil and Grease
12.520
7.512
-6-
-------
COPPER FORMING (cont.)
PSES FOR TUMBLING OR BURNISHING
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.256
0.104
Copper
1.107
0.583
Lead
0.087
0.075
Nickel
1.119
0.740
Zinc
0.851
0.355
TTO
0.378
0.198
Oil and Grease
11.660
6.996
PSES
FOR SURFACE COATING

Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.326
0.133
Copper
1.411
0.743
Lead
0.111
0.096
Nickel
1.426
0.943
Zinc
1.084
0.453
TTO
0.482
0.252
Oil and Grease
14.860
8.916
PSES FOR MISCELLANEOUS WASTE STREAMS

Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.009
0.003
Copper
0.041
0.021
Lead
0.003
0.002
Nickel
0.041
0.027
Zinc
0.031
0.013
TTO
0.014
0.007
Oil and Grease
0.436
0.261
-7-
-------
COPPER FORMING (cont.)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES (PSNS)
FOR HOT ROLLING SPENT LUBRICANT
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Maximum for Monthly
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.038
0.015
Copper
0.131
0.062
Lead
0.010
0.0092
Nickel
0.056
0.038
Zinc
0.105
0.043
TTO
0.035
0.035
Oil and Grease
1.030
1.030
PSNS FOR COLD ROLLING SPENT LUBRICANT
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.140
0.056
Copper
0.485
0.231
Lead
0.037
0.034
Nickel
0.208
0.140
Zinc
0.386
0.159
TTO
0.128
0.128
Oil and Grease
3.790
3.790
PSNS FOR
DRAWING SPENT LUBRICANT

Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.031
0.012
Copper
0.106
0.051
Lead
0.0085
0.0076
Nickel
0.046
0.031
Zinc
0.086
0.035
TTO
0.028
0.028
Oil and Grease
0.850
0.850
-8-
-------
COPPER FORMING (cont.)
PSNS FOR SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.239
0.096
Copper
0.826
0.394
Lead
0.064
0.058
Nickel
0.355
0.239
Zinc
0.658
0.271
TTO
0.219
0.219
Oil and Grease
6.460
6.460
PSNS FOR
EXTRUSION HEAT TREATMENT

Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.00074
0.00030
Copper
0.0020
0.0010
Lead
0.00020
0.00018
Nickel
0.0010
0.00074
Zinc
0.0020
0.00084
TTO
0.00068
0.00068
Oil and Grease
0.020
0.020
PSNS FOR ANNEALING WITH WATER
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.458
0.186
Copper
1.587
0.756
Lead
0.124
0.111
Nickel
0.682
0.458
Zinc
1.264
0.520
TTO
0.421
0.421
Oil and Grease
12.400
12.400
-9-
-------
COPPER FORMING (cont.)
PSNS FOR ANNEALING WITH OIL
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0
0
Copper
0
0
Lead
0
0
Nickel
0
0
Zinc
0
0
TTO
0
0
Oil and Grease
0
0
PSNS FOR
ALKALINE CLEANING RINSE

Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
1.559
0.632
Copper
5.393
2.570
Lead
0.421
0.379
Nickel
2.317
1.559
Zinc
4.298
1.769
TTO
1.432
1.432
Oil and Grease
42.140
42.140
PSNS
FOR ALKALINE CLEANING

RINSE FOR FORGED PARTS

Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
4.677
1.896
Copper
16.181
7.711
Lead
1.264
1.137
Nickel
6.953
4.677
Zinc
12.894
5.309
TTO
4.298
4.298
Oil and Grease
126.420
126.420
-10-
-------
COPPER FORMING (cont.)
PSNS FOR ALKALINE CLEANING BATH
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.017
0.0070
Copper
0.059
0.028
Lead
0.0046
0.0042
Nickel
0.025
0.017
Zinc
0.047
0.019
TTO
0.015
0.015
Oil and Grease
0.46
0.46
PSNS
FOR PICKLING RINSE

Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.216
0.087
Copper
0.748
0.356
Lead
0.058
0.052
Nickel
0.321
0.216
Zinc
0.596
0.245
TTO
0.198
0.198
Oil and Grease
5.850
5.850
PSNS FOR PICKLING RINSE FOR FORGED
PARTS

Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.649
0.263
Copper
2.246
1.070
Lead
0.175
0.157
Nickel
0.965
0.649
Zinc
1.790
0.737
TTO
0.596
0.596
Oil and Grease
17.550
17.550
-11-
-------
COPPER FORMING (cont.)
PSNS FOR PICKLING BATH
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.042

0.017
Copper
0.148

0.070
Lead
0.011

0.010
Nickel
0.063

0.042
Zinc
0.118

0.048
rro
0.039

0.039
Oil and Grease
1.160

1.160
PSNS FOR
PICKLING FUME SCRUBBER





Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.231

0.093
Copper
0.801

0.381
Lead
0.062

0.056
Nickel
0.344

0.231
Zinc
0.638

0.262
TTO
0.212

0.212
Oil and Grease
6.260

6.260
PSNS FOR
TUMBLING OR BURNISHING





Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.215

0.087
Copper
0.746

0.355
Lead
0.058

0.052
Nickel
0.320

0.215
Zinc
0.594

0.244
TTO
0.198

0.198
Oil and Grease
5.830

5.830
-------
COPPER FORMING (cont.)
PSNS FOR SURFACE COATING
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.274
0.111
Copper
0.951
0.453
Lead
0.074
0.066
Nickel
0.408
0.274
Zinc
0.757
0.312
TTO
0.252
0.252
Oil and Grease
7.430
7.430
PSNS FOR MISCELLANEOUS WASTE STREAMS

Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Maximum for Monthly
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/off-kg)
Average (mg/off-kg)
Chromium
0.008
0.003
Copper
0.027
0.013
Lead
0.0021
0.0019
Nickel
0.011
0.008
Zinc
0.022
0.009
TTO
0.007
0.007
Oil and Grease
0.218
0.218
-13-
-------
-------
(Revised 4/6/84)
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS (PHASE I)
CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
This summary provides industries subject to the Phase I Electrical and
Electronic Components categorical standards and Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs) with the information necessary to determine compliance with these
standards. The Electrical and Electronic Components standards were estab-
lished by the Environmental Protection Agency in Part 469 of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 469). This summary is not intended to
substitute for the regulations published in the Code of Federal Regulations or
the Federal Register. For specific information, refer to the Federal Register
citations given below.
Federal Register Citation
Vol. 47, p. 37048, August 24, 1982
Vol. 48, p. 15382, April 8, 1983
Vol. 48, p. 41409, September 15, 1983
Important Dates
(	Proposed Rule: August 24, 1982
\	Final Rule: April 8, 1983
J	Amendment: September 15, 1983
\	Effective Date: May 19, 1983
J	Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR)
I Due Date: November 15, 1983
I	Compliance Dates:
-	Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) for Total Toxic
Organics (TTO): July 1, 1984
-	Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) for Arsenic: J*-
November 8, 1985
-	Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS): From commencement of
discharge
SUBCATEGORIES
The Electrical and Electronic Components (Phase I) category is divided
into two subcategories, Semiconductors and Electronic Crystals.
The Semiconductor Subcategory is composed of plants manufacturing solid
state electrical devices that perform functions such as information processing
and display, power handling, and interconversion between light energy and
electrical energy. Semiconductors include light-emitting diodes (LEDs),
diodes and transistors, silicon-based integrated circuits, and liquid crystal
display (LCD) devices.
The Electronic Crystal Subcategory is composed of plants manufacturing
crystals or crystalline materials that are used.in electronic devices. These
crystals include quartz, ceramics, silicon, and gallium or indium arsenide.
-1-
-------
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS (PHASE I) (cont.)
REGULATED POLLUTANTS
The pollutants regulated under the Electrical and Electronic Components
(Phase I) standard are total toxic organics (TTO) and arsenic. For this
category, the term total toxic organics (TTO) refers to the sum of concentra-
tions for each of the following compounds found in the discharge at a concen-
tration greater than 0.01 mg/1.
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene	2-chlorophenol
chloroform	2,4-dichlorophenol
1.2-dichlorobenzene	4-nitrophenol
1.3-dichlorobenzene	pentachlorophenol
1.4-dichlorobenzene	di-n-butyl phthalate
ethylbenzene	anthracene
1,1,1-trichloroethane	1»2-diphenylhydrazine
methylene chloride	isophorone
naphthalene	butyl benzyl phthalate
2-nitrophenol	1.1-dichloroethylene
phenol	2,4,6-trichlorophenol
bis (2 ethylhexyl) phthalate	carbon tetrachloride
tetrachloroethylene	1«2-dichloroethane
toluene	1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethylene	dichlorobromomethane
Under certain conditions, some dischargers may be exempted from monitor-
ing for TTO. Refer to 40 CFR Part 469.13(c) and (d) for details and applica-
bility.
Also, the pretreatment standards for total arsenic (arsenic T) apply only
to facilities in the electronic crystals subcategory that manufacture gallium
or indium arsenide crystals.
SIC CODES AFFECTED*
The Electrical and Electronic Components categorical standards affect
firms in SIC Code 36. The four—digit SIC codes listed below can be used to
identify firms that may be subject to the standards established under Phase I.
The SIC codes are intended to be used for guidance. Not all firms with these
SIC codes will be subject to the Phase I standards.
Subcategory	SIC Codes
Semiconductors	3674
Electronic Crystals	3679
*Source: Summary of the Effluent Guidelines Division Rulemaking Activities,
July 1983.
-2-
-------
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS (PHASE I) (cont.)
SUBCATEGORY A - SEMICONDUCTORS
The standards for Subcategory A do not apply to discharges from sputter-
ing, vapor deposition, and electroplating operations. These operations are
regulated under the Metal Finishing categorical standards.
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES


Maximum For
Pollutant
or
Any One Day
Pollutant
Property
(mg/1)
TTO

1.37
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES

Maximum For
Pollutant or
Any One Day
Pollutant Property
(mg/1)
TTO
1.37
SUBCATEGORY B - ELECTRONIC CRYSTALS
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES


Average of Daily

Maximum For
Values For 30
Pollutant or
Any One Day
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
TTO
Arsenic (T)
1.37
2.09
0.83
-------
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS (PHASE I) (cont.)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES


Average of Daily

Maximum For
Values For 30
Pollutant or
Any One Day
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
TTO
1.37

Arsenic (T)
2.09
0.83
-------
1)
*
i
3
t
a
I
U>
v
I
Ui
-------
•-jwr»r-?nr-r.-7-;«'T7r^t-. rer-rcfrnrr:rrf^7Tr-7_--Trv;?yT=>,t-rmt-.> y\msjin t^S7.v;V/.T;TU
Friday
April 8, 1983
Ml'-V & G TP -&K ^ rsap*\ W '"3» £-':
i&Hvaii
fl* ^
Q&ti J
'refection
$k J«
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 69 / Friday, April 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
15382
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-AGENCY
40 CFR Fart 469
[WH-FRL 2327-8]
EiectricaJ and Electronic Components
Point Scurca Category Effluent
Limitations Guidelines, Pseiresimsni
Standards, and Mew Source
Perfomartes Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
su&imaky: This regulation limits the
discharge of pollutants into navigable
waters and publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) from semiconductor
and electronic crystal manufacturing
facilities. The Clean Water Act and a
Settlement Agreement require EPA to
issue this regulation.
The purpose of this regulation i3 to
provide effluent limitations for "best
practicable technology" (BPT) "best
available technology" (BAT), "best
conventional technology" (BCT) and
"new source performance standards"
(NSPS) for direct dischargers and
pretrearment standards for new and
existing indirect dischargers.
DATES: In accordance with 40 CFR
1C-Q.01 (45 PR 26043), this regulation sha!!,
be considered issued for purposes of
judicial review at 1:00 p.m. Eastern time
on A'pril 22, 1983. These regulations shail
become effective May 19, 1983>
The compliance date for the BAT
regulations for both subcategories is as
soon as possible, but no later than July
1,1SS4 with one exception. The BAT
compliance date for the
nonconventional pollutant fluoride for
the semiconductor subcategory is as
soon as possible but no later than thirty-
one months after the publication date.
The compliance data for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
PreLrcatment Standards for New
Sources (PSNS) for both subcategories is
the date the new source begins
operations. The compliance date for
Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources (PSE3) for arsenic regulated in
the electronic crystal subcategory is
thirty-one months after the publication
date. For total toxic organics (T'fO) the .
PSES compliancs date for both
subcategories is July 1.198-1.
Under Section 509(b)(1) of the Clean
Water Act judicial review of this
regulation can be obtained only by filing
a petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals within 90 days after
these regulations are considered issued
for purposes of judicial review. Under
Section 509(b)(2) of the Clean Water
Act. the requirements of the regulations
may not be challenged later in civil cr
criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
AODRfc'SScS: Technical information may
be obtained by writing to Mr. David
Pepson, Effluent Guidelines Division
(WH-552), EPA, 401 M Street, S.W..
Washington, D.C. 20460, or through
calling (202) 382-7157. Copies of the
technical^ocuments may be obtained
from the National Technical Information
Seivice, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (703)'
487-4600. Economic information may be
obtained by writing to Ms. Rer.ee Rico, ~
Office of Analysis and Evaluation (WH-
586), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20460 or by calling (202) 382-5386.
The economic analysis may also be
obtained from the National Technical
Information Service.
The record will be available for public
review in approximately two weeks
from 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David J. Pspson at (202) 382-7157.
SUPPLEMENT ARY IMFOHJ-IATIOM:
Organization of Tbis Notice
1. Legal Authority
ill. Scope of this Rulemaking
III.	Summary of Legal Background
A.	The Clean Water Act and NRDC
Settlement Agreement
B.	General Criteria for Effluent Limitations
C.	Pnor EPA Regulations
IV.	Methodology and Data Getheiing Efforts -
V.	Industry Subcategorization
VL Available Wastewater Control and
Treatment Technology
Vfl. Summary of Final Reflations and
Changes from Proposal
V'lU. Executive Order 12291 and Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis
ZX. Coots and Economic Impact
X.	Non-Water Quality Aspects cf Pollution
Control
XI.	Pollutants and Subcategories Not
Regulated
XII.	Summary of Public Participation and
Responses to Major Comments on the
Proposed Regulation
XIII.	Best Management Pi-actices
XIV.	Upset and Bypass Provisions
XV.	Variancs3 and Modifications
XVI.	Relationship to NPDES Permits
XVT1. Availability of Technical Assistance
XVHI. OM3 Review
XIX	List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 469
XX	Appendixes:
A—Abbreviations. Acronyms and Other
Terms Used in this Notice
E—List of Toxic Organics Comprising Total
Toxic Organics (TTO)
C—List of Toxic Pollutants Excluded from
Regulation
I. Legal Authority
This regulation is being promulgated
under the authority of Sections 301, 304,
306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean Water
Act (the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq., as amended by the Clean Water
Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-217) also called
the "Act". This regulation is also being
promulgated in response to the
Settlement Agreement in Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc. v.
Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976),
modified.12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979),
modified by Order dated October 26,
1982.
H. Scope of This Rulemaking
The purpose of this rulemaking is to
establish effluent limitations and
standards for existing and new
semiconductor and electronic crystal
manufacturing facilities. This regulation
applies to wastewater generated from
all process operations associated with
the above industries except sputtering,
electroplating, and vapor plating. The
wastewater generated from these unit
operations is subject to the final
electroplating and proposed metal
finishing effluent limitations and
standards.
There are approximately 257
semiconductor plants in the United
States: 77 of these plants are direct
dischargers while the remaining 180
plants discharge to POTWs. The
electronic crystal industry is comprised
of 70 plants, 6 of which are direct
dischargers and 64 of which are indirect
dischargers.
EPA's 1973 to 1976 round of
rulemaking emphasized the achievement
of best practicable 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
familiar (i.e., "classical'') pollutants.,
This effort did not include rulemaking
for the electrical and electronic
components category.
The current round of rulemaking aims
for the achievement by July 1. 1984, of
the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT) that will
result vn reasonable further progress
toward the national goal of eliminating
the discharge of all pollutants. At a
minimum, BAT represents the
performance of the best available
technology economically achievable in
any industrial category or subcategory.
Moreover, as a result of the Clean Water
Act of 1977, the emphasis of EPA's
-------
5922 ' Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 33 / Thursday, February 16, llJfi4 / Rules and Regulations
T~M immiri irm l«—imiMTnuiim irr—— ¦¦ ¦ — ——¦— i	¦—¦¦'¦wninn—'isl Cucm! Cnnimnndrr.
Tn-rlfili Coast Guard Daniel
|''l! UiK (H—1277 hlril 2-IS-W, :t 45
GILLING CODE 4910-14 M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 469
(FHL2510-7J	
Electrical and Electronic Components'
Point Source Category Effluent f
Limitations Guidelines Phase Ir
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
summary: EPA is toda> adopting as
final the interim final rule and
corrections that were published in the
Federal Register on October 4, 1963 (4ft
FR 45249). The rule amends the
compliance deadline for the best
available technology economically
achievable (BAT) effluent limitations
guidelines for fluoride in the Electronic
Crystals Subcategory. The latest
possible compliance date, as determined
by the permit writer, is November 8.
1985, instead of July 1,1984.
dates: This amendment became
effective on November 17.1983 as an
interim final rule.
ADDRESS: For technical information
write to Mr. David Pepson, Effluent
Guidelines Division (WH-552)
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460,
Attention: Electrical and Electronic
Components Phase 1. The administrative
recoid, including all comments, is
available for inspection and copying at
the EPA Public Information Reference
Unit, Room 2402 (Rear) (EPA Library).
The EPA public information regulation
(40 CFR Part 2) provides that a
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Pepson at (202) 382-7124
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION; .
!. Purpose of Amendment
On April 8,1983, EPA promulgated
Clean Water Act effluent limitations
guidelines, pietreatment standards, and
new source performance standards for
semiconductor and electronic crystal
manufac turing plants. 48 FR 15382, 40
CFR Part 469. These plants comprise
two subcategories within the electrical
and electronics components point
source category.
Among the limitations EPA
established was a best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT) limitation for fluoride for
electronic crystal manufacturing plants.
EPA set a compliance deadline of "as
soon as possible as determined by the
permit writer, but in no event later than
July 1,1S34" for this limitation. 40 CFR
469.21. EPA did not extend the
compliance deadline beyond July 1,
1984, as is authorized by section
301(b)(2)(F) for nonconventional
pollutants because, based on the
available data in the record. EPA
determined that all the direct
dischargers in the subcategory had
fluoride treatment in place.
Subsequent to promulgation, EPA
learned that one of the direct
dischargeis in the Electronic Crystal
Subcategory did not have fluoride
treatment installed. Based on this new
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 33 / Thursday, February l(i, 1984 / Rales und Regulations 5923
information, the Agency amended the
BAT compliance deadline from no later
than July 1, 1984 to "as soon as possible
as determined by the permit writer but
in no event later than November. 8,
1985." This amendment was published
as an interim final' rale in 48 FR 45249
(October 4.1983). That notice should be
referred to for further background
information. EPA also made several
typographical corrections to the April 8.
1983 regulations.
The comment period for. the interim
final rule closed on November 3,1983.
One comment was received and this
comment supported the amendment.
EPA is therefore now promulgating the
interim final rule published on October
4.1983 as a final rule.
II.	Executive Order 12291 and
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Executive Order 12291 requires EPA
and other agencies to perform regulator)'
impact analyses of major regulations.
The primary purpose of the Executive
Order (E.O.) iB to ensure that regulatory
agencies carefully evaluate the need for
taking regulatory action. Major rules are
those which impose a cost on the
economy of $100 million a year or more
or have certain.other economic impacts.
This amendment it not a major rule
because its annualized cost is less than
S100 million and itmeets none of the
other criteria specified in Section 1
paragraph fb) of the E.O.
Pub. I.. 90-354 requires EPA to prepare
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility analysis
for all regulations that have a significant
impact on a substantial number of smul!
entities. This analysis may be done in
conjunction with or as a part of any
other analysis conducted by the Agency.
The economic impact analysis done for
the April 8,1983 regulation indicates
that this amendment would not have a
significant impact on any segment of the
regulated population. Therefore, a
formal regulatory flexibility analysis is
not required.
III.	OMB Review
The Office of Management and'Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Older 12291.
This amendment does not contain any
information or collection requirements
subject to OMB review under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.of 1900, 44
U.S C. 3501 el neq.
l.isl of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 469
Electrical and electronic equipment.
Water pollution control, Waste
treatment and disposal.
Dated: February 1.1961.
William D. Ruckelshuus.
Aitn 'iwbirator.
PART 469—[AMENDED]
The interim rule and corrections
published in the Federal Register of
October 4,1983 (48 FR 45249) arc
adopted as final with the following
changes:
Authority; Suctions 301, 304 (b), (c), (e). and
(K). 30G (b) and (c). 307 (b) and (c), and 501 of
the CUuHn Water Act (the Federal Water
Polluthm Control Act Amendments of 1U72.
as amended by the Clean Water Act of'1977).
(the "Act"); 33.U.S.C. 1311,1314 (b). (<;), (n),
and (g). 1316 (b) and (c). 1317 (b) and (c), and
1361: 8b Stat. 816. Pub. L 92-500; 91 Stat. 15(17.
Pub. L 95-217.
2. Section 469.21 is amended by
revising the second sentence to read as
follows:
§ 469.21 Compliance Dates.
The compliance date for 1'SF.S for
total toxic organics (TTO) is July 1,198'}
and for arsenic is November 8,19(15.
|FK Uui.	2-13-Mi (IU urn]
BILLING.COOE 6580-50-M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
43 CFR Part 7
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 296
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
18 CFR Part 1312
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
32 CFR Part 229
Archaeological Resources Protection
Act of 1979; Final Uniform Regulations
Correction
In KR Doc. 84-346 beginning on page
1016 in the issue of Friday, January b,
1984, the headings should read as set
forth above. AI30, make the following
corrections:
1.	On page 1018, the middle column,
the first complete paragraph, the ninth
line, the word "of should read "or".
2.	On page 1021, Ihp first column, thp
first complete paragraph, the last line,
the word "received" should rend
"ri'ceiv e"
3. On page 1022* the first column, ihe
seventh line, the word."are" should read
"mi".
4 On page 1024, the middle column,
the second complete paragraph, the first
line, place the word "a" before the word
"utility".
5.	On page 1028, the third column, in
I —.3{a)(3)(iii), the seventh line, the
word "ivery" should reH "ivory".
6.	On page 1029, the ..jst column, in
§ —.3(c)t2). the second line., the word
"respects" should read "respect".
7.	On page 1031, the first column, the
third paragraph under $ —-8 should be
designated "(i)~.
8.	Otr the same-page, the middle
eolumn, in § —.8(a)(4); the last line, the
word "deeded" should read "deemed".
9.	On the same page, the third column,
in § —.8(b), the fourth line, the word
"manager" should read "managers".
10.	On page 1032. the first column, in
§ —.10(b), the eighth line, insert the
word "not" before the word "in".
11..On puge 1034, the middle column,
in the heading of 5 —15. the word "or"
should read "of.
BILLING CODE 1505-01-B
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Public Land Order 6515
IM-41513J
Partial Revocation and Modification of
Stock Driveway Withdrawal; Montana
AGENCYrBureau of Land Management,
Interior.
action: Public land order.
SUMMARY: This order partially revokes
and modifies a Secretarial order, as
modified, which withdrew lands for
stock driveway purposes. Revocation ot
842.92 acres is-merely a record clearing
action since these lands are privately
owned. This action alsaestabhshes a
20-year life term for the withdrawal on
2.9B5.29 acres of public land. These
lands have been and continue to be
open to mining and mineral leasing
effective date: February 16.198-1.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roland K. Lee, Montana State Office.
40ft-G57-G291.
fly virtue of the authority vested 111 the
Secretary of the Interior, by Section 204
of the federal Land Policy und
Management Act of 1970, 90 Stat, 2751.
43 U.S.C. 1714. it is ordered as follows-
1. Secretarial Order dated October 2R.
1920, which withdnrw lands tor Stock
Driveway No. 22, Montana No 3. as
.nodified by Secretarial Order of July .
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 69 / Friday. April 8, 1983 / Rules snd Regulations
15333
r.s-T-s ; ¦
?^7surOTrritri33^cz»^CEJC5£3T2j,rcr".3r5S,rj3
program has shifted frcm "classical"
pollutants to the, control of toxic
pollutants.
EPA is promulgating limitations based
on BPT, BAT and BCT, new source
performance standards (NSPS),
pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES), and pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS).
HI. Summary of Legal Background
A.	The Clean Water Act end NIIBC
Settlement Agreement
The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 established a
comprehensive program to "restore and
maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the Nation's
waters" (Section 101(a)). To implement
the Act, EPA was to issue effluent
limitations, pretreatment standards, and
new source performance standards for
industrial 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 lav/suit, EPA and the
plaintiffs executed a court-approved
"Settlement Agreement." This
Agreement required EPA tc develop a
program and adhere to a schedule in
promulgating effluent Imitations
guidelines, pretreatment standards, and
new source performance standards for
55 "priority" pollutants and classes of
pollutants for 21 major industiies. See
1 Natural Resources Defense Council Inc.
v. Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976),
modified, 12 ERC '1333 (D.D.C. 1979),
modified by Order dated October 20,
1982.
Many of die basic elements of this
Settlement Agreement program were
incorporated into the Clean Water Act
of 1977 ("the Act"). Like the Settlement
Agreement, the Act stressed control of
the "priority" pollutants. In addition, to
strengthen the toxic control program,
section 304(e) of the Act authorises the
Administrator to prescribe "best
management practices" (BMP) to
prevent the release of toxic and
hazardous pollutants from plant site
runoff, spillage or ieaks, sludge or waste
disposal, and drainage from raw
material storage associated with, or
ancillary to. the manufacturing or
treatment process.
B.	General Criteria for Effluent
Limitations
Under the Act, the EPA program is to
set a number of different kinds of
effluent limitations. These are discussed
in detail in the preamble to the 1982
proposal and the technical development
document supporting these regulations.
The following is a brief summary:
1.	Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available (BPT).
BPT limitations generally are based on
the average of the best existing
performance at 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 the
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.
2.	Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT). BAT
limitations, in general, represent the best
existing performance 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 aefeects of the 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 faclors.
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 discharges 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 (T3S), fecal coliform
.and pH, and any additional pollutants
defined by the Administrator as
"conventional," i.e., oil and grease. See
4-1 FR 4-1601; July 30, 1979.
BCT is not an additional limitation but
replaces BAT for the control of
conventionaj pollutants. In addition to
other factors specified ia section
304(b)(4)(B), the Act requires that BCT
limitations be assessed in light of a two
part "cost-reasonableness" test.
American Paper. Institute v. EPA, 660
F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1981). The first test
compares the cost for private industry to
reduce its conventional pollutants with
the cost to publicly owned treatment
works (PQTWs) 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 stringent 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
ordered 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
v/as not required).
On October 29,1982 the Agency
proposed a revised BCT methodology.
See 47 FR 49176. Although the Agency
has not yet promulgated its revised ECT
cost test methodology, we are
promulgating BCT limitations as
proposed for the semiconductor and
electronic crystal industries. Application
of the BCT cost test is not necessary for
these industries for reasons presented in
Section VII of this preamble,
4. New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS). NSPS are based on the bc3t
available demonstrated technology.
New plants have the opportunity to
install the best and most efficient
production processes and wastewater
treatment technologies.
a. Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources (PSES). PSES are designed to
control 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 achieves
within three years of promulgation. The
legislative history of the Act indicates
that pretreatment standards are to be
technology-based, analogous te the best
available technology. 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 serve as
the framework for the-categorical
pretreatment regulations are found at 40
CFR Part 403 [43 FR 27736. June 26, 1973;
46 FR 9462 January 22. 1981).
8. Pretreatmeul Standards for New
Sources (PSNS). Like PSblS, PSNS are to
control the discharge of pollutants to
POTvV'b which pass through, interfere
with, or are otherwise incompatible with
the operation of the POTW. PSNS are to
ba issued at the same time as NSPS.
New indirect dischargers, like new
direct dischargers, have the opportunity
to incorporate the best available
-------
15384	Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 69 / Friday, April 8, 1S83 f Rules and Regulations
r T7icimr?nygLrT.rTTTm/ri:-a,j^a.mnr"-i?'rgfm.Ta.,-g^TtU-^ai*^L»w'.j—•j.j.aih -ji-- -T^y^.TTyrrrrT-j -ta^rr" rrTirvry^TT-w..' \\.\-!~n* >¦¦>¦! .hi 'ft v.-.mnr .•¦¦>¦ .r,n*r-rrmnrtm	ar"r«ra*^jr.l»'g'r>naire,«Trtsrvi
demonstrated technologies-. The Agency
considers '.he same factors in
promulgating PSNS as it considers in
promulgating NSPS.
C. Prior EPA P^gvlaiions
No regulations have1 ever been
promulgated for the electrical snd
electronic components category. The-
Agsr.cy proposed regulations forPhas®
II of this category on March 1983 (see-
48 FR 10012).
IV.	Methodology and Data Gathering.
Efforts
Thfr DDSthodology arod data gstherins
efforts used m developing the proposed
regulations were discussed in the
preamble to the August 1382 prtipasaL
In summary, before proposal the
Agency conducted a da;a collection
program at 20 semiconductor amti
electronic crystal plants. This program
stressed the acquisition of data on. the
presents: and treatability cf the toxic
pollutants. Analytical methods sre
discussed in Sampling and Analysis
Procedures for Screening of Industrial
Effluents- for Priority Pollutants [U.S.
EPA, April 1977). Baaed on the results of
that program; EPA identified' several
distinct treatment technologies,
including'both end-of-pipe and in-plant
technologies, that are oc can he used to
treat wastewaters from, these indnstxiss.
For eash of these tedrioiogies* tha
Agency compiled ana analyrsidi
historical anAnavdy generated data on
the performance of these technologies,
considered the non-water quality
impacts [including impacts on sir
quality, solid waste ganeratinis and
energy requirements), and estimated the
cos ts and economic impacts. of applying
it industrywide. Gcats. aad economic
impacta- ci the technology options,
considered are'disCTSsad ia detail in
Economic Analysis, of Firra! Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Electrical and Elpmtroaia
Components Paint. SaiiFca Category—
Phase L A more complete description of
the Agency's study methodology, data
gathering eilwts. and analytical
procedures supporting the regulation,
can. be found iik the. Development
Document for Efflcsst Limitations.
Guidelines and Star,cards- far the
Electrical and Electronic Components
Point Source Category—Phase L
V.	Industry Subcategoriaation
The. Electrical ana Electronic
Components Poini Sourca Category
(E&EC) is derived from the Standard.
Industrial Classification. [SIC] Major
Group 36. Electrical and Electronic.
Machinery, Equipment and Supplies..
Many of the industries listed under this
SIC cod? warnerer evaluated as part
of the E&EC category because EPA
initially concluded that the wastewater
discharges from these industries were
primarily associated with the metal
finishing category.
For industries included in the EScEC
study, the Agency concluded that
product type is an appropriate basis for
subcategorizEtion. Product type
determines berth the raw and: process-
material requirements and the number
and type of manufacturing processes
used Using product type as a basis,, we
established twenty-one [21)
subcategories; seventeen [17] of these
"and one segment of another subcategory
are excluded from' regulation, under
Paragraph S cf the NRflC Settlement
Agreement. For two subcategories^
electron tubes and luminescent coatings,
we proposed I'egiilatums on March 9r
1983 [set? 43. FR 10012). The remaining
two subcategories, semiconductors and
electronic crystals^ are the subject of
this final rule. The: subcategories
excluded under Paragraph & are-
discussed in Scct'joit XI of this notice.
The se mi conduct mr 3ubeaLesory is
comprised a£ plants. manufacturing solid
state slastrical deviess which: perform
functions such as infcncatian. processing
and display, powg? handling* and -
intercon.vesj«a baiweas light energy
and electrical clergy. Sanncsmdiictors-
include lighi emitting diodes (LEDa),
diodes and tsaasistara, silintm based
integrated eat oast a axttk liquid crystal
display {JJEB} deviass.
The efeciiiairs: oyafai snbEategory a
comprised of piasis inariid'stiMing
crystals tar crystalline material vahida
are used in elecismic drrrieja. Thsse-
crystals include suarts, oar?imc, ssboar.
and'gailimsi aEMSEisis.
VI. Araitabfe Wastewater CantraJ and
Treatment Technology
A. Status of k>Plasis Teidxzalsjgy
This sectfori descri&aa tha status of En-
place technology for the- fwr?
subcategories' tcr be regvdiated by tins
rulemaking, semiconductors ami
electronic crystals^. Tfiess tsctE-alogjes
cover the folia wing: poflctante of
concern that wets defected in EPA"s-
sampling and analysis efforts: tCrac
organics, arsenic, fluoride,. total
suspended solids, and pfi
Wastewater treatment' tecrrnrquss
currently used in the semiconductor and
electronic crystal industries include berth
in-proc£33 and end-of-pipe waste
treatmenL Ih-piant process waste
treatment is designed to remove
pollutants from contaminated
manufacturing process wasteurateff at
some point in the manufacturing
process. End-of-pipc treatment is
wastewater treatment at the point of
discharge.
In-process controls m widespread use
in both subcategories include, collection
of spent solvents- for'resale or reuse and
treatment of contract hauling of ike
concentrated fluaride waste stream*
Contract haulmg, m this instance, refers
to tha industry practice of contracting
with a firm to collect and transport
wastes-for off-site disposal. A few
plants in these subcategories practice
recycle of the dilute acid rinse stream.
End-of-pipe contrnts cansist primarily
of neutralisation which is practiced by
all direct dischargers in both,
subcategories. One- pLani in the.
electronic crystal industry also uses
end-of-pipe precipitation/ clariiicatioa
for contrci oi arsenic and fiaorids-.
Further, all six (6) direct dischargers in
the electronic crystal subcategory have
already installed end-af-pipe
neutralization and precipitation/
clarificatiaoi for control or ptL TSSv and
fluoride.
B. Control Treatment Options
EPA considered the fa-Hawing
treatment and control options for
wastewater discharges from facilities
within the semjconduclop and electronic
crystals subcategories.
Option 1—Neiitraltratranfbt pH
control and striven t management for
control cf toxic organics. Solvent
management is not a treatment system,
but rather kr-pfant cantroi of spent
solvents either manually or
mechanically through minor piping
modifications. Effective solvent
management includes well designed
segregation controls or practices,,
collection of routine spills and leaks*
and a rigorous employee training
program. Since the spent solvents would
not be discharged into tha wastewater,
toxin organic. limitations, based on this,
control would be equivalent to the
maximum concsniration of toxic
organics found in the discharge as a
result oi process wastewater
contamination. Process wastewater is-
the only other source- u£ tedc organics
for these subcategories.
Option 2"—Option 1 pins end-of-pipe
precipitation/clarification for treatment
of arsenic, fluoride, and total suspended
solids (TS3).
Option 3—Option 1 plus in-plant
treatment (precipitation/clarification) of
the concentrated fluoride stream.
Option4—Option Z plus recycle of the
treated effluent stream for further
reduction of fluoride.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 69 / Friday, April 8. 19S3 / Rules and Regulations	15385
Option 5—Option 2 plus filtration for
reduction of fluoride, arsenic, and
suspended solids.
Option 6—Option 2 plus carbon
adsorption for further reduction of toxic
organic concentrations.
Vll. Summary of Final Regulations and
Changes From Proposal'
This section describes the technology
bases and final effluent limitations for
each subcategory and discusses the
changes we have made in response to
public comments.
A. Semiconductors
The pollutant parameters of concern
that were detected in EPA's sampling
and analysis efforts are pH, fluoride,
and toxic organics.
1. BPT. The regulated pollutants are
pH and toxic organics. SPA is
promulgating BPT based on
neutralization for pH control, and
solvent management for control of toxic
organics (Option 1]. As in the proposed
rule, toxic organics are being regulated
as the total of all toxic organics found in
the discharge at concentrations greater
than 0.01 milligrams per liter. This limit-
is defined as total toxic organic (TTOJ
and the specific toxic organic
compounds included in the total are
listed in Appendix B. We have added
four toxic organics to the proposed TTO
list; these are carbon tetrachloride, 1,2
dichloroethane, 1,1,2 irichioroethane,
and dichlorobromomethsne. As with all
other toxic organics included on the
TTO list, these toxic organics were
found in the effluent from plants in the
semiconductor and electronic crystal
subcategories at concentrations greater
than 0.0*1 milligrams per liter. Thtt
addition of these toxic organics serves
only to correct an inadvertent error at
proposal and does not substantively
affect either the final TTO limit cr a
plant's ability to achieve compliance
with the TTO limit.
While we have not changed tho
proposed technology basis for BPT, we
have changed the TTO limit from 0.47
mg/1 to 1.37 mg/1. The revised TTO limit
reflects a change in the methodology for
deriving the TTO limit.
The methodology for determining the
proposed TTO limit consisted of
graphing all the effluent TTO data and
then examining the graph io locate a
point at which a distinct separation
occurred in the magnitude of the TTO
effiuent concentrations. This break point
was selected at the TTO effluent limit. """
The Agency concluded thai the
concentrations falling below the
breakpoint reflected the solvant
management practices cr the best
performing plants, ^.vhereas these above
the breakpoint reflected poor practice of
solvent management, The
concentrations of TTO below the 0.47
mg/1 breakpoint were attributed to
process wastewater contamination.
Several commenters criticized this
approach for establishing the TTO limit.
These commenters argued that the
extreme differences in the effluent TTO
concentrations of the sampled plants
result from varying degrees of process
contamination, and not from the failure
to practice proper solvent management.
In response to this comment, the Agency
revised its methodology for deriving the
TTO limit. In contrast to the proposed
derivation of the TTO limit, the revised
metholodgy, described below, places
greater emphasis ou process wastewater
TTO data.
Based on an examination of the
available data and information, we
identified the process operations which
contribute toxic organics to the effluent
via process wastewater contamination.
To determine the TTO effluent
contribution from each of these streams,
we multiplied the measured TTO
concentration by the ratio of the plant
reported flow for that stream to the total
plant effluent. The final TTO limit of
1.37 mg/1 is derived from summing tha
TTO contribution from each of the
process wastewater streams. In cases
where we had several data points for a
particular wastewater stream, we used
the worst cass TTG contribution in
computing the TTO limit. This method of
analyzing the TTO data ensures that the
TTO limit aceaunta for all sources and
amounts of toxic organics found in the
effluent as a result of process
wastewater contamination. There/ore, it
is EPA's position that concentrations of
TTO found in excesa of the TTO limit
result from dumping of-spent solvent or
chemical bath solutions that occurs as a
result of poor solvent management or
the failure to practice solvent
management at all.
The Agency is not promulgating a 30 -
day average limitation for TTO. The
daily maximum limitation for TTO is
based on solvent management which,
urdike most treatment options, does not
entail pollution control equipment and is
therefore not subject to significant
performance variations.
By comparing the revised TTO limit to
the effluent TTO concentration at the
sampled plants, we estimate that 53
percent of the plants are already in
compliance with the BPT TTO
limitation. Accordingly, we find that the
in-process controls which form the basis
of BPT are widely practiced in this
industry. EPA estimates that attainment
of BPT will result in the removal of
30,COO kilograms per year of toxic
organics at a total annual cost of 187
thousand dollars. No adverse economic
impacts are expected. Thus, we
conclude that the effluent reduction
benefits justify the cost3. For a further
discussion of the derivation of the TTO
limit, see Section XII of this notice and
Section VII of the Development
Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the
Electrical and Electronic Components
Point Source Category—Phase /.
Option 2 was.not selected as the
technology basis for BPT because, in the
semiconductor subcategory, Option 3
can be substituted for and is also less
expensive than Option 2. Fluoride m this
industry is primarily generated from a
particular process stream, hydrofluoric
acid etching. Option 3 (in-piant
treatment) treats the smaller volume,
highly concentrated etching
wastestream and eliminates the need for
end-of-pipe treatment of all process
wastewater (as in Option 2). Option 3
was not selected because it is more
appropriately reserved for consideration
under BAT. Options 4, 5, and 6 were not
selected for the reasons provided under
the BAT discussion.
2. BAT. For BAT, EPA is promulgating
limitations based on solvent
management and precipitation/
clarification of the concentrated fluoride
stream (Option 3). The regulated
pollutants are toxic organics and
fluoride. As discussed under BPT, toxic
organics are being regulated as total
toxic organics (TTO) and the TTO limit
is being changed from Q.47 mg/1 to 1.37
mg/1. The TTO limit is the only change
from proposal.
Compliance with BAT will result ia
greater pollutant removal than BPT by
reducing the amount of fluoride
presently being dicharged by
approximately 300,000 kilograms per
year. The estimated compliance cost for
BAT is S2.9 million annually.
Option 4 (Option 1 plus end-of-pipe
precipitation/clarification followed by
recycle of the treated effluent) was not
selected because very few facilities
have been able to solve serious
operational problems associaied with
recycling. Therefore OpSon 4 is not
adequately demonstrated in this
industry to serve as the basis of national
limitations. However, facilities located
in areas which experience water
shortages are encouraged to investigaia
this technology option. Option 5 (Opticn
1 plus end-of-pipe precipitation/
clarification followed by filtration) was
not selected because it .vould only
achieve a three (3) percent increase in
fluoride reduction.
-------
15386	Federal Register / VoL 48, No. 69 / Friday, April 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
Because- our revised BAT limit for
TTO is less stringent than, the- proposed
limit, we again examinedca-rborr
adsorption (Option 6] to determine' if
this end-of-pipe treatment technology
would now achieve greater toxic organic
reduction than the BAT technology basis
of in-plant control, using sciient
management. The estimated theoretical
discharge of toxic organics after -
treatment using carbon adsorption,
would range from 0 J mg/L to 1.7 mg/L
depending on which and how many of
the 30 regulated toxic organics were
present m the wastewater discharge.
Based on the theoretical discharge
achievable using carbon adsorption, the
Agency expects that a TTO limn based
on this technology would result fn
minimal, if any, additional removal of
TTO and is, therefore; again rejecting-
carbon adsorption as the basis for BAT.
See Section 7 of the technical
development document for a further
discussion of the toxic organic removal
achieved by carbon adsorption-.
The BAT compliance date for TTO is
the same as the compliance date for
TTO under BPT because the limitations
are-identical. The compliance daterfor
TTO is as soon as possible as
determined by the permit writer; in no
case may the compliance date be later
than July 1,1984. As discussed under -
BPT, 53 percent of all plants are already
in compliance with the TTO limit.
The BAT compliance data for fluoride
is as soon as possible as determined by
the permit writer but in no case later
than. 31 months after the publication
date of this regulation. The technology
basis for the BAT fluoride limitations is
precipitation/clarification. Asurvey
conducted on precipitation/clarification
treatment systems shows that,, on
average, plants- require 31 months to.
design, install arrd' "startup"" such,
treatment systems1.
3.	BC7. As proposed, EPA is
promulgating pHIfmrtatiarrs for BCT
based on the BPT technology since BPT
achieirea the maximum feasible control
for pH. Sines- BPT is the- minimal revel of
control required by law* no possible-
application os th? BCT cost tests ccdd
result in BCT limitzsticns lower tham
those bain™ prscimgacsd tudsay.
Accordingly, ther® is tea need ta -wait
until EPAScaiizss! the BCI netnadolagv
before Bsorcirigating a BCT limitation £g»
pH. There str na adier cryiYEn turns!
pollutants c£ csccsm m the
semmcEckoctar sabcstegcry =3 diasussad
in Section VIII of this, preamble.
4.	NSPS1. For NSFS, the Agency is
promulgating limrtatiejis-bassd an
solvent inanagsiaerrt neutralisatiae. a>nd
precipitation/clarification of the
concentrated fluoride stream (Option 3).
These technologies are eqnrsaiact tc
BAT for control cf to:xic. organics and
fluoride, and BCT for control of pH. EPA
has determined that Option 3 is the best
demonstratsd tecb-n-ology for this-
subcategory- Other opticus were net
selected for the same reasons presentsd
under BAT.
The only change from propsssi NSPS
is the TTO limit. The i'l Ct hirrii under
NSPS is being changed frara 0x47 mg/L to
1.37 mg/1 for the reasons presented
under BPT.
5.	PSES and PSNis. For PSES andi
PSNS,. the- Aigsncy is promulgating TTO
(total toxic organics} hmita.Sons based
on sd,vest management. Since biological
treatment at well operated PCTWs
achieving sacciidary treatment does not
achieve removal equivalent to BAT for
TTO, pass through occurs^ Effective
solvent management can reduce TTO by
over 99 percent while a PGTW will only
remove 13 ta 97 percent c£ these same
pollutants. Accordingly,.EPA is
promulgating PSES and PSNSbssadoa
technology equivalent to. BFT/BAT/
NSPS for reduction cf TTO. As
previously- discussed under BPTFr the
TTO limri is being: changed frons
mg/1 te UJ7 mg/L
The compliance- date- toff pretrestmeni
standards for existing soiarcss in tha
semiconductor subcategory ia July X.
1984. the same as, the proposed date.
EPA. has determined that achievement
by this date- is feasible. Pfenia only need
to improve the effectiveness oi their
solvent management programs they do
not have to design anti install new or
sophisticated pdluttcii eertted systems.
There is no reason this cannot b® dcce
by July 1.13S4.
6.	Msoiiacoiig/ Certification Language.
At propoaai, as. air alternative ta TTO
monitaring, ws proposed to allows
dischargars to certify that apent swlveats
are collected- for resale; air rarrtrsci
disposal instead of being discharged
into the wastewater. The caniirrsiEiiers
supported the decision ta d&velap the
certification alternative but strongly
objected tc the proposed wording. EPA
agrees with some oi the canirnsnta (see
Section XII} and has changed the finat
language aczssdingiY. There arff three
major differences between the proposed
and final language: fl] the dischsrgHr
may now certify tn the; solvent
managtsient practices he is foUcwicg to
achieve compliance instead a£ certifying
that he b irs compliance with the: limit.
(2) the dischargsr is reetirai to= describe
his 3olven1i ntansgemsnt plan in greater
specificity ta tha penmttmg cr control
authority's 3atiaiacticnj audi certify that
he is carrtixraiiig to fallow the solvent
management piart, arrd (3-J permitting-
authorities will incci-peratfi- the plan, as a
condition of the NPBES permit, and
compliance with the plan will' be
required as a preireatment standard.
7. Definitions. In response to-a
comment concerning the coverage of
this subcategory. EPA has added a
definition for semiconductor
manufacturing.
B. Electronic Crystals
The po-ilTrrsrrt parameters cf concern:
that were detected in EPA's sampling
and analysis- efforts are arsenic, total
toxic organics (TTO], fluoride, total
suspended solids (TSS). and pH.
1. BPT. EPA is promulgating BPT
based oil Optian.Z.as proposed. This
technology consists of Option T (solvent
management and end-of-pipe
neutralization) plus end-of-pipe
precipitation/clarification. The
regulated pollutants and pollutant
parameters are total toxic organics
(TTO), fluoride, arsenic, total suspended
solids (TSS), and pH. Arsenic ia only
being regulated at facilities which
manufacture gallium or indium arsenide
crystals.
We are making two changes, to the
proposed BPT limitations, for the
electronic crystal subcategory.The first
change is that the TTO Limit is being
increased from 0.47 mg/1 to 1.37 mg/L
The rationale for this change is. set forth
under BPT for the semiconductor
subcategory. The second change from
proposal ia a slight increase in. the daiiy
maximum and thirty day arsenic limits,
which apply to gallium and indium,
arsenide producersJIhe daily maximum
is being changed from 1.S9 mg/1 to 2JD9
mg/1 and the thirty day average is being
changed from CJ3& mg/L to 0.33 mg/L
These changes correct a minor
compuiational eiroffin the statistical
analyses of the data base, at proposak
The Agency is not promulgating a SO
day average limitation for TTO. As
discussed under BPT for the
semiconductor subcategory, the daiiy
maximum limitation- for TT0" ia based on
solvent management which, unlike most
treatment options, does not entail
pollution control equipment and is
therefore not subject to significant
performance variations.
EPA estimates, that caarpliance with
BPT for this subcategory will result in.
the removal of 1OC0- kilograms per year
of toxic organics set arr annual cost of
S15 thousand. Na adverse economic
impacts are projected; thus ws conclude
that the; effluent reduction benefits
justify the costs. Plants generating-
arsenic wastes have- already installed
the BPT mocei technology.
Option 3 was net selected as the basis
for regulation because this technology
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 69 / Friday, April 8, 1983 7 Rules and Regulations	13387
controls only cne process stream,
hydrofluoric acid etching, and therefore,
does not control the arsenic and TSS
found in other wastestreams. The
selected option consists of end-of-pipe
treatment technology and therefore
controls the pollutants in all these
wastestreams. Options 4 and 6 were not
selected for reasons presented under
BAT for the Semiconductor
Subcategory. Option 5 was not selected
for arsenic because the Agency haa no
data available to demonstrate that
filtration wiil further reduce arsenic
discharges. This option wa3 also not
selected for fluoride because, as
previously stated under BAT for
semiconductors, filtration would ordy
reduce fluoride by three percent
2.	BAT. For BAT, EPA is promulgating
limitations based on technology
equivalent to BPT. As with BPT, we are
changing the proposed TTO and arsenic
limits. The new limits are the same as
those presented under BPT.
The BAT compliance date for TTO,
arsenic, and fluoride is the same as the
compliance date for these pollutants
under EPT because the limitations are
identical. The compliance date is as
soon as possible as determined by the
permit writer; in no case, may the
compliance date be later than July 1,
1984, Available information indicates
that all direct dischargers m this
subcategory presently have end-of-pipe
precipitation/clarification for control cf
fluoride and for control of arsenic where
found.
Option 3 was not selected as the basis
for regulation for the same reason
presented under BPT above. Options 4,
5, and 6 were not chosen for the reasons
presented under BAT /or the
semiconductor subcategory.
3.	BCT. For BCT, EPA is promulgating
pH and TSS limitations based on
technology eqivalent to BPT. For pH,
BPT i3 equal to BCT for the same reason
discussed under the semiconductor
subcategory. For TSS, the Agency
considered the addition of filtration to
BPT (Option 5], but rejected this
technology option because of the
minimal additional reduction of total
suspended sohd3. Based on BPT, the
average removal of TSS for each of the
six(6] direct dischargers will be
approximately 5400 kilograms per year.
Filtration would only increase this
amount by ICO kilograms per year (0.4
kgs/day) or by less than two percent
(2%). Since there is no other technology
option which would remove TSS, EPA is
setting BCT equal to BFT. Accordingly,
there is no need io conduct the BCT co3t
test.
4.	NSPS. For NSFS, EPA is
promulgating limitations based on
solvent management, neutralization, and
end-of-pipe precipitation/clarification.
These technologies are eqivalent to BAT
for toxic pollutants plus fluoride, and
are equivalent to BPT/BCT for
conventional pollutants. The only
changes from the proposed NSFS
concern the limitations for TTO and
arsenic, and these changes have been
previously discussed under BPT and
BAT.
Other options were not selected as the
technology basis for the regulation
because, as explained under BAT for the
semiconductor subcategory, these model
technologies would result in minimal, if
any, additional pollutant removal. EPA
has determined that Option 2 i3 the best
demonstrated technology for this
subcategory.
5. PSES and FSNS. Both TTO and
arsenic will be removed to a greater
extent by BAT than by biological
treatment at well operated POTWs
achieving secondary treatment. Effective
solvent management can reduce TTO by
over 99 percent while a POTW will
remove 13 to 97 percent of these same
pollutants. Similarly precipitation/
clarification of arsenic will remove over
92 percent of this pollutant while a
POTVV will only remove 35 percent
Therefore, PSES and PSNS are required
to prevent pasfethrottgh. For PSES and
PSNS, EPA is promulgating limitations
based on solvent management,
neutralization,^and er;d-of-pipe
precipitation/clarification (Option 2) for
the facilities which manufacture gallium
or indium arsenide crystals. For
facilities which only manufacture other
types of crystals, PSES and PSNS ars
based on solvent management [Option
1). Option 2 will control arsenic in
addition to controlling toxic organic?.
Proposed pretreatment standards for
TTO and arsenic are being changed as
nreviouslv discussed under BPT a nd
BAT.
The compliance date for PSES is aa
soon as possible but no later than July 1,
19S4 for TTO arid as soon as possible
but no later than 31 months from
publication for arsenic. To comply with
the TTO standard plants only need to
improve the effectiveness of their
solvant management program; they do
not have to design and install new or
sophisticated pollution control systems.
The compliance date for arsenic for
PSES i3 longer than for BAT because,
unlike direct dischargers, indirect
dischargers have not m all cases
installed treatment technology. The
design, installation, and start-up of the
precipitation/clarification system on
which the arsenic standard is based is
estimated to take 31 months according
to data in the public record.
6.	Monitoring/Certification Language.
A3 discussed under the semiconductor
subcategory, at proposal, as an
alternative to TTO monitoring, we
proposed to allow dischargers to certify
that spent solvents are collected for
resale or contract disposal instead of
being discharged into the wastewater.
The commenters supported the decision
to develop the certification alternative
but strongly objected to the proposed
wording. EPA agrees with some of the
comments (see Section Xil) and has
changed the final language accordingly,
There are three major differences
between the proposed and final
language; (1) The discharger may now
certify to the solvent management
practices he i3 following to achieve
compliance instead of certifying that he
is in compliance with the limit, (2) the
discharger is required to discribe his
solvent management plan in greater
specificity to the permitting or control
authority's satisfaction and certify that
he is continuing to follow the solvent
management plan, and (3) permitting
authorities will incorporate the plan aa a
condition of the NPDES permit, and
compliance with the plan will be
required a3 a pretreatment standard.
7.	Definitions. In response to a
comment concerning the coverage of
this subcategory, EPA has added a
definition for electronic crystal
manufacturing.
VIII. Executive Order 122S1 and
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Executive Order 12291 requires EPA
and other agencies to perform regulatory
impact analyses of major regulations.
Major rules are those which impose a
cost on the economy of S100 million a
year or more or have certain other
economic impacts. This regulation is not
a major rule because its annualized cost
of S4.4 million is iess than $1C0 million
and it meets nons of the other criteria
specified in paragraph 1(b) of the
Executive Order.
Public Law 36-354 require.? SPA to
prepare an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis for all proposed regulations
thai have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This analysis may be done in
conjunction with or as a part of any
other analysis conducted by the Agency.
..The economic impact analysis described
above indicates that there will not be a
significant impact on any segment of the
regula'ted population, large or small.
Therefore, a formal regulatory flexib'lity
analysis is not required.
-------
15388	Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 69 / Friday, April 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations


"TCOTSJOn
IX. Costs and Economic Impacts
The Agency's economic impact
assessment of this regulation 13
presented in Economic Analysis of
Effluent Standards and Limitations for
the Electrical and Electronic
Components Category—Phase I. The
analysis details the investment and
annual costs for the tv/o subcategories
covered by the regulation: electronic
crystals and semiconductors. The
analysis also assesses the impact of
effluent control costs in terms of
profitability changes, capital
availability, plant closures, production
changes, employment effects, and
balance of trade effects. Profits impacts
are analyzed through estimated changes
in and levels of return on assets and
return on sales. Capital availability
impacts are evaluated in relation to
revenues for crystals and in relations to
average plant and equipment
expenditures for semiconductors. These
impacts are then related to production
changes, plant closures, and
employment effects.
EPA has identified 70 establishments
in the electronic crystal subcategory and
257 plants in the semiconductor
subcategory that are covered by this
regulation. Total investment costs for
the two subcategories are estimated to
be S5.6 million with an annual cost of
S4.4 million, including interest and
depreciation. No plant closures,
employment impacts, or other economic
impacts are expected to occur as a
result of this regulation. Pollution
control requirements for new sources in
both subcategories are the same as for
existing sources; thus, NSPS/PSNS are
not expected to discourage entry or
result in a cost disadvantage relative to
current manufacturers. Each of the
industry subcategories is discussed
separately below.
A. Semiconductor Subcategory'
Toxic Organics. BPT, BAT, PSES,
NSPS and PSNS are controlled to the
same level-for toxic organics. These
limitations and standards are expected
to cause compliance costs consisting
primarily of monitoring costs. This is
because the costs associated with
solvent disposal tend to be offset by
resale of the solvents for other
manufacturing processes. Based upon
the estimate of facilities in both
subcategories already in compliance
with the toxic organics limitation, a
number of facilities will have to improve
their solvent management systems to
comply. EPA projects, however, that the
incremental costs incurred by these
facilities will either be balanced out by
resale of the spent solvents or result in
slight additional net costs, therefore
resulting in no significant economic
impact. In any case, EPA performed a
sensitivity analysis, assuming that the
solvents were sent to hazardous waste
disposal facilities covered by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. Worst case incremental compliance
costs per plant ranged from SI,200 to
S15,000, annually, and would be less
than 0.2 percent of sales.
It is difficult to predict precisely how
many plants will take advantage of the
certification alternative to monitoring,
although we expect most plants will
want to do so. For purposes of costing,
based upon our estimate we are
assuming that 53 percent of existing
plants already meet the toxic organic
limit, and the same percentage, at a
minimum, will also choose to certify. On
average, EPA estimates that those
plants who monitor will be required to
do so quarterly. The monitoring costs for
those plant9 would total S3C0 thousand
in capital investment and S620 thousand
annually. The impact of these costs is
expected to be small, since they are less
than 0.25 percent of sales. Some
facilities may be-xequired to monitor as
frequently as once per month: therefore,
EPA did a sensitivity analysis to assess
the imDact of monthly monitoring. These
costs to such facilities are projected to
be less than 0.4 percent of sales.
Thus, the sum total of all possible
compliance costs for control of toxic
organics is not expected to cause other
than minor.pffects on profitability.
2. Fluoride. There are an estimated 77
direct dischargers covered by the BAT
fluoride control requirements. Twenty-
five of these plants already have
treatment in place or haul their fluoride
waste to landfills. Investment and
annual costs for the remaining 52 plants
(including monitoring) are estimated to
be 4.3 million and 2.9 million,
respectively, based on Option 3.
Analysis of the post compliance
profitabilities of these plants indicates
that there would be some minor profit
reduction for all plants in the industry;
however, no plant closures or
unemployment effects.are expected. The
analysis also indicates that these costs
would be absorbed by the industry,
thereby causing no increases in the
prices of semiconductor products.
B. Electronic Crystal Subcategory
1. Toxic Organics. BPT, BAT, PSES,
NSPS and PSNS are controlled to the
same level for toxic organics. These
limitations and standards are expected
to cause compliance costs consisting
primarily of monitoring costs.
This is because the costs associated
with solvent disposal tend to be offset
by resale of the solvents for other
manufacturing processes. Again, based
upon the fifty-three percent estimated
compliance with the toxic organic
limitations, the remaining facilities will
have to improve their solvent
management systems to comply. EPA
projects, however, that the incremental
costs incurred by these facilities will
either be balanced out by resale of the
spent solvents or result in slight
additional net costs. In any case, EPA
performed a sensitivity analysis,
assuming that the solvents were sent to
hazardous waste disposal facilities
covered by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. Worst case
incremental compliance costs ranged
from 31,200 to 515,000 annually, and
would result in post compliance return
on investment [ROI] of no less than 27
percent.
It is difficult to predict precisely how
many plants, will take advantage of the
certification alternative to monitoring,
although we expect most plants will
.. want to do so. For purposes of costing,
based upon our estimate we are
assuming that 53 percent of existing
plants already meet the toxic organic
limit, and the same percentage, at a
minimum, will also choose to certify. On
¦ average, EPA estimates that those
plants who monitor will be required to
do so quarterly. These monitoring costs
would total 370 thousand in capital
investment and $135 thousand annually.
The impact of these costs is expected to
be small, since they result in post
compliance ROIs of no less than 23
percent. Some facilities may be required
to monitor as frequently as once per
month; therefore, EPA did a sensitivity
analysis to assess the impact of monthly
monitoring. These costs to such facilities
are projected to result in post
compliance ROIs of no less than 22 •
percent.
Thus, the sum total of all possible
compliance costs for control of toxic
organics is not expected to cause other
than moderate effects on profitability.
2. Arsenic. Costs incurred for PSES
arise from treatment of arsenic resulting
from processing operations. There are
seven indirect dischargers that use
arsenic in manufacturing crystals. Four
of the seven plants already achieve the
pretreatment standards and would incur
no additional costs. Three plants must
install additional treatment equipment.
Investment costs for pollution control
technologies are estimated to be S950
thousand with annual costs of S638
thousand. A plant specific analysis of
these three establishments indicated
that annual costs of compliance -
represent between 0.6 percent and 3.4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, Mo. 59 / Friday, April 3, 1583 / Rules ar.d Regulations
percent of the value of shipments. The
economic analysis involved estimated
return on sales, return on investment,
and the ability to raise capital for the
three plants. The profitability of the
three plants may decline slightly as a
result of the regulation, but any decline
is not expected to cause piant closures
or unemployment effects.
X.	Non-Water Quality Aspects of
Pollution Control
The elimination or reduction cf one
form of pollution may add to other
environmental problems. Sections 304(b)
and 306 of the Act require EPA to
consider the non-water quality
environmental impacts of these
regulations including air and noise
pollution, radiation, solid waste
generation, and energy requirements.
Compliance with this regulation will
have no effect on air, noise, or radiation
pollution and will only result in minimal
solid waste generation and minimal
increased energy usage. The amount'of
solid waste generated per year_will be
7700 metric tons per year. Available
information indicates that the solid
waste generated will not be hazardous
as defined in the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). Energy
requirements associated with these
regulations will be 100,000 kilowatt-
hours per year or only 7.5 kilowatt-hours
per day per facility.
Eased on the above non-water quality
impacts from these requirements, EPA
has concluded that this regulation best
serves overall national environmental
goals.
XI.	Pollutants and Subcategories Noi
Regulated
A. Settlement Agreement
The Setdement Agreement contained
provisions authorizing the exclusion
from regulation, in certain
circumstances, of toxic pollutants and
industry categories and subcategories.
These provisions have been rewritten in
a Revised Sstdament. Agreement which
was approved by the District Court for
the District of Columbia on March 9,
1979, NRDC v. Costle, 12 ERC 1833.
Data supporting exclusion of the
pollutants and subcategories identified
below are presented m the Development
Document for this rulemaking.
1. Exclusion of Pollutants. Ninety-five
(95) toxic pollutants, listed in Appendix
C, are being excluded from regulation
for both the semiconductor and
electronic crystal subcategories. The
basis of exclusion for eighty-two (82) of
these pollutants is Paragraph 8(a) (iii)
which allows exclusion for pollutants
which are not detectable with state-of-
the-art analytical methods. The basis of
exclusion for another nine (9) of these
pollutants is provided by Paragraph
8(a)(ili) which also allows exclusion of
pollutants which ars present in amounts
too snail to be effectively reduced by
technologies known to the
Administrator. Four (4) toxic pollutants
are being excluded from regulation
because the.se pollutants are generated
by unit operations (electroplating,
sputtering, or vapor deposition) which
will be subject to effluent limitations
and standards promulgated under the
metal finishing category. Thi3 is
permitted by Paragraph &{a)(iii).
In addition to the exclusion of the
ninety-Eve (95) pollutants for both
subcategories, another toxic pollutant is
being excluded for the semiconductor
subcategory only. This pollutant is
arsenic and is being excluded under
Paragraph 8(a)(Lii) because it was found
in amounts too small to be effectively
treated by technologies known to the
Administrator.
2. Exclusion of subcategories.
Sevent=p;i subcategories are being
excluded from this regulation based on
either paragraph fi(a)(iii) or paragraph 8
(a)(iv) ofthe Revised Settlement
Agreement. Five subcategories ars
being excluded under Paragraph 8(a)(ni)
because pollutants are found only in
trace arnounta'and in quantities too
small to be eftsctivcly reduced by
treatment. These subcategories are
magnetic coatings, mica paper, carbon
anrhgraphite products, fluorescent
lamps, and incandescent lamps.
(JncandsscentTamps are being excluded
on these grounds, with the exception of
chromium which is excluded under
paragraph 6(a)(iii) because the suifuric-
chromium acid cleaning proces3 '*111 be
regulated under the metal finishing
category). Eight subcategories are being
excluded under Paragraph S(a](iii)
because the pollutants will be
effectively controlled by technologies
upon wkich.are based other effluent
limitations and pretrestment standards.
Six of the eight subcategories generate
wastewater from unit operations which
will be covered by metal finishing: these
are switchgear, resistance heaters,
ferrite devices, cnpaclors (iluid-fiiled],
transformers (fluid-filled), and the
subcategory of motors, generators, and
alternators. Another subcategory,
insulated devices, plastic and plastic
laminated, will be covered by the plastic
molding and forming regulation. The last
subcategory, insulated wire and cable,
will be covered by a number of other
categories which include aluminum and
aluminum alloys, copper and copper
alloys, iron and steel, plastics
processing, and metal finishing.
15339
Two subcategories are being excluded
from regulation under Paragraph 8(a)[iv)
because no water is used m the
manufacturing process: these are
resistors and dry transformers. Another
subcategory, fuel cells, is also being
excluded under Paragraph 8(a)(iv)
because there are only two or three
plants in this subcategory and fuel cells
are not manufactured on a regular basis.
_ Finally, one subcategory, fixed
capacitors, is being excluded under both
8(a)(iii) and 8(a)(iv). AlLpollutanta
except copper and lead are being
excluded under 8(a)(iii) because these
pollutants are present only in trace
amounts and are not found in treatable
quantities. Copper generated by this
subcategory is being excluded from
regulation under Paragraph 8(a)(;i;)
because the unit operation which
generates copper will be covered by
metal Finishing. Lead found in the
subcategory is being excluded from
regulation under Paragraph 8(a)(iv)
because it is unique to two plants.
3. Conventional Pollutants
BOD, fecal eolifenn, and oil and
grease are not being regulated for either
subcategory because they .were found at
concentrations below treatability. Total
suspended solids (TSS) is not being
regulated in the case of semiconductor;-;
because it was found at an average
concentration of 10 rng/1 which :.3 below
treatability.
XXI. Public Participation and Respcnss.3
to Major Communis ,
On August 24,1932, the Agency
published proposed rules for effluent
limitations guidelines, pretreatment
standards, and new source performance
standards under the Clean Water Act
for the semiconductor and electronic
crystal subcategories of the Electrical
and Electronic Components Point Source
Category. Following the publication of
the proposed rales, we-provided the
technical development document and
the economic document supporting the
proposed rules to industry,
environmental groups, government
agencies, and the public sector. A
workshop was held on the Electrical and
Elect;onic Components BAT Rulemaking
in San Francisco on October 15.1382.
On October 21.1982, in Washington,
D.C., a pretreatment public hearing was
held at which eight persons presented
testimony.
The comment period closed on
October 25, 1982. Comments were
received from the following: County
Sanitation District of Los Angeles,
Digital Equipment Corporation, Diomcs,
inc., Fan-child Camera and Equipment
-------
15390
Corp., General Development Utilities,
General Electric Co., General Motors
Corp., Harris Corp., Hemlock
Semiconductors Corp., Honeywell, inc.,
Monsanto. Motorola. Inc., National
Semiconductor, New York State Dept. of
Environmental Control. RCA
Corporation, Santa Clara Chamber of
Commerce, Semiconductor Industry
Association, Texas Instruments, Inc.,
and the U.S. Dept. of the Interior.
AH comments received have been
carefully considered, and appropriate
changes in the regulations have been
made whenever available data and
information supported these changes.
'Major issues raised by commenters are
addressed in Section VII and this
section. A summary of all the comments
received and our detailed responses to
all comments are included in a report
"Responses to Public Comments,
Proposed Electrical and Electronic
Components Effluent Guidelines and
Standards", which is a part of the public
record for this regulation.
1. Comment: The TTO limit of 0.47
mg/1 is not achievable based on the
proposed control technology of solvent
management which consists, of the
collection of spent solvent baths. Many
plants are practicing solvent
management bur do not achieve the
proposed limit. EPA did not account for
such plants. Further, in developing the
proposed TTO limit, the Agency did not
fully account for ait process sources of
toxic organics (e.g. scrubbers). An
appropriate effluent TTO limit based on
solvent management is 7.9 mg/1.-
Response: EPA recognizes that these
are plants which consider themselves as
practicing solvent management but
which do not meet the TTO effluent
limitation that EPA states can be
achieved. EPA purposefully did not
consider all such plants in establishing
the effluent limitations because plants
vary in the effectiveness with which
they practice solvent management.
Under the Act, BPT limitations generally
represent the average of the best
performing plants and BAT represents
the best performance economically
achievable. Thus EPA does not base
limits on the experience of plants with
the poorest performance. To the extent
that EPA's proposed limit was
interpreted as reflecting the highest
effluent concentration of TTO found at
all plants practicing solvent
management regardless of the
effectiveness of the solvent management
program, that interpretation is incorrect.
The Agency has revised its
methodology for deriving the TTO limit
to more explicitly address the
contribution of TTO from process
wastewater streams. The revised
methodology results in a TTO limit of
1.37 mg/1 compared with 0.47 mg/1 at
proposal. We have no data in the record,
nor have any commenters submitted
data, to support the claim that a TTO
limit based on solvent management, as
demonstrated by the best performing
plants, should be 7.9 mg/1 or otherwise
higher than 1.37 mg/1. Solvent
management is a demonstrated means
of reducing the discharge of total toxic
organics to low levels, ana EPA sees no
basis for establishing a less stringent
Limitation.
2. Comment: Many commenters
objected to the certification language
EPA proposed as an alternative to TTO
monitoring. While the commenteTS
agreed that certification is preferable to
monitoring, some asserted that the only
way to truthfully certify to the language
EPA proposed would be to monitor
continuously. Various alternatives were
offered, such as certifying merely thai
the discharger practices solvent
management. One commenter pointed
out that EPA had recently proposed new
certification language for signatories to
permit applications and reports (40 CFR
122.6) as part of a settlement agreement
in the consolidated permits litigation,
[NRDC v. EPA, and consolidated cases,
No. 80-1607, D.C^Cir.) and suggested
that EPA adopt that language here. The
specific certification language suggested
from each commenter on this issue is
presented in EPA's report "Response to
Public Comments, Proposed Electrical
and Electronic Components Effluent3*
Guidelines and Standards—Phase I".
Response: EPA agrees that changes in
the certification language are warranted.
First, we believe it is appropriate to
modify the proposed language to accord
more closely with the certification
language agreed to in the consolidated
permits settlement agreement
concerning 40 CFR 122.22, formerly
§ 122.6. 47 FR 25548, 25553 (June 14.
1982). We do not see a significant
enough difference between this
regulation and § 122.22 to justify
substantially different language. Thus,
we have adapted the proposed
settlement language with minor
differences reflecting the particular
nature of the TTO certification
requirement.
Second, we have amended the
language to allow the discharger to
certify that "no dumping of concentrated
toxic organics into the wastewater has
occurred since filing the last discharge
monitoring report." The proposed
language appeared to require the
discharger to certify that he is in
compliance with the limit; we recognize
that it may be difficult to certify to this
language in the absence of monitoring.
Now the discharger will be allowed to
certify as to his solvent management
practices. However, because the new
wording is less precise (i.e., no
"dumping of concentrated toxic
organics") and because some
commenters pointed to the need for
more specificity about certification
procedures, we are adding more explicit
language requiring the discharger to
describe his solvent management plan.
The proposed language would have
required the discharger to specify the
toxic organic compounds used and the
procedure used to prevent excessive
wastewater discharge of toxic organics,
whereas the final language requires the
discharger to submit a solvent
management plan that specifies to the
permitting or control authority's
satisfaction the toxic organic
compounds used: the method of disposal
used instead of dumping, such as resale,
reclamation, contract hauling, or
incineration: and procedures for
assuring that toxic organics do nol
routinely spill or leak into the
wastewater. The discharger must also
certify that the facility is implementing
the solvent management plan.
Finally, for direct dischargers, the
solvent management plan will be
incorporated as a condition of their
NPDES permits. A similar requirement
does not exist for indirect dischargers
since under the Clean Water Act
permits are not issued for them by the
control authority. However, the
pretreatment standard does require
indirect dischargers to implement the
plan which they submit to the control
authority. Both these requirements
reinforce the discharger's responsibility
to implement his certification statement.
We believe these changes will resolve
many of the concerns raised by the
commenters. We have rejected,
however, the suggestions of some
commenters that the discharger merely
certify that a solvent management
program is'in effect. We do not believe
that general certification'of that sort
provides sufficient assurance that
dumping of used solvents is not
occurring, oradequate means of
enforcement,
We expect some-dischargers may still
find the amended certification language
to be too restrictive. Such dischargers
will have to monitor. Based on our
survey of state and regional permitters,
we estimate that, on average, monitoring
for TTO will be required once per
quarter. In some cases, plants may be
required to monitor more frequently
such as once per month. The annualized
monitoring costs for these two sampling
frequencies are estimated to range from
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 69
Friday, April 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations	15391
~—						
S5.500 to S'15,000 per yaar, respectively.
A sensitivity analysis of monthly costs
shows no adverse economic impact. For
a further discussion of the economic
impacts resulting from moniicring, see
the Economic Impact Analysis of
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Electrical and
Electronic Components Point Source
Category Phase I.
As a final point we wish to emphasize
that the addition of certification
language does not in any way diminish
the discharger^ liability for
noncompliance with the TTO limitation.
3.	Comment: EPA's estimate of zero
costs to comply with the TTO limit is
not supported by the record. .
Response: We do not claim ikat the
TTO compliance costs will be
absolutely zero, but rather, 33 explained
at proposal, we expect compliance costs
to be minimal. However, even accepting
industry's assertion that we have
significantly understated TTO
compliance costs, we have coated the
unlikely worst case compliance scenario
which is disposal of spent solvents as a
hazardous waste subject to R'CRA
requirements without recovery of
residual value. The wcrst case
incremental costs average S36GQ per
year with a range cf 51200 to 515,000 per
year depending on the extent to which
plants are already collecting spent
solvents. Our economic analysis of these
costs show that the impact is
insignificant, and justified by the
effluent reduction. For fur fear economic
information cn the impact of the TTO
compliance costs, see Economic Impact
Analysis of Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the
Electrical and Electronic Components
Point Source Category Phase I.
4.	Comment: One commenter objected
to the absence of pretreatment
standards for fluoride. This commenter
argued that F.PA gave no reason for not
controlling fluoride, that "pass through"
as defined in fee general prstraatoent
regulations occurs, and feat there are
available control technologies.
Response: We are not regulating
fluoride under P5ES or PSNS for either
subcategory. A unique combination of
reasons underlies this decision. Fluoride
is not a toxic pollutant under the Act
and EPA has more discretion concerning
fee establishment of pretreatment
standards for such pollutants. In this
particular instance fluoride is not a
pollutant of concern, for Indirect
dischargers. The average plant flow for
the semiconductor category is 157,000
gallons per day and the average plant
concentration of fluoride- in the
wastewater entering fee POTW is 65.5
mg/1. Comparable figures for fee
electronic crystal subcategory are 29.GC0
gallons per day and 129 mg/1. EPA's
environmental assessment, based en a
substantial body of scientific literature,
shows that there is little likelinood of
health or environmental effects from the
introduction of fluoride at these flews
and concentrations into a POTW. For
these reasons, EPA believe:; it is nof
appropriate to establish nationally
applicable categorical pretreatment
standards.
5. Comment: One commenter
requested that fee compliance date for
pretreatment standards be extended
froin the proposed date of July 1,1904 to
thrse years from the date of
promulgation. This commenter contends
thai fee proposed compliance date does
not allow plants sufficient time ;o
properly design and install the treatment
technologies needed to comply with
pretreatment standards.
Response: The proposed pretreatmenl
atardards regulate toxic organics for all
indirect dischargers and arsenic for
plar.ts which manufacture gallium or
indijum arsenide crystals. As previously
discussed in section VI of ihis preamble,
fee control of toxic organics does not
require ihs installation of any treatment
technology and can be readily
impiemented.^Consequently, we are not
extending fer^compliance date for PSES
for total toxic organic3 (TTO). However,
we srs extending the compliance date
for PSES for arsenic from July 1,1984 to
31 months from promulgation date, if
necessary. The control of arsenic is
based cn precipitation and clarification
and fee design and installation of this
treatment system requires, on average,
31 months.
XIII. Best Management Practices
Section 301(e) of the Clean Water Act
authorizes fee .Administrator to
prescribe "best management practices''
{"BMP"), described in Section IH of this
preamble. EPA is not considering BMP
for fee electrical and electronic
components category.
XT'J. Ups-ei and Bypass Provisions
A recurnng issue is whether industry
limitations and standards should include
provisions feat authorise noncompliance
during "upsets" or "bypasses." An
u?3et sometimes called an "excursion,"
is unintentional noncompliance beyond
the reasonable control of fee permittee.
EPA believes feat upset provisions are
necessary, because upsets will
inevitably occur, even if fee control
equipment is properly operated. Because
technology-based limitations can require
only what technology can achieve, many
claim feat liability for uosets is
improper. When confronted wife this
issue, courts have been divided on fes
questions of whether an explicit upset or
exclusion exemption is necessary or
whether upset or exclusion incidents
may be handled through EPA's
enforcement discretion. Compare
Marathon Gil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253
(9th Cir. 1977) wife Weyerhaeuser v.
Coslle, supra and Corn Refiners
Association, e: a!, v. Costle, No. 73-1053
(8th Cir. April 2,1979). See sisu
American Petroleum institute v. EPA,
540 F,2d 1023 (10th Cir. 1976); CPC
International, Inc. v. Train, 540 F.2d 1320
(8th Cir. 197G); FMC Corp. v. Tram, 539
F.2d 973 (4th Cir. 1976).
Unlike an upset—which is an
unintentional episode—a bypass is en
intentional noncompliance to
circumvent waste treatment facilities
during an emergency,
EPA has both upset and bypass
provisions in NPDES permits, ana fee
NFDES permit regulations include vpsat
and bypas3 permit provisions. See 40
CFR Pan 122.22. 44 FR 32854, 32362-3
(June 7,1979). The upset provision
establishes an upset as an affirmative
defense to prosecution for violation cf
technology-based effluent iimnaiion;;.
The bypass provision authorises
bypassing to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property
damage. Sir.ce permittees in the
semiconductor and electronic crystal
subcategories ars entitled to the upset
and bypass provisions in NPDES
permits, this regulation deer, not rapsat
these provisions. Upset provisions are
also contained in fee general
pretreaiment regulation.
XV. Variances and Modifications
When fee final regulation for a point
source category is promulgated,
subsequent Federal and State NPDES
permits to direct dischargers must
enforce fee effluent standards. Also, the
pretreatment limitations apply directly
to indirect dischargers.
The only exception to fee BFT effluent
limitations is EPA's "fundamentally
different factors" variance. See E. J.
duPont a'e Nemours and Co. v. Tram,
supra; Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ccsiie,
Gupi-a. This variance recognizes
characteristics of a particular discharger
in fee category regulated feat are
fundamentally different from the
characteristics considered in this
rulemaking. This variance clause is
included in the NPDES regulations and
not in this regulation. See '=0 CFR Part
125.30.
Dischargers subject to fee BAT
limitations are also eligible for EPA's
"fundamentally different factors"
ire nance. Further, BAT limitations for
-------
-15392	Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 69 / Friday, April 8, 1983"/ Rules and Regulations
aiKmnnrffwit .'-¦trr-.rrwr'gfc-w 'ai i"ra->n. hi 'i.r-ar-i^gTiww^in	mrnii r.i' i»* i i»ke..i.ui ¦ nmr-TrrFg-^'. if* u ¦. iu.«..i lt»'»
rionconventionalpollutants may be
modified under Sections 301(c) and
301(g) of the Act. These statutory
modifications do not apply to toxic or
conventional pollutants.
The economic modification section
(301(c)) gives the Administrator
authority to modify EAT requirements
for non-conventional pollutants 1 for
dischargers who file a permit
application after July 1, 1577, upon a
snowing that such modified
requirements will; (1) Represent the
maximum use of technology within the
economic capability of the owner or
operator and (2) result in reasonable
further progress toward the elimination
of the discharge of pollutants. The
environmental modification section
(301(g)) allows the Administrator, with
the concurrence of the State, to modify
BAT limitations for ncn-conventional
pollutants from any point source upon a
showing by the owner or operator of
such point source satisfactory to the
Administrator that:
(a)	Such modified requirements wall
result at a minimum in compliance with
BPT limitations or any more stringent
limitations necessary to meet water
quality standards;
(b)	Such modified requirements will
not result in any additional
requirements on any other point or non-
point source; and
(c)	Such modification will not interfere
with the attainment or maintenance of
that water quality which shall assure
protection of public water supplies, and
the protection and propagation of a
balanced population of shellfish, fish,
and wildlife, and allow recreational
activities, in and on the water and such
modification will not result in the
discharge of pollutants in quantities
which may reasonably be anticipated to
pose an unacceptable risk to human
health or the environment because of
bioaccumulation, persistency in the
environment, acute toxicity, chronic
toxicity (including carcinogenicity,
mutagenicity or teratogenicity), or
synergistic propensities.
Section 301(j)(l)(B) of the Act requires
that application for modifications under
section 301 (c) or (g) must be filed within
270 days after the promulgation of an
applicable effluent guideline. Initial
applications must be filed with the
Regional Administrator and, in those
States that participate in the NPDES
program, a copy must be sent to the
Director of the State program. Initial
applications to comply with 301 (j] must
1 Section 301fl) prjchuiea the	{rem
modifying BAT requirements for any pollutants
which are on die tuxir poliutenl lis! under secDon
307(a)(1) of ihe Act.
include the name of the permittee, the
permit and outfail number, the
applicable effluent guideline, and
whether the permittee is applying for a
301(c) or 301(g) modincatior. or both.'
Applicants interested in applying for
both must do so in their initial
application. For farther details, see 43
FR 40859, September 13, 1973.
For the semiconductor subcategory,
the nonconvcnticnal pollutant fluoride is
net regulated at BPT, but is regulated at
BAT. For this subcategory only,
dischargers who file an initial
application within 270 days after the
publication of thi3 regulation will be
considered for 301(c) and 301(g)
modifications. Modifications will be
considered at the time the NPDES
permit is reissued Although the Agencry
intends to issue a regulation establishing
criteria for 301(c) and 301(g)
determinations, modifications will be
made on a case-by-case basis until the
301(c) and 3fll(g) regulations are final.
Indirect dischargers subject to PSES
are eligible for the "fundamentally
different factors" variance and for
credits for toxic pollutants removed by
POTWs. See 40 CFR 403.7; 403.13; 46 FR
9404 (January 23,19B1). Indirect
dischargers subject to PSNS are only
eligible for the crsaits provided for in 40
CFR 403.7. New sources subject to NSPS
are not eligible for EPA's
"fundamentally different factors"
variance gt any statutory or regulatory
modifications. Se&EJ. duPont de
Nemours v. Train^supra.
XVI. Relation to NPDES Permits
The BPT, BAT and BCT limitations
and SNPS in this regulation will be
applied to individual plants through
NPDES permits issued by EPA or
approved State agenciec under Section
402 of the Act Under this regulation for
the Electrical and Electronic
Components Category, all limitations
are concentration based. National mass
based limitations are not provided
because the Agency has determined that
a fundamental relationship between
production and pollutant loadings does
not exist for either subcategory. See 40
CFR 122. !5(f), formerly 122.63(f).
Permitting authorities can derive mass
based limitations by multiplying the
concentration limit by the undiluted
discharge flow.
The preceding section of this
preamble discussed the binding effect of
this regulation on NPDES permits,
except when variances and
modifications are expressly authorized.
The following adds more detail on the
relation between this regulation and
NPDES permits.
One issue is how the regulation
affects the authority of those that issue
NPDES permits. EPA has developed the
limitations and standards in this
regulation to cover the typical facility
for this point source category. In specific
cases, the NPDES permitting authority
may have to establish permit limits on
toxic pollutants that are not covered bv
this regulation. This regulation does not
restrict the power of any permit-issuing
authority to comply with law or any
EPA regulation, guideline, or policy. For
example, if this regulation does not
control a particular pollutant, the permit
issuer may still limit the pollutant on a
case-by-case basis, when such action
conforms with the purposes of the Act.
In addition, if .State water quality
standards or other provisions of State or
Federal law require limits on pollutants
not covered by this regulation (or
require more stringent limits on covered
pollutants), the permit-issuing authority
must apply those limitations.
A final topic of concern is the
operation of EPA's NPDES enforcement
program, which was an important
consideration in developing this
regulation. The Agency emphasizes that
although the Clean Water Act is a strict
liability statute, EPA can initiate
enforcement proceedings at it3
discretion (Sierra Club v. Train 557 F. 2d
485", 5th Cir„ 1977). EPA has exercised
and intends to exercise that discretion
in a manner that recognizes and
promotes good-faith compliance.
XVH. Availability of Technical
Information
The basis for this regulation is.
detailed in four major documents.
Analytical methods are discussed in
Sampling and Analysis Procedures for
Screening of Industrial Effluents for
Priority Pollutants. EPA's technical
conclusions are detailed m Development
Document for Effluent Guidelines. New
Source Performance Standards, and
Pretreatment Standards for the
Electrical and Electronic Components
Point Source Category—Phase / The
Agency's economic analysis is
presented in Economic Impact Analysis
of Effluent Limitations and Standards
for the Electrical and Electronic
Components Industry—Phase 1. A
summary of the public comments
received on the proposed regulation is
presented in a report "Responses to
Public Comments, Proposed Electrical
and Electronic Components Effluent
Guidelines and Standards", which is
part of the public record for this
regulation.
Technical information may be
obtained by writing to David Pepson,
-------
15393
L"Z^.£tQ3"-CC^Vi.*TO7rO
Effluent Guidelines Division (WH-552),
EPA, iOl M Street, S.W., Washington,
D.G. 2G'160 or through calling (202) 332-
7157.
Additional information concerning the
economic impact analysis may be
obtained from Ms. Renee Rico,
Economic Analysis Staff (WH-S86),
EPA, 401 M Street, 3.W., Washington,
D.C. 20460 or by calling (202) 382-5386.
Copies of the technical and economic
documents may be obtained from the
National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161 [703] 487-
4600.
XVffi. OMB Review
The regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by Executive Order
12291. Any comments from OMB to EPA
and any EPA response to those
comments are available for public
inspection at Room M2404, U.S. EPA,
401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460 from S:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Monday-Fnday excluding Federal
holidays.
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 {Pub. L 9o-511),
the reporting and recordkeeping
provisions in 40 CFR 469.13 and 469.23
that are included in this regulation will
be submitted for approval to OMB. They
.ire not effective until OMB approval has
been obtained and the public is notified
to that effect through a technical
amendment to this regulation.
XIX.	List of Subjects m 40 CFR Part 483
Electrical and electronic equipment,
Water pollution control. Waste
treatment and disposal.
Dated: March 31,1933.
Lee M. Thomas,
A cting A dm rmstrator.
XX.	Appendixes
Appendix A—-Abbraviaticns, 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—Best management practices under
Section 2C4(e) of the Act.
BFT—The best practicable control
technology currently available under Section
304(b)(1) of the Act.
Clean Water Act—The Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(33 U.S.C. 1251 el seq.), as amended by the
Clear Water Act of 1977 (Public Law £5-217).
Direct Dischaiger—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 I3sued
under Section 402 of the Act,
NSFS—Mew source performancs standurds
under Section 306 of the Act.
POTW—Publicly owned treatment works.
FSSS—Pretreatment standards for existing
sources of indirect discharges under Section
307(b) of thu Act. .
PSNS—Pretreatment standards for new
sources of direct discharges under Sections
307 (h) and (c) of the Act.
RCRA—Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (Pub. L. 94-580) of 1975, as
. amended, 42 U.S.C. S901 et scq.
Appendix B—List of Toxic Grganics
Coaipx-isiug Total Toxic Qrganics (TTO)
1,2,4 trichlofobenzene chloroform
1.2	dichloro'oenzene
1.3	d;chiorcbenzene
1.4	dichlorobenzene a'thylbenasne
1.1.1	trichloroetnane methylene chlonds
nauthaiene
2 mtrophanol phenol bis(2-ethylhe.xyl)
phthalate tetrachlGroethy'ens toluene
trichloroethylene
Z chlorophenol
2.4 dichlorophenol
4 mtrophenol-fjentachlorophenol di-n-butyl
phthalate anfjracene
1,2 diphenvlhydrazine isophorone butyl
benzyl phthalate
1.1	dichloroethylene
2,4,6 tnchlorophenoi carbon tetrachloride
1.2	dichloroethane
1.1.2	tnchloroeihane dichlorobrcraoethana
Appendix C—list of Pollutants
Excluded From Regulation
The following nine (9) pollutants are being
excluded from regulation in the
semiconductor and electronic crystal
subcategories under Paragraph 8(a)(iu) of the
Settlement Agreement because they art;
present in amounts too small to be effectively
reduced:
antimony
beryllium
cadmium
mercury
selenium
silver
thallium
line
cyanide
The following four (4) pollutants are being
excluded under Paragraph 8(a)(iu) because
these pollutants are generated by unit
operations (electroplating, sputtering, or
vapor deposition) which will be subject to
effluent limitations and standards being
promulgated under the metal finishing
category:
lead
nickel
copper
chromium
The following eighty-two pollutants are
being excluded under Paragraph B(a)(:ii)
because they were not detected in the
effluent,
acenaphthene
acrolein
acrylomtrile
benzene
benzidine
chlorobenzenu -
hexachlorobenzene
hexachloropthane
1.1-dichloroathene
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
chloroethane
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
2-chiorocthylvinyl ether
2-chloronaphthalene
parachlorometa cresol
3,3'-dichlorobeuzidine
1.2-trans-dichloroethylene
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-mtr030dimer.tylam.1ne
N-mtrosodiphenylamme
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthaiata
ben"o(a)anthracene
benzo(a)pyrane
3,4-benzofiuorathene
benzo(k)fluoranthane
chrysenc
acenphthylene
benzo(ghi)perylene
fluorene
phenanthrens
dibenzo(a.h)anthrene
ideno(l,2,3-cd)pyrpne
pyrene
2,3.4 3-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-diox:n
1,2-dichloroprupans
1,2-dichIoropropylene
2.4-dime thy iphenol
2,4-dinitrotciaene
2,6-dinitrotoluer.e
fluorathene
4-chlorophnr.jl phenyl ether
4-bromophenyl phenyl e'her
bis(2-chloroisopropyi) ether
his(2-chloroethoxy)mcthane
methyl chloride
methyl bromide
bromoiorm
ctil orodibromerr, ethane
hr'xachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclopentaciene
nitrobenzene
2,4-dinitropnenol
vinyl chloride
aidnn
dieldrin
chlordane
•l.4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
a end^sulfan-Aipha
b-endosulfan-Beta
endosulfan sulfate
endnri
endnn aldehyde
heptachlor
heptachlcr eooxice
a-EHC-Atoha
r-BHC-Beta
g-BHC-Delta
-------
15394	Federal .Register / Vol. 48, No. 6S / Friday, April 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
csxTsazaETCJjrra
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
toxapheno
asbestos
PCB-124S
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
toxapheno
asbestos
For the reasons stated above, EPA is
establishing a new Part 469 of 40 CFR,
Chapter I as follows:
PART 469—ELECTRICAL AND
ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS POINT
SOURCE CATEGORY
Subpart A—Semiconductor Subcategory
Sec.	_
469.10	Applicability: description of the
semiconductor subcategory.
469.11	Compliance dates.
469.12	Specialized definitions.
469.13	Monitoring.
469.14	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
469.15	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application ot the best available
technology economically achievable..
(BAT].
469.10 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES).
469.17	New source performance standards
(NSPS).
459.18	Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS].
469.19	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollution control technology (SCT].
Subpart 3— Electronic Crystals
Subcategory
469.20	Applicability, description of the
electronic crystals subcategory.
469.21	Compliance dates.
469.22	Specialized definitions.
469.23	Monitoring.
469.24	Effluent limitation."! representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
469.25	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable
[BAT],
469.28 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES).
469.27	New source performance standards
(NSPS).
459.28	Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
469.29	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollution control technology (BCTt
Authority: Sees. 301. 304. 306, 307, 308. and
501 of the Clean Water Act (the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, as amended by the Clean Water Act of
1977, 33 U.S.C. 1311,1314,1316,1317,1318,
and 1361: 86 Stat. 816, Pub. L. 92-500; 91 Stat.
1567, Pub. L 95-217.
Subpart A—Semiconductor
Subcategory
§ 469.10 AppllcabUity.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges resulting from
all process operations associated with
the manufacture of semiconductors,
except sputtering, vapor deposition, and
electroplating.
§ 439.11 Compliance <2aie3.
The compliance deadline for the BAT
fluoride limitation shall be as soon as
possible as-determined by the permit
writer, but no later than November 8,
1985. The compliance deadline for the
BAT and BCT limitations for total toxic
organics (TTO) and pH, respectively, is
as soon as possible as determined by
the permit writer, but in no event later
than July 1,1984. The compliance date
for PSES for TTO is July 1,1984.
§ 469.12 Specialize definitions.
The definitions m 40 CFR Part 401 and
the chemical analysis methods in 40
CFR Part 130 apply to this subpart.
In addition,
(a)	The term "total toxic organics
(TTO)" means the sum of the
concentrations foFeach of the following
toxic organic compounds which is found
in the-discharge at a concentration
greater than ten (10} micrograms per
liter:
1.2,4 fcichlorobenzene chloroform
1.2	dichlorobenzene
1.3	dicblorohenzsne
1.4	dichlorobenzene ethylbenzene
1,1,1 trichiorcethane methylene chloridfe
naphthalene
2 nitrophenol phenol bis(2-etliylhexyi]
phthalate tetrachloroethylene toluene
trichloroethylene
2 chlorophenol
2, 4 Dichlorophenol
4 nitrophenol pentachlorophenol di-n-butyl
phthalate anthracene
1,	2 diphenylhydrazme isophorone butyl
benzyl phthalate
1.1	dichloroethylene
2,	4, 6 trichloropheiioi carbon tetrachloride
1.2	dichloroethane
1,1, 2 trichlcroethane
dichlorobromomethaae
(b)	The term "semiconductors" means
solid state electrical devices which
perform functions such as information
processing and display, power handling,
and interconversion between light
energy and electrical energy.
(c] The term "manufacture of
semiconductors" means those processes,
beginning with the use of crystal wafers,
which lead to or are associated with the
manufacture of semiconductor devices.
§ 469.13 Monitoring.
(a]	In lieu of monitoring for TTO, the
permitting authority may allow direct
dischargers to include the following
certification as a "comment" on the
Discharge Monitoring Report required
by § 122.44 (i), formerly § 122-62(i):
"Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons directly responsible for
managing compliance with the permit
limitation for total toxic organics (TTO},
I certify that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, no dumping of
concentrated toxic organics into the
wastewaters has occurred since filing
the last discharge monitoring report. I
further certify that this facility is
implementing the solvent management
plan submitted to the permitting
authority."
(b]	In requesting that no monitoring of
TTO be required, the direct discharger
shall submit a solvent management plan
that specifies to the permitting
authority's satisfaction the toxic organic
compounds used: the method of disposal
used instead of dumping, such as
reclamation, contract hauling, or
incineration; and procedures for
assuring that toxic organics do not
routinely spill or leak into the
wastewater. The permitting authority
shall incorporate the plan as a provision
of the permit
(c]	In lieu of monitoring for TTO, the
control authority may allow industrial
users of POTWs to make the following
certification as a comment to the
periodic reports required by § 403.12(e):
"Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons directly responsible fcr
managing compliance with the
pretreatment standard for total toxic
organics (TTO}, I certify that, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, no dumping
of concentrated toxic organics into the
wastewaters has occurred since filing
the last discharge monitoring report'I
further certify that this facility is
implementing the solvent management
plan submitted to the control authority."
(d]	In,requesting that no monitoring be
required, industrial users of POTWs
shall submit a solvent management plan
that specifies to the control authority's
satisfaction the toxic organic
compounds used; the method of disposal
used instead of dumping, such as
reclamation, contract hauling, or
incineration; and procedures for
assuring that toxic organics do not
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 69 / Friday, April 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
irrrr^-—rtyj* . i w,tvwwr-ry-•aey-T-HT-r.'a-rT-.TTTiriw-^rr^rTTT—•-it—-rT<—vr."r-'Trr-'7—h"^rTr-,7g..?r/-Twrr^-*JrTf.^rx--ir!TT~r-.t?-rt.—f.-r-.-r* ¦ .I'P.Tr.T: —ri—r
15395
ICCTOTTHiC}
routinely spill or leak into the
wastewater.
§ 469.14 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of tjie bast practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR Part
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 Ihe application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
Subpart A—Semiconductor EPT Effluent
Limitations
Sudpapt A—Semiconductor P3ES
Effluent Limitations


Averaga cf

Msurnum
dGly values
Pollutant or pollutant prooorty
for any 1
fc/ 30
day
COOSeC/jvQ

days

Migrans pa* tow
TTO <		 _ .
1 37
(3i
pH -	—	
(3)
	

'Total toxic or^a/itcs.
:Not eppitcaLHe
3Wii/itr) tna range of 6 0 to 9 0
§ 469.15 Efi!u-nt limitations representing
tfca dsgrae of effluent reduction attainable
by thlG
(b) An existing source submitting a
certification in lieu of monitoring
pursuant to § 469.13 fc) and (d) of this
regulation must implement the solvent
management plan approved by the
control authority.
§469.17 N'ew source performarsca
standards (NSPS).
.Any new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS).
Subpart A—Semiconouctcr HSPS
Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or po.lutani property
Maximum for
any i aay
Ave/age of
oasy v?Jl^
for 30
consecutive
a ays

Milligrams pot liter (mg/l)



TTO 1 		
1 37
(')
Puondo (T)	
32 0
17 4
pH					
n
{')
'Tctal toxic oujsrrca.
anv'i'CPCla
3 V*iifan Eho ranw of 6 0 to 9 0.
§ 4S9.13 Prstroatrr.anl standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided iu 40 CFR Pnrt
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 (PSN'S):
(a]
* Subpart A—Semiconductor PSNS
Effluent Limitations


Average of

Majarwn)
daffp vofljes
PctMianJ or pci"ot£n< picpefty
for any 1
fcr 30

aay



 limitations repi-sseniing
the degree of effluent retiucticn "ttainabte
by the application of ths bost corrverrtiona.'
pollution control technology (BCT\
Except as provided it^-C CFR Part
125.30-32, any existing point source
subject to this subpart must achieve ihe
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of affluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best conventional pollution
control technology (BCT)-
Subpart A—Semiconductor BCT Effi.uewt
Limitations
Poihjiant or po4trtcr« prcp^rty
Mawmum
for any 1
clay
Average o'
daiiy v?'ues
for 30
ccnsecuove
days
PH	-
n
(')
1 Withtn the ran.^e 6 0 to 9 0
Subpart B—Electronic Cr/stais
Subcategory
§ 489-20 Applicability.
(a) The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges resulting from
the manufacture of electronic crystals.
§ 469.21 Compliance dates.
The compliance date for the EAT
fluoride, arsenic and total toxic organic
(TTO) limitations and the BCT limitation
on total suspended solids (TSS) sr.ti pH
is as soon as possible as determined by
the permit writer, but in no event later
than July 1,1934. The compliance date
for PSES for TTO is July 1.1984 and for
arsenic is November 8, 1S35. The
Consent Decree in :\:EDC v. Tram, 12
ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979) specifies a
compliance date for PSES of no later
than June 30, '1984. EPA will be movie.:;
for a modification of that provision of
the Decree. Should the Court deny thai
motion, EPA will be required modify
this compliance date accordingly.
§ 469.22 Specialise definitions.
The definitions in 40 CFR 401 and the
chemical analysis methods m 40 CFR
136 apply to this subpart In addition.
(a) The term "total toxic orgarucs
(TTO)" means the sum of the
concentrations for each of the following
toxic organic compound? which is found
in the discharge at a concentration
greater that ten (10) micrograms per
liter.
1,2.4 tncWorobenzene chloroform
1.2	dichlorobenzene
1.3	dichloroben2sr:c
1.4	cb'chlorobem-erce ethyibenzsne
1.1,1 tnchkiroethane melhylerie chloride
naphthalene
-------
15396
Federal Register / Vol. 48,. No. 69 / Friday, April 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
2 nitrophenol phenol bis(2-ethylhexvl)
phthalate tetrachloroethylene toluene
trichloroethylene
2 cnloropheno!
2.4 dichlorophenol
4 nitrophenol pentachlorophenol di-n-bu!yl
phthalate anthracene
1.2 diphenylhydrazme isophorone butyl
benzyl phthalate
1.1	dichloroethylene
2.4,6 tnchlorophenol carbon tetrachloride
1.2	dichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane dichlorobromomethane
(b)	The term "electronic crystals"
mean's crystals or crystalline material
which because of their unique structural
and electronic properties are used in
electronic devices. Examples of these
crystals are crystals comprised of
quartz, ceramic, silicon, gallium
arsenide, and idium arsenide.
(c)	The term "manufacture of
electronic crystals" means the growing
of crystals and/or the production of
crystal wafers for use in the
manufacture of electronic devices.
§ 469.23 Monitoring.
The certification alternative to
monitoring for Total Toxic Organics
(TTO) described in § 469.13(a) (b)-(c)
and (d) is applicable to this subpart.
§ 469.24 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
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):
Subpart B—Electronic Crystals BPT
Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily-values
lor 20
ccnsscut/v©
days
TTO 1		 		-
Arsenic (T) *.. ....			....
Fluonda (T) 					
TSS 			
Milligrams p€
1,07
2.09
32 0
61 0
n
>r hter (mg/l)
(J)
0 83
174
2X0
(*)
effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically available
(BAT):
Subpart 8—Electronic Crystals BAT
Effluent Limitations
Subpart B—Electronic Crystals NSFS
Effluent Limitations—Cont:nued
1 """otaJ toxic OfG&njca.
1 Th« arre'i'c (f) itmrtatxtn cnty applies to manufacturers of
g3!f'um or ndn^T) a/sernde crystal.
'Not acpnca£ila
" 'Witfitn fP>ft range of 6.0 to 9.0.
§ 469.25 Effluent limitaiions representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (SAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
32, any existing point source subject to
this subpart must achieve the following
Pdlutanl cr pollutant property
Maximum lor
j any 1 day
Average of
daily values'
(of 30
consecutive
days
Milligrams par liter (mg/l)
TTO 1 	
	 | 1 37
(3>
Arsentc1					
	! 2.09
' 0.83
Fluonde	.		
	! 32.0
i
17 4
¦Total toxic crgaotcs.
3 The arsenic hmitaoon only applies to manufacturers of
gailrum or indium arserude crystals.
3 Not appl.ca£)lo.
§ 469.25 Preireatment standards for
existing sources (PSES).
(a) 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):
Subpart B—Electronic Crystals PSES
EffluentXimit ations
PoHutant or pollutant property
Maximum for
any 1
Averaqo of
daiJy values
tor 30
consecutve
days

Mill-grams per liter img/f)
TTO ' 	-			
Arvervc CD 3 - - 	-
1	37
2	09
(:)
0 83
'Total toxic orgamcs.
:Not applicable
'The arsentc ("H limitausn onfy appfies to manufacturers of
gaftum of stdrum ersonicSg crystals
(b) An existing 3ource submitting a
certification in lieu of monitoring
pursuant to § 469.13 (c) and (d) of this
regulation must implement the solvent
management plan approved by the
control authority.
§ 469.26 New source performanca
standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS):
Subpart B—Electronic Crystals NSPS
Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or pciutarrt property
Maximum tor
any 1 day
Average of
d3i/y values
for 30
corisecutrve
days

Milligrams per lrter^mg/1)
rro 1. . 		
ArserttcfO 5 ~ — 	-	
Ruoode
-------
1056
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
December 13,1982, the PBGC published
lal rule (47 FR 55672) amending the
Jation to update the appendix for
plans terminating in 1983. The PBGC
published a correction to this final rule
on December 28,1982 (47 FR 57702). This
amendment updates the appendix for
plans that terminate in 1984.
The PBGC has been notified by the
Social Security Administration that the
contribution and benefit base for 1984
which is to be used to calculate the
PEGC maximum guaranteeable benefit
is S28,200. Accordingly, applying the
formula under section 4022(b)(3)(B) of
ERISA, the PBGC has determined that
the maximum benefit guaranteeable by
PBGC in 1984 will be SI,602^7 per
month in the form of a life annuity
commencing at age 65 or the actuarial
equivalent of $1,602.27 payable in a
different form or commencing at a
different age.,
Because the maximum guaranteeable
benefit is determined according to the
formula in section 4022(b)(3)(B) of
ERISA, and this amendment makes no
change in its method of calculation but
simply lists the 1984 maximum
guaranteeable benefit amount for the
public's knowledge, general notice of
proposed rulemaking is not required.
Moreover, because the 1984 maximum
Tanteeable benefit is effective, under
statute, at the time that the Social
security contribution and benefit base is
effective, i.e.. January 1,1984, and is not
dependent on the issuance of this
regulation, the PBGC finds that good
cause exists for making this amendment
effective before the 30 day period set
forth in 5 U.S.C. 553.
The PBGC has determined that this
amendment to the Limitation on
Guaranteed Benefits Regulations is not a
"major rule" under the criteria set forth
Regulations, is hereby amended to read
as follows:
1.	The authority citation for Part 2621
is revised to read ad follows:
Authority: Sees. 4002(b)(3). 4022(b), and
4022B, Pub. L. 93—400, 88 Stat 829.1004, and
1016, as amended by Sees. 403(1), 403(c), and
102, Pub. L 96-364. 94 Stat. 1208,1302.1300,
and 1215 (29 U.S.C. 1302,1322, and 1322B).
2.	Appendix A to Part 2621 is
amended by adding a new entry to read
as follows:
Appendix A to Part 2621—Maximum
Guaranteeable Monthly Benefit
The following table lists by year the
maximum guaranteeable monthly benefit
payable in the form of a life annuity
commencing at age 65 as described by
{ 2621.3(a)(2) to a participant in a plan that
terminated in that year:

Year
Maximum
guarsn-
ttwttW
monthly
benefit
1QfU
•
M fin* 97

Effective date: This regulation is
effective January 1,1984.
David M. Walker,
Acting Executive Director, Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation.
[FR Doc. ftt-905 Film! 1-8-M; 143 tmj
BILLING CODE 77M-01-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 469
[FRL 2472-2]
in Executive Order 12291, February 17. , Electrical and Electronic Components,
1981 (46 FR 13193 because it will not /; Point Source Category Pretreatment ¦
result in an annual effect on the	"—Standards, and New Source
economy of S100 million or more, a
major increase in costs for consumers or
individual industries, or significant
adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment productivity,
or innovation.
Because no general notice of proposed
rulemaking is required for this
regulation, the Regulatory Flexibility act
of 1980 does not apply (5 U.S.C. 601(2)).
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2621
Employee benefit plans. Pension
insurance, and Pensions.
PART 2621—[AMENDED]
ji consideration of the foregoing. Part
ZB21 of Chapter XXVI, Code of Federal
Performance Standards; (Phase II) J
Correction
In FR Doc. 83-33165 beginning on page
55690 in the issue of Wednesday,
December 14,1983, make the following
corrections:
The date "July 14,1987" should have
read "July 14,1986" in the following
places:
1.	On page 55690, first column, under
DATES, second paragraph, eighth and
ninth lines.
2.	On page 55702, middle column, in
the table, under Compliance date.
3.	Page 55704, first column. § 469.30,
second line of paragraph (b).
B0JJNQ CODE 150S-01-M
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 90
[PR Docket No. 82-470]
Elimination of Certain Restrictions on
Non-Voice Operations in the Private
Land Mobile Radio Services
agency: Federal Communications
Commission.
action: Final rule; correction.
summary: This action corrects the
omission of certain text in the adopted
rules regarding station identification.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT;
Keith Plourd, Private Radio Bureau,
Land Mobile and Microwave Division.
(202) 634-2443.
Erratum
In the matter of amendment of Part 90 of
the Commission's Rules and Regulations to
eliminate certain restrictions on non-voice
operations in the Private Land Mobile Radio
Services: PR Docket No. 82-470.
Released: December 30,1983.
The Report and Order, FCC 83-20, in
the above-titled matter, released
January 31,1983, is corrected as follows:
. Appendix, instruction 4: paragraph (a)
of S 90.425 is corrected by adding the
words, "or system," in the first sentence
to read as follows:
§ 90.425 Station Identification.
(a) Identification procedure. Except as
provided for in paragraph (d) of this
section, each station or system shall be
identified by the transmission of the
assigned call sign during each
transmission or exchange of
transmissions, or once each 15 minutes
(30 minutes in the Public Safety and
Special Emergency Radio Services)
during periods of continuous operation.
The call sign shall be transmitted by
voice in the English language or by
International Morse Code in accordance
with paragraph (b) of this section. If the
station is employing either analog or
digital voice scrambling, or non-voice
emission, transmission of the required
identification shall be in the
unscrambled mode using A3 or F3
emission, or International Morse, with
all encoding disabled. Permissible
-------
(Revised 4/6/84)
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS (PHASE II)
CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
This summary provides firms subject to the Electrical and Electronic
Components (Phase II) Categorical Standards and Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs) with the information necessary to determine compliance with these
standards. The standards were established by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under Part 469 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(40 CFR 469). This summary is not intended to substitute for the regulations
published in the Code of Federal Regulations or the Federal Register. For
specific information, refer to the Federal Register citations given below.
Important Dates	Federal Register Citation
Proposed Rule: March 9, 1983	Vol. 48, p. 10012, March 9, 1983
Final Rule: December 14, 1983	Vol. 48, p. 55690, December 14, 1983
Effective Date: January 27, 1984
Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR)
Due Date: July 25, 1984
Compliance Dates:
n*l ^
-	Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES): July 14,
-	Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS): From commencement of
discharge
SUBCATEGORIES
The Electrical and Electronic Components (Phase II) category is divided
into two subcategories, Cathode Ray Tube and Luminescent Materials. These
subcategories are regulated under Subparts C and D, respectively, of 40 CFR
Part 469. Standards for Subparts A and B were promulgated in Phase I.
SIC CODES AFFECTED*
The Electrical and Electronic Components categorical standards affect
firms in SIC Code 36. The four-digit SIC codes listed below can be used to
identify firms that may be subject to the standards established under Phase
II. The SIC codes are intended to be used for guidance only. Not all firms
with these SIC codes are subject to the Phase II standards.
Subcategory	SIC Codes
Cathode Ray Tube	3671
Luminescent Materials	3672
*Source: Summary of the Effluent Guidelines Division Rulemaking Activities,
July 1983.
-------
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS (PHASE II) (cont.)
REGULATED POLLDTANTS
The pollutants regulated under the Electrical and Electronic Components
(Phase II) standards are total toxic organics (TTO), cadmium, chromium, lead,
zinc, and fluoride. For Subcategory C, the term total toxic organics (TTO)
refers to the sum of the concentrations of the following toxic organic
compounds found in the discharge at a concentration greater than 0.01 mg/1.
No TIO standard was established for Subcategory D.
chloroform	bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
1,1,1-trichloroethane	toluene
methylene chloride	trichloroethylene
SUBCATEGORY C - CATHODE RAY TUBE
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES (PSES)

Maximum for

Pollutant or
Any One Day
Monthly Average Shall
Pollutant Property
(mg/1)
Not Exceed (mg/1)
TTO
1.58

Cadmium
0.06
0.03
Chromium
0.65
0.30
Lead
1.12
0.41
Zinc
1.38
0.56
Fluoride
35.0
18.0
PRETREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR NEW
SOURCES (PSNS)


Maximum for

Pollutant or
Any One Day
Monthly Average Shall
Pollutant Property
(mg/1)
Not Exceed (mg/1)
TTO
1.58
	.
Cadmium
0.06
0.03
Chromium
0.56
0.26
Lead
0.72
0.27
Zinc
0.80
0.33
Fluoride
35.0
18.0
SUBCATEGORY D - LUMINESCENT MATERIALS
PSES
Existing sources were excluded from regulation under the provisions of
Paragraph 8(b)(ii) of the NRDC Settlement Agreement.
-2-
-------
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS (PHASE II) (cont.)
PSNS '

Maximum for

Pollutant or
Any One Day
Monthly Average Shall
Pollutant Property
(mg/1)
Not Exceed (mg/1)
Cadmium
0.55
0.26
Antimony
0.10
0.04
Zinc
1.64
0.67
Fluoride
35.0
18.0
-------
-------
Wednesday
January 28, 1981
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
Effluent Guidelines and Standards;
Electroplating Point Source Category
Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources
-------
9462
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28. 1981 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[WH-FRL 1724-2J
40CFR Part 413
Effluent Guidelines and Standards;
Electroplating Point Source Category
Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency.
action: Final Rule; amendements.
SUMMARY: On July 3.1980. the
.Environmental Protection Agency
published proposed amendments to and
requested comments on a final rule (45
FR 45322 et seq.) which limits the
concentration or mass of certain
pollutants which may be introduced into
publicly owned treatment works by
operations in the Electroplating Point
Source Category. These regulations
were first promulgated in the Federal
Register on September 7.1979, and
subsequently corrected by notices in the
Federal Register dated October 1,1979,
March 25, 1980, and August 19, 1980.
After promulgation, petitions to
review the final rule were filed by the
National Association of Metal Finishers
and the Institute of Interconnecting and
Packaging Electronic Circuits in the
Court of Appeals. On March 7. 1980.
EPA entered into a Settlement
Agreement with the petitioners in an
effort to resolve the issues without
further litigation. The Agreement
provided that EPA would publish
proposed amendments arising out of the
settlement. It further provided that if the
final amendments did not differ
significantly from those proposed, the
petitioners would dismiss their petitions
for review.
The Agency has decided, after
reviewing comments by industry and
other interested parties, to promulgate
the proposed rule of July 3. 1980 as the
linal rule without significant changes.
DATES: Effective Date: The regulations
shall become effective March 16, 1981.
Compliance Date: The compliance
date for non-integrated facilities shall be
May 12.1983. For integrated facilities,
the compliance date shall be three years
from the effective date of the combined
wastestream formula. 40 CFR § 403.6(e).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Frank Hund or Mr. John Newbrough,
Effluent Guidelines Division. (WH-552),
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street. S.W., Washington. D.C. 20460,
telephone (202) 426-2582.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
September 7,1979, EPA published final
regulations establishing categorical
pretreatment standards covering all
firms performing operations in the
Electroplating Point Source Category
that introduce effluent into publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs).
These operations include electroplating,
anodizing, conversion coating,
electroless plating, chemical etching and
milling, and the manufacture of printed
circuit boards. The plants covered by
these regulations are found throughout
the United States but are concentrated
in heavily industrialized areas.
These standards contain specific
numerical limitations based on an
evaluation of available technologies in
each industrial subcategory. The
specific numerical limitations are
determined separately for each
subcategory, and are imposed on
pollutants which may interfere with,
pass through, or otherwise be
incompatible with a publicly owned
treatment works (POTW). For plants
with a daily flow of 38.000 liters (10.000
gallons) per day or more, the
pretreatment standards specifically limit
indirect discharges of cyanide and the
following metals: lead, cadmium,
copper, nickel, chromium, zinc, and
silver. Additionally, these regulations
limit total metal discharge which is
defined as the sum of the individual
concentrations of copper, nickel,
chromium and zinc. For plants with a
daily process wastewater flow of less
than 38.000 liters (10,000 gallons), these
standards limit only lead, cadmium, and
cyanide in order to limit the closure rate
in the industry.
A. Background
Petitions to review the electroplating
pretreatment standards published
September 7, 1979, were filed in the
Court of Appeals by the National
Association of Metal Finishers (NAMF),
the Institute for Interconnecting and
Packaging Electronic Circuits (IIPEC),
and Ford Motor Company (Ford). NAMF
and IIPEC signed a settlement
agreement with EPA that required EPA
to propose certain amendments and to
propose certain language to be included
in the preamble to the electroplating
regulation. The proposed amendments
were published on July 3,1980 (45 FR
45322). The agreement also provided
that EPA would extend the compliance
deadline if promulgation were
substantially delayed beyond June 1,
1980, and that NAMF and IIPEC would
not challenge the regulations if the final
regulations and preamble "do not differ
significantly from the proposed
regulations and preamble." The
proposed amendments have been
promulgated as the final rule without
significant change, and are discussed in
section B below. The preamble
discussion has been altered to give the
Agency needed flexibility, but EPA
believes that the practical effect of this
preamble discussion is the same as that
contemplated in the Settlement
Agreement, and, therefore, is not a
significant change. See section B below.
Ford did not sign the NAMF
Settlement Agreement. In the Ford
lawsuit, a joint motion by Ford and EPA
was granted for an extension of the
briefing schedule until § 403.6(e), the
combined wastestream formula of the
general pretreatment regulations, was
promulgated^ \a part oi the joint motion.
-—fiP/fagr^rilj io amend I 413.01 of the
electroplating regulations to provide that
they would not be effective *.i
integrated facilities until promulgation
of the combined wastestream formula.
This amendment was published on
March 25,1980 (45 FR 19245). EPA also
agreed that the three year compliance
period would run anew with respect to
Ford's integrated facilities from the
effective date of § 403.6(e). As discussed
in section B below, portions of the
amendment of I 413.01 have been
retained in the final amendments, and
the compliance date for integrated
facilities has been set at 3 years from
the effective date of § 403.6(e).
B. Changes resulting from today's
amendments
Most of the amendments to the (
electroplating regulations arose from the
NAMF Settlement Agreement. The
preamble discussion of these
amendments is preceded by the words
"(Settlement Agreement)". Some
amendments were required by the Ford
Joint Motion and some were included for
consistency or clarification. The changes
are discussed in detail below.
1. Cyanide Standards. (Settlement
Agreement). EPA has revised the
applicable daily maximum limitation for
total cyanide (CN.T) from .8 to 1.9 mg/1
in subparts A. B, D, E, F. G. and H. This
change is meant to allow for the special
problems of cyanide removal for those
who use significant quantities of both
cyanide and steel in their plating
operations. In such cases iron often
enters the plating solution in dragout
from the rinse following pickling and
prior to plating. Steps can be taken to
reduce iron contaminants in the plating
solutions through better control of
dragout from pre-plating rinsing and use
of nonferrous tanks and anode baskets.
However, in many cases the formation
of iron complexes in the plating solution
cannot be altogether eliminated. In these
cases the iron and cyanide combine to
form a stable iron complex which is not
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28. 1981 / Rules and Regulations 9463
destroyed, as is free cyanide, by
alkaline chlorination treatment. Thus,
there is a fundamental difference
between platers treating free cyanide
and iron cyanide complexes.
EPA took this problem into account in
its regulation by including those who
use significant quantities of steel and
cyanide in the data used to establish the
daily maximum limitation for cyanide.
However, the Agency now believes that
unless the total cyanide number is
raised many platers who utilize
significant amounts of cyanide and steel
will not be able to achieve the standards
through the use of best practicable
technology. (The Agency also
considered establishing a separate
subcategory for these platers but
decided that approach was impractical;
the amounts of steel and cyanide used
often fluctuate and there is no
objectively quantifiable point at which
complex cyanides become a special
problem).
To establish a more appropriate daily
maximum limit for cyanide, the Agency
reviewed its data base to locate
representative plants which use
significant quantities of both iron and
cyanide. The median of the total
cyanide effluent for these plants was
0.38 mg per liter. with a daily maximum
variability factor of 5.0. This results in
the maximum daily limitation of 1.9 mg
per liter. The equivalent daily
maximums are expressed as mass based
limits, 39 milligrams per square meter
per operation (mg/op-m *).
2. Four Day A verage Standards
(Settlement Agreement). Pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement, EPA has
established daily maximum and 4-day
average value limits. The change from 30
day average limits to 4 day average
limits does not constitute a relaxation in
the level of control technology required.
It is well established Agency policy to
issue industrial effluent limitations with
both daily maximum and 30 day
averages (monthly averages). The 30 day
average limits are used in part as a
guide for designing the treatment system
to remove pollutants to required levels.
The 4 day average limits promulgated
today are part of the comprehensive
NAMF Settlement Agreement. However,
it is unlikely the Agency will vary from
its customary 30 day average approach
in future pretreatment standards for this
or other categories.
The frequency of self-monitoring is
independent of whether or not the long
term average limit is expressed as a 4
day average or a 30 day average. The
minimum frequency of self-monitoring
required of an industrial user will be
established by a section in each
categorical pretreatment standard. The
self-monitoring section for electroplating
will be proposed in the near future. The
proposed self-monitoring section will
also discuss how the self-monitoring
data will be compared to the 4 day
average standards to determine
compliance.
3.	Revocation of Monitoring
Requirements (Settlement Agreement).
EPA has revoked the electroplating
compliance monitoring requirements
previously contained in 8 413.03 of the
regulations. New monitoring
requirements will be proposed shortly.
They will be included in the
electroplating standards, not in the
general pretreatment regulations as the
proposed amendments had indicated.
4.	Upsets. EPA has revoked former
§ 413.04 on upsets. Upsets are now
governed by 3 403.16 of the General
Pretreatment Regulations. Accordingly,
a special provision in the Electroplating
pretreatment standards was deemed
unnecessary.
5.	Definition of Intergrvted Facility.
On March 25.1980 (45 FR 19245), the
Agency published a correction to
8 413.01 which had the effect of
removing "integrated facilities" from
regulation by the electroplating
standards until the effective date of the
combined wastestream formula, 40 CFR
8 403.6(e). The correction also defined
the term integrated facility as a facility
"that performs electroplating as only
one of several operations necessary for
manufacture of a product at a single
physical location and has significant
quantities of process wastewater from
non-electroplating manufacturing
operations. In addition, to qualify as an
'integrated facility' one or more plant
electroplating process wastewater lines
must be combined prior to or at the
point of treatment (or proposed
treatment) with one or more plant
sewers carrying process wastewater
from non-electroplating manufacturing
operations." In today's amendments,
this definition has been moved from
5 413.01 to | 413.02(h) with the general
definitions.
6.	Standards for Integrated Facilities.
In place of the upset provision. EPA has
added a new section § 413.04 on
standards for integrated facilities. This
section recognizes that § 403.6(e) of the
General Pretreatment Regulations
governs limitations on wastestreams
that are combined prior to treatment.
Section 403.6(e) would apply if an
electroplating stream were combined
with other regulated or unregulated
wastestreams prior to treatment. The
new § 413.04 also requires that 30-day
average standards, rather than 4-day
average standards, be used in
calculating an alternative pretreatment
standard for the combined wastestream
if one of the non-electroplating streams
is regulated by a 30-day average
standard. In addition, if two
electroplating streams regulated under
different subcategories of this regulation
are combined, the 4 day standards may
be used to calculate the combined
wastestream standard unless an
additional wastestream subject to 30
day standards is combined.
The new § 413.04 includes a table
which gives the 30 day average
standards for the appropriate one day
maximum and 4 day average standards.
The 30 day average standard must be
used in computing the pretreatment
standard for the combined wastestream
when one or more of the non-
electroplating wastestreams is regulated
by a 30 day average standard. This table
was computed from the equation
describing the statistical variability of
the standards published in former
§ 413.0} on September 7,1979. After
proper derivation to solve for the 30 day
average limit, the equation fs as follows:
30
L _
«-= 

0.666
Where:
L »=standard not to be exceeded by the
average of 30 consecutive days
L, = standard not to be exceeded by the
average of 4 consecutive days
L i = Maximum for any one day
The purpose of this requirement is
merely to establish consistency in the
use of the combined wastestream
formula.
Since the 30 day standards were
previously published and the combined
wastestream formula was carefully
considered in the promulgation of the
General Pretreatment Regulations, the
Agency has promulgated this section in
final form.
7. Revocation of BPT Limitations for
Direct Dischargers. As part of these
revisions, EPA has removed §8 413.12.
413 22, 413.42. 413.52. and «3.62. These
sections, containing best practicable
technology (BPT) limitations for five
electroplating subcategories for direct
dischargers, were suspended
indefinitely on December 3,1976 (41 FR
53018). These regulations were
suspended because EPA was then in the
process of gathering and examining
additional data. However, because the
Agency expects to promulgate proposed
BPT limitations in the next round of
rulemaking, EPA has decided to revoke
-------
9464 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28. 1981 / Rules and Regulations
these previously suspended standards.
The next round of rulemaking will
include electroplating in a broader
category called Metal Finishing. (See
discussion below.)
The sections removed today had
previously been offered as guidance to
permit writers in setting limitations on
individual direct dischargers. Permit
writers should now refer to the BPT-
analog pretreatment standards amended
today for guidance.
8. Relationship Between These
Proposed Standards and Best A variable
Technology Pretreatment Standards
(Settlement Agreement). This regualtion
requires categorical pretreatment
standards satisfying the requirement in
the NRDC consent decree that standards
analogous to best practicable control
technology (BPT) be developed for
existing sources in the electroplating
point source category. (Paragraph 13, 8
ERC 2120, 2128 (June a 1976).) _
The Agency is in the process of
developing pretreatment standards
analogous to the best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT) for electroplating. These
standards are expected to be
promulgated in 1981, and will be called
"Metal Finishing" regulations. They will
include the processes regulated by the
electroplating standards and many other
metal finishing processes. The metal
finishing regulations will also contain
DAT and BPT for direct dischargers,
new source performance standards, and
pretreatment standards for new sources.
Consistent with Agency policy, any
future BAT-analog pretreatment
standards will be based on treatment
technology compatible with the model
technology upon which these standards
were based. These new regulations
should not render obsolete the
technology designed to meet the BPT
analog regulations. At the same time.
BAT-analog standards may require the
installation of additional pretreatment
technology.
EPA is sensitive to the fact that the
job shop metal finishing segment may be
vulnerable to adverse economic impacts
as a result of pretreatment regulations.
In the preamble to the September 7.
1979, standards, EPA estimated that 587
metal finishing job shops, employing
9.653 workers, may close as a result of
these regulations.
As part of the NAMF settlement
agreement, EPA stated in the July 3,1980
proposed preamble that in light of the
potentially severe economic impact of
these regulations on the job shop
segment of the industry, it would not
"impose more stringent pretreatment
standards for the job shop metal
finishing segment in the next several
years." It is still the Agency's view that
it is unlikely that EPA will impose
standards on job shops or printed circuit
board manufacturers based on more
advanced technology than that forming
the basis for today's pretreatment
standards. However, as work continues
on the metal finishing regulations, if the
Agency finds that the data base or
methodology used in setting metal
finishing limitations results in different
standards than in electroplating, even
though the limitations are based on the
same technology as was used in
electroplating, the Agency may have to
reconcile the electroplating standards
with the metal finishing standards. In
addition, as part of the BAT analysis,
EPA will consider the discharge of toxic
organics by the industry. Preliminary
investigations indicate that toxic
organics may be controlled through best
management practices with little
economic impact on the industry. In
considering any regulation of toxic
organics, careful attention will be given
to the economic impact on the industry.
9.	Compliance Deadlines (Settlement
Agreement). In accordance with the
NAMF Settlement Agreement, EPA has
extended the compliance date for non-
integrated facilities subject to these
standards to May 12,19S3. The
extension is due to the delay beyond
June 1.1980 for promulgation of these
final amendments.
EPA has extended the compliance
date for integrated facilities to three
years from the effective date of
§ 403.6(e) of the General Pretreatment
Regulations. EPA agreed to this
extension because the Agency believed
that the combined wastestream formula,
§ 403.6(e). would have to be promulgated
in final form before integrated facilities
would understand their compliance
obligations under the electroplating
standards.
10.	Variances, Reporting
Requirements, and Categorical
Determinations. For non-integrated
facilities, reporting requirements and
categorical determination requests
under the General Pretreatment
Regulations were triggered by the
September 7.1979 promulgation of the
electroplating standards. Facilities that
filed timely baseline monitoring reports
as required by § 403.12 may revise their
reports in light of the change in the
cyanide limitation in today's
amendments. Such revision is not
mandatory.
For integrated facilities, reporting
requirements and categorical
determination requests are triggered by
the effective date of the recent
amendments to the General
Pretreatment Regulations.
For both integrated and non-
integrated facilities, the time for
requesting variances for fundamentally
different factors is triggered by the
effective date of final amendments to
§ 403.13 of the General Pretreatment
Regulations. Industrial Users will have
180 days from the effective date of
amended § 403.13 (or, alternatively. 30
days from the Agency's decision on a
categorical determination pursuant to
§ 403.6) to request an FDF variance
under the provisions of 5 403.13.
C.	Executive Order 12044
Under Executive Order 12044 EPA is
required to judge whether a regulation is
"significant" and therefore subject to the
procedural requirements of the Order or
whether it may follow other specialized
development procedures. On June 20,
1980, the Administrator reviewed these
amendments and determined that they
are a specialized regulation not subject
to the procedural requirements of
Executive Order 12044. For a complete
discussion of the Administrator's initial
determination regarding the'
electroplating regulations see 44 FR
52592 (Sept. 7, 1979).
D.	Summary of Public Participation
Following the promulgation of the.
electroplating regulations sevetal
actions were brought in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit challenging various aspects of
these regulations. Among these are
National Association of Metal Finishers
v. EPA. No. 75-2256 and the Institute for
Interconnecting and Packaging
Electronic Circuits v. EPA. No. 79-2443.
On March 7,1980, EPA entered into an
agreement with the above petitioners
which seeks to settle the issues raised in
the litigation. Under terms of the
Settlement Agreement, the petitioners
stipulated that if the final regulations do
not differ significantly from the
proposed regulations, the petitioners
will dismiss their challenge to the
electroplating pretreatment regulation.
On July 3,1980, EPA published the
proposed modifications arising out of
the Settlement Agreement, and
requested public comment. After
considering these comments. EPA has
decided to publish the proposed
modifications, without significant
change, as the final rule.
Comments on the proposed
modifications were received from
several industry trade associations,
individual industries, and public
sewering agencies.
The major comments and Agency
responses are as follows:
(1) Comment: The amendment makes
no allowance for delay in attaining
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 18 / Wednesday. January 28, 1981 / Rules and Regulations 9465
compliance past June 1,1980, per the
EPA/NAMF Settlement Agreement.
Response: Under the Settlement
Agreement, the compliance date is to be
extended by the period of time between
June 1.1980, and the actual date the
amended rules are promulgated. The
Agency has extended the compliance
date of these regulations accordingly.
(2)	Comment: The 1.9 mg/1 standard
for total cyanide is impossible to meet
on a daily basis by job shops doing
barrel plating on ferrous metal with
cyanide plating baths. Iron cyanide and
other cyanide complexes are not
amenable to breakdown by oxidation
methods. Therefore, the total cyanide
standard should be eliminated from
pretreatment standards.
Response: The amended standard of
1.9 mg/I was developed after
reconsidering the problems of iron
cyanide complexes (see background
discussion above). Studies conducted by
EPA indicate that alkaline chlorination
technology will reduce total cyanide to
1.9 mg/1 where iron cyanide complexes
are present. In addition, other cyanide
destruction technologies may be applied
with equal success, although they are
not the technological basis for these
regulations. For example, the addition of
ferrous sulfate to the precipitation-
clarification system has been found to
reduce total cyanide to less than 0.4 mg/
1.
(3)	Comment: Pretreatment regulations
require indirect dischargers to install
equipment to treat wastewater where
the K3TW is capable of treating it, thus
rendering pretreatment an unnecessary
expense.
Response: See the Responses to
Comments 11 and 13 below.
(4)	Comment: The less than 10.000 gal/
day variance causes severe economic
disparity, since it allows the under
10,000 gal/day discharger to escape the
economic burden of installing and
operating treatment facilities.
Response: This comment was
addressed in the final pretreatment
standards promulgated September 7,
1979 (44 FR 52603).
(5)	Comment• The proposed revision
of the CNt from 0.8 to 1.9 mg/1 in
subparts A, B, D, E, F, G, and H is a
more realistic approach for those platers
who utilize significant amounts of steel
and cyanide. From data obtained in the
ueld by our company, we find that in
such plants a maximum of 1.9 mg/1 CNT
is easily attained by good plant
operation. Further mixing of process
streams and the associated dissociation
and dilution effects also indicate that
the 1.0 mg/1 four-day average value is a
more attainable limit.
Response: As discussed previously,
EPA's data indicates that platers that
use significant amounts of steel and
cyanide can attain the revised cyanide
limitation. However, with respect to the
reference to dilution and mixing effects,
the General Pretreatment Regulations
prohibit dilution as a substitute for
treatment. (See 40 CFR 403.6(d).)
Moreover, "mixing of process streams"
may subject the industrial user to the
requirements of the combined waste
stream formula. (See 40 CFR 403.6(e).)
(6)	Comment: Values for the maximum
daily and four-day average are far more
realistic than previous limits. However,
although the four day limits are higher
than the 30 day average they replace,
they do not represent a relaxation of the
standards since they are based upon the
same formula from which the 30-day
average values were calculated.
Response: The 4-day average numbers
were not intended to be a relaxation of
the prior 30 day average standards. The
Agency is requiring 4-day averages as a
result of the NAMF Settlement
Agreement. For further discussion of this
provision, see the discussion of 4 day
average standards above.
(7)	Comment: The proposed
amendments remain silent regarding the
disposition of small electroplaters
discharging much less than 10,000 gal/
day. EPA should reconsider the
imposition of a practicable low end cut-
off level, below which indirect
dischargers would be exempt from
categorical pretreatment standards.
Response: The regulations
promulgated on September 7,1979,
provide that 10,000 gal/day is the flow
cutoff distinguishing large and small
indirect dischargers. With respect to
facilities discharging much less than
10,000 gal/day, the Agency believes that
the present regulations are achievable
and necessary.
(8)	Comment: Since the Settlement
Agreement was signed, NAMF has
continued to review the Agency's data
base and methodology. NAMF continues
to believe that the metal finishing
regulations, even as proposed to be
amended, are not economically
achievable, that compliance is not
feasible using the technology specified
by EPA, and that the regulations are far
more stringent than necessary to protect
the environment
Response: The Agency has adequately
addressed in the September 7,1979
regulations the economic impacts of the
electroplating category regulations. (See
44 FR 52592-95.) There is also adequate
technical support for the recommended
treatment tedinologies. (See 44 FR
52596-601; Development Document for
Existing Source Pretreatment Standards
for the Electroplating Point Source
Category.) The relaxation of total
cyanide limitations contained in today's
amendments provides a realistic
standard that can be achieved by
platers who use significant amounts of
steel and cyanide.
(9)	Comment¦ The cyanide limits are
based on faulty data, an improper
methodology and do not represent limits
achievable for plating of steel in cyanide
solutions.
Response: As discussed above, the
cyanide limits have been revised to a
level that is achievable for electoplaters
subject to this regulation. For the
Agency's methodology, see 44 FR 52607.
(10)	Comment: The methodology
employed by EPA is flawed and results
in overly stringent limits. EPA has not
used the raw data directly to calculate
pretreatment limits. Instead. EPA has
employed an elaborate statistical
methodology to predict the
concentrations that should be achieved
by exemplary plants. In the previous
sections we have shown that the raw
data does not correspond with EPA's
calculated limits—that is. a number of
exemplary plants violate EPA's
standards.
Response: A detailed summary of the
methodology employed for setting
pretreatment regulations is presented in
Section XJI of the Supplementary
Information material preceding the
September 7,1979 rules and regulations.
The Agency has found that the
statistical approach utilized is the best
method for taking into account the many
variables that must be considered when
setting pretreatment standards.
The data base used in developing
these standards is not restricted to
exemplary plant data. Data on 123
plants were collected but not all plants
were used in the statistical analyses.
Screening criteria applied to the data
from 123 plants determined that only
data from 67 plants were usable. The
screening criteria excluded plants that
were improperly designed or clearly
improperly operated. Such plants do not
represent the performance of best
practicable technology and should not
be considered in setting pretreatment
standards. Also, plants with advanced
treatment systems such as the Lancey
treatment system were excluded from
the data base. Removal from the data
base resulted from excessively high TSS
values, improper pH in the clarifier, and
low pollutant values in the raw waste
load. Certain other plants have
subsequently been eliminated as a result
of information provided by participants.
(11)	Comment: The Clean Water Act.
as envisioned by Congress, was
"designed to ensure clean water." If a
-------
9466 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 1981 / Rules and Regulations
POTW is meeting its NPDES permit
limitations, then the water is sufficiently
clean to obviale the need for Industrial
Users to comply with pretreatment
standards.
Response: A similar comment was
addressed in the final regulations
published September 7,1979, 44 FR
52590.	52602. It is correct that Congress
intended to clean up the Nation's waters
through the Clean Water Act. However.
Congress did not take the approach
advocated by this commenter. i.e.,
exemption of Industrial Users from
pretreatment standards if the POTW
does not violate its NPDES permit
limitations. Instead. Congress enacted
Section 307(b) requiring EPA to establish
pretreatment standards for pollutants
which pass through, interfere, or are
otherwise incompatible with the POTW.
Thus. Congress established limits at the
individual Industrial User rather than at
the POTW.
Moreover, pretreatment standards are
based on the best available technology
economically achievable; they are not
based on effluent quality. (See sections
301 (b)(2J(A](ii) & 307; 3 A Legislative
History of the Clean Water Act at 271.)
Td argue that the effluent quality
achieved by a POTW satisfying its
permit is adequate to obviate the need
for pretreatment standards is to argue
that pretreatment standards should be
based on effluent quality rather than
best available technology. This is not
what Congress intended.
(12) Comment: Congress intended
pretreatment standards to apply only to
' the most significant pretreatment
problems." (Legis. Hist. I at 800.)
Response: EPA is writing pretreatment
standards for the-industries most likely
to contribute toxic pollutants: Indeed,
the discharge of wastewater from
electroplaters is one of "the most
significant pretreatment problems."
Electroplaters use large amounts of toxic
heavy metals in the plating process as
well as chelating agents such as cyanide
to promote smooth plating of certain
metals.. Electroplating is one of the 34
categories listed in the NRDC v. Costle
Consent Decree, 8 ERC 1220, as
nodified at 12 ERC 1833 (March 9,1979).
Indeed, the Agency estimated in the
preamble to the final regulation that
compliance with the pretreatment
standards for electroplating could
eliminate 140 million pounds per year of
toxic pollutants from entering the water
or concentrating in POTW sludge. 44 FR
52591.	The next largest contributor of
toxic pollutants is the iron and steel
industry at 11 million pounds per year.
See also Responses to Comments at 44
FR at 52606.
(13) Comment: Congress intended that
the combination of pretreatment and
treatment by the POTW achieve at least
the level of treatment which would be
required of a direct discharger.
Response: This statement is correct
and supports the approach taken by
EPA in setting pretreatment standards
for electroplaters. Two major themes
run through the legislative history of
pretreatment standards under the Clean
Water Act; First, indirect dischargers
must be subject to pretreatment
standards equivalent to effluent
limitations imposed on direct
dischargers and second, despite the
desire for parity between direct and
indirect dischargers, indirect dischargers
should not be required to install or
perform treatment that would be
redundant with the treatment performed
by the POTW. To meet these two goals,
EPA promulgates pretreatment
standards analogous to its direct
discharger standards. Pretreatment
standards promulgated at the same time
as "best available technology" (BAT)
direct discharge limits are analogous to
BAT. Pretreatment standards, like the
electroplating standards which were
proposed at the same time as standards
for direct dischargers based on the best
practicable control technology currently
available (BPT), are analogous to BPT.
EPA has also, however, established a
procedure for achieving Congress'
solution to the problem of redundant
treatment: removal allowances. Section
403.7 of the Ceneral Pretreatment
Regulation sets forth in detail the steps
that the POTW and Industrial User must
comply with in order to obtain a
removal allowance. The removal
allowance may be given by a POTW
upon demonstration to the State or EPA
that it is consistently removing the
regulated pollutant. If such a
demonstration is made, then the POTW
may reduce the national categorical
pretreatment standards applicable to its
industrial users by an appropriate
amount. However, the statute provides
that these removal allowances are
available at the option of the POTW.
"[P|retreatment requirements " * * may
be revised" by the POTW (§ 307(b)). and
may not be given if the POTW's
discharge violates "that effluent
limitation or standard which would be
applicable to such toxic pollutant" if
discharged by a direct discharger, or if
the discharge from the POTW prevents
"sludge use or disposal by such works in
accordance with section 405" of the Act.
The Agency has fulfilled the delicate
balancing required of it by Congress by
establishing technology-based
pretreatment standards and establishing
the mechanism for obtaining removal
allowances. By this means, the
combination of pretreatment by the
Industrial User and treatment by the .
POTW is at least equal to the level of
treatment which would be required of a
direct discharger.
(14)	Comment: The electroplating
pretreatment standards bear no
relationship to treatment levels "shown
to be adequate." The commenter argues
that if the local POTW sets limitations
for its Industrial Users, and those
limitations are less stringent than those
imposed by EPA. then EPA's limits must
be too stringent.
Response: This comment is based on
the false premise that pretreatment
standards established by local
government should form the basis for
setting national categorical pretreatment
standards. (See discussion of this issue
at 44 FR 52602.) However, Congress
requires EPA to establish technology-
based standards that are equivalent to
those established for direct dischargers.
Accordingly, whether or not EPA's
standards are reasonable does not
depend upon a comparison of national
pretreatment standards with local
standards, but, instead, on a
examination of the methodology used in
establishing the standards.
(15)	Comment: POTW's should be
required to give removal allowances to
Industrial Users, especially since some
municipalities may not voluntarily seek
removal allowances. Some
municipalities say that it is too difficult
to meet EPA's requirements for giving
removal allowances, and, therefore they
do not intend to apply for them.
Response: Two points should be made
in response to this comment: First. EPA
has revised the removal allowance
procedures in amendments to the
General Pretrertment Regulation to
provide greater flexibility in obtaining
removal allowances.
Second, removal allowances were
intended to be given on a local basis. In
discussing the removal allowance
provision, then-Senator Muskie stated:
"Where a local compliance program is
approved, EPA and the permitting States
may approve case-by-case modifications
of the national pretreatment standards—
or local credits—for documented
pollutant removals attained by a
publicly-owned treatment works. To
receive a local credit, there must be a
demonstration that the pollutant is
degraded or treated; credits will not be
given for dilution . . . National
standards will not permit local credits
for pollutants which are
bioaccumulative or persistent toxics.
Tying local credits to local compliance
programs not only provides an incentive
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 1901 / Rules and Regulations 9467
for local participation, but more
importantly, it provides assurance that
the removal levels which justified the
local credits will be maintained by a
publicly-owned treatment works
committed to operating a sound
pretreatment program." (3 Legis. Hist at
461-62: Senate Debate.) It is apparent
from this discussion by the principal
architect of the Clean Water Act that
removal allowances were not intended
to be required of every POTW, and. in
fact, were to be limited to those POTWs
that could demonstrate removal and
were committed to operating a sound
pretreatment program.
(16)	Comment: The electroplating
standards should contain a provision
discussing removal allowances.
Response: The procedures for removal
allowances are contained in Section
403.7 of the General Pretreatment
Regulations. Those procedures apply to
these standards.
(17)	Comment An analysis pursuant
to Executive Order 12044 should have
been done for electroplating. EPA's
argument that the NRDC v. Castle
Consent Decree imposed deadlines on
the issuance of electroplating
pretreatment standards is inaccurate.
Response: A full explanation of EPA's
responsibilities under Executive Order
12044 was given in the September 7.
1979 publication of these final
regulations. (See 44 FR 52592-95.) The
NRDC v. Costle Consent Decree
provided that EPA would promulgate
pretreatment standards for the
electroplating point source category by
May 15. 1977. (See 8 ERC 2120. 2128.)
(18)	Comment: Pretreatment results in
no significant increment in pollution
control.
Response: This comment was
addressed in the preamble to the final
regulations, published on September 7,
1979, 44 FR 52590. 52597-52801. See also
Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly
Owned Treatment Works. Interim
Report. EPA 440/1-80/301 (October
1960): General Pretreatment Regulation,
40 CFR Part 403.
(19)	Comment The electroplating
standards will have a severe economic
impact on small electroplaters.
Response: This comment was
considered and addressed in the final
regulations published on September 7,
1979. 44 FR 52590. 52592-96, 52602.
52611-17.
(20)	Comment: EPA overestimated the
life of a treatment system, thus causing
long-term treatment costs to be
underestimated. EPA estimated a 20
year life for a treatment system,
whereas NAMF believes that an 8-12
year life is more realistic.
Response: EPA's economic analysis is
a short-run analysis based on
amortization of investment over five
years. Therefore, the estimate on the life
of a treatment system is a moot point,
for the analysis only considers the short-
run time frame. The actual life of a
treatment system beyond five years is
not relevant to the analysis.
(21)	Comment: There was no
additional data collection for EPA's 1979
report to supplement the data in the 1977
report. Thus, the report is essentially the
same.
Response: There was additional
technical data collection following
EPA's 1977 report. However, this
technical data was not well-matched
with the economic data. Therefore, it
was not incorporated into the 1979
report. For this report the 1977 data was
updated where possible by means of
indices and inflatory in order to reflect
1979 conditions.
(22)	Comment: Operating and
maintenance costs (OAM) as a
percentage of capital costs are higher
than the 12% that EPA originally
projected. As supporting evidence,
NAMF refers to a study done by EPA's
research laboratory in Cincinnati.
Response: Although EPA has
previously addressed this issue, the
apparent discrepancy between the
original EPA figures and the Cincinnati
study has not been covered. However,
thJs is easily answered. The Cincinnati
study was not an empirically based
analysis: rather it was simply a "mock-
up" which used a different basis for the
calculation of O&M as a percentage of
capital costs. Therefore, procedures on
data usage, data manipulation and
consequently, results, would differ. For
example, one obvious difference
between the studies is that the
Cincinnati study calculated depreciation
of treatment equipment as a component
of O&M, whereas EPA's original study
did not. A simple difference in
assumptions such as this one will cause
O&M costs in the Cincinnati study to
increase as a percentage of capital,
relative to the same variable in EPA's
study.
(23)	Comment: These regulations are
based on faulty data. One of the plants
relied on by EPA submitted false data
and recently pleaded guilty to
falsification of reporting data. We
request that EPA revise its calculations
to eliminate the use of Plant No. 1108 in
the data base for both treated effluent
and variability factors. We also request
reconsideration of these proposed
amendments.
Response: EPA has analyzed the data
submitted by Plant No. llO&and has
concluded that it is unnecessary to
revise the treated effluent and
variability factors. Plant No. 1108 is
identical to Plant No. 14 in EPA's data
base. The Agency has performed
calculations excluding Plant Nos. 1108
and 14 from the data base to determine
whether removal of these data would
affect the final pretreatment standards.
Our calculations, which have been
included in the administrative record,
indicate that there is no significant
change in the pretreatment standards
resulting from the removal of these data.
Accordingly. EPA has determined not to
eliminate these data from the data base
nor to reconsider these amendments.
E. Effect of Reprinting Entire Text of
Part 413.
Today's amendments revise part, but
not all. of the existing 40 CFR Part 413
published on September 7, 1979. In the
regulatory section of this notice,
however, EPA has reprinted the entire
Part 413 as it is revised by thess
amendments. Those portions of the
September 7,1979 regulations that are
not substantively amended in today's
Federal Register are only subject to
judicial review in those petitions for
review that were filed within 90 days of
the issuance of the September 7,1379
regulations.
Dated: January 13. 1981.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
40 CFR Part 413 is revised by
amending | § 413 01. 413.02. 413.14,
413.24. 413.44. 413.54, 413.64. 413.74.
413.84, by removing 5§ 413.03. 413.04,
413.05. 413.12. 413.22. 413.42, 413.52.
413.62. and part of § 413.01, and by
adding § 413.02(h) and a new section
413.04. The revised Part 413 reads as
follows:
PART 413—ELECTROPLATING POINT
SOURCE CATEGORY
General Provisions
Sec
413.01	Applicability.
413.02	General definitions.
413.03	(Reserved)
413 04 Integrated facilities.
413.05 (Reserved]
Subpart A—Electroplating of Common
Metals Subcategory
413.10	Applicability: Description of the
electroplating of common metals
subcategory.
413.11	Specialized definitions.
413.12	[Reserved]
413.14 PretreatoBent standards for existing
sources.
-------
9468 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28. 1981 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart B—Electroplating of Precious
Metals Subcategory
413.20	Applicability: Description of the
electroplating of preciou9 metals
subcategory.
413.21	Specialized definitions.
413.22	[Reserved)
413.24 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
Subpart C—Electroplating of Specialty
Metals Subcategory [Reserved]
Subpart 0—Anodizing Subcategory
413.40	Applicability: Description of the
anodizing subcategory.
413.41	Specialized definitions.
413.42	[Reserved]
413 44 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
Subpart E—Coatings Subcategory
413.50 Applicability: Description of the
coatings subcategory.
413 51 Specialized definitions.
413.52 [Reserved]
413.54 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
Subpart F—Chemical EtcNng and Mining
Subcategory
413.60	Applicability: Description of the
chemical etching and milling
subcategory.
413.61	Specialized definitions.
413.62	[Reserved]
413.64 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
Subpart G—Electroless Plating
Subcategory
413.70	Applicability: Description of the
electroless plating subcategory.
413.71	Specialized definitions.
413.74 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
Subpart H—Printed Circuit Board
Subcategory
413.80	Applicability: Description of the
printed circuit board subcategory.
413.81	Specialized definitions.
413.84 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
Authority: Sees. 301, 304(g). 307. 308, 309.
402. 405. 501(a) of the Clean Water Act. as
amended (33 U.S.C. 511311.1314,(g), 1317, -
1318, 1319.1322.1325. and 1341(a)).
General Provisions
§413.01 Applicability.
(a) This Part shall apply to
electroplating operations in which metal
is electroplated on any basis material
and to related metal finishing operations
as set forth in the various subparts,
whether such operations are conducted
in conjunction with electroplating,
independently or part of some other
operation. The compliance deadline for
integrated facilities shall be 3 years from
the effective date of 40 CFR 403.6(e). The
compliance deadline for non-integrated
facilities shall be May 12.1983,
(b)	Operations similar to
electroplating which are specifically
excepted from coverage of this Part
include: (1) Electrowinning and
electrorefining conducted as a part of
nonferrous metal smelting and refining
(40 CFR 421); (2) Metal surface
preparation and conversion coating
conducted as a part of coil coating (40
CFR 465); (3) Metal surface preparation
and immersion plating or electroless
plating conducted as a part of porcelain
enameling (40 CFR 466); and (4)
electrodeposition of active electrode
materials, electrolmpregnation. and
electroforming conducted as a part of
battery manufacturing (40 CFR 461).
(c)	Metallic platemaking and gravure
cylinder preparation conducted within
printing and publishing facilities, and
continuous strip electroplating
conducted within iron and steel
manufacturing facilities which introduce
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works are exempted from the
pretreatment standards for existing
sources set forth in this Part.
§413.02 General definitions.
In addition to the definitions set forth
in 40 CFR 401 and the chemical analysis
methods set forth in 40 CFR 136. both of
which are incorporated herein by
reference, the following definitions
apply to this Part;
(a)	The term "CN.A" shall mean
cyanide amenable to chlorination as
defined by 40 CFR 136.
(b)	The term "CN,T" shall mean
cyanide, total.
(c)	The term "Cr.VI" shall mean
hexavalent chromium.
(d)	The term "electroplating process
wastewater" shall mean process
wastewater generated in operations
which are subject to regulation under
any of subparts A through H of this Part.
(e)	The term "total metal" is defined
as the sum of the concentration or mass
of Copper (Cu), Nickel (Ni), Chromium
(Cr) (total) and Zinc (Zn).
(f)	The term "strong chelating agents"
is defined as all compounds which, by
virtue of their chemical structure and
amount present, form soluble metal
complexes which are not removed by
subsequent metals control techniques
such as pH adjustment followed by
clarification or filtration.	.
(g)	The term "control authority" is
defined as the POTW if it has an
approved pretreatment program; in the
absence of such a program, the NPDES
State if it has an approved pretreatment
program or EPA if the State does not
have an approved program.
(h)	The term "Integrated facility" is
defined as a facility that performs
electroplating as only one of several
operations necessary for manufacture of
a product at a single physical location
and has significant quantities of process
wastewater from non-electroplating
manufacturing operations. In addition,
to qualify as an "integrated facility" one
or more plant electroplating process
wastewater lines must be combined
prior to or at the point of treatment (or
proposed treatment) with one or more
plant sewers carrying process
wastewater from non-electroplating
manufacturing operations.
§413.03 [Reserved.]
§ 413.04 Standards for integrated
facilities.
Pretreatment standards for integrated
facilities shall be computed as required
by § 403.6(e) of EPA's General
Pretreatment Regulations. In cases
where electroplating process
wastewaters are combined with
regulated wastewaters which have 30
days average standards, the
corresponding 30 day average standard
for the electroplating wastewaters must
be used. The 30 day average shall be
determined for pollutants in the relevant
subcategory from the corresponding
daily and 4 day average values listed in
the table below.
And the Then the
H the maxHnum for any 1 day «
06 .
1 2 ...
1.9 ...
4 1
42 .
4 5...
50 .
7# ..
10,5 .
20 0 .
23
47 .
53
74 ..
107 ..
169 ..
160..
164
176
273
365 .
374 .
401
410
623 ..
935.
a

04
03
.7
S
1
55
26
1 8
26
1.6
27
1 8
27
1 5
4
25
66
5
134
10
16
12
29
20
36
27
39
21
65
45
69
49
100
70
102
70
105
70
156
98
229
160
232
160
241
160
267
195
257
223
609
445
§413.05 [Reserved]
Subpart A—Electroplating of Common
Metals Subcategory
§413.10 Applicability: Description of the
electroplating of common metals
subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart apply
to dischargers of pollutants in process
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 18 / Wednesday. January 28. 1981 / Rules and Regulations 9469
wastewaters resulting from the process
in which a ferrous or nonferrous basis
material is electroplated with copper,
nickel, chromium, zinc, tin. lead,
cadmium, iron, aluminum, or any
combination thereof.
§ 413.11 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a)	The term "sq m" ("sq ft"] shall
mean the area plated expressed in
square meters [square feet).
(b)	The term "operation" shall mean
any step in the electroplating process in
which a metal is electrodeposited on a
basis material and which is followed by
a rinse; this includes the related
operations of alkaline cleaning, acid
pickle, stripping, and coloring when
each operation is followed by a rinse,
§ 413.12 (Reserved]
§ 413.14 Pr«treatment standards for
existing sources.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 40 CFR 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 this subpart shall
augment the use of process wastewater
or otherwise dilute the wastewater as a
partial or total substitute for adequate
treatment to achieved compliance with
these standards.
(b) For a source discharging less than
38,000 liters (10,000 gal.) per calendar
day of electroplating process
wastewater the following limitations
shall apply:
Subpart A.—Common Metals Facilities Dis-
charging Less Than 33,000 Liters Per Day
PSES Limitations (mg/D
Pollutant or pollutant
property
Maximum for
any i day
Average of
dail^vaiues
consecutive
monrtormg
days Shan not
exceed
CN, A ...
SO
27
Pb , ,
6
4
Cd 		
1 2
7
Pollutant or poftutant
property
Maximum tor
any i day
Subpart A.—Common Metals Facilities Dis-
charging 33,000 Liters or More Per Day
PSES Limitations (mg/D—Continued
Pollutant or pollutant
property
Maximum for
any day
Average of
daily values
for 4
consecutive
monitoring
days shall rvjt
exceed
N1
Cr	,
Zn	
Pb	-
Cd 	
Total metals	
4 i
70
*2
6
1 2
105
Pollutant or pollutant
property
Maxmum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily vaiuoa
for 4
consecutive
monitoring
days shall not
exceed
CN. T , 	
74
39
Cu		
176
105
Ni, ...... 		
160
100
Cr 	
273
156
Zn 		
164
102
Pb		
20
16
Cd		 ...
47
29
Total metals......	
410
267
(c) For plants discharging 38,000 liters
(10.000 gal) or more per calendar day of
electroplating process wastewater the
following limitations shall apply:
Subpart A.—Common Metals Facilities Dis-
charging 38,000 Liters or More Per Day
PSES Limitations img/D
Average of
daily values
consecutive
monrtonng
days shall not
Pollutant or pollutant
property
Maximum for
any l day
Average ol
daily values
lor 4
consecutive
monrtormg
days shaft not
exceed
Subpart A.—Common Metals Facilities Dis-
charging 38,000 Liters of More Per Day
PSES Limitations (mg/D—Continued
Pollutant or pollutant
property
Maximum for
any t day
Average of
daily values
for 4
consecuove
monrtonng
days snail not
exceed
26
40
26
4
7
68
TSS
pH
(d) Alternatively, the following mass-
based standards are equivalent to and
may be applied in place of those
limitations specified under paragraph (c)
of this section upon prior agreement
between a source subject to these
standards and the publicly owned
treatment works receiving such
regulated wasttes:
Subpart A.—Common Metals Facilities Dis-
charging 33,000 Liters or More Per Day
PSES Limitations img/sq m-Operation)
(e) For wastewater sources regulated
under paragraph (c) of this section, the
following optional control program may
be elected by the source introducing
treated process wastewater into a
publicly owned treatment works with
the concurrence of the control authority.
These optional pollutant parameters are
not eligible for allowance for removal
achieved by the publicly owned
treatment works under 40 CFR 403.7. In
the absence of strong chelating agents,
after reduction of hexavalent chromium
wastes, and after neutralization using
calcium oxide (or hydroxide) the
following limitations shall apply:
Subpart A.—Common Metals Facilities Dis-
charging 38,000 Liters or More Per Day
PSES Limitations img/f)
CN. T
Cu
19
45
CN.
10 Pt>
2 7 Cd
1 9
8
1.2
1.0
.4
7
Within the range 7 5 to 10.0
Subpart B—Electroplating of Precious
Metals Subcategory
§413.20 Applicability: Description of the
electroplating of precious metals
subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart apply
to discharges of process wastewaters
resulting from the process in which a
ferrous or nonferrous basis material is
plated with gold, silver, iridium,
palladium, platinum, rhodium, rutheniun.
or any combination of these.
§ 413.21 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart
(a)	The term "sq m" ("sq ft") shall
mean the area plated expressed in
square meters (square feet).
(b)	The term "operation" shall mean
any step in the electroplating process in
which a metal is electrodeposited on a
basis material and which is followed by
a rinse: this includes the related
operations of alkaline cleaning, acid
pickle, stripping, and coloring when
each operation is followed by a rinse.
§413.22 [Reserved]
§ 413.24 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Except as provided in 40 CFR § 403.7
and § 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart which introduces
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
CFR Part 403 and achieve the following
pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES):
(a)	No user introducing wastewater
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works under the provisions of
this subpart shall augment the use of
process wastewater or otherwise dilute
the wastewater as a partial or total
substitute for adequate treatment to
achieve compliance with this standard.
(b)	For a source discharging less than
38,000 liters (10,000 gal) per calendar
day of electroplating process
wastewater the following limitations
shall apply:
-------
9470 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 1981 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart S.—Precious Metals FaaWes Dis-
charging Less Than 38,000 Liters Per Day
PSES Limitations img/D
Poflutant or ponutaitf
property
Manmum for
any i day
Average of
nr
coneecuttve
monitoring
day* thai not
¦wand
CN, A...-			...	
50
2.7
Pb 					
6
4
Cd		
1.2
.7
achieved by the publicly owned
treatment works under 40 CFR 403.7. In
the absence of strong chelating agents,
after reduction of hexavalent chromium
wastes, and after neutralization using
calcium oxide (or hydroxide) the
following limitations shall apply.
Subpart B.—Ppbckxjs Metals Facilities Dis-
charging 38,000 Liters or More Per Day
PSES Limitations (mg/t)
Poflutant or poflutant
property
(c) For plants discharging 38.000 liters
(10.000 gal) or more per calendar day of
electroplating process wastewater the
following limitations shall apply:		
CN, T ,	_
Subpart B.—Precious Metals FadMes Dis- n				
charging 38.000 Liters or More Per Day 00 		
PSES Limitations (mg/f)	^	
Averaga of	'Within the range 7.5 to 104.

Pollutant or poflutant
Average of
dadwvaiua*
Uttttmucn tor ..	.
,w. « Mmm	OOfaRUM
1	monrtonng
day* kftafl not
CN. A._
Pb	
Cd.	
SO
OA
U
2.7
0.4
0.7
(c] For plants discharging 38.000 liters
(10.000 gal) or more per calendar day of
electroplating process wastewater the
following limitations shall apply:
Subpart D.—Anodizing FadtitSes Discharging
38,000 Liters or Mors Per Day PSES Urmte-
forts (mg/f)
FaMart or petart
Mndmtiw for
any 1 day
day* ahai not
CHT.
Cu	
NI -
Cr-
Zn	
Pb	
Cd		
Total metall-
ic
4.5
4.1
70
4.2
O.fl
1.2
1CL5
1.0
2.7
2J
4.0
2.6
0.4
0.7
ca
(d) Alternatively, the following mass-
based standards are equivalent to and
may apply in place of those limitations
specified under paragraph (c) of this
section upon prior agreement between a
source subject to these standards and
the publicly owned treatment works
receiving such regulated wastes:
Subpart D.—Anodizing Facilities Discharging
38,000 Uters or More Per Day PSES Limita-
tions (mg/sq m-operation)
Poflutant or poflutant
property
Maximum (or
any 1 day
Averaga of
da*|n*Juea
consecuOve
dayt snail not
CN, T						
74
39
Cu		
176
106
N» 			
160
100
Cr 	_	..	
273
166
7n ,,, 	
164
102
Pb		-	-	-
23
16
Cd..... 	
47
29
Total metaia.......	
410
267
(e) For wastewater sources regulated
under paragraph (c) of this section, the
following optional control program may
be elected by the source introducing
treated process wastewater into a
publicly owned treatment works with
the concurrence of the control authority.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 1981 / Rules and Regulations 9471
These optional pollutant parameters are
not eligible for allowance for removal
achieved by the publicly owned
treatment works under 40 CFR 403.7. In
the absence of strong chelating agents,
after reduction of hexavalent chromium
wastes, and after neutralization using
calcium oxide (or hydroxide) the
following limitations shall apply:
Subpart 0.—Anodizing Facilities Discharging
38,000 Liters or More Per Day PSES Limita-
tions (mg/f)
Pollutant or pollutant
property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average ol
daily vatues
For 4
consecutive
monitonng
days sftaS not
exceed
CN,T 	
1 9
t 0
Pb	
0 6
04
Cd 	
1 2
07
TSS 	
20 0
134
PH	
V)
(')
(b) For a source discharging less than
38,000 liters (10.000 gal) per calendar
day of electroplating process
wastewater the following limitations
shall apply:
Subpart E.—Coatings Facilities Discharging
Less Than 38,000 Liters Per Day PSES
Limitations (mg/D
Pollutant or pollutant
property
Maximum tor
any 1 day
Average of
daity values
lor 4
consecutive
monrtormg
days shad not
exceed
CN. A 		
SO
27
Pt> 	
0$
04
Cd 	-	
-12
07
1 Withm the range 7 5 to 10 000
Subpart E—Coatings Subcategory
§ 413.50 Applicability: Description of the
coatings subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart apply
to discharges resulting from the
chromating, phospbating or immersion
plating on ferrous or nonferrous
materials.
§ 413.51 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart;
(a)	The term "sq m" ("sq ft") shall
mean the area processed expressed in
square meters (square feet).
(b)	The term "operation" shall mean
any step in the coating process in which
a basis material surface is acted upon
by a process solution and which is
followed by a rinse: plus the related
operations of alkaline cleaning, acid
pickle, and sealing, when each operation
is followed by a rinse.
§ 413.52 [Reserved]
§413.54 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart which introduces
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
CFR Part 403 and achieve the following
pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES):
(a) No user introducing wastewater
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works under the provisions of
this subpart shall augment the use of
process wastewater or otherwise dilute
the wastewater as a partial or total
substitute for adequate treatment to
achieve compliance with this standard.
Pollutant or pottutent
property
Maximum tor
any 1 day
CN.T 	
19
1 0
Cu 		
45
2.7
Ni . 		
4 1
26
Cr 	
70
40
Zn
4 2
26
Pb , 	
06
04
Cd
1 2
07
Total metala.
10 5
68
Pollutant or ooituiant
property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average o<
daily values
(or 4
consecutive
moratonng
days shad not
exceed
CN, T
Co
N»
Cr
Zn
Pb 	
Cd
Total metals
74
178
160
273
164
23
47
410
(e) For wastewater sources regulated
under paragraph (c) of this section, the
following optional control program may
be elected by the source introducing
treated process wastewater into a
publicly owned treatment works with
the concurrence of the control authority.
These optional pollutant parameters are
not eligible for allowance for removal
achieved by the publicly owned
treatment works under 40 CFR 403.7. In
the absence of strong chelating agents,
after reduction of hexavalent chromium
wastes, and after neutralization using
calcium oxide (or hydroxide) the
following limitations shall apply.
Subpart E.—Coatings Facilities Discharging
38,000 Liters or More Per Day PSES Limita-
tions (mg/D
(c) For plants discharging 38,000 liter®
(10,000 gal) or more per calendar day of
electroplating process wastewater the
following limitations shall apply:
Subpart E.—Coatings Facilities Discharging
38,000 Liters or More Per Day PSES Limita-
tions (mg/f)
Average of
darf^vaJues
consecutive
monitonnfl
days shafl not
exceed
(d) Alternatively, the following mass-
based standards are equivalent to and
may apply in place of those limitations
Specified under paragraph (c) of this
section upon prior agreement between a
source subject to these standards and
the publicly owned treatment works
receiving such regulated wastes:
Subpart E.—Coatings Facilities Discharging
38,000 Liters or More Per Day PSES Limita-
tions (mg/sq m-operatk>n)
39
105
100
156
102
IS
29
267
Pollutant or pollutant
property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily vaiues
for 4
consecutive
monitonng
days shall not
exceed
CN. T 	
1 9
1 0
Pb 		
06
04
Cd	-	
1 2
0 7
TSS	
200
134
PH 			-		 -
n
o
1 Wrtfwn the range 7 5 to 100
Subpart F—Chemical Etching and
Milling Subcategory
§ 413.60 Applicability: Description of the
chemical etching and mHIIng subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart apply
to discharges of process wastewaters
resulting from the chemical milling or
etching of ferrous or nonferrous
materials.
§413.61 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a)	The term "sq m" ("sq. ft.") shall
mean the area exposed to process
chemicals expressed in square meters
(square feet).
(b)	The term "operation" shall mean
any step in the chemical milling or
etching processes in which metal is
chemically or electrochemically
removed from the work piece and which
is followed by a rinse; this includes
related metal cleaning operations which
preceded chemical milling or etching,
when each operation is followed by a
rinse.
§ 413.62 [Reserved]
§ 413.64 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Except as provided in 40 CFR § 403.7
and § 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart which introduces
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
CFR Part 403 and achieve the following
pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES):
(a) No User Introducing wastewater
pollutants into publicly owned treatment
-------
9472 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28. 1981 / Rules and Regulations
works under the provisions of this
subpart shall augment the use of process
wastewater or otherwise dilute the
wastewater as a partial or total
substitute for adequate treatment to
achieve compliance with this standard.
(b) For a source discharging less than
38,000 liters (10,000 gal.) per calendar
day of electroplating process
wastewater the following limitations
shall apply:
Subpart F.—Chemical Etching and Milling
FacHitiea Discharging Less Than 38,000 Li-
ters Per Day PSES Limitations (mg/D
Pofcrtant or pollutant
f*op«rty
Maximum tor
«ty 1 day
Average of
dajiy values
for 4
consecutive
mortaring
days shall not
exceed
CN, A.	
50
2.7
Pb	
06
0.4
" -	—	
12,
0.7
Pollutant or poHutam
property
Marirnum for
any 1 day
Average of
darty values
for 4
consecutive
monrtonng
day* ahal not
exceed
CN. T	
Cu 	
Ni 			
Cr		
Zn	-
Pb ..
Cd	
Total metals
1 9
4 5
4 t
70
42
06
1 2
105
Pollutant or pollutant
property
Majdmun for
any 1 day
Average of
doty values
for 4
consecutive
days shall not
CN, T .
Cu ,.
Ni
Cr
Zn
Pb
74
176
160
273
164
23
Subpart F.—Chemical Etching and MRSng
Facilities Discharging 38,000 Liters or More
Per Day PSES Limitations —Continued
Poflutant or poduiant
property
Marimun for
any 1 day 1
Average of
daily values
for 4
OOOBOCUflVS
monrtonng
days theft not
exceed
Cd							
Total 	
47
410
29
267
(c) For plants discharging 38,000 liters
(10,000 gal.) or more per calendar day of
electroplating process wastewater the
following limitations shall apply:
Subpart F.—Chemicals Etching and Mflmg
Facilities Discharging 38,000 Liters or More
Per Day PSES Limitations (mg/D
(e) For wastewater sources regulated
under paragraph (c) of this section, the
following optional control program may
be elected by the source introducing
treated process wastewater into a
publicly owned treatment works with
the concurrence of the control authority.
These optional pollutant parameters are
not eligible for allowance for removal
achieved by the publicly owned
treatment works under 40 CFR 409.7. In
the absence of strong chelating agents,
after reduction of hexavalent chromium
wastes, and after neutralization using
calcium oxide (or hydroxide) the
following limitations shall apply:
Subpart F.—Chemical Etching and Milling
Facilities Discharging 38,000 Liters or More
Per Day PSES Limitations (mg/D
i o
2.7
26
40
2.6
04
07
8.8
Poihstant or pollutant
property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average ot
daily values
for 4
consecutive
monrtonng
days shall not
exceed
CN. T	
1.9
1 0
Pb 		_
06
04
Cd 	
12
0.7
TSS		
200
13 4
pH		
(')
(')
(d) Alternatively, the following mass-
based standards are equivalent to and
may apply in place of those limitations
specified under paragraph (c) of this
section upon prior agreement between a
source subject to these standards and
the publicly owned treatment works
receiving such regulated wastes:
Subpart F.—Chemical Etching and Milling
Facilities Discharging 38,000 Liters or More
Per Day PSES Limitations (mg/sq m-oper-
ation)
30
10S
100
Itt
102
16
1 Within the range 7 5 to 10 0
Subpart G—Electrotasa Plating
Subcategory
5 413.70 Applicability: Description of the
electrotesa plating subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart apply
to discharges resulting from the
electroless plating of a metallic layer on
a metallic or nonmetallic substrate.
§ 413.71 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart
(a)	The term "sq m" ("sq. ft.") shall
mean the area plated expressed in
square meters (square feet).
(b)	The term "electroless plating"
shall mean the deposition of conductive
material from an autocatalytic plating
solution without application of electrical
current.
(c)	The term "operation" shall mean
any step in the electroless plating
process in which a metal is deposited on
a basis material and which is followed
by a rinse: this includes the related
operations of alkaline cleaning, acid
pickle, and stripping, when each
operation is followed by a rinse.
§ 413.74 Pre treatment standards for
existing sources.
Except as provided in 40 CFR § 403.7
and $ 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart which introduces
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
CFR Part 403 and achieve the following
pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES):
(a)	No User introducing wastewater
pollutants into publicly owned treatment
works under the provisions of this
subpart shall augment the use of process
wastewater or otherwise dilute the
wastewater as a partial or total
substitute for adequate treatment to
achieve compliance with this standard.
(b)	For a source discharging less than
38,000 liters (10,000 gal.) per calendar
day of electroplating process
wastewater the following limitations
shaQ apply:
Subpart 
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 1981 / Rules and Regulations 9473
the publicly owned treatment works
receiving such regulated wastes:
Subpart G.—Electro/ess Plating Facilities Dis-
charging 38,000 Liters or More Per Day
PSES Limitations (mg/sq m-operation)
Pollutant or pollutant
property
Maximum lor
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 4
consecutive
monitor rig
days shall not
exceed
CN.T
Cu . ..
Ni
Cr
Zn
Pb „ ,
Cd . ,
Tola} metals..
74
176
160
273
164
23
47
*10
39
105
100
156
102
16
29
267
(e) For wastewater sources regulated
under paragraph (c) of this section, the
following optional control program may
be elected by the source introducing
treated process wastewater into a
publicly owned treatment works with
the concurrence of the control authority.
These optional pollutant parameters are
not eligible for allowance for removal
achieved by the publicly owned
treatment works under 40 CFR 403.7, In
the absence of strong chelating agents,
after reduction of hexavalent chromium
wastes, and after neutralization using
calcium oxide (or hydroxide) the
following limitations shall apply.
Subpart G.—Electro/ess Plating Facilities Dis-
charging 38,000 Liters or More Per Day
PSES Limitations (mg/f)
Pollutant or pollutant
property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average ot
daily values
(or 4
consecutive
monitoring
days shaH not
exceed
CN.T ,
1 9
1 0
Pb . 	
06
04
Cd 	
1 2
07
TSS
20 0
134
PH 	
{')
(l>
' Wiihin {he range 7 5 lo 10.00
Subpart H—Printed Circuit Board
Subcategory
§413.80 Applicability: Description of the
printed circuit board subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart apply
to the manufacture of printed circuit
boards, including all manufacturing
operations required or used to convert
an insulating substrate to a finished
printed circuit board. The provisions set
forth in other subparts of this category
are not applicable to the manufacture of
printed circuit boards.
§ 413.81 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a)	The term "sq ft" ("aq m") shall
mean the area of the printed circuit
board immersed in an aqueous process
bath.
(b)	The term "operation" shall mean
any step in the printed circuit board
manufacturing process in which the
board is immersed in an aqueous
process bath which is followed by a
rinse.
§ 413.84 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13. any existing source subject
to this subpart which introduces
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
CFR Part 403 and achieve the following
pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES):
(a)	No user introducing wastewater
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works under the provisions of
this subpart shall augment the use of
process wastewater or otherwise dilute
the wastewater as a partial or total
substitute for adequate treatment to
achieve compliance with this standard.
(b)	For a source discharging less than
38,000 liters (10,000 gal) per calendar
day of electroplating process
wastewater the following limitations
shall apply:
Subpart H.—Printed Circuit Board Facilities
Discharging Less Than 38,000 Liters Per
Day PSES Limitations (mg/f)
Pollutant or pollutant
property
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
tor 4
consecutive
monitormg
day* shall not
exceed
CN. A 	
50
27
Pb 	
06
04
Cd 	
1.2
* 07
Pollutant or pollutant
property
Maximum for
any 1 day
CN. T ...
Cu ....... ...
Ni 	-
Cr , .
Zn 	
Ptj . „ ...
Cd 	
Total metals .
1 9
4 5
4 t
70
42
06
t 2
10 5
(d) Alternatively, the following mass-
based standards are equivalent to and
may apply in place of those limitations
specified under paragraph (c) of this
section upon prior agreement between a
source subject to these standards and
the publicly owned treatment works
receiving such regulated wastes:
Subpart H.—Printed Circuit Board Facilities
Discharging 38,000 Liters or More Per Day
PSES Limitations (mg/sq m-operation)
Pollutant or pollutant
property
Maximum for
any l day
Average of
daily values
tot 4
consecutive
monitoring
days shall not
exceed
CN. T„
169
89
CU	
401
241
Nj	
365
229
Cr 	
623
357
Zn 	
374
232
Pb 	
53
36
Cd. 	
107
65
Total metals	
935
609
(c) For plants discharging 38,000 liters
(10,000 gal) or more per calendar day of
electroplating process wastewater the
following limitations shall apply:
Subpart H.—Printed Circuit Board Facilities
Discharging 38,000 Liters or More Per Day
PSES Limitations (mg/f)
Average of
daily values
for 4
consecutive
monitoring
days shan not
exceed
(e) For wastewater sources regulated
under paragraph (c) of this section, the
following optional control program may
be elected by the source introducing
treated process wastewater into a
publicly owned treatment works with
the concurrence of the control authority.
These optional pollutant parameters are
not eligible for allowance for removal
achieved by the publicly owned
treatment works under 40 CFR 403.7. In
the absence of strong chelating agents,
after reduction of hexavalent chromium
wastes, and after neutralization using
calcium oxide (or hydroxide) the
following limitations shall apply:
Subpart H.—Printed Circuit Board Facilities
Discharging 38,000 Liters or More Per Day
PSES Limitations (mg/f)
Pollutant or poltutant
property
Maximum (or
any 1 day
Average of
daily values
for 4
consecutive
monitoring
days shall not
exceed
CN. T	
1 9
t 0
Pb
06
04
Cd 	
1 2
07
TSS 	
20.0
134
PH 	
(l)
<¦>
1 Within the range 7,5 to 10 0
[FR Doc 81-211? Filed 1-27-81, 8 45 am)
BILLING CODE 6S60-29-M
1 0
27
26
40
2.6
04
07
-------
C/ H—36/11
(Revised 9/5/85)
40 CFR PART 413
ELECTROPLATING
CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
This summary provides industries in the Electroplating category and
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) with the information necessary to
determine compliance with pretreatment standards for this industrial category.
The Electroplating standards were established by the Environmental Protection
Agency in Part 413 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR
413). This summary is not intended to substitute for the regulations pub-
lished in the Code of Federal Regulations or the Federal Register. For spe-
cific information, refer to the Federal Register citations given below.
The processes regulated by the Electroplating and Metal Finishing cate-
gorical standards overlap somewhat. The Electroplating standards apply to
independent job shop electroplaters and independent printed circuit board
manufacturers. All other facilities that must comply with the Electroplating
standards must also comply with the Metal Finishing standards. The Metal
Finishing standards also apply to 40 additional processes at facilities where "
they are operated in conjunction with one of the electroplating processes
regulated by the Metal Finishing standards. All new indirect dischargers must
comply with the Metal Finishing standards.
Type of Rule
Date
Federal Register
Citation
Proposed Rule
Final Rule
Final Rule Amendments and
Corrections
September 15, 1983
September 26, 1983
October 3, 1983
September 4, 1984
March 30, 1981
February 14, 1978
January 28, 1981
February 12, 1981
June 10, 1981
September 2, 1981
January 21, 1983
July 15, 1983
Vol.	43, p. 6560
Vol.	46, p. 9462
Vol.	46, p.	11972
Vol.	46, p.	30625
Vol.	46, p.	43972
Vol.	48, p.	2774
Vol.	48, p.	32462
Vol.	48, p.	41409
Vol.	48, p.	43680
Vol.	48, p.	45105
Vol.	49, p.	34823
Effective Date
Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR)
Due Dates
Non-integrated Facilities -
Integrated Facilities -
September 26, 1981
June 25, 1983
-1-
-------
ELECTROPLATING (cont.)
Type of Rule
Federal Register
Date	Citation
Compliance Dates
Integrated Facilities
(Metals and Cyanide)* -	June 30, 1984
Non-integrated Facilities
(Metals and Cyanide) -	April 27, 1984
Total Toxic Organics -	July 15, 1986
REGULATED POLLUTANTS
The Electroplating standards set discharge limits on copper, nickel,
chromium, zinc, lead, cadmium, silver, total metals, cyanide, and total toxic
organics (TTO). For this category, TTO is defined as the sum of all quantifi-
able concentrations greater than 0.01 mg/1 for the following substances:
acenaphthene
acrolein
acrylonitrile
benzene
benzidine
carbon tetrachloride
(tetrachloromethane)
chlorobenzene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1.1.1-trichloroethane
hexachloroethane
1.1-dichloroethane
1.1.2-trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
chloroethane
bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
2-chloronaphthalene
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
parachlorometa cresol
chloroform (trichloromethane)
2-chlorophenol
1.2-dichlorobenzene
1.3-dichlorobenzene
1.4-dichlorobenzene
3.3-dichlorobenzidine
1.1-di	chloroethylene
1.2-trans-dichloroethylene
2.4-dichlorophenol
1,2-dichloropropane
1,2-dichloropropylene
(1,3-dichloropropene)
2,4-dimethylphenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenyl hydrazine
ethyl benzene
fluoranthene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
bis (2-chlorisopropyl) ether
bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
methylene chloride
(dichloromethane)
methyl chloride (chloromethane)
methyl bromide (bromomethane)
bromoform (tribromomethane)
dichlorobromomethane
chlorodibromomethane
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
i sophorone
naphthalene
nitrobenzene
nitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenyl amine
N-ni trosodi-n-propyl amine
*An integrated facility is defined in 40 CFR 413.02(h) as a facility that 1)
performs electroplating as only one of several operations in the manufacture
of a product at a single location; 2) has significant quantities of process
wastewater from non-electroplating manufacturing processes; and 3) has one or
more electroplating process wastewater lines that are combined with process
wastewater from non-electroplating manufacturing operations prior to treat-
ment.
-------
ELECTROPLATING (cont.)
vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane (technical mixture &
metabolites)
4, 4'-DDT
4, 4'-DDE (p, p'-DDX)
4, 4'-DDD (p, p'-TDE)
A1pha-endosulfan
Beta-endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endri n
endrin aldehyde
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
A1pha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Gamma-BHC (lindane)
Delta-BHC
PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
toxaphene
2,3,7,8-tetrachl orodibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD)
Dischargers may be exempt from conducting routine monitoring for TTO if
they certify that toxic organics are not used in the facility or are con-
trolled through a toxic organics management plan. The certification statement
that should be used is found in 40 CFR 413.03(a). If an exemption is granted,
the discharger must submit a toxic organics management plan that specifies the
toxic organic compounds used, disposal method, and spi11-prevention measures.
Dischargers must still conduct TTO monitoring for the BMR and the ninety-day
final compliance report.
Total Metals is defined as the sum of the concentration or mass of
copper, nickel, chromium (total), and zinc.
SUBCATEGORIES
Eight subcategories have been established for the Electroplating
industry:
A.	Electroplating of Common Metals
B.	Electroplating of Precious Metals
C.	Electroplating of Specialty Metals
D.	Anodizing
E.	Coatings
F.	Chemical Etching and Milling
G.	Electroless Plating
H.	Printed Circuit Boards
pentachlorophenol
phenol
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
benzo (a) anthracene
(1,2-benzanthracene)
benzo (a) pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)
3,4-benzofluoranthene
benzo (k) fluoranthene
(11, 12-benzofluoranthene)
chrysene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
benzo (ghi) perylene
(1, 12-benzoperylene)
fluorene
phenanthrene
dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
(1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene)
indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
(2,3-o-phenylenepyrene)
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
-3-
-------
ELECTROPLATING (cont.)
Subcategory B is regulated separately. The concentration-based standards
shown below are the same for Subcategories A, C, D> E, F, G, and H. The mass-
based standards for Subcategories A, C, D, E, F, and G are'the same. The
mass-based standards for Subcategory H, Printed Circuit Boards, are shown
separately. Note that the standards vary according to volume of discharge,
and that alternative mass-based standards are provided for larger operations.
(A) CONCENTRATION-BASED PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES (PSES)
—FOR FAC1L111ES IN SUBCATEGORIES A, C, D, E, F, G, AND H THAT	
"DISCHARGE LESS THAN 38,000 LITERS (10,000 GALLONS) PER DAY~
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (mg/1)
Average of Daily Values
for Four Consecutive
Monitoring Days (mg/1)
Amenable Cyanide
5.0
2.7
Lead
0.6
0.4
Cadmium
1.2
0.7
TTO
4.57
--
(B) CONCENTRATION-BASED PSES FOR FACILITIES IN
SUBCATEGORIES A, B, C, E, F, G, AND H
THAT DISCHARGE 38,000 LITERS OR MORE PER DAY
Average of Daily Values
Pollutant or Maximum for any for Four Consecutive
Pollutant Property One Day (mg/1) Monitoring Days (mg/1)
Total Cyanide
1.9
1.0
Copper
4.5
2.7
Nickel
4.1
2.6
Chromium
7,0
4.0
Zinc
4,2
2.6
Lead
0.6
0.4
Cadmium
1.2
0.7
Total Metals
10.5
6.8
TTO
2.13
--
-4-
-------
ELECTROPLATING (cont.)
(C) MASS-BASED PSES FOR FACILITIES
IN SUBCATEGORIES A, I, U, k, K ANb b I HAT
DISCHARGE 38.000 LITERS OR MORE PER DAY
Average of Daily Values
Maximum for Any	for Four Consecutive
Pollutant or	One Day (mg/sq-	Monitoring Days
Pollutant Property	m operation)*	(mg/sq-m operation)
Total Cyanide
74
39
Copper
176
105
Nickel
160
100
Chromium
273
156
Zinc
164
102
Lead
23
16
Cadmi um
47
29
Total Metals
410
267
TT0
2.13 mg/1

(D) MASS-BASED PSES FOR FACILITIES IN SUBCATEGORY H
THAT DISCHARGE 35,000 LITERS OR MORE PE1TW—
Average of Daily Values
Maximum for Any	for Four Consecutive
Pollutant or	One Day (mg/sq-	Monitoring Days
Pollutant Property	m operation)*	(mg/sq-m operation)
Total Cyanide
169
89
Copper
401
241
Nickel
365
229
Chromium
623
357
Zi nc
374
232
Lead
53
36
Cadmi urn
107
65
Total Metals
935
609
*Sq-m operation is the area of material plated expressed in square meters.
The mass-based standards are equivalent to and may be applied in place of
the concentration-based limits specified in part (B) of this section upon
prior agreement between an industry that is subject to these standards and the
POTW that receives the regulated wastes.
For wastewater sources regulated under part (B) of this section, firms
may choose the following optional control program with the concurrence of the
Control Authority. These optional pollutant parameters are not eligible for
an allowance for a removal achieved by the POTW under 40 CFR 403.7. In the
absence of strong chelating agents, after the reduction of hexavalent chromium
-5-
-------
ELECTROPLATING (cont.)
wastes and neutralization with calcium oxide or hydroxide, the following
1imits apply.
(E) OPTIONAL CONTROL CONCENTRATION-BASED PSES FOR FACILITIES
	IN SUBCATEGORIES A, C, U, I, I-, G, AND H THAT	
DISCHARGE MORE THAN 38,000 LITERS PER DAY
Average of Daily Values
Pollutant or Maximum for Any for Four Consecutive
Pollutant Property One Day (mg/1) Monitoring Days (mg/1)
Total Cyanide	1.9	1.0
Lead	0.6	0.4
Cadmium	1.2	0.7
TSS	20.0	13.4
pH	7.5 to 10.0	7.5 to 10.0
TTO	2.13	— 	
The following standards apply to Subcategory B, Electroplating of
Precious Metals.
(A) CONCENTRATION-BASED PSES FOR FACILITIES IN SUBCATEGORY B
THAT DISCHARGE LESS THAN 38,000 LITERS PER DAY
Average of Daily Values
Pollutant or Maximum for Any for Four Consecutive
Pollutant Property One Day (mg/1) Monitoring Days (mg/1)
Amenable Cyanide	5.0	2.7
Lead	0.6	0.4
Cadmium	1.2	0.7
TTO	4.57
(B) CONCENTRATION-BASED PSES FOR FACILITIES IN SUBCATEGORY B
THAT DISCHARGE 36,060 LITERS OR MORE PER DAY
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (mg/1)
Average of Daily Values
for Four Consecutive
Monitoring Days (mg/1)
Silver
1.2
0.7
Total Cyanide
1.9
1.0
Copper
4.5
2.7
Nickel
4.1
2.6
Chromium
7.0
4.0
Zinc
4.2
2.6
Lead
0.6
0.4
Cadmium
1.2
0.7
Total Metals
10.5
6.8
TTO
2.13
--
-6-
-------
ELECTROPLATING (cont.)
(C) MASS-BASED PSES FOR FACILITIES IN SUBCATEGORY B
THAT DISCHARGE 36.QM L11 ers OR more per pay
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (mg/sq
m-operation)
Average of Daily Values for
Four Consecutive Monitoring
Days (mg/sq m-operation)
Si 1 ver
47
29
Total Cyanide
74
39
Copper
176
105
Nickel
160
100
Chromium
273
156
Zinc
164
102
Lead
23
16
Cadmi um
47
29
Total Metals
410
267
TTO
2.13 mg/1
--
The above mass-based standards are equivalent to and may be applied in
place of the limits specified in part (B) of this section upon prior agreement
between an industry and the POTW that receives the regulated waste.
For wastewater sources regulated under part (B) of this section, firms
may choose the following optional control program with the concurrence of the
control authority.
(D) OPTIONAL CONTROL CONCENTRATION-BASED PSES FOR FACILITIES
IN SUBCATEGORY B THAT DISCHARGE 38,000 LITLKS OR MURE PER DAY
Average of Daily Values
Pollutant or	Maximum for Any for Four Consecutive
Pollutant Property One Day (mg/1) Monitoring Days (mg/1)
Total Cyanide
1.9
1.0
Lead
0.6
0.4
Cadmium
1.2
0.7
TSS
20.0
13.4
PH
7.5 to 10.0
7.5 to 10.0
TTO
2.13
--
Integrated facilities are defined as facilities that meet the following
criteria:
(a) Electroplating is performed as one of several of the facility's
manufacturing operations at a single location.
-7-
-------
ELECTROPLATING (cont.)
(b)	The facility has significant quantities of process wastewater from
non-electroplating operations.
(c)	One or more electroplating process wastewater lines must be combined
prior to or at the point of treatment with one or more lines that
carry non-electroplating wastewater.
The categorical standards of the regulated wastestreams that are applied
to the CWF must be consistent in terms of the number of samples on which the
standards are based. Electroplating wastestreams are regulated by a 4-day
average standard and are not consistent with other categorical standards that
apply a maximum monthly average (based on 10 sample days). According to 40
CFR Part 413.04, if a non-electroplating wastestream is regulated by a monthly
average standard and is combined with an. electroplating wastestream, monthly
standards rather than 4-day average standards are to be used in calculating an
alternative limit with the CWF. Also, if two electroplating wastestreams
regulated under different subcategories of the electroplating regulations are
combined, the 4-day limits may be used to calculate the alternate limits,
unless an additional wastestream subject to monthly standards is added. The
following equivalent monthly averages (based on 10 sample days per month) have
been developed for use in the CWF:
Pollutant
Equivalent Monthly
Average (mg/1)
Cadmium (T)
Chromium (T)
0.63
3.56
2.44
0.37
2.38
2.37
0.63
6.26
2.37
0.87
Copper (T)
Lead (T)
Nickel (T)
Zinc (T)
Silver (T)
Total Metals
Cyanide, A
Cyanide (T)
-8-
-------
C/H-36/#9
(Revised 9/5/85)
40 CFR PART 433
METAL FINISHING
CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
This summary provides industries in the Metal Finishing category and
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) with the information necessary to
determine compliance with standards for this industrial category. The Metal
Finishing standards were established by the Environmental Protection Agency in
Part 433 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 433). This
summary is not intended to substitute for the regulations published in the
Code of Federal Regulations or the Federal Register. For specific informa-
tion, refer to the Federal Register citations given below.
Type of Rule
Proposed Rule
Final Rule
Amendment
Amendment
Effective Date
Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR)
Due Date
Compliance Dates:
Date
August 31, 1982
July 15, 1983
September 15, 1983
September 26, 1983
August 29, 1983
February 25, 1984
Federal Register
Citation
Vol.	47,	p.	38462
Vol.	48, p.	32462
Vol.	48,	p.	41409
Vol.	48, p.	43680
-	Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) for the interim
level of Total Toxic Organics (TTO): June 30, 1984 (July 10, 1985, for
plants also subject to the Iron and Steel categorical standards in 40
CFR 420)*
-	Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) for all Pollutants,
including Metals, Cyanide, and the more stringent level of TTO:
February 15, 1986
-	Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS): From commencement of
di scharge
SUBCATEGORIES
There are no subcategories. Limits are concentration-based and can be
applied to all metal finishing process discharges.
REGULATED PROCESSES
The Metal Finishing standards apply to firms that are engaged in electro-
plating, electroless plating, anodizing, coating, chemical etching, or printed
circuit board manufacturing. If a firm performs any of these operations, then
its discharges from the following 40 unit processes are also regulated by the
Metal Finishing standards.
*This interim limit on TTO of 4.57 mg/1 has been established based on manage-
ment practices only, prior to the installation of pretreatment equipment or
changes in pretreatment facilities.
-------
METAL FINISHING (cont.)
1.
Cleaning
21.
Laser Beam Machining
2.
Machining
22.
Plasma Arc Machining
3.
Grinding
23.
Ultrasonic Machining
4.
Polishing
24.
Sintering
5.
Tumbling
25.
Laminating
6.
Burnishing
26.
Hot.Dip Coating
7.
Impact Deformation
27.
Sputtering
8.
Pressure Deformation
28.
Vapor Plating
9.
Shearing
29.
Thermal Infusion
10.
Heat Treating
30.
Salt Bath Descaling
11.
Thermal Cutting
31.
Solvent Degreasing
12.
Welding
32.
Paint Stripping
13.
Brazing
33.
Painting
14.
Soldering
34.
Electrostatic Painting
15.
Flame Spraying
35.
Electropainting
16.
Sand Blasting
36.
Vacuum Metalizing
17.
Other Abrasive Jet Machining
37.
Assembly
18.
Electric Discharge Machining
38.
Calibration
19.
Electrochemical Machining
39.
Testing
20.
Electron Beam Machining
40.
Mechanical Plating
The Metal Finishing PSES apply in addition to the standards for firms
regulated under the Electroplating category, except for job shop electro-
platers and independent'printed circuit board manufacturers. These two sub-
categories will continue to be regulated by existing PSES for Electroplating
but are exempt from Metal Finishing PSES. Also exempt from the Metal
Finishing standards are metallic platemaking and gravure cylinder preparation
conducted at printing and publishing facilities. The Metal Finishing PSNS
apply to all new sources regulated under the Metal Finishing and Electro-
plating categories.
In some cases, another categorical standard may cover discharges from a
metal finishing operation. If so, the more specific standard will apply to
the wastestream. For example, if a firm performs two operations, coating in
preparation for painting and electroless plating in preparation for porcelain
enameling, the Metal Finishing standards would apply to discharges from the
coating process, while the porcelain enameling standard would apply to dis-
charges from the second operation. When such overlaps occur, the following
standards will supersede the Metal Finishing standards:
•	Nonferrous Metal Smelting and Refining (40 CFR Part 421)
•	Coil Coating (40 CFR Part 465)
•	Porcelain Enameling (40 CFR Part 466)
•	Battery Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 461)
•	Iron and Steel (40 CFR Part 420)
•	Metal Molding and Casting (Foundries) (40 CFR Part 464)*
•	Aluminum Forming (40 CFR Part 467)
•	Copper Forming (40 CFR Part 468)
•	Plastic Molding and Forming (40 CFR Part 463)
*Not yet promulgated
-2-
-------
METAL FINISHING (cont.)
REGULATED POLLUTANTS
The pollutants regulated under the Metal Finishing standards are cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, zinc, cyanide, and total toxic
organics (TTO). For this category, TTO is defined in 40 CFR 433.11(e) as "the
summation of all quantifiable values greater than 0.01 milligrams per liter
for the following toxic organics":
acenaphthene
acrolein
acrylonitrile
benzene
benzidine
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1.1.1-trichloroethane
hexachloroethane
1.1-dichloroethane
1.1.2-trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-tetrach.l oroethane
chloroethane
bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
2-chloronaphthalene
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
parachlorometa cresol
chloroform (trichloromethane)
2-chlorophenol
1.2-dichlorobenzene
1.3-dichlorobenzene
1.4-dichlorobenzene
3.3-dichlorobenzidine
1.1-dichloroethylene
1.2-trans-dichloroethylene
2.4-dichlorophenol
1,2-dichloropropane
1,2-dichloropropyl ene
(1,3-dichl oropropene)
2,4-dimethylphenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-di phenylhydrazi ne
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
bis (2-chlorisopropyl) ether
bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
methylene chloride
(dichloromethane)
methyl chloride (chloromethane)
methyl bromide (bromomethane)
bromoform (tribromomethane)
dichlorobromomethane
chlorodibromomethane
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadi ene
i sophorone
naphthalene
nitrobenzene
nitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
pentachlorophenol
phenol
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
benzo (a) anthracene
(1,2-benzanthracene)
benzo (a) pyrene
(3,4-benzopyrene)
3,4-benzofluoranthene
benzo (k) fluoranthane
(11, 12-benzofluoranthene)
chrysene
acenaphthylene
-3-
-------
METAL FINISHING (cont.)
(2,3-o-phenyl enepyrene)
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
to!uene
trichloroethylene
vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane (technical mixture A
metabolites)
4, 4'-DDT
4, 4'-DDE (p, p'-DDX)
4, 41-DDD (p, p'-TDE)
anthracene
benzo (ghi) perylene
(1, 12-benzoperylene)
fluorene
phenanthrene
dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
(1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene)
indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
A1pha-endosulfan
Beta-endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Gamma-BHC (lindane)
Delta-BHC
PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
toxaphene
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (TCDD)
Dischargers may be exempt from conducting routine monitoring for TTO if
they certify that toxic organics are not used in the facility or are con-
trolled through a toxic organics management plan. The certification statement
that should be used is found in 40 CFR 433.12(a). If an exemption is granted,
the discharger must submit a toxic organics management plan that specifies the
toxic organic compounds used, disposal method, and spi11-prevention measures.
Dischargers must still conduct TTO monitoring for the BMR and the ninety-day
final compliance report.
Total Metals is defined as the sum of the concentration or mass of
copper, nickel, chromium (total), and zinc.
If monitoring is necessary to measure compliance with the TTO standard,
the industrial discharger may be allowed to analyze only for those pollutants
that would reasonably be expected to be present in the discharge.
Cyanide monitoring must take place after cyanide treatment and before
dilution with other wastestreams unless an adjustment is made to account for
the dilution ratio of the cyanide wastestream flow to the effluent flow.
Also, if an agreement is made between the discharger and the Control Author-
ity, the amenable cyanide (Cyanide A) limit may apply instead of the total
cyanide (Cyanide T) limit.
SIC CODES AFFECTED
EPA has not yet identified specific SIC codes that will be affected by
the Metal Finishing standards. However, if a plant discharges wastewater from
one of the processes listed above, the standards apply except as indicated on
page 2 of this summary. If there are any questions, contact EPA or the
Control Authority.
-4-
-------
METAL FINISHING (cont.)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
Pollutant or Maximum for Any Monthly Average
Pollutant Property One Day (mg/1) Shall Not Exceed
Cadmium
0.69
0.26
Chromi urn
2.77
1.71
Copper
3.38
2.07
Lead
0.69
0.43
Nickel
3.98
2.38
Si 1ver
0.43
0.24
Zinc
2.61
1.48
Cyanide, T
1.20
0.65
Cyanide, A
0.86
0.32
TTO*
2.13
--
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
Pollutant or Maximum for Any Monthly Average
Pollutant Property One Day (mg/1) Shall Not Exceed
Cadmium
0.11
0.07
Chromium
2.77
1.71
Copper
3.38
2.07
Lead
0.69
0.43
Nickel
3.98
2.38
Silver
0.43
0.24
Zinc
2.61
1.48
Cyanide, T
1.20
0.65
Cyanide, A
0.86
0.32
TTO
2.13
—
*The interim TTO limit for existing sources is 4.57 mg/1, which is in effect
from June 30, 1984, until February 14, 1986. On February 15, 1986, the final
TTO limit of 2.13 mg/1 becomes effective.
-5-
-------
|524
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF METAL
FINISHERS, Electroplaters of York,
Inc. and Pioneer Metal Finishing, Inc.,
Petitioners,
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, Respondent
The INSTITUTE FOR INTERCONNECT-
ING AND PACKAGING ELECTRONIC
CIRCUITS, Petitioner,
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, Respondent.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
INC., Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY and Douglas
M. Costle, Administrator, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Re-
spondents,
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., Intervenor.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF METAL
FINISHERS and Institute for Intercon-
necting and Packaging Electronic Cir-
cuits, Petitioners,
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, Respondent.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY and Walter
Barber, Acting Administrator, United
States Environmental Protection Agen-
cy, Respondents,
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., Intervenor.
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL, INC., Petitioner,
v.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, Douglas M. Costle, Adminis-
trator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Respondents,
Chemical Manufacturers Association,
American Cyanamid Company, FMC
Corporation, Union Carbide Corpora-
tion, Interveners.
UNITED STATES BREWERS
ASSOCIATION, Petitioner,
v.
ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, and Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Respondents,
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., Intervenor.
MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCI-
ATION, American Paper Institute, Na-
tional Forest Products Association, Na-
tional Paint and Coatings Association,
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufac-
turers Association, Air Products and
Chemicals, Inc., American Cyanamid
Company, FMC Corporation, Hercules
Incorporated, Shell Oil Company, and
Union Carbide Corporation, Petitioners,
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, Respondent,
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., Intervenor.
ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE AGENCIES, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent,
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., Intervenor.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF METAL
FINISHERS, Petitioner,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, Respondent,
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., Intervenor.
CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSO-
CIATION, American Cyanamid Compa-
NATIONAL ASS'N OF METAL FINISHERS v. E.P.A.
Cite as 719 F.2d 624 (1983)
625
ny, FMC Corporation, Union Carbide
Corporation, Petitioners,
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, Respondent,
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., Intervenor.
AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE and
National Forest Products
Association, Petitioners,
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, Respondent,
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., Intervenor.
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL, INC., Petitioner,
v.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, Respondent,
Chemical Manufacturers Association,
American Cyanamid Company, FMC
Corporation, Union Carbide Corpora-
tion, Intervenore.
METAL FINISHING ASSOCIATION OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Petitioner,
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, Respondent
INTERLAKE, INC., Republic Steel
Corporation and United States
Steel Corporation, Petitioners,
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., Intervenor,
American Iron & Steel Institute, Rouge
Steel Co., Intervenore.
CHICAGO ASSOCIATION OF COM-
MERCE AND INDUSTRY, Illinois Man-
ufacturers' Association, and Mid-Ameri-
can Legal Foundation, Petitioners,
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent,
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., Intervenor.
Nos. 79-2256, 79-2443, 80-1008, 81-1210,
81-1279, 81-1351, 81-1712, 81-1977 to 81-
1979, 81-1981 to 81-1985, 81-2119, 81-
2150 and 81-2151.
United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.
Argued June 20, 1983.
Decided Sept. 20, 1983.
As Amended Oct. 5, 1983.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 24, 1983.
Petitions were filed for review of Clean
Water Act general pretreatment regula-
tions of indirect dischargers and of the cate-
gorical pretreatment standards for the elec-
troplating point source category. The
Court of Appeals, James Hunter, III, Cir-
cuit Judge, held that: (1) general standards
failed to include a causation requirement;
(2) "new source" definition was invalid; (3)
fundamentally different factor variances
for toxic pollutant discharges are forbidden;
(4) removal credits provision is not unwork-
able; (5) combined waste stream formula is
not invalid; (6) the process-by-process ap-
proach, rather than a whole plant concept,
did not lack a rational basis; (7) at some
point the agency must consider effluent
reduction attainable by pretreatment of
combined waste streams and cost of that
reduction; (8) methodology of categorical
standards were not infirm; (9) BPT cost-
benefit analysis must be conducted on a
marginal basis; and (10) it could not be said
that net costs of plant closing and job losses
were wholly out of proportion to net ef-
fluent reduction benefits.
Petitions granted in part and denied in
part, and remand ordered.
See also, 718 F.2d 55.
Gibbons, Circuit Judge, filed statement.
1. Administrative Law and Procedure
763
The arbitrary, capricious and abuse of
discretion or otherwise not in accordance
-------
626
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
with law standard of judicial review of
agency action sets the level of deference by
which a court must review agency's action
for statutory authority, substantive validity
and procedural regularity. 5 U.S.C.A.
§ 706(2XA).
2.	Statutes 749
A party petitioning for review of agen-
cy regulations bears burden of overcoming
presumption of regularity. 5 U.S.C.A.
§ 706.
7.	Administrative Law and Procedure
<8=669
If after adequate notice and opportuni-
ty to comment a |)etitioner claims on appeal
that an agency overlooked technical, factual
and policy issues not raised in comments
before the agency, that petitioner will have
less latitude in its complaints or, in special
circumstances, will be barred altogether. 5
U.S.C A. § 706.
8.	Health and Environment <8=25.7(12)
Where Clean Water Act general pre-
treatment regulations for indirect dischar-
gers did not require causation to establish
liability for a violation, the reviewing court
could not rewrite that definition to insert
words "lead to" or "give rise to" the inhibi-
tion or disruption of a publicly owned treat-
ment work. Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act Amendments of 1972,
§ 307(b), (b)(1), 33 U.S.C.A. § 1317(b), (b)(1).
9.	Health and Environment <^=>25.7(12)
Reviewing court would not rely on En-
vironment Protection Agency to construe
definition of word "interference", in gener-
al pretreatment regulations for indirect dis-
chargers, to include causation element
where Administrator was not the only
plaintiff who could institute enforcement
actions under Clean Water Act. Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, § 307(b), (bXl), 33 U.S.C.A.
§ 1317(b), (b)(1).
10.	Health and Environment <8=25.7(23)
An indirect discharger cannot be held
liable under prohibited discharge standard
of pretreatment regulations promulgated
under Clean Water Act unless it is because
of a publicly owned treatment work's per-
mit violation or sludge problem, and causa-
tion requirement is satisfied if an indirect
discharge is both the cause of and signifi-
cantly contributes to the POTW's permit
violation. Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, § 307(b), (b)(1), 33
U.S.C.A. § 1317(b), (b)(1).
11.	Health and Environment ®=25.15(5)
Court would not review definition of
"pass through" in general pretreatment
regulations promulgated under Clean
NATIONAL ASS'N OF METAL FINISHERS v. E.P.A.
Clle as 719 F.2d 624 (1983)
627
Water Act before the definition had been
submitted for public comment. Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, § 307(b), (bXl), 33 U.S.C.A.
§ 1317(b), (b)(1).
12.	Health and Environment <3=25.7(12)
Definition of "new source", in Clean
Water Act general pretreatment regula-
tions for indirect dischargers, as excluding
those sources whose construction began af-
ter publication but before promulgation of
proposed standard in case new source pre-
treatment standard was not promulgated
within 120 days of publication was invalid.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, §§ 306(aX2),
(bXIXB), 307(b), (bXl), (c), 33 U.S.C.A.
§§ 1316(8X2), (bXIXB), 1317(b), (b)(1), (c).
13.	Health and Environment ®=25.7(10)
Since under Clean Water Act pretreat-
ment standards for indirect dischargers ap-
ply to categories of sources, the Administra-
tor of Environmental Protection Agency is
not required under the du Pont decision,
which gave approval for granting funda-
mentally different factor variances to direct
dischargers, to make any provision for vari-
ances from pretreatment standards. Feder-
al Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972, § 307(b), 33 U.S.C A.
§ 1317(b).
14.	Health and Environment <®= 25.15(5)
Where Administrator of Environmental
Protection Agency had not issued pretreat-
ment standards for nontoxic pollutants,
question of his inherent authority under
Clean Water Act to issue fundamentally
different factor variances from pretreat-
ment standards for nontoxic pollutants was
not ripe for review in connection with chal-
lenge to his authority to issue such varianc-
es in connection with toxic pollutants. Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972, §§ 301, 307, 33 U.S.C.A.
§§ 1311, 1317.
15.	Health and Environment <3=25.7(10)
Adoption of a fundamentally different
factor variance, i.e., a variance from a cate-
gorical pretreatment standard for an exist-
ing indirect discharger if in establishing the
categorical standard the Administrator of
Environmental Protection Agency has con-
sidered factors fundamentally different
from 'the factors relating to that source, is
in violation of Clean Water Act as applied
to toxic discharges and variance falls within
subsection providing that Administrator
may not "modify" any requirement as to
toxic pollutants. Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, §§ 301(c,
g, /), 307(b), 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 1311(c, g, /),
1317(b).
16.	Statutes ®=195
Maxim expressio unius est exclusio al-
terius cannot be relied on in face of per-
suasive evidence of a contrary legislative
intent.
17.	Health and Environment <8=25.7(10)
Under Clean Water Act, a publicly
owned treatment work may be required to
have an approved pretreatment program
l>efore it may grant removal credits to an
indirect discharger of a pollutant, i.e., may
revise an indirect discharger's numerical
discharge limit for a pollutant, as set in its
categorical pretreatment standard, to re-
flect the work's removal of that pollutant,
and such requirement may be adopted by
way of regulation rather than litigation.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, §§ 101(d), 307(bXl),
402(aX3), (b), (l>X8), 501(a), 33 U.S.C.A.
§§ 1251(d), 1317(b)(1), 1342(a)(3), (b), (bX8),
1361(a).
18.	Statutes 
-------
628
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
indirect discharger was no longer attaining
its predicted removal, and fact that indirect
dischargers might not be able to rely on
their removal-revised limitations and be
forced to install just as much control tech-
nology as if there were no removal at all is
merely a recognition of a treatment work's
failure to remove the pollutant and such
provision prevents granting of removal
credits for toxic pollutants which treatment
works merely discharge into navigable
waters. Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, § 307(b), (b)(1),
33 U.S.C.A. § 1317(b), (b)(1).
20.	Health and Environment >£=25.7(12)
Requirement of removal credit provi-
sion of Clean Water Act regulations gov-
erning pretreatment by indirect dischar-
gers, that a publicly owned treatment work
unable to prevent toxic overflows must re-
duce amount of removal claimed in propor-
tion to number of hours of overflow does
not render the credit unworkable on ground
that treatment works will be unable to
make fair engineering estimates of over-
flow hours as regulation merely implements
statutory requirement that credits be
granted only for pollutants actually re-
moved by a public work. Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
§ 307(b), (b)(1), 33 U S.C.A. § 1317(b),
(bXU-
21.	Health and Environment 25.7(12)
Absent some indication that in passing
the Clean Water Act Congress intended to
regulate whole plants and not operations or
processes by industrial category as regards
indirect discharges of pollutants, reviewing
court would defer to agency's process-by-
process approach and fact that each time an
unregulated contributing stream became
regulated, application of the combined
waste stream formula would change the
combined alternative discharge limit, i.e.,
present a "moving target", did not render
the choice arbitrary, capricious or abuse of
discretion. Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act Amendments of 1972, § 307(b),
(bXl), 33 U.S.C.A. § 1317(b), (b)(1).
22.	Health and Environment <3=25.7(12)
In setting Clean Water Act pretreat-
ment standards using best available tech-
nology economically achievable, best practi-
cable control technology currently available
or best available demonstrated control tech-
nology, the Administrator of Environmen-
tal Protection Agency must consider those
statutorily relevant factors for waste
streams he regulates, whether they are seg-
regated or combined and, at some point,
Administrator must consider the effluent
reduction attainable by pretreatment of
combined waste streams of indirect dischar-
gers and the cost of attaining that reduc-
tion. Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, §§ 306(a, b), 307(b),
(1.X1), 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 1316(a, b), 1317(b),
(t»)(l)-
23.	Health and Environment @=>25.15(5)
Issues as to attainability and cost of
combined pretreatment of combined waste
streams of indirect dischargers was not ripe
for review in Clean Water Act suit as to
whether agency had pro[>erly considered at-
tainable effluent reduction and attainment
cost of combined waste stream's alternative
discharge limit until that limit had been
generated by challenged formula and the
formula could not generate an alternative
limit until categorical standard setting nu-
merical discharge limits for one or more of
the process waste streams contributing to
the combining stream were promulgated
and, also, petitioners would not suffer hard-
ship if review were delayed. Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, §§ 307(h)(1), 509(b)(lXC), 33 U.S.
C.A. §§ 1317(bXl), 1369(b)(lXC).
24.	Health and Environment <3=25.7(12)
Promulgating Clean Water Act formu-
la requiring pretreatment of as-yet-unregu-
lated waste stream of an indirect discharger
does not violate requirements of rule mak-
ing as an industry combining regulated and
unregulated waste stream has option of
segregating and providing separate pre-
treatment of regulated and unregulated
streams; however, agency was to consider
costs of such segregation in setting categor-
ical standard for the regulated stream.
NATIONAL ASS'N OF METAL FINISHERS v. E.P.A.
Cite as 719 F.2d 624 (1983)
629
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, § 307(b), (b)(1), 33
U.S.C.A. § 1317(b), (bXl).
25.	Health and Environment «=>25.7(12)
Although definitions of "interference"
and "pass through" in general regulations
governing pretreatment of waste water by
indirect industrial dischargers were invalid
under Clean Water Act then validity did
not undermine the categorical pretreatment
regulations as the definitions played no part
in either setting or administration of the
latter. Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, § 307(b), (bXl),
33 U.S.C.A. § 1317(b), (b)(1).
26.	Health and Environment «=>25.7(12)
Unless the present practices of all
sources within the industrial category of
point source discharges are uniformly inad-
equate, the average of the best is a measure
of the best practicable control technology
currently available for effluent reduction
for purpose of Clean Water Act. Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, §§ 301(bXlXA), 304
-------
630
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
32. Health and Environment <£=>25.7(12)
It is only at the best available technolo-
gy economically achievable stage that the
Clean Water Act requires that pollution
standards be economically achievable and at
that stage those dischargers remaining af-
ter compliance with the best practicable
control technology currently available need
only commit the maximum resources eco-
nomically possible and if the BPT standard
is not within the economic capability of a
discharger making sufficient progress, he
need make only such efforts as are economi-
cally achievable for him. Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
§§ 301(b)(2XA), (c), 304(b)(1), (bXl)(B), 33
U.S.C.A. §§ 1311(b)(2)(A), (c), 1314(bXl),
(bXIXB).
33.	Health and Environment <£= 25.7(10)
It is inconsistent to require that best
practicable control technology currently
available regulations under Clean Water
Act be economically achievable for even a
major proportion of an industrial category
and closing of a not insignificant number of
enterprises and loss of substantial number
of jobs will not invalidate pretreatment
regulations for individual dischargers unless
the agency has failed to consider those costs
in relation to effluent reduction benefits or
has improperly concluded that the benefits
are worth the costs. Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments of 1972,
§§ 304(bXl), 306, 307, 33 U.S.C.A. §§
1314(bXl), 1316, 1317.
34.	Health and Environment <®=>25.7(12)
Under Clean Water Act, the Adminis-
trator of Environmental Protection Agency
has considerable discretion in weighing
costs and benefits of BPT pretreatment
standards for electroplating industry. Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972, § 307(b), (bXD, 33 U.S.C.A.
§ 1317(b), (b)(1).
35.	Health and Environment <^=25.7(12)
Record established that Administrator
of Environmental Protection Agency per-
formed required cost-benefit analysis in
adopting the best practicable control tech-
nology currently available electroplating
standards for pretreatment discharges by
indirect sources and concluded that benefit,
i.e., effluent reduction of 140 million pounds
of toxic pollutants per year, were worth the
costs, namely $1.34 billion plus $425 million
annually, resulting in closing of 737 elec-
troplating operations and loss of 12,584
jobs. Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, § 307(b), (bXl), 33
U.S.C.A. § 1317(b), (b)(1).
36.	Health and Environment <8=25.7(10)
To perform its limiting function and to
preserve any role for best available technol-
ogy economically achievable standards in
statutory scheme of Clean Water Act, the
best practicable control technology current-
ly available costs-benefit analysis must be
conducted on a marginal basis and Adminis-
trator of Environmental Protection Agency
on his own must undertake a sufficient
marginal analysis to indicate that marginal
cost is not wholly out of proportion to the
marginal effluent reduction benefit. Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972, § 304(b)(1), 33 U.S.C.A.
§ 1314(b)(1).
37.	Health and Environment enefit analysis in setting cate-
gorical electroplating industry pretreat-
ment standards under the best practicable
control technology currently available, in
that Administrator lifted many require-
ments from electroplaters with flow rates
less than 10,000 gallons per day by balanc-
ing marginal economic impact against ef-
fluent reduction benefits and eliminated
hexavalent chromium limits because it re-
duced cost of the standards without signifi-
cant environmental effect. Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
§ 304(b)(1), 33 U.S.C.A. § 1314(bXl).
38. Health and Environment ®=25.7(12)
There was no showing of hidden imba-
lance between marginal costs and benefits
in Clean Water Act categorical pretreat-
ment standards for electroplating industry,
on ground that rinse waters comprised 90%
NATIONAL ASS'N OF METAL FINISHERS v. E.P.A.
Cite as 719 T.M 624 (1983)
631
of volume of process waste stream and that
remaining waste waters, which contained
higher concentrations of pollutants, could
be pretreated in smaller facilities at half
the cost where there was no calculation of
effluent reduction benefit lost by permit-
ting rinse water to go without treatment.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, § 304(bXl), 33 U.S.
C.A. § 1314(bXl).
39. Health and Environment «=>25.7(12)
Fact that unsuccessful agency efforts
to indefinitely postpone effective date of
combined waste stream formula for inte-
grated electroplaters left electroplaters
with only 21 months in which to achieve
compliance with the categorical standards
did not render three-year deadline set in the
standards arbitrary and capricious, and
since reviewing court, which found that in-
definite postponement of formula was im-
proper and ordered reinstatement, left to
the agency any postponement of the effec-
tive date via proper procedure the proper
procedure for electroplater which unsuc-
cessfully petitioned the agency to suspend
the formula's effective date was to petition
for review of denial of that petition and not
to raise the issue in other proceedings chal-
lenging validity of the standards. Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, §§ 307, 509(bXlXC), 33 U.S.C.A.
§§ 1317, 1369(bXlXC).
Theodore Garrett (argued), Constance J.
Chatwood, Corinne A. Goldstein, Covington
& Burling, Washington, D.C., for National
Ass'n of Metal Finishers, The Institute for
Interconnecting and Packaging Electronic
Circuits, and Chemical Manufacturers
Ass'n.
John M. Cannon (argued), Susan W. Wa-
nat, Mid-American Legal Foundation, Chi-
cago, 111., for Chicago Ass'n of Commerce
and Industry.
Robert J. Saner, II (argued), Lee C.
White, White, Fine & Verville, Washington,
DC., for Ass'n of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies.
Turner T. Smith (argued), E. Milton Far-
ley, III, William B. Ellis, Manning Gasch,
Jr, Hunton & Williams, Richmond, Va., for
Ford Motor Company and Rouge Steel.
Norman W. Bernstein (argued), Douglas
E. Cutler, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn,
Mich., for Ford Motor Company.
Louis E. Tosi (argued), William L. Pat-
berg, Fuller & Henry, Toledo, Ohio, for
General Motors.
James T. Harrington (argued), Dixie L.
Laswell, Edward P. Kenney, Rooks, Pitta,
Fullagar & Poust, Chicago, III., for Inter-
lake, Inc., Republic Steel Corp., U.S. Steel
Corp. and American Iron & Steel Institute.
R. Stuart Broom (argued), James W. Rid-
dell, Dawson, Riddell, Fox, Holroyd, Wilson
& Jackson, Washington, D.C., for U.S.
Brewers Ass'n.
Alan S. Miller (argued), J. Taylor Banks,
Frances Dubrowski, Washington, D.C., for
NRDC.
Michael K. Glenn, Gary R. Feulner, Chad-
bourne, Parke, Whiteside & Wolff, Wash-
ington, D.C., for American Paper Institute
and The National Forest Products Ass'n.
Donald T. Bliss, David T. Beddow, O'Mel-
veny & Myers, Washington, D.C., and Mark
R. Steinberg, O'Melveny & Myers, Los An-
geles, Cal., for Metal Finishing Ass'n of
Southern California.
Barry S. Neuman (argued), Michael
Steinberg (argued), George E. Henderson,
Lee R. Tyner, Carol E. Dinkins, Asst. Atty.
Gen., Jose R. Allen, Acting Chief, Environ-
mental Defense Section, Lloyd S. Guerci,
Joan Z. Bernstein, Anthony Z. Roisman,
Ellen Maldonado, James W. Moorman, Don-
ald W. Stever, Michael W. Stein, U.S. Dept.
of Justice, Michael Dworkin (argued), Mi-
chael Murchison, Ellen Siegler, Daniel J.
Berry, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., for EPA; Of Counsel:
Robert M. Perry, Associate Administrator
and Gen. Counsel, Susan G. Lepow, Asst.
Gen. Counsel Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., of counsel.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 BACKGROUND
A. The Statute
B The Regulations
1 The General Pretreatment Regulations
2, The Categorical Electroplating Standards
-------
632
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
BACKGROUND—Continued
C.	The Consolidated Cases
D.	The Standard of Review
THE GENERAL PRETREATMENT
REGULATION
A The Definitions of "Interference" and "Pass
Through"
1	Interference
2	Pass Through
B Definition of "New Source"
C The Fundamentally Different Factor Vari-
ance
1.	Variances from Pretreatment Standards
2 Variances for Toxic Pollutants
D.	The Removal Credits Provision
1	EPA Approval and Authorization
2	Unworkability
E.	The Combined Wastestream Formula
1 Process Categories
2.	Moving Target
3	Attainability and Cost of Combined Pre-
treatment
THE CATEGORICAL ELECTROPLATING
STANDARDS
A Methodology of the Standards
1.	The Regression Analysis
2.	Lead and Cadmium
B The Cost to Segregated Facilities
1	The NAMF Settlement Agreement
2	The Cost-Benefit Analysis
C The Compliance Deadline for Integrated Fa-
cilities
IV. CONCLUSION
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
AISI	American Iron and Steel Institute
BAT	Best Available Technology Economical-
ly Achievable
BDT	Best Available Demonstrated Control
Technology
BPT	Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available
CACI	Chicago Association of Commerce and
Industry
CMA	Chemical Manufacturing Association
EPA	Environmental Protection Agency
FDF	Fundamentally Different Factor
III.
1.	33 U.S.C. § 1317(b), (c) (1976 & Supp. I
1977).
2.	43 Fed.Reg. 27,736 (1978), as amended, 46
Fed.Reg 9404 (1981) (codified at 40 CF.R.
§§ 403.I.-I6 (1982))
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS—Continued
GM	General Motors Corp.
IIPEC	Institute for Interconnecting and Pack-
aging Electronic Circuits
J. App	Joint Appendix
Legis. Hist. Legislative History
Me'	Regulated Metal in Influent
M FASC	Metal Finishing Association of Southern
California
NAMF	National Association of Metal Finishers
NPDES	National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System
NRDC	Natural Resources Defense Council
PM	Precipitablc Metals in Influent
POTW	Publicly Operated Treatment Works
R. Add	Addendum of Respondent
TSS	Total Suspended Solids
TTO	Total Toxic Organics
USBA	United States Brewers Association
Xme	Ratio of Me* to PM
Before: GIBBONS, HUNTER and
BECKER, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
JAMES HUNTER, III, Circuit Judge:
Section 307 of the Clean Water Act1 di-
rects the Administrator of the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency ("EPA") to promul-
gate regulations requiring industrial facili-
ties to pretreat the pollutants that they
discharge into public sewage treatment sys-
tems. The Administrator has promulgated
both general pretreatment regulations 2 and
regulations establishing categorical pre-
treatment standards for existing electrop-
lating sources.3 The petitioners in these
consolidated cases seek review of the Ad-
ministrator's actions in promulgating cer-
tain provisions of those regulations. Under
section 509 of the Clean Water Act4 we
have jurisdiction to exercise a limited re-
view of the Administrator's actions. We
may overturn those actions only if they are
arbitrary, capricious or otherwise contrary
to law.5 Under that standard of review, we
find invalid certain provisions of the gener-
3.	44 Fed.Reg. 52,590 (1979), as amended, 4£>
Fed.Reg 9462 (1981) (codified at 40 C.F R
§§ 413.01.-84 (1982))
4.	33 U S.C. § 1369(b)(1)(C) (1976)
5.	See 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1976).
NATIONAL ASS'N OF METAL FINISHERS v. E.P.A.
Cite as 719 F.2d 624 (1983)
633
8| pretreatment regulations. Because it is
not for 119 rewr'te those provisions, we
wj|| remand them to the Administrator.
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Statute
In 1972 Congress amended the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act ("the Act" or
"the Clean Water Act"),6 setting as a na-
tional goal the elimination, by 1985, of the
discharge of pollutants into navigable
waters, 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1) (1976). To
reach that goal the Act directed the Admin-
istrator of EPA to promulgate regulations
setting limits on the pollution that can be
discharged by three general types of "point
sources," see id. § 1362(14) (1976 & Supp. I
1977).
First, the Administrator was to establish
effluent limitations for point sources which
discharge pollutants directly into navigable
waters ("direct dischargers"). The Admin-
istrator had to define effluent limitations
for categories or classes of point sources
which would require existing direct dischar-
gers to employ by 1977 the best practicable
control technology currently available
("BPT"), id. §§ 1311(bXlXA), 1314(b)(1)
(1976), and to use by 1983-87 the best avail-
able technology economically achievable
("BAT"), id. §§ 1311(bX2) (1976 & Supp. I
1977), 1314(bX2) (1976). For newly-con-
structed direct dischargers the Administra-
tor had until 1974 to establish "new source"
performance standards requiring the appli-
cation of the best available demonstrated
control technology ("BDT"). Id. § 1316.
The Administrator had to set the BPT,
BAT, and BDT limitations by considering
the factors specified in sections 304(b) and
306(b) of the Act, id. §§ 1314(b), 1316(b).
He was to apply those limitations to indi-
vidual direct dischargers through the Na-
tional Ppllutant Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem ("NPDES") permit issued to the dis-
charger under section 402 of the Act, id.
§ 1342 (1976 & Supp. 1 1977).
*• Pub.L. No. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816 (codified as
"mended in sections of 33 U.S C. ch. 26 (1976 &
Second, the Act mandated that the Ad-
ministrator set effluent limitations for pub-
licly owned treatment works ("POTWs")
engaged in the treatment of municipal sew-
age or industrial wastewater. See id.
§ 1292(2) (1976 & Supp. 1 1977). Under the
Act the Administrator had to establish ef-
fluent limitations, based on "secondary
treatment," which POTWs had to meet by
1977. Id. §§ 1311(bXlXB), (C), 1314(dXl)
(1976). The limitations thus established
were to be applied to each individual POTW
through its NPDES permit. Id. § 1342
(1976 & Supp. I 1977).
Third, section 307 of the Act addressed
the "indirect dischargers," point sources
which discharged their pollutants not di-
rectly into navigable waters but into
POTWs. Congress recognized that the pol-
lutants which some indirect dischargers re-
lease into POTWs could interfere with the
operation of the POTWs, or could pass
through the POTWs without adequate
treatment. To prevent such discharges by
existing sources, Congress directed in sec-
tion 307(b)(1) of the Act:
(b)(1) The Administrator shall
publish proposed regulations establishing
pretreatment standards for introduction
of pollutants into [POTWs] for those pol-
lutants which are determined not to be
susceptible for treatment by such treat-
ment works or which would interfere
with the operation of such treatment
works Pretreatment standards un-
der this subsection . . . shall be estab-
lished to prevent the discharge of any
pollutant through [POTWs], which pollu-
tant interferes with, passes through or
otherwise is incompatible with such
works.
33 U.S.C. § 1317(b)(1) (1976); see also id.
§ 1314(g) (Supp. I 1977) The Administra-
tor had to designate the categories of exist-
ing sources to which each such standard
would apply, promulgate the standards by
1973, and revise the standards as control
technologies and industrial processes
Supp. V 1981))
-------
634
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
changed. Id. § 1317(b). For newly-con-
structed indirect dischargers the Act direct-
ed that by 1974 the Administrator had to
promulgate pretreatment standards for
each category of new sources which "shall
prevent the discharge of any pollutant into
such treatment works, which pollutant may
interfere with, pass through, or otherwise
be incompatible with such works." Id.
§ 1317(c). New and existing indirect dis-
chargers did not need to obtain NPDES
permits, but instead had pretreatment stan-
dards imposed directly upon them.
In 1977 Congress amended the Act by
passing the Clean Water Act of 1977,
Pub.L. No. 95-217, 91 Stat. 1566 ("the 1977
Amendments"). Section 54 of the 1977
Amendments added a sentence to section
307(bXl) permitting a POTW to modify the
pretreatment requirement of an existing
indirect discharger if the POTW could suc-
cessfully remove all or part of the toxic
pollutants released by that discharger. Id.
§ 54(a), 91 Stat. 1591 (amending 33 U.S.C.
§ 1317(bXl) (Supp. I 1977)).
B. The Regulations
The Administrator elaborated his regula-
tory approach to indirect dischargers in his
National Pretreatment Strategy, 43 Fed.
Reg. 27,759 (1978), and in the consent de-
cree in NRDC v. Train, 8 Env't Rep.Cas.
(BNA) 2110 (D.D.C.1976), modified sub
now. NRDC v. Costle, 12 Env't Rep.Cas.
(BNA) 1833 (D.D.C.1979), aff'd in part sub
nom. Environmental Defense Fund v. Cos-
tie, 636 F.2d 1229 (D.C.Cir.1980), modified
on remand sub nom. NRDC v. Gorsuch, Nos.
2153-73 et al. (D.D.C. Oct. 26, 1982). The
Administrator announced that he would
promulgate two types of pretreatment stan-
dards.
The first type, "categorical" pretreat-
ment standards, would establish numerical
limits on the discharge, by twenty-one spe-
cific categories of industrial sources, of par-
ticular toxic pollutants which could cause
interference with or pass through POTWs.
43 Fed.Reg. 27,760, 27,771-73 (1978);
NRDC v. Train, 8 Env't Rep.Cas. (BNA) at
2130-36. Categorical pretreatment stan-
dards would be set to require the applica-
tion of similar levels of control technology
as the Act mandated for direct dischargers.
43 Fed.Reg. 27,760-63 (1978); 42 Fed.Reg.
6480 (1977). The Administrator agreed to
promulgate categorical pretreatment stan-
dards "generally analogous to best practica-
ble control technology currently available"
(BPT) for eight industries by May 15, 1977.
NRDC v. Train, 8 Env't Rep.Cas. (BNA) at
2128 D 13. For all twenty-one industrial
categories the Administrator would then
promulgate categorical pretreatment stan-
dards based on BAT for existing sources
and BDT for new sources. 43 Fed.Reg.
27,760 (1978); see NRDC v. Gorsuch;
NRDC v. Train, 8 Env't Rep.Cas. (BNA) at
2123-26.
The second type of pretreatment stan-
dard, the "prohibited discharge" standard,
would not set numerical limits on the dis-
charge of particular pollutants by specified
sources. 43 Fed.Reg. 27,759-60 (1978).
Rather, the prohibited discharge standard
would establish a general prohibition on the
release of any pollutants by any nondomes-
tic source if those pollutants interfere with
or pass through a POTW. Id.
1. The General Pretreatment Regulations
The General Pretreatment Regulations
for Existing and New Sources of Pollution,
40 C.F.R. § 403.1.-16 (1982), serve to imple-
ment the two types of pretreatment stan-
dards. First, the general pretreatment reg-
ulations themselves contain the prohibited
discharge standard generally forbidding in-
terference and pass through, id. § 403.5,
and define the terms "interference" and
"pass through," id. § 403.3(i), (n). Second,
the general pretreatment regulations estab-
lish the mechanisms and procedures govern-
ing the separately promulgated categorical
pretreatment standards. The general regu-
lations define whether a source is a "new
source" under the standards. Id. § 403.-
3(k). The general regulations contain a
mechanism through which the existing in-
dustrial user of a POTW can obtain a vari-
ance from a categorical discharge limit if
the user can show that during the develop-
NATIONAL ASS'N OF METAL FINISHERS v. E.P.A.
Clie « 7!9 F.2d 624 (1983)
635
ment of the standard EPA had considered
"fundamentally different" factors than
those relating to the user's operation ("the
PDF variance provision"). Id. § 403.13.
The regulations set up the procedure by
which a POTW can revise an industrial
user's categorical discharge limit to reflect
the POTW's removal of the user's pollu-
tants ("the removal credit provision"). Id.
§ 403.7. Finally, the regulations provide a
formula to calculate an adjusted categorical
discharge limit where the industrial user
mixes the effluent from the regulated proc-
ess with other wastewaters prior to [ire-
treatment ("the combined wastestream for-
mula"). Id. § 403.6(e).
The Administrator first proposed the
general pretreatment regulations on Febru-
ary 2, 1977 . 42 Fed.Reg. 6476 (1977). He
promulgated the regulations on June 26,
1978. 43 Fed.Reg. 27,736 (1978). On Octo-
ber 29, 1979, the Administrator proposed
amendments to the regulations, 44 Fed.Reg.
62,260 (1979), which he promulgated on Jan-
uary 28,1981, 46 Fed.Reg. 9404 (1981). The
Administrator then attempted to postpone
indefinitely the effective date of first all
and later part of the general pretreatment
regulations. 47 Fed.Reg. 4518 (1982); 46
Fed.Reg. 19,936, 50,502, 50,503 (1981). Af-
ter we declared that indefinite postpone-
ment invalid in NRDC v. EPA, 683 F.2d 752
(3d Cir.1982), the Administrator reinstated
the regulations' effective date of March 30,
1981. 47 Fed.Reg. 42,688 (1982); see 46
Fed.Reg. 11,971 (1981). On October 4, 1982,
We granted the petitioners' unopposed mo-
tion to extend the regulations' effective
date until June 30, 1981. 48 Fed.Reg. 2774
(1983).
2- The Categorical Electroplating Stan-
dards
The categorical pretreatment standards
or the Electroplating Point Source Catego-
J7, 40 C.F.R. §§ 413.01.-84 (1982), are BPT-
eve' Pretreatment standards set pursuant
10 the NRDC v. Train consent decree. 44
^categories are electroplating of com-
°n metals, electroplating of precious metals,
^zing, coatings, chemical etching and mill-
Fed.Reg. 52,592, 52,608 (1978); see 8 Env't
Rep.Cas. (BNA) at 2128 1 13(b). The cate-
gorical electroplating standards cover 7752
existing firms with electroplating opera-
tions, the firms falling in three broad
groups: independent "job shops," firms per-
forming electroplating as their primary line
of business; independent manufacturers of
printed circuit board, and "captive opera-
tions," electroplating sections of firms
which perform electroplating as part of
their manufacture of another product. See
44 Fed.Reg. 52,593 (1979); 43 Fed.Reg.
6561-62 (1978). The electroplating stan-
dards divide those firms into seven subcate-
gories, based on the electroplating process
employed.7 For each subcategory the stan-
dards, inter alia, set numerical limits on the
dischargeable concentrations of cyanide and
several metals (e.g., cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, nickel, and zinc). 40 C.F R.
§§ 413 14.-84 (1982) Electroplating
sources discharging less than 10,000 gallons
[>er day of electroplating process wastewa-
ter have to meet limits for only lead, cadmi-
um and amenable cyanide. Id. "Integrat-
ed" facilities, which combine the process
wastestream from their captive electroplat-
ing o|>erations with other wastewaters prior
to pretreatment, are instructed to adjust
their discharge limits using the combined
wastestream formula. Id. § 413.04; see id.
§ 413.02(h).
The Administrator proposed the categori-
cal electroplating standards on February 14,
1978, 43 Fed.Reg. 6560 (1978), and promul-
gated them on September 7, 1979, 44 Fed.
Reg. 52,590 (1979), corrected, id. at 56,360.
Following promulgation petitioners Nation-
al Association of Metal Finishers and Insti-
tute for Interconnecting and Packaging
Electronic Circuits filed petitions for review
in this court. Nos. 79-2256, 79-2443. On
March 7, 1980, those parties and EPA
reached a settlement agreement ("the
NAMF Settlement Agreement"). Adden-
dum to Respondent's Brief at D-l [herein-
after cited as "R.Add."]. Pursuant to that
agreement the Administrator on July 3,
ing, electroless plating, and printed circuit
board manufacture 40 C F R. §§ 413.10,
20, 40, .50, .60, .70, 80 (1982)
-------
636
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
1980, proposed several amendments to the
1979 electroplating standards. 45 Fed.Reg.
45,322 (1980). In response to the petition
for review of Ford Motor Co., No. 80-1008,
EPA proposed other changes, 45 Fed.Reg.
19,245 (1980). Ford later filed a petition for
reconsideration of the 1979 standards.
J.App. at 2082. On January 28, 1981, the
Administrator denied Ford's petition for re-
consideration, 46 Fed.Reg. 9476 (1981), and
promulgated the amendments to the elec-
troplating standards, id. at 9462, corrected,
id. at 30,625. The deadline for compliance
with the electroplating standards for inte-
grated facilities was set at three years from
the effective date of the combined wastes-
tream formula,8 while non-integrated facili-
ties had a compliance date of May 12, 1982,
46 Fed.Reg. 9462 (1981), later modified to
April 27, 1984, 48 Fed.Reg. 2775 (1983); 46
Fed.Reg. 43,973 (1982)
On August 31, 1982, the Administrator
published the proposed Metal Finishing reg-
ulations, which established BAT pretreat-
ment standards for most of the indirect
dischargers presently covered by the elec-
troplating standards. 47 Fed.Reg. 38,462-
63 (1982). Only existing job shops and
printed circuit board manufacturers would
remain under the electroplating standards,
which would be amended to restrict the
discharge of toxic organic pollutants. Id at
38,464, 38,468. On July 15, 1983, the Ad-
ministrator promulgated the Metal Finish-
ing regulations. 48 Fed.Reg. 32,462 (1983)
(to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 433.10.-17).
C. The Consolidated Cases
As noted above, National Association for
Metal Finishers ("NAMF"), Institute for In-
terconnecting and Packaging Electronic
Circuits ("IIPEC"), and Ford Motor Co.
("Ford") filed petitions for review of the
1979 electroplating standards. Nos. 79-
8. As a result of our decision in NRDC v EPA,
683 F.2d 752 (3d Cir. 1982), and of our order of
October 4, 1982, the effective date of the com-
bined wastestream formula is June 30, 1981
The deadline for compliance by integrated elec-
troplaters is thus June 30, 1984. See 48 Fed
Reg. 2774 (1983).
2256, 79-2443, 80-1008. Ford, NAMF, Gen-
eral Motors Corp. ("GM"), and Metal Fin_
ishing Association of Southern California
("MFASC") petition for review of the 198i
electroplating amendments. Nos. 81-1279
81-1351, 81-1712, 81-2119. Ford also peti-
tions for review of the Administrator's de-
nial of its petitions for review of the Ad-
ministrator's denial of its petition for recon-
sideration of the 1979 electroplating stan-
dards, No. 81-1214. We address that ap-
peal in Ford Motor Co. v. EPA, 718 F.2d 55
(3d Cir. 1983).
Petitioners Natural Resources Defense
Council ("NRDC"), United States Brewers
Association ("USBA"), and Chemical Manu-
facturing Association ("CMA") petition for
review of the 1978 general pretreatment
regulations. Nos. 81-1977, 81—1978, 81-
1979. Petitioners Ford, NAMF, CMA,
NRDC, Interlake, Chicago Association of
Commerce and Industry ("CACI") and oth-
ers seek review of the 1981 general pre-
treatment regulations. Nos. 81-1210, 81-
1981, 81-1982, 81-1983, 81-1984, 81-1985,
81-2150, 81-2151.
Consideration of the cases was necessarily
held pending our resolution in NRDC v.
EPA of the challenge to the Administra-
tor's indefinite postponement of the 1981
general pretreatment amendments. Judge
Becker of this Court then presided over a
series of conferences in which he consolidat-
ed the cases, set a briefing schedule, and, on
October 29, 1982, limited the subjects of
briefing.9
D. The Standard of Review
[1] Under section 10(e) of the Adminis-
trative Procedure Act, we may not invali-
date agency actions unless we find them to
be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discre-
tion, or otherwise not in accordance with
law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2XA) (1976). This
9. Specifically, briefing on the challenges of the
industrial petitioners to the general pretreat-
ment regulations was limited to the removal
credits provision, 40 C F.R. § 403.7 (1982).
combined wastestream formula, id. § 403 6(e).
and the definitions of "interference" and "pass
through," id. § 403 3(0, (n).
NATIONAL ASS'N OF METAL FINISHERS v.
Cite as 719 F.2d 624 (1983)
E.P.A.
637
standard sets the level of deference with
which we must review the agency's actions
for their statutory authority, substantive
validity and procedural regularity. See
Weyerhaeuser Co. f. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011,
1024 (D.C.Cir.1978).
[2] We must extend "great deference to
the interpretation given the statute by the
officers or agency charged with its adminis-
tration." EPA v. National Crushed Stone
Association, 449 U.S. 64, 83, 101 S Ct. 295,
307, 66 L.Ed.2d 268 (1980) (quoting Udall v.
Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16, 85 S.Ct. 792, 801, 13
L.Ed.2d 616 (1965)); American Iron & Steel
Institute v. EPA ("AISI I"), 526 F.2d 1027,
1041-42 (3d Cir.1975), mandate recalled in
part, 560 F.2d 589 (3d Cir.1977), cert, de-
nied, 435 U.S. 914, 98 SCt. 1467, 55 L.Ed.2d
505 (1978). If an act is susceptible to more
than one reasonable interpretation, we
must accept any reasonable interpretation
chosen by the agency. Udall v. Tallman,
380 U.S. 1, 16, 85 S.Ct. 792, 801, 13 L.Ed.2d
616 (1965); see NRDC v. Train, 421 U.S. 60,
75, 95 S.Ct. 1470, 1479, 43 L.Ed.2d 731
(1975). If the agency rejects the reasonable
interpretation of the statute, however, we
must "honor the clear meaning of a statute,
as revealed by its language, purpose and
history." International Brotherhood of
Teamsters v. Daniel, 439 U.S. 551, 556 n. 20,
99 S.Ct. 790, 800 n. 20, 58 L.Ed.2d 808
(1979); see FEC v. Democratic Senatorial
Campaign Committee, 454 U.S. 27, 32, 37,
102 S.Ct. 38, 42—45, 70 L.Ed.2d 23 (1981).
[3] Our inquiry into the substantive ba-
sis for the agency's actions must be search-
ing and careful, but our review is a narrow
one. As the Supreme Court has recently
stated:
The scope of review under the arbi-
trary and capricious standard is narrow
and a court is not to substitute its judg-
ment for that of the agency. Neverthe-
less, the agency must examine the rele-
vant data and articulate a satisfactory
explanation for its action including a "ra-
tional connection between the facts found
and the choice made." Burlington Truck
Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168
[83 S.Ct. 239, 246, 9 L.Ed.2d 207] (1962).
In reviewing that explanatio. ertise. The
reviewing court should not attempt itself
to make up for such deficiencies: "We
may not supply a reasoned basis for the
agency's action that the agency itself has
not given " SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332
U.S. 194, 1% [67 SCt. 1575, 1577, 91
L.Ed. 1995] (1947). We will, however,
"uphold a decision of Jess than ideal clari-
ty if the agency's path may reasonably be
discerned." Bowman Transp. Inc. v. Ar-
kansas-Best Freight Systems, [419 U.S.
at] 286 [95 S.Ct at 442],
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v.
State Farm Mutuul Automobile Insurance
Company,	U.S.	,	, 103
S.Ct. 2856, 2865-66, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983).
[4] Our review of an agency's "observ-
ance of procedure required by law," 5
U.S.C. § 706(2XD) (1976), is more exacting.
NRDC v. EPA, 683 F.2d 752, 760 (3d Cir.
1982); see Weyerhaeuser, 590 F.2d at 1027-
28. Under section 4 of the Administrative
Procedure Act, an agency initiating infor-
mal rulemaking must first publish a general
notice which includes "either the terms or
substance of the proposed rule or a descrip-
tion of the subjects and issues involved." 5
U.S.C. § 553(bX3) (1976). Such notice must
"fairly apprise interested persons" of the
subjects and issues dealt with in the rule
ultimately promulgated. American Iron &
-------
638
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
Steel Inst,. ^ v. EPA ("AISIII"), 568 F.2d
284, 290-93 (3d Cir.1977); see Ethyl Corp. v.
EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 48 (D.C.Cir.1976) (en
banc), cert, denied, 426 U.S. 941, 96 S.Ct.
2663, 49 L.Ed.2d 394 (1976). The agency
must then give interested persons an oppor-
tunity to participate in the rulemaking
through the submission of written com-
ments. 5 U.S.C. § 553(c) (1976). After
considering the relevant comments sub-
mitted, the agency must incorporate in the
promulgated rules "a concise general state-
ment of their basis and purpose." Id. To
ensure meaningful judicial review, the
agency in that statement and in its support-
ing materials must articulate the rational
basis for the choices it has made; however,
as stated above, we "should not reverse an
agency's decision that is not fully articulat-
ed where we can reasonably discern the
basis for the agency's action." AISI I, 526
F.2d at 1047, see AISI II, 568 F.2d at
295-96.
[5-7] Finally, we note that the Adminis-
trator's actions are entitled to a presum[>-
tion of regularity. Citizens to Preserve
Overton Park v. Vo/pe, 401 U.S. 402, 415, 91
S.Ct. 814, 823, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). A
party petitioning for review of an agency's
regulations bears the burden of overcoming
that presumption. Lewes Dairy v. Free-
man, 401 F.2d 308, 316 (3d Cir.1968), cert,
denied, 394 U.S. 929, 89 S.Ct. 1187, 22
L.Ed.2d 455 (1969); accord Environmental
Defense Fund v. Costle, 657 F.2d 275, 283 n.
28 (D.C.Cir.1981). If after adequate notice
and opportunity to comment a petitioner
claims on appeal that the agency overlooked
technical, factual and policy issues not
raised in comments before the agency, that
petitioner will have less latitude in its com-
plaints, Weyerhaeuser, 590 F.2d at 1028 n.
15, or in special circumstances will be
barred altogether, AISI I, 526 F.2d at 1050;
see American Frozen Food Institute v.
Train, 539 F.2d 107, 134 (D.C.Cir.1976).
II. THE GENERAL PRETREATMENT
REGULATIONS
NRDC and all the other petitioners ("in-
dustrial petitioners") raise challenges to
several provisions of the general pretreat-
ment regulations, 40 C.F.R. §§ 403.1-15
(1982). We consider those challenges in the
following order: (A) the definitions of "in.
terference" and "pass through;" (B) the
definition of "new sources;" (C) the FDp
variance provision; (D) the removal credits
provision; and (E) the combined waste-
stream formula.
A. The Definitions of "Interference" and
"Pass Through"
Section 403.3 of the general pretreatment
regulations defines "interference" and
"pass through." 40 C.F.R. § 403.3(i), (n)
(1982). The industrial petitioners in their
joint brief ("joint petitioners") and USBA
contend that the breadth of the definitions
of "interference" and "pass through" vio-
lates the Act because the definitions subject
indirect dischargers to penalties without
consideration of fault, causation or conse-
quences. Joint petitioners argue that the
definitions were improperly promulgated
We will grant the petitions for review in
Nos. 81-1982, 81-1983, 81-1984, 81-2150,
and 81-2151, and will remand the definition
of both "interference" and of "pass
through."
1. Interference
Section 307(b) of the Act directs the Ad-
ministrator to promulgate pretreatment
standards to prevent the discharge of any
pollutant through a POTW which "inter-
feres with, passes through or is otherwise
incompatible with such works." 33 U.S.C.
§ 1317(b)(1) (1976 amended Supp. 1 WO
Under that mandate the Administrator not
only has promulgated the categorical pre-
treatment standards setting numerical lim-
its upon discharges from certain regular'
categories of industrial sources, but has also
established a general prohibition apply111#
to all non-domestic indirect discharger5
whether or not they are subject to categ011"
cal pretreatment standards. See 40 C.F.R-
§ 403.5(a) (1982). That "prohibited dis-
charge" standard contains a general prohi-
bition of the introduction into a POTW o
pollutants that "Pass Through a POTW "r
NATIONAL ASS'N OF METAL FINISHERS v. E.F.A.
Cite as 719 F-2d 624 (1983)
639
Interfere with the operation or perform-
ance of the works." Id. § 403.5(a). The
prohibited discharge standard also specifi-
cally prohibits the introduction into a
pOTW of pollutants that in several speci-
fied ways cause interference.10 Violation of
the prohibited discharge standard is unlaw-
ful and renders the violator liable to suit by
the Administrator, by the State, by the
POTW, or by any adversely affected party.
33 U.S.C. §§ 1317(d), 1319(b), (c), (f),
1342(b)(7), 1365(a) (1976 & Supp. I 1977).
Violations may carry civil penalties of up to
$10,000 per day, and criminal penalties of
up to $25,000 per day and two years in
prison. Id. § 1319(cXl), (d). In addition, if
the violation is likely to recur the POTW is
required to develop and enforce such specif-
ic effluent limits for its users as are neces-
sary to ensure the POTW's future compli-
ance with its NPDES permit. 40 C.F.R.
§ 403.5(c)(2) (1982).
Section 403.3 provides the definition of
"interference" as that term is used in the
prohibited discharge standard. As original-
ly promulgated in the 1978 general pre-
treatment regulations, section 403.3 defined
"interference" as "an inhibition or disrup-
tion of a POTW's sewer system, treatment
processes or operations which contributes to
a violation of any requirement of [the
POTW's] NPDES Permit." 43 Fed.Reg.
27747 (1978) (emphasis added). In 1979 the
Administrator proposed to narrow the am-
bit of the definition by requiring an inhibi-
tion or disruption which "causes or signifi-
cantly contributes" to the violation of the
POTW's permit, and by including a "safe
harbor" provision exempting from the defi-
nition inhibitions and disruptions caused by
an indirect discharger "in compliance with
specific prohibitions or standards developed
by Federal, State or local governments."
44 Fed.Reg. 62,260, 62,265 (1979). As pro-
'0- Section 403.5(b) specifically prohibits the in-
troduction to a POTW of1
(1)	Pollutants which create [sic] a fire or
explosion hazard in the POTW;
(2)	Pollutants which will cause corrosive
structural damage to the POTW ;
(3)	Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts
that will cause obstruction to the flow in the
POTW resulting in Interference,
mulgated, however, the 1981 , ral pre-
treatment amendments omitted the safe
harbor provision and defined "significantly
contributes" using three numbered catego-
ries. 46 Fed.Reg. 9413 (1981). The amend-
ed regulations thus redefine "interference"
as:
an inhibition or disruption of the POTW
. . which is a cause of or significantly
contributes to either a violation of any
requirement of the POTW's NPDES per-
mit (including an increase in the magni-
tude or duration of a violation) or to the
prevention of sludge use or disposal by
the POTW . An industrial user sig-
nificantly contributes to such a permit
violation or prevention of sludge use or
disposal . whenever such User:1 ¦
(1)	Discharges a daily pollutant loading
in excess of that allowed by contract with
the POTW or by Federal, State or local
law;
(2)	Discharges wastewater which sub-
stantially differs in nature or constitu-
ents from the User's average discharge;
or
(3)	Knows or has reason to know that
its Discharge, alone or in conjunction
with Discharges from other sources,
would result in a POTW permit violation
or prevent sewage use or disposal . . .
40 C.F.R. § 403.3(i) (1982).
Joint petitioners allege that the present
definition is contrary to the Act because it
renders an indirect discharger liable for in-
terference even though its discharges did
not cause the POTW's permit violation or
sludge problem. They posit that an indus-
trial user may be held liable if discharging
more than average or beyond its contract
limit, even though it is the discharge of
another user of the POTW, or a malfunc-
tion or mistake at the POTW itself, that
(4)	Any pollutant . released in a Discharge
in a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration
which will cause Interference with the POTW[;
and]
(5)	Heat in amounts which will inhibit bio-
logical activity in the POTW resulting in Inter-
ference
40 C.F.R § 403.5(b) (1982).
-------
640
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
actuary caj^^he inhibition or disruption.
Joint petitioners contend that Congress did
not intend to subject indirect dischargers to
liability without proof of causation.
[8,9] EPA argues that joint petitioners
have misread the definition. EPA urges
that the definition requires that causation
be shown before liability is established. In
its brief EPA emphasizes that an industrial
user's discharge must "lead to" or "give rise
to" the inhibition or disruption. Brief for
Respondent (No. 79-2256) at 125-27. At
oral argument EPA's counsel asserted that
to prove liability the Administrator must
show that the discharge both caused the
inhibition or disruption and fell within the
three categories defining "significantly con-
tributes." Transcript of Oral Argument at
133, 136. We cannot agree. The words
"leads to" and "gives rise to" do not appear
in the definition. Instead, the promulgated
definition requires only that the discharge
"is a cause of or significantly contributes,"
and defines "significantly contributes" by
substituting three categories of discharger
misconduct, at least two of which exclude
any necessity for proving that the discharge
caused the inhibition or disruption. 40
C.F.R. § 403.32,260-71
(1979). The Administrator nonetheless pro-
mulgated the definition of "pass through"
in the 1981 general pretreatment amend-
ments, justifying his failure to first propose
the definition by saying that it was "almost
identical" to the promulgated definition of
interference. 46 Fed.Reg. 9416 (1981).
EPA now admits that the definition of
"pass through" was promulgated without
the notice and comment required by the
Administrative Procedure Act. Brief for
Respondent (No. 79-2256) at 132-33. EPA
suggests that for that reason we should
remand the definition to the Administrator;
nevertheless, it contends that we are not
barred from passing on the definition's sub-
stantive validity. Id. at 133 & n. *. We
believe that it would be fruitless for us to
review the definition before iL has been
submitted for public comment. We will
therefore remand the definition of "pass
through" in section 403.3(n) to the Adminis-
trator.11
B. Definition of "New Source"
112) "New source" is defined in section
403.3(k) of the general pretreatment regula-
tions, 40 C F.R § 403.3(k) (1982). Under
that definition, if the Administrator fails to
promulgate a new source pretreatment
standard within 120 days of its publication,
nificantly contributes" were meant to be read
conjunctively, however, we think it more ap-
propriate to remand the definition in us entire-
ty rather than leave the remnants as a judicial-
ly-refashioned definition.
16.	Joint petitioners also argue that the present
definition of "interference" was improperly
promulgated because the definition proposed in
1979 provided inadequate notice that the Ad-
ministrator would define "significantly contrib-
utes" or delete the safe harbor provision As
the Administrator must subject the entire defi-
nition to notice and comment before it can
again be effective, our remand of the definition
renders petitioners' argument moot.
17.	Joint petitioners request that we also re-
mand the prohibited discharge standard, 40
C F.R. § 403 5 (1982). That provision is not
within the scope of briefing set in our October
29. 1982 order, however.
-------
642
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
those sources whose construction began af-
ter the publication but before the promul-
gation of the proposed standard are not
considered to be new sources. Petitioner
NRDC argues that by excluding those
sources the definition is inconsistent with
the Act and is contrary to our holding in
Pennsylvania Department of Environmen-
tal Resources v. EPA, 618 F.2d 991 (3d
Cir.1980). We agree, and will accordingly
grant NRDC's petitions for review in Nos.
81-1977 and 81-1985.18
Under section 307(c) of the Act, the Ad-
ministrator must promulgate new source
pretreatment standards for any indirect dis-
charger that would be a "new source" un-
der section 306 of the Act if it were a direct
discharger. 33 U.S.C. § 1317(c) (1976).
Section 306(a)(2) defines a "new source" as
any source, the construction of which is
commenced after the publication of pro-
posed regulations prescribing a standard
of performance under this section which
will be applicable to such source, if such
standard is thereafter promulgated in ac-
cordance with this section.
Id. § 1316(aX2). Section 306(bXl)(B) di-
rects the Administrator to promulgate pro-
posed standards of performance within 120
days after the publication of the proposed
regulations. Id. § 1316(b)(1)(B).
Section 403.3(k) of the general pretreat-
ment regulations defines "new source" as
any source whose construction commenced
[a]fter proposal of Pretreatment Stan-
dards in accordance with section 307(c) of
the Act which are applicable to such
source, but only if the Standards are pro-
mulgated in accordance with section
307(c) within 120 days of their proposal.
18.	We therefore need not reach NRDC's addi-
tional argument that the definition was improp-
erly promulgated.
19.	On June 11. 1982, EPA moved for permis-
sion to rescind the § 403.3(k) definition In
support of its request, EPA stated that it now
felt that a definition of "new source" was un-
necessary in the general pretreatment regula-
tions, and that the agency would instead liti-
gate the validity of its definition, as incorporat-
40 C.P.R. § 403.3(kX2) (1982) (emphasis
added). If the standards are not promul-
gated within 120 days of their proposal
only those sources whose construction be-
gan after promulgation are considered
"new sources." Id. § 403.3(kXl); see id
§ 403.6(b).
In Department of Environmental Re-
sources we considered a similar definition of
"new source" promulgated for a category of
direct dischargers. We rejected EPA's def-
inition as inconsistent with the basic policies
of the Act. Congress, we found, "intended
to subject as many firms as possible to the
new source regulations." 618 F.2d at 999.
By its plain meaning the definition of "new
source" in section 306(a)(2) achieved thai
goal by subjecting to new source standards
all businesses which initiated new construc-
tion after being put on notice by the publi-
cation of the proposed standards. We stat-
ed that if dischargers wished to limit their
period of uncertainty by forcing the Admin-
istrator to promulgate proposed standards
within section 306(bXlXB)'s 120-day dead-
line, the proper remedy was not the exemp-
tion of new construction from new source
standards, but was a citizen suit under 33
U.S.C. § 1365 (1976) seeking EPA compli-
ance with the deadline. We therefore held
that section 306(a)(2) had to be given its
plain meaning, and we struck down the
EPA's definition. 618 F.2d at 1000.
In this case EPA has conceded that the
"new source" definition in section 403.3(k)
is invalid under our holding in Department
of Environmental Resources. Brief for Re-
spondent (No. 81-1977) at 14." Intervenor
CM A argues nonetheless that the definition
is valid under our holding and under the
Act. CM A, however, fails either to distin-
guish Department of Environmental Re-
ed in the Consolidated Permit regulations. 40
C.F.R § 122 3(1982), before the DC Circuit in
NRDC v. EPA. No. 80-1607 (D.C Cir filed June
1, 1980) Brief for Respondent (No. 81 — 1977)
at 14-15 On July 14, 1982, we denied EPA'S
motion. Because EPA has indicated that It will
adhere to and apply its definition, and because
it seeks dismissal for a technical reason, we
should resolve the dispute. See Dow Chemical
Co. v EPA, 605 F 2d 673, 677-80 (3d Cir. 1979)
NATIONAL ASS'N OF ME1
Cite as719F.2<
sources,1" or to proffer any arguments on
the proper construction of section 306 which
were not considered and rejected in that
decision." We hold, therefore, that the
definition of "new source" in section 403.-
3(k) is invalid. We will remand the defini-
tion to the Administrator.
C. The Fundamentally Different Factor
Variance
Section 403.13 of the general pretreat-
ment regulations permits the Administrator
to grant a variance from a categorical pre-
treatment standard to an existing indirect
discharger within the category if the Ad-
ministrator, in establishing the categorical
standard, has considered factors "funda-
mentally different" from the factors relat-
ing to that source. 40 C.F.R. § 403.13
(1982). Petitioner NRDC contends that the
FDF variance is not authorized by the Act
and is specifically prohibited insofar as it
would permit the discharge of toxic pollu-
tants. We need not determine whether the
Administrator has authority to issue FDF
variances, for we agree that such variances
may not be issued for toxic pollutants. We
will therefore grant NRDC's petitions for
review in Nos. 81-1977 and 81-1985.
Section 307(b) of the Act directs the Ad-
ministrator to promulgate pretreatment
standards for existing indirect dischargers
by category or categories of sources. 33
U.S.C. § 1317(bXl), (3) (1976 & Supp. I
20. CMA notes that in Department of Environ-
mental Resources we reserved the situation
where substantial delay and substantial change
in the regulations occurred between the dates
of proposal and promulgation, 618 F.2d at 1000
n 1, and contends that this case falls within
our reservation. Specifically, CMA asserts
that substantial delay and substantive change
may well occur between the proposal and the
promulgation of some future categorical new
source pretreatment standard, and that in such
an instance the definition might be valid. We
do not believe, however, that such a hypotheti-
cal flaw in a future categorical standard can
sustain the instant definition, which as part of
the general pretreatment regulations will apply
to all categorical pretreatment standards. See
Benerally Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty
Co . 272 U S. 365, 395-97, 47 S.Ct 114, 121-22,
71 L.Ed 303 (1926).
*'• CMA does allege that citizen suits under 33
f S.C. § 1365 (1976) are not an effective reme-
TAL FINISHERS v. E.P.A.	643
11624 (1983)
1977). As he has chosen to regwie exist-
ing indirect dischargers in an analogous
manner to direct dischargers, the Adminis-
trator bases the categorical pretreatment
standards on the BPT and BAT levels of
control technology set forth for direct dis-
chargers in section 301(b) of the Act. Id.
§ 1311(b). The Administrator determines
those levels for existing indirect dischargers
by considering the factors specified in sec-
tion 304(b). Id § 1314(b).22
The fundamentally different factor vari-
ance in section 403.13 is also adopted from
the regulatory scheme governing direct dis-
chargers. Under the Consolidated Permit
Regulations, 40 C F.R §§ 125.30.-32 (1982),
existing direct dischargers may obtain FDF
variances from BPT and BAT effluent limi-
tations. Terming the concept equally appli-
cable to pretreatment standards, the Ad-
ministrator modeled the FDF variance pro-
vision for existing indirect dischargers after
the FDF variance provision for direct dis-
chargers. See 46 Fed.Reg 9435-36 (1981);
44 Fed.Reg. 62,264-65 (1979); 43 Fed.Reg.
27,738 (1978); 42 Fed.Reg 6481 (1977).
The purpose of the FDF variance provi-
sion for indirect dischargers is stated in
section 403.13(b):
In establishing categorical Pretreatment
Standards for existing sources, the EPA
will take into account all the information
it can collect, develop and solicit regard-
dy. As we have held, however, it is the remedy
prescribed by Congress
22. Section 304(b) slates that the factors to be
taken into account when determining BPT or
BAT for a category of sources must include the
age of the equipment and facilities involved,
the process employed, the engineering aspects
of the application of various types of control
techniques, process changes, and the non-water
quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements). Id § 1314(b)(1)(B), (2)(B) For
BPT the Administrator must also consider the
total cost of the application of technology in
relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be
achieved from such application. Id.
§ 1314(b)(1)(B). For BAT the Administrator
considers instead the cost of achieving the ef-
fluent reductions attainable.	Id.
§ 1314(b)(2)(A), (B)
-------
644.
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
ing the factors relevant to pretreatment
standards under section 307(b). In some
cases, information which may affect
these Pretreatment Standards will not be
available or, for other reasons, will not be
considered during their development. As
a result, it may be necessary on a case-by-
case basis to adjust the limits in categori-
cal Pretreatment Standards . . as they
apply to a certain Industrial User within
an industrial category or subcategory.
40 C.F.R. § 403.13(b) (1982); see id. § 125-
30(b) (near-identical statement of purpose).
Indirect dischargers, POTWs and other in-
terested parties may request that an indi-
rect discharger receive a variance. Id.
§ 403.13(a), (b) (1982). Variances can be
used to establish limits more or less strin-
gent than that specified by the applicable
categorical pretreatment standard. See id.
§ 403.13(c)(2), (3). An industrial user seek-
ing to obtain a discharge limit less stringent
than required by the categorical standard
must establish that the alternative limit is
justified by factors relating to the dis-
charge regulated by the categorical (ire-
treatment standard which are fundamental-
ly different from the factors considered by
the Administrator in establishing the stan-
dard. Id. § 403.13(b), (cXIXi'), (c)(2). In
delineating the factors to be considered
fundamentally different, section 403.13 in-
cludes most of the factors which section
304(b) directs the Administrator to consider
in determining BPT and BAT standards.
Id. § 403.13(d); see id. § 403.13(e).
1. Variances from Pretreatment Stan-
dards
NRDC argues that FDF variances from
BPT and BAT pretreatment standards are
contrary to the Act. NRDC correctly notes
that while Congress expressly provided for
23.	See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(c), (g), (h), 1326
(1976 & Supp. V 1981); 33 U S.C A. § 131 l(m)
(West Supp. 1983); see also 33 U S C
§ 1317(b)(1) (Supp. 1 1977).
24.	The Supreme Court in National Crushed
Stone has ascribed such a role to FDF varianc-
es from BPT effluent limitations.
If a point source can show that its situation
is not within the range of circumstances
modification of other discharge limits,23 the
Act does not explicitly authorize FDF Van
ances from the categorical pretreatment
standards. EPA contends that the Act m>.
plicitly authorizes FDF variances for indi-
rect dischargers, and relies on the approval
given to the FDF variances for direct dis-
chargers in E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co
v. Train, 430 U.S. 112, 97 S.Ct. 965, 51
L.Ed.2d 204 (1978).
[13] In du Pont the Supreme Court held
that the Administrator had to provide for
variances for direct dischargers from BPT
effluent limitations. Id. at 128, 97 S.Ct at
975; see EPA v. National Crushed Stone
Association, 449 U.S. 64, 72 & n. 12, 101
S.Ct. 295, 301 & n. 12, 66 L.Ed.2d 268 (1980).
The Court found that section 301(b)(1) re-
quired that "some allowance [be] made for
variations in individual plants" under cate-
gorical BPT effluent limitations because
that section spoke of "effluent limitations
for point sources," 33 U.S.C. § 1311(bXlX-A)
(1976), rather than "effluent limitations for
categories and classes of point sources," id
§ 1311(bX2)(A) (1976 & Supp. I 1977). 430
U.S. at 128, 97 S.Ct. at 975. As section
307(b) states that pretreatment standards
apply to "categories of sources," id.
§ 1317(bX3) (1976), the Administrator is not
required under du Pont to make any provi-
sion for variances from pretreatment stan-
dards.
[14] Agreeing that a variance provision
is not required, EPA asserts that the Ad-
ministrator in his discretion may permit
FDF variances from the pretreatment stan-
dards as an appropriate means to ensure
that the categorical standards are not ap-
plied inequitably to a particular discharger.
See NRDC v. EPA, 537 F.2d 642, 646-47 (2d
Cir.1976).24 We need not consider whether
considered by the Administrator, then it may
receive a variance. In such situations,
the variance is an acknowledgement that the
uniform BPT limitation was set without refer-
ence to the full range of current practices, to
which the Administrator was to refer. Ins0*
far as a BPT limitation was determined with-
out consideration of a current practice funda-
mentally different from those that were con-
NATIONAL ASS'N OF METAL FINISHERS v. E.P.A.
Cite as 719 F.2d 624 (1983)

the Administrator possesses the inherent
authority to provide for variances from cat-
egorical pretreatment standards, however,
because we find another of NRDC's conten-
tions dispositive. NRDC, noting that the
FDF variance provision is drawn to permit
variances from pretreatment standards for
toxic pollutants, argues that variances for
toxic pollutants are forbidden by section
301(1) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(1)
(Supp. I 1977). We agree.25
2. Variances for Toxic Pollutants
The elimination of the discharge of toxic
pollutants has always received special em-
phasis under the Act. Id. § 1251(aX3)
(1976); see id. § 1362(13). In 1972 Con-
gress directed the Administrator to list and
develop effluent limitations for toxic pollu-
tants under section 307(a) of the Act. Id.
§ 1317(a). The discharge of toxic pollu-
tants generated even greater congressional
concern in 1977. E.g., Senate Committee
on Environment and' Public Works, 95th
Cong., 2d Sess., Legislative History of the
Clean Water Act of 1977, at 326 (1978)
(statement of Cong. Roberts) [hereinafter
cited as "1977 Legis.Hist."]; id. at 454
(statement of Sen. Muskie). In section 53
of the 1977 Amendments, Congress itself
sidered by the Administrator, that limitation
is incomplete.
National Crushed Stone, 449 U.S. at 77-78, 101
S.Ct. at 303-304; see Appalachian Power Co.
v. EPA, 671 F.2d 801, 809 (4th Cir 1982); Wey-
erhaeuser Co v Costle, 590 F2d 1011, 1035
(D C.Cir 1978).
25.	The Administrator has focused his efforts on
regulating toxic pollutants, see 43 Fed.Reg. 27,-
761 (1978); NRDC v. Tram, 8 Env't Rep.Cas
(BNA) at 2124 K 4, 2126 fl 6. and apparently has
not yet issued pretreatment standards for non-
toxic pollutants. Consequently, we believe
that the question of his inherent authority to
Issue FDF variances from pretreatment stan-
dards for non-toxic pollutants is not now ripe
See generally Toilet Goods Ass'n v. Gardner,
387 U.S. 158, 162, 87 S.Ct. 1520, 1523, 18
L.Ed.2d 697 (1967).
26.	Pub.L. No. 95-217 § 53(a), (b), 91 Stat.
158&-90 (amending 33 U.S.C. § 1317(a) (Supp
I 1977)); see a/so H.R.Conf.Rep No. 830, 95th
Cong., 1st Sess. 87, reprinted in 1977 V.S Code
Cong. & Ad.News 4326, 4424, 4462.
added toxic |>ol!utants to the Adn i-
tor's list and required that he proi .te
BAT effluent limitations for those pollu-
tants by 1980.26 Section 53 also added sub-
section (J ) to section 301:
(I) The Administrator may not modify
any requirement of this section as it ap-
plies to any specific pollutant which is on
the toxic pollutant list under section
1317(aXl) of this title.
33 U.S.C. § 1311(0 (Supp. I 1977).
EPA does not dispute that the pretreat-
ment standards mandated by section 307(b)
are a "requirement" of section 301.27 In-
stead EPA argues that "modification" is a
term of art in the Act, and that FDF vari-
ances are not modifications of a pretreat-
ment standard but are simply the creation
of a more appropriate standard based on
factors previously overlooked by the Ad-
ministrator. Under the Administrator's
construction, section 301(1) deprives the Ad-
ministrator only of his authority to "modi-
fy" BAT standards under section 301(c) and
(g), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(c), (g) (1976 & Supp. I
1977).28
The legislative history of section 301(1)
does indicate that Congress was primarily
concerned with prohibiting modifications
27.	See 33 USC § 131 l(b)(l)(A)(u), (2)(A)(ii)
(1976), see also H R Conf Rep. No 830, 95th
Cong., 1st Sess 84, reprinted in 1977 U S.Code
Cong & Ad. News 4424 , 4459.
28.	Section 301(c) allows the Administrator to
modify a direct discharger's BAT effluent limi-
tation if the discharger can show that the modi-
fied standard he requests
will represent the maximum use of [control]
technology within the economic capability of
the [direct discharger], and will result in
reasonable further progress toward the elimi-
nation of the discharge of pollutants.
33U.SC § 1311(c) (1976) Section 301(g) re-
quires the Administrator to modify a direct
discharger's BAT effluent limitations with re-
spect to the discharge of non-toxic pollutants if
the discharger can show that the modified limit
will not jeopardize compliance with BPT limits
or interfere with the attainment of water quali-
ty goals. Id § 1311(g) (Supp. I 1977)
-------
646
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
under .. ,.on 301(c) and (g).29 Nonetheless,
it does not appear that Congress used "mod-
ification" as a term of art so as to exclude
variance provisions from the proscription of
section 301(1). Spokesmen for the 1977
Amendments used the terms "waiver" and
"modification" interchangeably. 1977 Leg-
is.Hist. 328-29 (statement of Rep. Roberts);
id. at 458 (statement of Sen. Muskie). More
important, Senator Muskie termed section
301(c) a "variance" provision. 1977 Legis.
Hist. 461. As "modification" is thus not a
term of art, section 301(1 ) includes varianc-
es in its broad prohibition.
EPA's attempt to distinguish the policy
behind FDF variances from the policies be-
hind the "modification" provisions is equal-
ly unsuccessful. The Supreme Court has
stated that section SOl^'s modifications of
BAT limits serve the same function as FDF
variances of BPT limits:
A § 301(c) variance, thus, creates for a
particular point source a BAT standard
that represents for it the same sort of
economic and technological commitment
as the general BAT standard creates for
the class.
National Crushed Stone, 449 U.S. at 74, 101
S.Ct. at 302. If Congress was willing to
prohibit section 301(c) modifications where
toxic pollutants are concerned, it is difficult
to imagine why Congress would have per-
mitted similar FDF variances for those
same pollutants.
[15] In Appalachian Power Co. v. Train,
620 Fid 1040 (4th Cir.1980), NRDC argued
that section 301(J ) prohibited FDF varianc-
es from BPT effluent limitations for toxic
pollutants. That court deferred to the Ad-
ministrator's construction of the Act and
upheld the FDF variance provision, remark-
ing that "the best that can be said for
§ 301(1) is that it is not clear." Id. at
1046-48. Because we find that section
301(7) is clear, we must disagree. Section
29. 1977 Legis.Hist. at 328-31 (statement of
Rep. Roberts), id. at 458 (statement of Sen
Muskie), S. 1952, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. § 26(a),
(c) (1977), S.Rep. No. 370, 95th Cong., 1st
Sess. 44, reprinted in 1977 U.S.Code Cong. &
Ad.News 4326, 4369.
301(1) forbids modifications, and FDF van
ances are no less modifications than those
provisions indisputably prohibited by
section. Given the clear congressional con-
cern throughout the 1977 Amendments for
discharges of toxic pollutants, we hold that
FDF variances for toxic pollutant discharg-
es are forbidden by the Act. We will there-
fore remand the FDF variance provision.
D. The Removal Credits Provision
Section 403.7 of the general pretreatment
regulations establishes the criteria and pro-
cedures by which a POTW may revise an
indirect discharger's numerical discharge
limit for a pollutant, as set in its categorical
pretreatment standard, to reflect the
POTW's removal of that pollutant. 40
C.F.R. § 403.7 (1982). Joint petitioners, In-
terlake and CACI, argue that section 403.7
exceeds the Administrator's authority un-
der section 307(bXl) of the Act, is unwork-
able, and was improperly promulgated We
disagree, and will deny the petitions for
review on this issue.
Section 307(b) of the Act authorized the
Administrator to establish pretreatment
standards for any pollutant that "interferes
with, passes through, or otherwise is incom-
patible" with POTWs. 33 U.S.C.
§ 307(bXl) (1976). In enacting that section
Congress indicated that pretreatment of
compatible pollutants may not be necessary,
and added that pretreatment should not be
required as a substitute for adequate treat-
ment by POTWs.30 In a further effort "to
avoid treatment for treatment's sake," 197'
Legis.Hist. 343 (statement of Rep. Roberts),
Congress in section 54(a) of the 1977
Amendments to the Act added a sentence to
section 307(bXl):
If, in the case of any toxic pollutant
under subsection (a) of this section intro-
duced by a source into a publicly owned
30. S.Conf Rep. No. 1236, 92d Cong., 2d Sea>
130, reprinted in 1972 U.S Code Cong. & Aa
News 3776, 3807; H.R.Rep. No. 911, 92d Coot.
2d Sess. 113, reprinted in 1972 Legis.Hist.
800; see 1972 Legis.Hist 233 (statement oj
Rep. Jones) (inefficient duplicative treatme
not required).
NATIONAL ASS'N OF METAL FINISHERS v. E.P.A.
Cfto as 719 FM 624 (1983)
647
treatment works, the treatment by such
works removes all or any part of such
toxic pollutant and the discharge from
such works does not violate that effluent
limitation or standard which would be
applicable to such toxic pollutant if it
were discharged by such source other
than through a publicly owned treatment
works, and does not prevent sludge use or
disposal by such works in accordance with
section 405 of this Act, then the pretreat-
ment requirements for the sources actual-
ly discharging such toxic pollutant into
such publicly owned treatment works
may be revised by the owner or operator
of such works to reflect the removal of
such toxic pollutant by such works.
Pub.L. No. 95-217 § 54(a), 91 Stat. 1591
(amending 33 U.S.C. § 1317(bXl) (Supp. I
1977)). The legislative history of the sec-
tion made clear that "[i]n promulgating na-
tional pretreatment standards the Adminis-
trator shall include a provision recognizing
the option of [a POTW] to modify the re-
quirements to reflect the degree of reduc-
tion achieved by the treatment works."
H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 830, 95th Cong., 1st Sess.
88, reprinted in 1977 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.
News 4424, 4463.
In the removal credits provision the Ad-
ministrator has set conditions and proce-
dures for such revision of categorical pre-
treatment standards. 40 C.F.R. § 403.7
(1982). To be eligible to grant revisions to
reflect the toxic pollutants it removes, a
POTW must first have a pretreatment pro-
gram approved by the responsible Approval
Authority." Id. § 403.7(bX2).sl The
Si. The Approval Authority for a POTW either
is the head of its state water pollution control
agency, if the state has an approved program
to administer its own NPDES permits under
section 402(b) of the Act. 33 U.S.C § 1342(b)
(1976 & Supp. I 1977), or is the appropriate
Regional Administrator of the EPA. 40 C.F.R.
§5 403.9(a). 403.3(c), (d), (e), (s) (1982); see id
8 403.10; see also id. § 403.7(f)(4), (g).
*2. Accord 40 C.FR. § 403 8(a) (1982) A
POTWs pretreatment program will be ap-
proved only if the POTW: (1) has the legal
authority to apply and enforce the pretreat-
ment requirements of § 307(b) and (c) and the
POTW reporting requirements of § 402(b) of
7l9F2d—16
POTW must then obtain authorization from
the Approval Authority to revise the dis-
charge limits for specific pollutants. Id.
§ 403.7(bXl). To obtain authorization the
POTW must demonstrate "consistent re-
moval" of each pollutant sufficient to justi-
fy the proposed revision. Id. § 403.7(b);
see id. at 403.7(a)(1), (2). If once a year or
more untreated wastewaters overflow be-
fore they reach the POTW and thus bypass
the POTW's treatment process, the POTW
either must show that its indirect dischar-
gers compensate for the overflows, or it
must reduce the amount of consistent re-
moval claimed. Id. § 403.7(bX3); see id.
§ 403.7(aX3). The POTW must also show
that the revision will not prevent it from
meeting applicable sludge management re-
quirements. Id. § 403.7(bX4). Once autho-
rization for the revision has been granted,
the POTW must monitor and report semi-
annually on its capability to remove the
specified pollutants. Id. § 403.7(fXl); see
id. §§ 403.7(d), 403.12(i), Q). If the Approv-
al Authority determines that the discharge
limit revision no longer meets the require-
ments of section 403.7, or is significantly
contributing to a violation of the POTW's
NPDES permit, the Approval Authority af-
ter an opportunity for corrective action may
withdraw or modify the revision. Id.
§ 403.7(fX5).
1. EPA Approval and Authorization
[16-18] Joint petitioners challenge the
Administrator's authority under the Act to
mandate that POTWs must have approved
pretreatment programs before they may
the Act, (2) has developed and implemented
procedures to ensure compliance with the re-
quirements of a pretreatment program; and (3)
has sufficient resources and personnel to carry
out its legal authority and procedures. Id.
§ 403 8(f)(IM3) See also id. § 403.9(g). The
POTWs application must detail all this infor-
mation. Id. §§ 403.8(0, 403.9(b). After notice
and comment, the Approval Authority may ap-
prove a pretreatment program unless EPA ob-
jects. Id. § 403.9(e), § 403 11.
A POTW that has applied for pretreatment
program approval and meets all other require-
ments may conditionally grant removal credits.
Id. § 403 7(b)(2).
-------
648
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
grant removal credits. See id. § 403-
7(bX2). Joint petitioners first correctly ob-
serve that section 307(bXl) does not ex-
pressly impose such a condition.55 They
then claim that the Administrator has im-
properly transplanted that condition from
section 402(bX8) of the Act, 33 U.S.C.
§ 1342(bX8) (Supp. I 1977).
Section 402(b) sets the terms, conditions
and requirements for permits issued under
federal and state NPDES permit programs.
Id. § 1342(aX3), (b) (1976 & Supp. I 1977).
As amended in 1977, section 402(bX8) au-
thorizes the Administrator to insure that a
POTW's permit includes conditions to re-
quire "a program to assure compliance with
[section 1317(b) ] pretreatment standards by
each [significant] source" introducing regu-
lated pollutants into the POTW. Pub.L.
No. 95-217 § 54(c), 91 Stat. 1591 (amending .
33 U.S.C. § 1342(bX8) (Supp. I. 1977)). The
amended section 402(bX8) and the removal
credits provision were both added by section
54 of the 1977 amendments, and the legisla-
tive history makes clear that the two provi-
sions are closely related. The conference
report and spokesmen in the House stated
that the conferees had added the provision
to allow a POTW to revise pretreatment
standards to reflect removal "in applying
these pretreatment standards through its
pretreatment program." H.R.Conf.Rep.
No. 830, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 87, reprinted
in 1977 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 4424,
4462; 1977 Legis.Hist. 342-43 (statement of
Rep. Roberts); id. at 403 (statement of Rep.
Anderson). Senator Muskie, the legisla-
tion's sponsor, informed the Senate that the
33. Joint petitioners argue that because
§ 307(b)(1) expressly conditions the gram of
removal credits only on POTW removal of the
pollutant, nonviolation of the POTW's effluent
limit, and unimpeded sludge disposal, we
should refuse to recognize any other conditions
under the maxim expressio unius est exclusio
alterius. See Andrus v. G/over Constr. Co., 446
U.S. 608, 616-17, 100 SCt. 1905, 1910-11, 64
L.Ed.2d 548 (1980); Williams v. Wohlgemuth,
540 F.2d 163, 169 (3d Cir.1976). We cannot
rely on that maxim, however, because there is
persuasive evidence of a contrary legislative
intent. See Andrus v. Glover Constr. Co., 446
U.S. at 617, 100 S.Ct. at 1910.
34. Joint petitioners argue that Senator Musk-
ie's statements conflict with the conference re-
new provision permitted POTWs to grant
removal credits "[wjhere a local compliance
program is approved." 1977 Legis.Hist.
461. He explained:
Tying local [removal] credits to local com-
pliance programs not only provides an
incentive for local participation, but more
importantly, it provides assurance that
the removal levels which justified the
local credits will lie maintained by a pub-
licly-owned treatment works committed
to a sound pretreatment program.
Id. at 462. In light of this persuasive legis-
lative history,34 we believe that the Admin-
istrator may require an approved pretreat-
ment program as a condition upon a
POTW's grant of removal credits.
Petitioner CACI, emphasizing that Con-
gress in section 307(bXl) authorized
POTWs, not EPA, to grant removal credits,
claims the Administrator may not require
that POTWs obtain his authorization for
each proposed removal credit. There is sup-
port, however, for such an authorization
requirement in the legislative history. Sen-
ator Muskie stated that "EPA and the
[states issuing NPDES permits] may ap-
prove case-by-case modifications of the na-
tional pretreatment standards," and listed
several conditions the EPA might place on
its authorization. 1977 Legis.Hist. 461.
Moreover, the Administrator's authorization
fits within the scheme of the Act as estab-
lished by section 54 of the 1977 Amend-
ments. As noted above, the Administrator
may require that a POTW seeking to grant
removal credits have an approved pretreat-
port and with the Act, and are thus entitled to
little weight. First, we see no conflict between
Senator Muskie's statement and the words of
the conference report and of § 402(b)(8)
Second, although we recognize that "[t]he re-
marks of a single legislator, even the sponsor,
are not controlling in analyzing legislative his-
tory," Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281,
311, 99 SCt. 1705, 1722, 60 L.Ed.2d 208 (1979),
we must look to the sponsors of legislation
when the meaning of the words of the enact-
ment, and of the conference report, are in
doubt, National Woodwork Mfrs. Ass'n v.
NLRB, 386 U.S. 612, 640, 87 S.Ct. 1250, 1266,
18 L.Ed.2d 357 (1967).
NATIONAL ASS'N OF ME1
Cite as 719 F.2
ment program to assure compliance by its
indirect dischargers with the section 1317(b)
pretreatment standards. Section 54 also al-
lowed the Administrator to bring an action
to compel the POTW to enforce the pre-
treatment standards under its program.
Pub.L. No. 95-217 § 54(b), 91 Stat. 1591
(adding 33 U.S.C. § 1319(f) (Supp. I 1977)).
Together those provisions endow the Ad-
ministrator with the power to deny autho-
rization to a POTW's dispensation of re-
moval credits. CACI acknowledges that
power, but argues that the Administrator
must set the conditions on his authorization
by litigation rather than regulation. See
Air Reduction Co. v. Hickel, 420 F.2d 592
(D.C.Cir.1968). We find it hard to believe
that Congress required such a piecemeal
approach. See Weinberger v. Hynson,
Westcott & Dunning, Inc., 412 U.S. 609,
624-26, 93 S.Ct. 2469, 2485-81, 37 L.Ed.2d
207 (1973). Section 501(a) of the Act em-
powers the Administrator "to prescribe
such regulations as are necessary to carry
out his functions under this chapter." 33
U.S.C. § 1361(a) (1976); see du Pont, 430
U.S. at 132, 97 S.Ct. at 977; see also 33
U.S.C. § 1251(d) (1976). Since such regula-
tions would not deprive POTWs of the sole
ability to grant, and the ultimate power to
deny, removal credits, we conclude that un-
der section 501(a) the Administrator may
express the conditions on his authorization
of removal credits in binding regulations.
2. V nworkability
[19] Petitioners place more emphasis on
their contention that the removal credits
provision is simply unworkable. Joint peti-
tioners raise two specific defects that they
claim render the provision unworkable.
First, they attack section 403.7(fX5), which
permits the Administrator to withdraw or
modify removal credits if semiannual data
reveals that the POTW issuing the credits is
no longer attaining its predicted removal.
Joint petitioners say that due to section
403.7(f)(5) they will be unable to rely on
their removal-revised discharge limits and
will be forced to install just as much control
TAL FINISHERS v. E.P.A.	649
d 624 (1983)
technology as if there were no removal at
all. We agree with EPA, however, that
such withdrawn or modified discharge lim-
its, though unfortunate, are merely the rec-
ognition of the POTW's failure to remove
the pollutant. By requiring such modifica-
tions, the Administrator prevents the grant-
ing of removal credits for toxic pollutants
which the POTW simply discharges into
navigable waters. Such a requirement is
consistent with the mandate of section
307(bXl) that any revision "reflect the re-
moval of such toxic pollutants by such
works." 33 U.S.C. § 1317(bXl) (Supp. I
1977). It is also consonant with the legisla-
tive history requiring "documented pollu-
tant removals" and "a demonstration that
the pollutant is degraded or treated," 1977
Legis.Hist. 461 (statement of Sen. Muskie).
[20] Second, joint petitioners challenge
the requirement in section 403.7(bX3) that a
POTW unable to prevent toxic overflows
must reduce the amount of removal claimed
in proportion to the number of hours of
overflow. Joint petitioners claim that
POTWs will be unable to make verifiable
engineering estimates of the hours of over-
flow, and will thus be unable to grant re-
moval credits. As the Administrator notes,
however, section 403.7(b) simply implements
the statutory requirement that removal
credits be granted only for pollutants actu-
ally removed by the POTW. Moreover, a
POTW unable to estimate the time, let
alone the amount, of untreated wastewater
overflow may not be able to accurately
predict the proportion of pollutants which it
will remove. Requiring such an estimate
thus has a rational basis under the Act.
Joint petitioners and Interlake also make
a generalized claim that the removal credits
provision is unworkable. Such a general-
ized claim is necessarily less persuasive than
a claim detailing the alleged errors made by
the Administrator. We have nonetheless
reviewed the bases cited by petitioners for
the claim of unworkability. We find noth-
ing in those sources that would cause us to
invalidate the regulations as unworkable.35
35. First, petitioners cite comments submitted
by POTWs during the rulemaking proceeding
-------
650
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
Joint petitioners have thus failed to docu-
ment their general assertion so as to over-
come the presumption of regularity in the
Administrator's conduct. We are accord-
ingly not convinced that the regulations can
be declared arbitrary and capricious as "un-
workable." See AISI I, 526 F.2d at 1049,
1064." Accordingly, the petitions for re-
view will be denied as to this issue.
E. The Combined Wastestream Formula
In the general pretreatment regulations,
section 403.6(e) establishes a formula to ad-
just the discharge limit set by a categorical
pretreatment standard where the wastes-
tream regulated by that pretreatment stan-
dard is combined with other wastewaters
prior to pretreatment by the indirect dis-
charger. 40 C.F.R. § 403.6(e) (1982). Peti-
tioner Ford, along with joint petitioners,
argues that the very concept of such a
formula is inconsistent with the structure
of the Act. Joint petitioners, Interlake and
on the 1981 general pretreatment amendments.
Only one of the commentators cited asserts
that the removal credit provision is unwork-
able, and it does so based largely on the specif-
ic "defects" dealt with above. Its remaining
contentions are, first, that it would have to set
separate local pretreatment requirements for
each of its POTWs because each has a different
removal percentage, and, second, that in grant-
ing removal credits to the numerous indirect
dischargers seeking removal credits it will have
to spend thousands of man-hours preparing
thousands of reports. App. at 397-98 (Com-
ments of Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago) Those contentions raise
nothing rendering the provision invalid.
Second, joint petitioners cite the report of a
congressional oversight committee. Subcom-
mittee on Oversight and Review of the Com-
mittee of Public Works and Transportation,
House of Representatives, 96th Cong., 2d Sess.,
Implementation of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act 42, 59 (Comm. Print 1980). The
subcommittee did note the reluctance of
POTWs to grant removal credits due to the
complexity of the regulations, and stated that
such reluctance would result in duplicative tox-
ic control capabilities contrary to the intent of
the 1977 Amendments. The subcommittee did
not point to any specific part of the removal
credit provision as being unworkable, however.
In any case, the views of a single subcommit-
tee, not engaged in the formulation of legisla-
tion, regarding the intent of a prior Congress
are not entitled to great weight. See Consumer
GM argue that because the standards for a
combined wastestream will change each
time EPA regulates a process which con-
tributes to the stream, the formula will lead
to an arbitrary and capricious "moving tar-
get." Those petitioners also contend that
the formula is invalid because EPA failed
to consider the cost and feasibility of treat-
ing such combined wastestreams. Interlake
makes that argument with reference to the
iron and steel industry, and also contends
that the formula is void for vagueness. Fi-
nally, GM asserts that the formula was
improperly promulgated. Given our con-
struction of the formula, however, we find
nothing in those challenges that requires
the invalidation of the formula.
Section 307(b) of the Act directs the Ad-
ministrator to regulate discharges, not pol-
lutant by pollutant, but by categories of
sources. 33 U.S.C. § 1317(b)(3) (1976). The
Administrator establishes such categorical
pretreatment regulations by "specific indus-
Products Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania,
Inc., 447 U S. 102, 116, 100 S.Ct. 2051, 2060, 64
L Ed 2d 766 (1980); First State Bank f. United
States, 599 F 2d 558, 563 n 3 (3d Cir 1979),
cert denied, 444 U S 1013, 100 S.Ct. 662, 62
L Ed.2d 642 (1980).
Third, joint petitioners cite a 1982 GAO re-
port. That report, however, was issued after
the 1981 amendments became effective and is
necessarily outside the administrative record
FPC v Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co, 423
U.S. 326, 331-34, 96 S.Ct. 579, 582-84, 46
L Ed.2d 533 (1976)
Finally, joint petitioners cite the Administra-
tor's own proposed regulations to revise the
removal credits provision 47 Fed.Reg. 42,698
(1982) In his proposal the Administrator stat-
ed that the proposal was his attempt to make
the removal credits provision simpler, clearer
and more workable, id, but he did not state
that the existing provision is unworkable.
36. Joint petitioners also claim that the Admin-
istrator failed to respond to significant com-
ments. They point to one commentator's as-
sertion that § 403.7(f)(5) results in a shifting
standard, the same commentator's complaint
that each of its POTWs would have a separate
local pretreatment requirements because of dif-
ferent removal rates, J.App at 397, and the
"chorus" of comments that the removal credits
are unworkable. As we have been able to
discern the rauonal basis of the Administra-
tor's actions regarding those comments, we see
no reason to remand.
NATIONAL ASS'N OF METAL FINISHERS v. E.P.A.
Cite as 719 F.2d 624 (1983)
651
trial subcategories." 40 C.F.R. § 403.6
(1982); see 42 Fed.Reg. 6476 (1977). The
Administrator has established such industri-
al categories by the process or operation
used, rather than by the overall nature of
an industrial facility. E.g., 40 C.F.R
§ 413.01(a) (1982) (applicable to "electro-
plating operations"); id. § 420.01(a) (applica-
ble to "production operations in the Iron
and Steel Point Source Category"); see 46
Fed.Reg. 9419 (1982). Consequently, it is
possible for a diversified industrial facility
to have several different processes produc-
ing different wastestreams that are not
regulated by the same categorical standard,
or are not regulated at all. Id. Such a
facility may segregate the wastestreams
from each process and separately pretreat
them, or it may combine some or all of its
wastestreams prior to pretreatment (an "in-
tegrated" facility). See id. Similarly, an
industrial facility may discharge diluting
streams, such as cooling water, that it could
segregate from or combine with its regulat-
ed wastestreams before pretreatment. The
combination of streams obviously compli-
cates the task of setting categorical pre-
treatment standards. As the Administrator
has recognized, however, "[s]eparate treat-
ment of wastes at an integrated plant can
be costly, wasteful of energy, inefficient
and environmentally counter-productive."
Id. at 9420.
The difficulty of establishing national
pretreatment standards for the universe of
industrial sources is compounded by the
way in which the level of pollutants in a
discharge is measured. For most pretreat-
ment standards the Administrator has de-
cided to set numerical limits on the concen-
tration of pollutants in the discharge.37 Of
course, the concentration of pollutants in a
wastestream can be reduced without actual-
ly reducing the amount of pollutants dis-
S7. E.g., 40 C.F.R. § 413.14 (1982) (milligrams
of pollutant per liter of water); see 43 Fed.Reg.
27,743-44 (1978).
M. Congress expressed concern that dilution
not be used to substitute for pretreatment
S.Conf.Rep. No. 1236, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 101,
reprinted in 1972 U.S.Code Cong. & Adm.News
3776, 3778; see H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 830, 95th
Cong., 1st Sess. 87, reprinted in 1977 U.S.Code
charged simply by adding water.38 At the
same time, however, the pretreatment of
non-regulated, diluting wastestreams mixed
with regulated streams may remove pollu-
tants from the non-regulated streams that
would otherwise go without pretreatment.
46 Fed.Reg. 9420 (1981).
The Administrator has attempted to
strike a balance between those considera-
tions by promulgating the combined wastes-
tream formula. Id. The formula, applied
when the wastestream from a regulated
process is mixed prior to pretreatment with
other wastewaters, derives from the numer-
ical limit for the regulated wastestream an
equivalent limit for the combined stream,
weighted to reflect the relative flows of the
contributing wastestreams ("flow-weight-
ed"). As originally explained in the Admin-
istrator's National Pretreatment Strategy,
and as later proposed for promulgation, the
formula assumed that there was only one
regulated process contributing to the com-
bined stream, and that the non-regulated
stream(s) contained no pollutants. Id.; see
44 Fed.Reg. 62,266 (1979); 43 Fed.Reg. 27,-
762 (1978). After receiving substantial
public comment the Administrator recog-
nized that those assumptions made com-
bined pretreatment of wastestreams im-
practicable "by creating combined stream
limits that were technically unattainable in
most instances." 46 Fed.Reg. 9420 (1981).
The Administrator promulgated a revised
formula "to minimize the need for separa-
tion of wastestreams" while protecting
against dilution. Id. Under the promul-
gated formula an alternative discharge lim-
it is derived for the combined wastestream
by considering the flow-weighted categori-
cal concentration limit of each regulated
stream, as well as the flow of any "dilute"
streams. 40 C.F.R. § 403.6(e)(lXi) (1982).39
Cong. & Ad.News 4424, 4462. The Administra-
tor has incorporated a prohibition of dilution in
the general pretreatment regulations, 40 C.F R.
§ 403.6(d) (1982).
39. "Dilute" streams under the formula are re-
stricted to boiler blowdown streams, non-con-
tact cooling streams, sanitary wastestreams
not regulated by categorical standards, and any
process wastestreams entirely exempt from
-------
652
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
The formula has three basic effects. See 46
Fed.Reg. 9477 (1981). First, if a regulated
stream is combined with a dilute stream,
the concentration limit for the regulated
pollutant becomes more stringent in propor-
tion to the dilution. Second, if a regulated
stream is combined with another regulated
stream with different concentration limits
for the same pollutant, the concentration
limit for the regulated pollutant in the com-
bined stream will be somewhere in between
the two limits, in proportion to the flows
and limits of two regulated streams. Third,
if a regulated stream is combined with an
non-regulated but non-dilute stream (an
"unregulated" stream), the concentration
limit for the regulated pollutant in the com-
bined stream stays unchanged. Of course,
if more than one of these combinations oc-
curs, the effects are also combined.
We note at the outset that behind the
promulgated formula's three effects lie
three assumptions. First, the formula as-
sumes that dilute streams as defined in 40
C.F.R. § 403.6(e) (1982) are free of the reg-
ulated pollutant. 46 Fed.Reg. 9421 (1982).
Second, the formula presumes that two reg-
ulated streams are just as pretreatable com-
bined as they are segregated—that is, that
they do not interfere with each other's pre-
treatment processes. Third, the formula
categorical standards because the pollutant in
question is present in small quantities 40
C F.R. § 403 6(e)(l)(i), (li) (1982); see NRDC v.
Costle, 12 Env't Rep.Cas (BNA) at 1842-43 '! 8
40. Ford first claims that Congress used the
term "source" interchangeably with the term
"industrial user" See id. §§ 1284(b)(2),
1342(b)(9). "Point source" and "industrial
user" are separately defined, however, and as
defined "point source" would permit several
"sources" in a single facility. Id. § 1362(14),
(18).
Ford next notes that the legislative history of
the 1977 Amendments to § 307(a) approved
the promulgation of BAT standards "on an m-
dustry-by-industry basis." 1977 Legis.Hist. at
327 (statement of Rep Roberts); id. at 455
(statement of Sen Muskie). The language of
that secUon mandates regulation by "category
or class of point sources," however. 33 U S.C.
§ 1317(a)(2), (5) (1976 & Supp. 1 1977).
Third, Ford cites § 306(b)(1)(A), which lists
categories of new sources in broad industrial
groups. 33 U.S.C. § 1316(b)(1)(A) (1976), see
assumes that unregulated streams are just
as pretreatable as regulated streams.
1. Process Categories
[21] Ford makes an assertion which,
though raised in the context of the categor-
ical electroplating regulations, would under-
mine the basic rationale advanced for the
combined wastestream formula as applied
to most indirect dischargers. Ford, with
joint petitioners, contends that Congress in-
tended that the Administrator regulate
whole plants, not operations or processes, by
industrial category. Thus, Ford asserts, the
Administrator must regulate an integrated
automobile manufacturing plant that com-
bines its wastestreams before pretreatment,
not by establishing separate categorical
standards for its electroplating, rubber pro-
cessing, iron and steel, etc., operations and
then using the formula to create an alterna-
tive discharge limit for the combined
stream, but by promulgating a single pre-
treatment standard for the facility, without
any use of the formula. Ford analogizes to
diverse though tangential sources to show
that Congress intended that the Adminis-
trator was to regulate whole plants, but
refers us to nothing which indicates that a
whole plant can lie subjected to only one
categorical standard no matter how many
processes are employed.40 Absent some in-
id § 1317(c). That section permits the Admin-
istrator within each industrial category to dis-
tinguish among classes and types of sources
considering the type of process used, however
Id. J 1316(b)(2); see 1972 Legis Hist 259
(statement of Reg. Wright).
Finally, Ford notes that the NRDC v. Tram
consent decree mandates that in setting cate-
gorical pretreatment standards "[t]he scope of
point source coverage of each listed category is
determined by the Standard Industrial Classifi-
cation ("SIC") Code number or numbers which
are set forth for each industrial category."
8 Env't RepCas (BNA) at 2125 H 5, see id at
2130-36; 43 Fed Reg 27,760,27,771-73 (1978)
Ford claims that such SIC Codes treat integrat-
ed facilities as a unit. The consent decree has
since been modified to reshuffle the originally-
designated industrial categories and to dis-
pense with the SIC Codes, however, NRDC v.
Costle, 12 Env't Rep.Cas. (BNA) at 1841-42,
see 46 Fed.Reg 9405, 9459 (1981).
NATIONAL ASS'N OF METAL FINISHERS v. E.P.A.
ate as 718 fM 624 (1983)
653
dication that this was Congress' intent, we
will defer to the Administrator's interpreta-
tion.
2. Moving Target
Joint petitioners, GM and Interlake put
more emphasis on their assertion that the
Administrator's power to promulgate pre-
treatment standards for each process does
not allow him to impose such standards one
by one on a single facility. Petitioners cor-
rectly point out that each time an unregu-
lated contributing stream becomes regulat-
ed, application of the formula will change
the combined wasteslream's alternative dis-
charge limit. Petitioners urge that as a
result their facilities will be required to
adjust to a "moving target," denying them
finality and rendering the planning and
construction of control technology impossi-
ble. EPA argues that the moving target is
not the fault of the formula, but is inevita-
ble where an agency of limited resources
must promulgate standards for numerous
categories which must also apply to inte-
grated facilities.
We agree with petitioners that the "mov-
ing target" is not an inevitable dilemma but
is the result of the Administrator's choice to
regulate process-by-process rather than by
a method which treated each industrial fa-
cility as an indivisible unit. See also 33
U.S.C. § 1317(bXl) (1976) (directing pro-
mulgation of pretreatment standards with-
in 270 days). The Administrator's choice
41.	Joint petitioners suggest that the Adminis-
trator could have regulated integrated facilities
industry-by-industry or plant-by-plant, or could
have regulated each integrated facility under
the process category best suited to it. GM
suggests instead that individual integrated fa-
cilities go unregulated until all applicable proc-
ess standards are promulgated.
42.	Joint petitioners complain that because of
the formula's moving target, the categorical
standards will give inadequate notice of what
compliance is required. We do not believe,
however, that the problem of notice thus
presented to integrated facilities is any more
severe than for segregated facilities to which a
series of categorical standards are applied. In
any case, such problems are peculiar to the
individual categorical standard and can be
raised in more concrete form in each standard's
rulemaking proceedings.
may well affect the costs and attainability
of each categorical standard imposed on
integrated indirect dischargers, and the Ad-
ministrator must take such effects into
account. We do not believe, however, that
the existence of the moving target problem
necessarily renders the Administrator's
choice, and the combined wastestream for-
mula, arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of
discretion. The Administrator must regu-
late a vast array of indirect dischargers
within the periods specified in the Act. The
regulation of the variety of integrated facil-
ities combining wastestreams of diverse
character inevitably complicates the Admin-
istrator's task. Although petitioners offer
several approaches the Administrator might
have adopted,41 we cannot substitute our
judgment for that of the Administrator.
The process-by-process or "building block"
approach may make up in relative simplici-
ty and uniformity what it lacks in predict-
ability.42 We cannot say that that ap-
proach, or the formula that implements it,
lacks a rational basis.43
3. Attainability and Cost of Combined
Pretreatment
Joint petitioners, Interlake and GM also
contend that in promulgating the formula
the Administrator must consider the pre-
treatability of combined wastestreams, and
the cost of such pretreatment. They note
that if a combined wastestream does not fit
the formula's assumptions,44 the formula-
43.	GM argues that because the formula pro-
posed in 1979 had no moving target problem
and required segregauon in most instances, it
provided inadequate notice of the formula ulti-
mately promulgated. We agree with EPA that
the proposed formula fairly apprised the affect-
ed parties of the subjects and issues raised by
the formula, and that the promulgated formula
was simply a reaction to the comments re-
ceived See AISl II, 568 F 2d at 293, see also
BASF Wyandotte, 598 F.2d at 642-44
44.	Petitioners point out, first, that even as
defined in § 403.6(e) dilute streams may them-
selves contain pollutants Second, they note
that as-yet-unregulated streams containing the
regulated pollutant may not be treatable to the
same degree as the regulated stream Third,
they raise the possibility that the pollutants in
the combined streams may impede the control
-------
654
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
generated alu.. ..ative discharge limit may
be unattainable or more costly. If the Ad-
ministrator has failed to consider the ef-
fluent reduction attainable or the cost, they
argue, then the alternative discharge limits
generated by the formula are invalid. They
claim that as a result the formula itself is
arbitrary and capricious.
[22] Section 304(b) of the Act directs
the Administrator in setting BPT and BAT
limits to "identify ... the degree of ef-
fluent reduction attainable through the ap-
plication" of the control technology, and to
consider the cost of applying that technolo-
gy. 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(1), (2) (1976). Sec-
tion 306(b) of the Act requires the Adminis-
trator to consider the same factors in set-
ting BDT. Id § 1316(a), (b). When the
Administrator sets pretreatment standards
using the BPT, BAT, or BDT levels of
technology, he must consider those statuto-
rily-relevant factors for the wastestreams
he regulates, whether they are segregated
or combined. See generally AISl II, 568
F.2d at 304-05. Thus, the Administrator at
some point must consider the effluent re-
duction attainable by pretreatment of com-
bined wastestreams, and the cost of attain-
ing that reduction.45
EPA admits that in promulgating the
combined wastestream formula the Admin-
istrator "did not consider—in fact could not
have taken into account—every relevant
factor for every category." Brief for Re-
spondent (No. 79-2256) at 78; see 46 Fed.
Reg. 9422 (1982) (stating insufficiency of
data). EPA urges instead that the ques-
tions of the attainable effluent reduction
technology used for the regulated streams Fi-
nally, they argue that the formula wrongly as-
sumes a constant flow from regulated
processes contributing to the combined stream.
GM contends that the Administrator did not
respond to significant comments raising the
last-mentioned difficulty. See app. at 565
(comments of Ford). Because we conclude
that the problem is best resolved in the applica-
ble categorical rulemaking, we need not ad-
dress GM's contention.
45. When faced with the task of considering the
cost and attainability of pretreating a regulated
wastestream mixed into a combined wastes-
tream, the Administrator has several options in
setting BPT, BAT, or BDT levels of technology.
and the attainment cost of combined was-
testreams "are best addressed in the indi-
vidual categorical rulemaking" which sets
the numerical discharge limits that are in-
serted into the formula. Brief for Respon-
dent (No. 79-2256) at 78. Consequently,
EPA argues that those questions are not
ripe for judicial review after the promulga-
tion of the combined wastestream formula,
but must be considered only in reviewing
the categorical standards applicable to com-
bined wastestreams.
[23] To determine whether a challenge
to an administrative regulation is ripe for
review,
a two-fold inquiry must be made: first to
determine whether the issues tendered
are appropriate for judicial resolution,
and second to assess the hardship to the
parties if judicial relief is denied at that
stage.
Toilet Goods Association v. Gardner, 387
U.S. 158,162, 87 S.Ct. 1520,1523,18 L.Ed.2d
697 (1967); see Abbott Laboratories v.
Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-56, 87 S.Ct. 1507,
1515-19, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967). Applying
that test, we believe that the issues raised
by petitioners are not ripe for review.
First, the issues are not appropriate for
judicial resolution in our review of the for-
mula itself. We cannot determine whether
the Administrator has properly considered
the attainable effluent reduction and at-
tainment cost of a combined wastestream's
alternative discharge limit until that limit
has been generated by the formula. The
formula cannot generate an alternative lim-
He could find segregated pretreatment to be
the best technology, and determine the cost
and feasibility of segregating the regulated
wastestream from combined stream and sepa-
rately pretreating the regulated stream He
could find combined pretreatment to be the
best technology, and consider the cost and at-
tainability of pretreating the combined stream
Indeed, if the Administrator chose combined
pretreatment as the best technology but found
its cost and attainability indeterminable, he
could choose to use the cost and attainability of
segregated pretreatment as a determinable sur-
rogate for the cost and attainability of com-
bined pretreatment.
NATIONAL ASS'N OF Ml
Cite as 7191
it for the combined wastestream until the
Administrator promulgates a categorical
standard setting numerical discharge limits
for one or more of the process wastestreams
contributing to the combined stream.
Thus, the promulgation of a categorical
standard provides "further factual amplifi-
cation" necessary to decide the attainability
and cost of an alternative discharge limit.
Hooker Chemical Co. v. EPA, 642 F.2d 48,
52 (3d Cir.1981).46 It is only in our review
of such categorical standards that we can
resolve petitioners' claims.
Of course, once the Administrator
promulgates a categorical standard applica-
ble to a process stream contributing to a
discharger's combined stream, the issues be-
come appropriate for judicial resolution.
Each such standard, by setting a new nu-
merical discharge limit on the contributing
stream, will result in a new alternative
discharge limit for the combined stream.
Because that alternative limit is then en-
forceable against the discharger, see 46
Fed.Reg. 9420 (1982), it must be based on a
consideration of the relevant factors, in-
cluding attainability and cost. Dischargers
petitioning for review of the categorical
standard may then argue that the Adminis-
trator failed to consider the cost and attain-
ability of the alternative discharge limit,
and the courts can resolve their claims.
[24] Second, we do not believe that peti-
tioners will suffer hardship if we now deny
46.	Moreover, while the formula is itself "final,"
it does not generate final, enforceable alterna-
tive discharge limits until a categorical stan-
dard is promulgated. See Abbott Laboratories,
387 U.S. at 147, 149-52, 87 S.Ct. at 1514, 1515-
17.
47.	Joint petitioners argue that it violates the
requirement of rulemaking to promulgate a for-
mula requiring pretreatment of an as-yet-un-
regulated wastestream. The Administrator dis-
agrees, stating an industry combining regulated
and unregulated wastestream has the option of
segregating and providing separate pretreat-
ment of regulated and unregulated streams. 46
Fed.Reg. 9422 (1982). We agree with the Ad-
ministrator, save that he must of course con-
sider the costs of such segregation in setting
the categorical standard for the regulated
stream.
rAL FINISHERS v. E.P.A.	655
J 624 (1983)
judicial review of their contentions. As
noted above, petitioners will be able to seek
review of the Administrator's consideration
of attainability and cost each time the Ad-
ministrator promulgates a categorical stan-
dard resulting in a new alternative dis-
charge limit generated by the formula.
They may then argue that that alternative
limit is not based on a consideration of
those relevant factors.47 Until such cate-
gorical standards are promulgated, no en-
forceable alternative limit exists and the
impact on the petitioners is not "sufficient-
ly direct and immediate." A.O. Smith Corp.
v. FTC, 530 F.2d 515, 522 (3d Cir.1976)
(quoting Abbott Laboratories, 387 U.S. at
152, 87 S.Ct. at 1517). As to future cate-
gorical standards, then, petitioners' argu-
ments are merely postponed to another
day.48
Petitioners claim, however, that without
judicial review of the formula they will
suffer hardship because they are subject to
already-promulgated categorical standards.
Interlake contends that in promulgating the
new Iron and Steel Manufacturing categor-
ical pretreatment regulations, 40 C.F.R.
§§ 420.01-127 (1982), the Administrator
failed to consider the attainability or cost of
the alternative discharge limits generated
by the combined wastestream formula. See
47 Fed.Reg. 23,267 (1982).4S Similarly, Ford
challenges the Administrator's considera-
tion of cost and attainability of combined
48.	Joint petitioners argue that they will be
harmed even if they can contest the alternative
discharge limits generated in the future by the
formula. They claim that if the formula goes
unchallenged now the resulting uncertainty will
prevent them from building for future pretreat-
ment. Whatever formula is adopted, however,
the alternative discharge limits it generates for
combined streams will be uncertain until the
categorical limits for the contributing streams
have been promulgated
49.	Interlake argues that the formula may gen-
erate unattainable limits because "dilute
streams" in the iron and steel industry are not
pollutant-free, as assumed by the formula, but
contain ammonia.
Interlake also charges that the Administrator
failed to consider the cost and feasibility of
flow-monitoring for the combined streams.
-------
656
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
pre treatment in promulgating the electro-
plating standards.
EPA argues that the challenges to the
attainability and cost of the alternative dis-
charge limits generated using the electro-
plating and iron and steel manufacturing
pretreatment standards cannot be ad-
dressed in our review of the formula, but
must be raised in the review of those cate-
gorical standards. First, EPA notes that
Interlake is presently seeking review of the
iron and steel standards in this court. Na-
tional Steel Corp. v. EPA, Nos. 82-3225 et
al. (3d Cir. filed June 10, 1982). EPA states
that Interlake may raise its challenge in
those cases. Brief for Respondent (No. 79-
2256) at 93. Similarly, EPA asserts that
Ford must press its arguments in its appeal
from the denial of its petition to reconsider
the categorical electroplating standards.
See Ford Motor Co. v. EPA, 718 F.2d 55 (3d
Cir. 1983). EPA adds that if relief is war-
ranted in those cases, the proper remedy
would be the vacation of the categorical
standards, not of the combined wastestream
formula.
We agree with EPA that Interlake's chal-
lenges to the formula-generated alternative
discharge limits for the iron and steel indus-
try can be raised in our review of the
categorical standards for iron and steel
manufacturing. Similarly, we agree that
Ford can challenge the alternative dis-
charge limits for the electroplating industry
in its appeal from the denial of its petition
for reconsideration of the categorical elec-
troplating standards. Those petitioners will
then have the opportunity to question
whether the Administrator properly con-
sidered the cost and attainability of those
alternative limits. Because Interlake and
50. In addition, NAMF argues that the electro-
plating standards should be set aside because of
defects in the general pretreatment standards.
First, NAMF asserts that without a workable
removal credits provision to prevent redundant
treatment, the electroplating standards cannot
stand. Second, NAMF contends that because
the combined wastestream formula is arbitrary
and subjects electroplaters to a moving target,
it should not be applied to them. As we have
considered and rejected those arguments in de-
nying the petitions for review of those two
Ford thus will not suffer hardship by our
failure to review their challenges to the
formula itself, we conclude that their chal-
lenges are not now ripe. We will therefore
deny their petitions for review of the for-
mula.
III. THE CATEGORICAL
ELECTROPLATING
STANDARDS
[25] The categorical pretreatment regu-
lations establish numerical limits, based on
BPT-level technology, upon the discharge of
certain pollutants by electroplating opera-
tions. 40 C.F.R. §§ 413.01-84 (1982). Pe-
titioners make several challenges to these
standards. First, Ford contends that the
methodology behind the pretreatment stan-
dards is fatally flawed. Second, NAMF
contends that the standards are not eco-
nomically achievable for job shops and are
thus arbitrary and capricious.50 Third, GM
asserts that the June 30, 1984 compliance
date for integrated electroplaters is arbi-
trary and capricious.
A. Methodology of the Standards
Ford contends that the Administrator has
improperly calculated the discharge limits
attainable using BPT. We disagree, and
will deny Ford's petition for review.
[26] In promulgating the electroplating
standards the Administrator has adopted
the BPT level of technology from section
301(bXlXA), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(lXA)
(1976). The requirements for determining
BPT limits are set forth in section 304(bXl).
which directs the Administrator to "identi-
fy, in terms of amounts of constituents and
chemical, physical, and biological character-
provisions, we decline NAMF's invitation to set
aside the electroplating regulations on those
grounds
NAMF also argues that the definitions of
"interference" and "pass through" are invalid
and undermine the electroplating standards.
We agree that the definitions are invalid.
However, the definitions play no part in either
the setting or the administration of the categor-
ical pretreatment standards. We can therefore
see no reason why their invalidity should affect
the validity of the electroplating standards
NATIONAL ASS'N OF METAL FINISHERS v. E.P.A.
Cite u 718 FJd 624 (1983)
istics of pollutants, the degree of effluent practicable technology.
657
reduction attainable through the applica-
tion of the best practicable control technolo-
gy currently available for classes and cate-
gories of point sources." 33 U.S.C.
§ 1314(bXl) (1976). The stringency re-
quired by BPT is indicated in the legislative
history:
The Administrator should establish the
range of "best practicable" levels based
upon the average of the best existing
performance by plants of various sizes,
ages, and unit processes within each in-
dustrial category.
1972 Legis.Hist. 170 (statement of Sen.
Muskie); see S.Rep. No. 414, 92d Cong., 1st
Sess. 50, reprinted in 1972 U.S.Code Cong.
& Ad.News 3668, 3716.5' Unless the
present practices of all sources in the cate-
gory are "uniformly inadequate," 1972 Leg-
is.Hist. 169-70 (statement of Sen. Muskie),
"the average of the best" is a measure of
BPT. Hooker Chemical & Plastics Corp. v.
Train, 537 F.2d 620, 633 (2d Cir.1976);
American Meat Institute v. EPA, 526 F.2d
442, 453 (7th Cir.1975); see National
Crashed Stone, 449 U.S. at 76 & n. 15, 101
S.Ct. at 303 & n. 15; AI SI I, 526 F.2d at
1057.
To set the BPT electroplating standards
the Administrator first determined the pol-
lutanta of concern, e.g., cadmium, lead, cya-
nide, hexavalent and trivalent chromium,
copper, nickel, and zinc. After determining
the BPT pretreatment technology used by
the average of the best plants, the Adminis-
trator used his sampling data" to deter-
mine the effluent reductions achievable by
Such plants using that technology. The Ad-
ministrator first derived a "long-term aver-
age effluent concentration" for each regu-
lated pollutant, which represented the ex-
pected effluent concentration attainable
over a year or more by using the best
51. For BAT, by contrast, the legislaUve history
indicates that the range of levels established
should instead "at a minimum be referenced to
the best performer in any industrial category."
1972 Legis.Hist. 170 (statement of Sen. Musk-
ie); S.Rep. No. 414, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 50,
reprinted In 1972 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad News
3668, 3717.
Because even
plants using the best practicable technology
experience routine fluctuations in their ef-
fluent concentration, the Administrator cal-
culated "variability factors" representing
the percentage increase normally occurring
during one- and thirty-day periods. The
Administrator then multiplied the long-
term concentration average by the respec-
tive variability factors to obtain the one-
and thirty-day pretreatment standards for
each pollutant he regulated.
[27] Ford challenges the data and meth-
odology used by the Administrator in his
calculations. Under the arbitrary and ca-
pricious standard our deference to the agen-
cy is greatest when reviewing technical
matters within its expertise. In particular,
the choice of scientific data and statistical
methodology to be used is best left to the
sound discretion of the Administrator. See
BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Costle, 598 F.2d
637, 655 (1st Cir.1979); American Petrole-
um Institute v. EPA, 540 F.2d 1023, 1036
(10th Cir.1976), cert, denied, 430 U.S. 922, 97
S.Ct. 1340, 51 L.Ed.2d 601 (1977); FMC
Corp. v. Train, 539 F.2d 973, 986 (4th Cir.
1976); American Meat Institute, 526 F.2d
at 457.
1. The Regression Analysis
[28] Ford first questions the Adminis-
trator's method of calculating the long-term
average effluent concentration for pollu-
tants other than cyanide and hexavalent
chromium. For those two pollutants, the
Administrator was able to base the long-
term averages directly on empirical data
from the average of the best plants. For
copper, nickel, zinc, total (hexavalent plus
trivalent) chromium, lead, and cadmium,
however, the Administrator employed a
multiple regression analysis, using three
variables believed to be significantly related
52. The Administrator contacted 542 plants, of
which 196 returned data adequate for complete
analysis. The Administrator then visited 82 of
the most promising plants in order to verify the
submitted data. J.App. at 1034-36.
-------
658
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
to the concentration of the regulated pollu-
tant in the effluent: the concentration in
the influent of the regulated Metal
("Me""); the concentration in the influent
of all Precipitable Metals ("PM"); and the
concentration in the effluent of the Total
Suspended Solids ("TSS"). J. App. at 1346.
The Administrator simplified his equation
by using the ratio of Me° over PM, called
Xme. Id. at 1347. Finding that electropla-
ters using adequate pollution control could
attain an average TSS of 25 mg/1 and
achieve an Xme equal to that of the 75th
percentile of sampled firms, the Adminis-
trator then derived long-term averages for
the regulated pollutants. Sec id. at 1357-
65.
Ford first claims that a regression analy-
sis using TSS and Xme explains very little.
The Administrator thoroughly explained his
use of the regression analysis and of TSS
and Xme, and analyzed their predictive val-
ue, however. Id. at 1346-57, 1398.5® Ford
also attacks as unattainable the values as-
signed to Xme and TSS. We believe, how-
ever, that both the assigned values are
clearly attainable by the average of the
best plants: the 75th percentile figure for
Xme was already being met, by definition,
by 75% of the sampled plants, and the 25
mg/1 TSS figure was above that observed
for the plants using BPT.54
Ford next challenges the Administrator's
computation of the variability factors. Be-
cause neither Ford nor any other commen-
tator criticized the Administrator's variabil-
ity approach during the rulemaking leading
53. Ford correctly points out that because Xme
is a ratio of the regulated metal to all metals,
an electroplater discharging only one metal will
never have an Xme of less than one The
Administrator recognized that, however He
stated that the addition of unregulated precipi-
table metals may serve to coagulate and help
precipitate the regulated metal J.App. at
1358, 1850. He also stated that a separate
analysis indicated that single-metal electropla-
ters would be able to meet the standard for the
regulated pollutant set using Xme. J.App at
1364-65; 44 Fed.Reg 52,609 (1979).
54. Ford questions the Administrator's decision
to use TSS and Xme data from only some of
the plants EPA visited, but fails to address the
to the 1979 standards, Ford has less leeway
in demonstrating the invalidity of that ap-
proach. Ford questions both the Adminis-
trator's choice of data and his use of the
median variability factor. We see nothing
in Ford's criticisms that satisfies its burden.
2. Lead and Cadmium
Finally, Ford claims that, in contrast to
the other pollutants for which the Adminis-
trator used the regression analysis, the lead
and cadmium discharge limits are totally
unsupported.55 For copper, nickel, zinc, and
total chromium, the Administrator had had
adequate data on the influent and effluent
concentrations of each pollutant to deter-
mine individualized coefficients in the re-
gression equation. Those coefficients, dif-
ferent for each pollutant, served to ensure
the "best fit" for each pollutant's long-term
average. J.App. at 1347-49, 1359. For
lead and cadmium, however, the Adminis-
trator recognized that he had inadequate
data to derive individualized coefficients.
Having computed a "group average" of the
coefficients determined for copper, nickel,
zinc, and total chromium (expressed in his
Equation 7), J.App. at 1347, 1349-50, the
Administrator stated:
Because of the small number of plants
plating [cadmium] or discharging [lead],
it is not feasible to develop best fit equa-
tions for these metals. However, Equa-
tion [7] predicts, quite well, the discharge
concentrations of the metals for which
adequate data were available. There-
criteria used by the Administrator to distin-
guish between the adequacy of treatment at the
visited plants. See J.App at 1357-58.
55. We can find no indication that any com-
ments dunng the rulemaking called the Admin-
istrator's attention to the lack of data behind
the lead and cadmium limits We note, how-
ever, that the Administrator was nonetheless
aware of the problem. Indeed, given its cen-
trality to his efforts to set limits for those
pollutants, the lack of data could hardly have
been overlooked. See AISI /, 526 F.2d at 1050
In any case, EPA does not argue that Ford
should be barred from raising the problem be-
cause of any failure to raise it before the Ad-
ministrator
NATIONAL ASS'N OF ME1
Cite as 718 F.2
fore, this equation is used to derive aver-
age [cadmium] and [lead] limits as well.
J.App. at 1359, 1361 (reference and footnote
omitted). The Administrator then adopted
the average of the coefficients of the four
metals as the coefficients for lead and for
cadmium. In other words, the Administra-
tor chose to predict the treatability of lead
and cadmium using data from other metals,
explaining only that the data predicted well
the treatability of those other metals.
Ford correctly notes that nothing in the
Administrator's statement explains why the
data for the four metals will predict well
the treatability of lead and cadmium. We
can reasonably discern, however, that the
Administrator found lead and cadmium to
be equally as treatable as the other metals.
Ford has failed to rebut that implicit as-
sumption, for it has never demonstrated,
either in the administrative record or before
us, that lead and cadmium are not equally
treatable.
We note, moreover, that the Administra-
tor buttressed his conclusion using what
data he possessed on lead and cadmium.
See Weyerhaeuser, 590 F.2d at 1054 n. 70.
In a footnote to his explanation for using
the average coefficients, the Administrator
noted that the long-term average effluent
concentrations for lead and cadmium de-
rived using the average coefficients were
36. EPA cites other evidence, not relied on by
the Administrator, to show that all the elec-
troplating standards, including lead and cadmi-
um, are achievable. Bnef of Respondent (No
79-2256) at 150-52. EPA refers to data com-
piled in the BAT Metal Finishing rulemaking
and to a recent survey of NPDES permits. The
material cited is outside of the record in the
BPT electroplating rulemaking, however.
Therefore, it cannot serve as support for the
Administrator's decision. AISI II, 568 F.2d at
296-97. EPA also cites data in the record from
the facilities of Ford and other automakers
which showed cadmium and lead effluent con-
centrations below the electroplating standards
See J.App. at 1696, 1760-61. As the Adminis-
trator did not consider the data from those
facilities to be usable, however, that data can
be given little weight.
EPA next notes that the Administrator re-
quested data from the electroplating industry
and that the three lead and three cadmium
plants proved to be the only sources of usable
lead and cadmium data. EPA argues that in
TAL FINISHERS v. E.P.A.	659
d624 (1983)
higher than the observed average concen-
tration for both lead and cadmium at both
the three lead-discharging plants and the
three cadmium-plating plants which the
Administrator determined had usable data.
J.App. at 1361 n. 9.M Although, as Ford
points out, the Administrator had found the
cited data insufficient to develop lead and
cadmium coefficients directly, we believe
that the data nonetheless provides some
support for his conclusion reached through
use of the group average.
We conclude that Ford has failed to over-
come the presumption that the Administra-
tor's decision was rational. The Adminis-
trator's implicit finding, supported by the
available data, that lead and cadmium are
equally treatable as the four other metals
has not been rebutted by contrary evidence.
We therefore reject Ford's challenge to the
Administrator's use of the average coeffi-
cients to derive the long-term effluent con-
centrations for lead and cadmium.57
B. The Cost to Segregated Facilities
NAMF charges that the electroplating
pretreatment standards are not economical-
ly achievable. EPA both disputes the valid-
ity of NAMF's contention and argues that
NAMF is barred from raising its conten-
tion. We hold that NAMF is not barred
those circumstances the court should not
second-guess the Administrator where he has
acknowledged the limited data base and made
efforts to compensate for that lack of data.
EPA cites BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Costle,
598 F 2d 637 (1st Cir 1979), in which the court
stated that it "will not hear industry complain
that EPA has used insufficient data when in-
dustry was uncooperative in supplying the
missing data." Id. at 653 Whatever the gen-
eral validity of such a proposition, see National
Lime Association v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 443
(D C.Cir. 1980), we will not thus muffle the crit-
icisms of a party who was cooperative in sup-
plying data. See J App. at 1761
57. Ford also challenges the Administrator's
derivation of the variability factors for lead and
cadmium by aggregating the data from those
metals with that from silver. Ford again fails
to show that effluent concentrations for silver,
lead and cadmium do not vary to the same
extent.
-------
660
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
from chalk g the electroplating stan-
dards. We also hold that the Administrator
did not abuse his discretion in concluding
that the costs imposed by the standards
were justified by the reduction in the dis-
charge of pollution. We will therefore
deny the petitions for review.
[29] Section 304(bXl) of the Act states
that in promulgating BPT discharge limits
the Administrator must identify "the de-
gree of effluent reduction attainable
through the application of the best practica-
ble control technology currently available"
and must consider "the total cost of applica-
tion of technology in relation to the ef-
fluent reduction benefits to be achieved
from such application." 33 U.S.C.
§ 1314M1XA), (B) (1976). The legislative
history indicates that Congress intended to
require "a limited cost-benefit analysis" to
determine whether the required technology
was indeed practicable. 1972 Legis.Hist.
170 (statement of Sen. Muskie). The Ad-
ministrator's consideration of cost was to
include both the dollar outlays of dischar-
gers to comply with the standards and the
potential unemployment and economic dis-
location caused by the closing of dischargers
unable to comply. AISI I, 526 F.2d at 1053
n. 57.
In promulgating the 1979 electroplating
standards the Administrator noted that the
standards would have a significant econom-
ic impact, particularly on the economically-
vulnerable job shops and printed circuit
board manufacturers. The Administrator
stated that to reduce costs he had imposed
leas stringent standards on plants with an
electroplating process waste flow of less
than 10,000 gallons per day, and had elimi-
88. In addition, the Administrator estimated
that the average price of electroplating would
rise 7%, that production would decline, and
that the structure of the Industry might change.
44 Fed.Reg. 52,394, 52.617 (1979).
59. In comments on the proposed electroplating
standard, the Department of Commerce stated
Its belief "that regulations which result in the
closure of 20% of an entire industrial category
are not economically achievable," and recom-
mended that the Administrator base his stan-
dards on a less costly technology. J.App. at
777. The Council on Wage and Price Stability
nated the limits on hexavalent chromium
44 Fed.Reg. 52,590-91 (1979); 43 Fed.Reg.
6562 (1978). Nonetheless, he estimated that
the cost of compliance for electroplaters
would be $1.34 billion in capital costs and
$425 million in annual cost. Id. at 52,593-
94. He also estimated that, rather than
attain compliance, 21.5% of indirectly-dis-
charging job shops (587 firms and 9,653
workers) and 3.1% of indirectly-discharging
printed circuit board manufacturers (10
firms and 321 workers) might close, and
that 3.0% of the employees of indirectly-dis-
charging captive electroplating operations
would lose their jobs when those operations
shut down (140 firms and 2610 workers).
44 Fed.Reg. 52,594 (1979).58 At the same
time the Administrator estimated that com-
pliance with the standards would remove
140 million pounds per year of toxic pollu-
tants. Id. at 52,591. In response to com-
ments that the standards were not achieva-
ble,59 the Administrator stated:
Congress realized that some businesses
would close as a result of the promulga-
tion of technology-based standards. Con-
gress determined that long term environ-
mental benefits were more important
than short term dislocations. The Ad-
ministrator has considered the costs and
benefits of this regulation, as evidenced
by his exemption of small platers from
some requirements.
Id. at 52,602. The Administrator added
that he did not conduct a strict cost-benefit
analysis because such an analysis "was dis-
couraged by Congress during the develop-
ment of the Clean Water Act." Id. at
52,606.
said that the estimate of closings for job shops
was "overly optimistic" and "raised serious
doubts whether the regulation can be viewed as
'practicable.'" J App. at 989. NAMF com-
mented that the 20% closure rate rendered the
standards not economically achievable, and
contended that in fact the standards would
close 34% to 59% of the job shops. J.App- at
787. To the latter comment the Administrator
responded that his estimate was "an approxi-
mation, not a "worst case' estimate." 44 Fed.
Reg. 52,594 (1979).
NATIONAL ASS'N OF ME1
Cite as 719 F.Z
1. The NAMF Settlement Agreement
[30] NAMF and IIPEC sought review of
the 1979 electroplating standards in this
court. Those parties and the Administrator
then entered into the NAMF Settlement
Agreement. R.Add. at D-l. Under that
agreement the Administrator agreed to pro-
pose several specific amendments to the
electroplating standards. In addition, the
Administrator agreed to include as part of
the preamble to those amendments a state-
ment "concerning the relationship between
the proposed regulations .. and possible
further best available control technology
economically available (BAT) regulations."
R.Add. at D-2. The statement affirmed
that the BAT standards would be based on
technology compatible with that underlying
the BPT standards, and that the cumulative
impact of the BPT standards would be con-
sidered in determining what was economi-
cally achievable under the BAT standards.
R.Add. at D-8. The statement also said
that the Administrator "does not plan to
develop more stringent new pretreatment
standards" for job shops and printed circuit
board manufacturers "in the next several
years." Id. at D-9. In return, NAMF and
IIPEC stated that if the final regulations
and preamble did not "differ significantly"
from the proposed regulations and pream-
ble, then they would not challenge the 1979
electroplating standards. Id. at D-3.
We need not consider whether the Ad-
ministrator had the power to enter into the
NAMF Settlement Agreement because we
find the Administrator has failed to live up
to its terms. The parties to the Settlement
Agreement agree that NAMF and IIPEC
60. EPA argues that because the Metal Finish-
ing regulations are not yet effective, it has not
yet "developed" the TTO standard. We think
that the term "develop" is broad enough to
encompass the promulgation of a more strin-
gent pretreatment standard. For that reason,
we also reject any suggestion that the TTO
requirement, promulgated in 1983, was not de-
veloped within "the next several years" of the
1980 NAMF Settlement Agreement.
EPA argues that if we permit them to chal-
lenge the standards, "NAMF and IIPEC will
have obtained a very good bargain indeed."
Brief for Respondents (No. 79-2256) at 144—45
We trust that the Administrator made the
TAL FINISHERS v. E.P.A.	661
d€24 (1983)
offered to exchange their right to contest
the 1979 standards if the Administrator,
inter alia, would both publish the suggested
language in the preamble and abide by that
language. Instead of publishing the lan-
guage of the Settlement Agreement when
he promulgated the 1981 amendments, how-
ever, the Administrator wrote a preamble
indicating that he could not give the re-
quested assurances. 46 Fed.Reg. 9464
(1981).	The Administrator's belated correc-
tion does not alter the fact that he failed to
comply with the Settlement Agreement.
See 46 Fed.Reg. 30,625-26 (1981). More
important, the Administrator's subsequent
actions in the Metal Finishing regulations
were not fully in accord with the language
of the preamble. By proposing and promul-
gating an additional requirement on job
shops and printed circuit board manufactur-
ers in the form of the limit on total toxic
organics ("TTO"), the Administrator has de-
veloped a "more stringent pretreatment
standard" for those sources. See 48 Fed.
Reg. 32,462 (1983); 47 Fed.Reg. 38,464
(1982).60	Imposition of such a new require-
ment differs significantly from the absence
of further requirements contemplated by
the Settlement Agreement. We hold,
therefore, that NAMF and IIPEC are free
to challenge the standards.61
2. The Cost-Benefit Analysis
NAMF contends that the 1979 electro-
plating standards are not "economically
achievable." Brief for Petitioners NAMF
et a I. at 21. It points in particular to the
Administrator's estimate that approximate-
amendments to the BPT standards and exempt-
ed job shops and circuit board manufacturers
from the BAT standards in order to fulfill his
public duties under the Act
EPA argues that we cannot consider the chal-
lenge of MFASC, which joins in the brief with
NAMF and JIPEC, both because it failed to
petition for review of the 1979 standards and
because it was in privity to NAMF when the
latter signed the Settlement Agreement. Be-
cause dismissal of MFASC would make no
practical difference, we will deny EPA's motion
regarding MFASC which was referred to us on
March 16, 1983
-------
,362
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
ly 20% of indirectly discharging job shops,
employing almost 10,000 workers, may close
as a result of the standards. Because the
Act requires that pretreatment standards
be "economically achievable," NAMF ar-
gues, the electroplating standards are thus
arbitrary and capricious. Id. at 27.
As its language suggests, NAMF asserts
that the electroplating standards are not
BPT standards. Instead NAMF contends
that the standards are based on the best
available technology economically achieva-
ble BAT." The consent decree in NRDC
v. Train, however, required the Administra-
tor to promulgate BPT pretreatment stan-
dards for the electroplating industry by
May 15, 1977, before promulgating BAT
standards for that industry. 8 Env't Rep.
Cas. (BNA) at 2128. Although in proposing
the electroplating standards the Adminis-
trator was imprecise regarding the level of
technology on which the standards were
based, see 43 Fed.Reg. 6560-62, 6564-65,
6568 (1978), it appears that as promulgated
the electroplating standards are intended to
represent BPT-level technology, see 44 Fed.
Reg. 52,592, 52,608 (1979)«
[31,32] NAMF argues that even if the
standards are based on BPT, they must
nonetheless be economically achievable to
be "practicable." Reply Brief for Petition-
ers NAMF, et a/., at 4-5. Section 304(bXl)
of the Act does not include economic
achievability among the requirements listed
for BPT, however. 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(1)
(1976); see 1972 Legis.Hist. 231 (statement
of Rep. Jones). Instead that section directs
the Administrator to consider "the total
cost of application of technology in relation
to the effluent reduction benefita." 33
U.S.C. § 1314(bKlXB) (1976); see also CPC
62.	NAMF cites the legislative history of the
1977 Amendments, H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 830,
95th rnrg, 1st Socg. 87, reprinted in 1977 U S.
Code Cong. & Ad.News 4424, 4462, and the
Administrator's statement of his National Pre-
treatment Strategy, 43 Fed.Reg. 27,762 (1978),
both of which state that pretreatment stan-
dards will require the application of BAT.
63.	NAMF apparently shared that view, for the
NAMF Settlement Agreement in its suggested
preamble language referred to the 1979 elec-
International, Inc. v. Train, 540 F.2d 1329,
1341 (8th Cir.1976), cert, denied, 430 U.S.
966, 97 S.Ct. 1646, 52 L.Ed.2d 357 (1977).
We believe that that limited cost-benefit
analysis, and BPT itself, have a role in the
statutory scheme quite different from the
requirement that the best available technol-
ogy be "economically achievable."
BPT does not limit the amount of pollu-
tion control required of a discharger or an
industry to its economic capability. Rather,
this first phase requires the elimination of
all pollutant discharges where "the costs
imposed on the industry are worth the ben-
efits in pollution reduction." National
Crushed Stone, 449 U.S. at 76, 101 S.Ct. at
303. A discharger not making such "ineffi-
cient" discharges need make no further ef-
fort toward curtailing pollution, even if he
can afford it. Id. at 75, 101 S.Ct. at 303. A
discharger making inefficient discharges
must raise his performance to BPT stan-
dards; if he cannot afford it he must go out
of business. Id. at 76, 101 S.Ct. at 303.
The second phase, BAT, "assumes that the
1977 BPT standard has been met" and that
all such inefficient pollutant discharges
have been eliminated. See id. at 74, 101
S.Ct. at 302: The Act then demands "rea-
sonable further progress toward the nation-
al goal of eliminating the discharge of all
pollutants," 33 U.S.C. § 1311(bX2XA)
(1976), progress that can only be made by
requiring the remaining dischargers to
eliminate "efficient" discharges, where the
costs outweigh the benefits of pollution re-
duction.44 It is only at this stage that the
Act requires that the standards be "eco-
nomically achievable." Id. The remaining
dischargers need only commit "the maxi-
mum resources economically possible," Na-
troplating standards as BPT standards R.Add
at D-8.
64. Consequently, "cost is no longer considered
in comparison to effluent reduction benefits."
National Crushed Stone, 449 US. at 71, 101
S.Ct. at 300; accord 1972 Legis.Hist. 170 (state-
ment of Sen. Muskie). Instead, the Adminis-
trator looks only at the cost of achieving the
requisite effluent reduction. 33 U S.C.
§ 1314(bX2)(B) (1976) See AISI1, 526 F.2d at
1051-52.
NATIONAL ASS'N OF METAL FINISHERS v. E.P.A.
Cite as 719 FJd 624 (1983)
663
tional Crushed Stone, 449 U.S. at 74, 101
S.Ct. at 302; if the BAT standard is not
within the "economic capability" of a dis-
charger making sufficient progress, he need
make only such efforts as are economically
achievable for him. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(c)
(1976); see National Crushed Stone, 449
U.S. at 74, 101 S.Ct. at 302.
[33]	In National Crushed Stone, the Su-
preme Court held that, so long as the Ad-
ministrator had properly found the effluent
reduction benefits were worth the costo im
posed on an industrial category, it "would
be inconsistent with this legislative scheme"
to excuse an individual discharger from
BPT requirements because those require-
ments were not economically achievable for
him. 449 U.S. at 75, 76-77,101 S.Ct. at 302,
303-304. We hold that it would be equally
inconsistent to require that BPT regulations
be economically achievable for even a major
proportion of an industrial category. Con-
gress anticipated that the BPT regulations
"would cause economic hardship and plant
closings" because they would impose on "a
substantial number of point sources" within
each industrial category additional costs
which "must be borne or the point source
eliminated." Id. at 76, 78-83, 101 S.Ct. at
303, 304-307; see Association of Pacific
Fisheries v. EPA, 615 F.2d 794, 808-09 (9th
Cir.1980); AISI I, 526 F.2d at 1052; see also
1977 Legis.Hist. 404 (statement of Rep. An-
derson). The closing of 20% of the job
shops and the loss of 10,000 jobs, while a
severe hardship, will not invalidate the elec-
troplating standards unless the Administra-
tor has failed to consider those costs in
relation to the effluent reduction benefits,
or has improperly concluded that the bene-
fits are worth the costs.
[34]	NAMF challenges the Administra-
tor's consideration of the coats and benefits
of the electroplating standards. The Ad-
ministrator is accorded considerable discre-
tion in weighing costs and benefits. AISI I,
65. In using the words "total" cost Congress
desired only to ensure that the Administrator
would consider both the "internal" dollar costs
if a plant made the expenditures to meet the
standards, and "external" costs, such as eco-
526 F.2d at 1052 & n. 54. As Senator
Muskie stated:
The balancing test between total costs
and effluent reduction benefits is intend-
ed to limit the application of technology
only where the additional degree of ef-
fluent reduction is wholly out of propor-
tion to the costs of achieving such mar-
ginal level of reduction for any class or
category of sources.
1972 Legis Hist, at 170 (statement of Sen.
Mualcic); see Association of Pacific Fishor
ies, 615 F.2d at 805, 809; BASF Wyandotte,
598 F.2d at 656.
[35]	Contrary to NAMF's assertion, it
appears that the Administrator did perform
the required cost-benefit analysis for the
BPT electroplating standards. He calculat-
ed that the benefits would be an effluent
reduction of 140 million pounds of toxic
pollutants per year, and that the total costs
would be |1.34 billion plus $425 million an-
nually, resulting in the closing of 737 elec-
troplating ojierations and the loss of 12,584
jobs. He then stated that he had con-
sidered the costs and benefits in promulgat-
ing the electroplating regulations. From
this we can reasonably discern that the
Administrator concluded that the benefits
were worth the costs.
NAMF argues that the Administrator's
cost-benefit analysis was fatally flawed,
however, because he failed to consider less
burdensome alternatives. It claims that if
the electroplating standards were five per-
cent less stringent the costs to electropla-
ters could be cut in half. EPA denies that
the Administrator must make any such
marginal analysis for BPT.
[36]	Section 304(b)(1) directs the Ad-
ministrator to consider "the total cost" in
relation to the effluent reduction benefits
resulting from the application of control
technology. 33 U S.C. § 1314(b)(lXA)
(1976).65 The legislative history of this re-
nomic dislocation, if a plant went out of busi-
ness instead. 1972 Legis Hist at 231. 237-38
(statement of Rep Jones), id at 259 (statement
of Rep. Wright), see HR No 11896, 92d
-------
664

719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
quirement leSTs us to conclude that Con-
gress intended that the Administrator con-
sider "the additional degree of effluent re-
duction" in relation to "the costs of achiev-
ing such marginal level of reduction." 1972
Legis.Hist. 170 (statement of Sen. Muskie)
(emphasis added); see AISI I, 526 F.2d at
1076 n. 19 (Adams, J., concurring). Indeed,
given the place of BPT standards in the
two-phase statutory scheme, a balancing
solely of net costs and net effluent reduc-
tion benefits would make no sense under
the Act. By setting as a national goal the
elimination of pollutant discharges, Con-
gress at least preliminarily has weighed the
costs and benefits of achieving such a goal
and has determined that society would thus
be better off—that the net benefits exceed
the net costs. See Weyerhaeuser, 590 F.2d
at 1037. If the BPT cost-benefit analysis
were to be conducted on a net basis, the
national goal could be attained by BPT
standards alone. Congress envisioned BPT
standards as only a first stage, however. It
provided for the second-stage BAT stan-
dards to make further progress towards the
national goal, and at the same time indi-
cated that the BPT cost-benefit analysis
served "to limit the application of technolo-
gy" required of dischargers under BPT
standards. 1972 Legis.Hist. 170 (statement
of Sen. Muskie). To perform its limiting
function, and to preserve any role for BAT
standards in the statutory scheme, BPT
cost-benefit analysis must be conducted on
a marginal basis.
In Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Costle, 590 F.2d
1011 (D.C.Cir.1978), the petitioners argued
that the Administrator had to make an
incremental balancing of costs and benefits
in promulgating certain BPT effluent limi-
tations. Id. at 1047. The court replied:
A requirement that EPA perform the
elaborate task of calculating incremental
balances would bog the Agency down in
burdensome proceedings on a relatively
subsidiary task. Hence, the Agency need
not on its own undertake more than a net
cost-benefit balancing to fulfill its obliga-
tion under section 304.
However, when an incremental analysis
has been performed by industry and sub-
mitted to EPA, it is worthy of scrutiny by
the Agency, for it may "avoid the risk of
hidden imbalances between cost and ben-
efit."
Id. at 1048 (quoting AISI I, 526 F.2d at 1076
n. 19 (Adams, J., concurring)); accord
BASF Wyandotte, 598 F.2d at 656 & n. 37.
The Weyerhaeuser court examined the mar-
ginal analysis submitted by the petitioners
and found no hidden imbalance between the
marginal costs and benefits. Id.
While we agree that for BPT "the cost of
compliance was not a factor to be given
primary importance," AISI I, 526 F.2d at
1051 (emphasis added), both cost and bene-
fit remain factors that the Administrator
must consider and compare. See Weyer-
haeuser, 590 F.2d at 1045-46. Such com-
parison is meaningless unless conducted on
a marginal basis. Marginal analysis may
indeed be an elaborate task, see AISI I, 526
F.2d at 1076 n. 19 (Adams, J., concurring),
but Congress anticipated that the Adminis-
trator would have to engage in "complex
balancing." 1972 Legis.Hist. 181 (state-
ment of Sen. Muskie); see H.R.Rep. No.
911, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 107, reprinted in
1972 Legis.Hist. 753, 794. Moreover, while
we agree that only marginal analysis will
reveal hidden imbalances between cost and
benefit, we cannot understand why the Act
would require such analysis only on request.
We therefore conclude that the Administra-
tor on his own must undertake a sufficient
marginal analysis to indicate that the mar-
ginal cost is not wholly out of proportion to
the marginal effluent reduction benefit
See also American Paper Institute v. EPA,
660 F.2d 954, 961 (4th Cir.1981).
[37] We note that despite his legal posi-
tion in this case the Administrator appar-
ently employed marginal cost-benefit analy-
sis in setting the electroplating standards.
See AISI II, 568 F.2d at 297. He stated:
Although the Clean Water Act does not
require consideration of alternative tim-
ing, or alternative methods of ensuring
Cong., 2d Sess. § 304(b)(1)(B) (1972); set also
Weyerhaeuser, 590 F.2d at 1036 n. 35.
NATIONAL ASS'N OF METAL FINISHERS v. E.P.A.
Cite as 719 F.2d 624 (1983)
compliance, EPA has considered alterna- their rinse waters without
665
tive stringency levels, and alternative
types of regulations.
44 Fed.Reg. 52,593 (1978); see J.App. at
1693. The Administrator lifted many re-
quirements from electroplaters with smaller
flows, finding that his action would "great-
ly [reduce] the projected economic impact
of the standards while relaxing controls on
less than one percent of the flow." 43
Fed.Reg. 6561 (1978). He set the required
flow rate at 10,000 gallons per day by bal-
ancing the marginal economic impact
against the effluent reduction benefits. 44
Fed.Reg. 52,603-04 (1979). Similarly, the
Administrator eliminated the hexavalent
chromium limits because it reduced the cost
of the electroplating standards without sig-
nificant environmental effect. Id. at 52,-
591.
[38] NAMF claims, however, that it
demonstrated a hidden imbalance between
marginal costs and benefits by submitting a
less burdensome alternative in its comments
on the 1978 proposed pretreatment stan-
dards. In those comments NAMF suggest-
ed that the standards be made less strin-
gent so that electroplaters could release
66. NAMF's comments state merely that the
halving of costs could be obtained by following
limits similar to those applied by the City of
Chicago. J.App. at 854. NAMF says such lim-
its remove 75% of the pollutants, but fails to
specify the level of removal gained by the Ad-
ministrator's standards. Id at 855. NAMF
does cite the specific discharge limits imposed
by Chicago, but companson of those limits
with the discharge limits proposed by the Ad-
ministrator reveals no easily ascertainable ef-
fluent reduction difference Compare J.App at
854 with 43 Fed.Reg. 6570-73 (1978). With
such uninformative data it is impossible for us
to even estimate the effluent reduction benefit
foregone. While NAMF's brief suggests that
the effluent reduction benefit foregone would
be from 4-8% of the discharged pollutants,
Reply Brief for Petitioners NAMF, et a/., at 11,
we can no more overturn the Administrator's
decision based on petitioners' counsels' post-
hoc factual assertions than we could uphold
that decision based on respondent's counsel's
post hoc rationalization, see Brief for Respon-
dent (No 79-2256) at 181 n. **. Burlington
Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U S 156, 168,
83 S.Ct. 239, 245, 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962); AISI II,
568 F.2d at 296-97.
pi^SRitment.
J.App. at 853. As rinse waters comprise
90% of the volume of the electroplating
process wastestream, 43 Fed.Reg. 6565
(1978), NAMF argued that the remaining
wastewaters, containing higher concentra-
tions of pollutants, could be pretreated in
smaller pretreatment facilities at less than
half the cost. J.App. at 854-56. Unlike
NAMF's brief in this case, however, its
comments faileti to calculate the effluent
reduction benefit lost by permitting rinse
water to go without treatment.66 Without
knowing the incremental benefit, it is im-
possible to determine whether the economic
costs imposed are indeed wholly out of pro-
portion. We therefore reject NAMF's as-
sertion that it has demonstrated an imba-
lance between the incremental cost and
benefit.
NAMF makes several challenges to the
validity of the Administrator's determina-
tion of the cost and economic impact of the
electroplating standards. We have exam-
ined each contention and have found that
the Administrator's challenged decisions
were not arbitrary and capricious.67
67. First, NAMF attacks the Administrator's as-
sumption that the owner of an electroplating
firm would reduce his compensation to $15,-
000, for one year only, if necessary to keep his
firm from closing The Administrator admitted
that in assuming such self-sacrifice he was
overriding his own sampling data, but he ex-
plained that only when actually faced with clo-
sure could the owners' behavior be predicted.
J App at 1649 The Administrator also stated
that the $15,000 figure was above the median
family income and was thus a reasonable mini-
mum compensation. 44 Fed.Reg 52,614
(1979).
Second, NAMF assails the Administrator's
assumption that job shops would be able
through higher prices to pass on to their cus-
tomers the costs of complying with the pre-
treatment standards The Administrator ex-
plained that electroplaters operated "[i]n a
highly differentiated market, where each pro-
ducer enjoys partial or complete monopoly
power," and that their services formed such an
inexpensive and yet valued part of most elec-
troplated products as to generate a fairly ine-
lastic demand. Id at 52,615-16
Third, NAMF criticizes the Administrator's
use of 1976-level costs and dollars in his cost
-------
666
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
We are thu t with NAMF's assertion
that the net costs of the 1979 electroplating
standards are wholly out of proportion to
the net effluent reduction benefits. We
cannot say that the Administrator was arbi-
trary and capricious when he determined
that the removal of 140 million pounds per
year of toxic pollutants was worth $1.34
billion plus $425 million annually, with the
loss of 737 firms and 12,584 jobs.
C. The Compliance Deadline for Integrat-
ed Facilities
[39] Section 413.01(a) of the electroplat-
ing standards directs that integrated elec-
troplaters must comply with the standards
by three years after the effective date of
the combined wastestream formula, 40
C.F.R. § 403.6(e) (1982). 40 C.F.R. § 413.-
01(a) (1982) GM claims that the Adminis-
trator's unsuccessful effort to indefinitely
postpone the effective date of the formula
has left integrated electroplaters only 21
months in which to achieve compliance.
GM contends that that reduced time for
compliance renders the three-year deadline
arbitrary and capricious. We disagree, and
will deny GM's petition for review on this
issue.
Section 307(b) of the Act directs the Ad-
ministrator to promulgate categorical pre-
treatment standards for existing sources,.
and requires that such standards "shall
specify a time for compliance not to exceed
three years from the date of promulgation."
33 U.S.C. § 1317(bXl) (1976 & Supp. I
1977). When the Administrator promulgat-
ed the electroplating standards in 1979, he
set the compliance date for all facilities at
the maximum three years, October 12, 1982,
"because of the high projected economic
analysis. The Administrator answered that he
had verified that 1976 was a representative
year for electroplaters. J.App. at 1576.
Fourth, NAMF asserts that the Administrator
failed to analyze the secondary impact of the
predicted electroplating pnee hikes and pro-
duction cuts on the economy as a whole. The
Administrator conceded that because he lacked
the extensive data required he had not made a
quantitative analysis. However, he stated that
in a qualitative analysis he had found that the
small percentage of total product cost repre-
impact of these pretreatment standards."
44 Fed.Reg. 52,595 (1979); see 43 Fed.Reg
6562 (1978). He subsequently exempted in-
tegrated facilities from the electroplating
standards until the proposed combined waste-
stream formula became effective. 45
Fed.Reg. 19,246 (1980). When the Adminis-
trator promulgated the formula, denied
Ford's petition for review, and promulgated
the electroplating amendments on January
28, 1981, he announced that integrated elec-
troplaters would not have to comply with
the 1979 electroplating standards or the
1981 electroplating amendments until three
years from the formula's effective date of
March 13, 1981. 46 Fed.Reg. 9464 (1981);
see id. at 9404. The Administrator justified
the extension by stating that the formula
"would have to be promulgated in final
form before integrated facilities would un-
derstand their compliance obligations under
the electroplating ctandord3." Id. at 0464.
After an initial postponement of the for-
mula's effective date to March 30, 1981, the
Administrator then indefinitely postponed
the formula's effective date. See 47 Fed.
Reg. 4518 (1982); 46 Fed.Reg. 50,502-03
(1981); see also id. at 11,971 (1981). He
explained that because he had received nu-
merous comments criticizing the "highly
controversial" formula's effect on integrat-
ed facilities, he believed the formula should
be deferred "while the Agency studies the
implications of the present formula fur-
ther." 47 Fed.Reg. 4519, 4520 (1982). The
Administrator recognized that the indefi-
nite postponement of the formula also post-
poned the date by which integrated facili-
ties had to comply with the electroplating
standards. 46 Fed.Reg. 43,973 (1981).
sented by electroplating, together with the ex-
cess capacity in the industry, would minimize
the resulting production bottlenecks and price
increases to electroplating customers. 44 Fed.
Reg 52,616-17 (1979)
Finally, NAMF charges that the Administra-
tor's economic closure model needed to be veri-
fied empirically before being used to support
regulations. The Administrator stated that
such verification was not possible with the data
available to the Agency, and would be incon-
clusive. Id at 52,613.
SULLIVAN v. CROWN PAPER BD. CO., INC.
Cite as 719 F.2d 667 (1883)
In NRDC v. EPA, 683 F 2d 752 (3d Cir.
1982), we found that the Administrator's
attempt at indefinite postponement violated
the notice and comment requirements of
the Administrative Procedure Act. Al-
though we noted that the attempted post-
ponement of the formula had effectively
postponed the compliance date for integrat-
ed electroplaters, id. at 756-57, we ordered
the Administrator to reinstate the combined
wastestream formula, effective March 30,
1981. Id. at 768-69. We stated:
Our decision does not, of course, forestall
future agency action with regard to the
[combined wastestream formula], provid-
ed such action is taken in compliance with
the Administrative Procedure Act.
Id. at 768-69. Soon after our decision, on
August 10, 1982, GM filed a petition for
reconsideration asking the Administrator to
suspend the effective date of the formula.
The parties informed us at oral argument
that GM's petition had been denied. Tran-
script of Oral Argument at 235, 241.
We recognize the dilemma for integrated
electroplaters caused by the Administrator's
attempted indefinite postponement. We
took that dilemma into account in deciding
NRDC v. EPA, however. We were cogni-
zant of the effect our decision would have
upon the compliance date for integrated
electroplaters, and we nonetheless reinstat-
ed the combined wastestream formula. We
left to the Administrator any postponement
of the effective date of the formula. GM's
petition initiated that administrative proc-
ess. GM's recourse is to petition for review
of the Administrator's denial of that peti-
tion, not to raise the issues in this proceed-
ing. We will therefore deny GM's petition
for review on this issue. We hold that GM
has failed to show that the Administrator
has abused his discretion.
V. CONCLUSION
We will grant the petitions for review in
Nos. 81-1977, 81-1982, 81-1983, 81-1984,
81-1985, 81-2150, and 81-2151. We will
deny all other petitions. We will also deny
EPA's motion regarding MFASC.

667
We will remand to the Adfflffiistrator:
(a)	40 C.F.R § 403.3(i) (1982), estab-
lishing the definition of "interference; "
(b)	40 C.F.R. § 403.3(k) (1982), estab-
lishing the definition of "new source; "
(c)	40 C.F.R. § 403.3(n) (1982), estab-
lishing the definition of "pass through; "
and
(d)	40 C.F.R. § 403.13 (1982), contain-
ing the fundamentally different factor
variance provision.
GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.
I join in the opinion of the court. I write
separately only to note that if the interfer-
ence rule, 40 C.F.R. § 403.3(i) (1982), is clar-
ified to reflect the interpretation which the
government urged at the oral argument on
this appeal, it will be consistent with 33
U.S.C. § 1317(b) and (c). The interference
must be caused by a pollutant. If it is
established thut the interference ic caused
by a |iollutant, and a user of the POTW is a
source of such pollutant, the three methods
set forth in 40 C F.R. § 403.3(i) (1982) for
determining responsibility for the interfer-
ence satisfy both the Clean Water Act and
due process.
James J. SULLIVAN
v.
CROWN PAPER BOARD CO.,
INC., Appellant.
No. 83-1062.
United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.
Argued July 18, 1983.
Decided Oct. 14, 1983.
As Amended Oct. 20, 1983.
In action brought under the Age Dis-
crimination in Employment Act, employer
apjiealed from attorney fee award made by
-------
668
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
the Unit Atea District Court for the
Bias tern District of Pennsylvania, Clarence
C. Newcomer, J., in favor of successful
plaintiff. The Court of Appeals, Adams,
Circuit Judge, held that: (1) circumstances
of case did not warrant dual fee recovery,
and (2) private contingency fee arrange-
ment should have been considered in fash-
ioning fee award, with effect that recovery
would be allowed of greater of contingency
fee amount or statutory fee, and, further, if
statutory fee is greater, plaintiff would be
entitled to full damages award and obliga-
tion to counsel would be deemed settled in
full, and, if contingency fee is greater,
plaintiff would be directed to pay to counsel
only difference between statutory award
and contingent fee.
Judgment vacated and case remanded.
1.	Federal Civil Procedure ©=>2737
Contingent nature of attorney fee re-
covery is valid factor in determination of
court-awarded fees. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988.
2.	Civil Rights <£=>46
Dual attorney fee recovery, that is, one
based upon both statutory and contingent
fee, was not warranted in action, albeit
successful, brought under the Age Discrimi-
nation in Employment Act by single plain-
tiff, rather than class, with limited signifi-
cance beyond immediate parties, presenting
no novel or complicated iegal issues. Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,
§ 2 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A. § 621 et seq.; Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, § 16(b), 29
U.S.C.A. § 216(b); 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988.
3.	Civil Rights «=>46
Private contingency fee arrangement
should have been considered in fashioning
statutory fee award in favor of successful
plaintiff in action brought under Age Dis-
crimination in Employment Act, with effect
that district court should allow recovery of
contingency fee amount or statutory fee,
whichever is greater; if statutory fee is
greater, plaintiff would be entitled to full
damages award and obligation to counsel
* Hon Hubert I. Teitelbaum, United States Dis-
trict Court for the Western District of Pennsyl-
would be deemed settled in full, and if
contingency fee is greater, plaintiff would
be directed to pay to counsel only difference
between statutory award and contingency
fee. Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967, § 2 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A. § 621
et seq.; Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
§ 16(b), 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b); 42 U.S.C.A.
§ 1988.
Alan M. Lerner (argued), Judah I. Labo-
vitz, Cohen, Shapiro, Polisher, Shiekman &
Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Walter M. Phillips, Jr. (argued), Nancy
O'Mara Ezold, Phillips & Phelan, Philadel-
phia, Pa., for appellee.
Before ADAMS and HIGGINBOTHAM,
Circuit Judges, and TEITELBAUM, Dis-
trict Judge *
OPINION OF THE COURT
ADAMS, Circuit Judge.
This appeal arises out of a successful
claim brought under the Age Discrimina-
tion in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C
§ 621 et seq. (1976). Following a jury ver-
dict in favor of appellee James Sullivan, the
district court awarded $116,000 in compen-
satory and liquidated damages and ordered
that Sullivan be reinstated. The district
court further awarded plaintiff's counsel
$41,287 in attorney's fees under the proce-
dure set forth in Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc.
v. American Radiator and Standard Sani-
tary Corp., 487 F.2d 161 (3d Cir.1973). The
issue before us is whether the district court
erred in not considering a private contin-
gency fee arrangement in fashioning the
statutory fee award. Because this is an
inappropriate case for a dual fee recovery,
we vacate the district court's award and
remand for reevaluation of a fee consistent
with this opinion.
1.
HI The contingent nature of an attor-
ney's fee recovery is a valid factor in the
determination of court awarded fees. The
vania, silting by designation.
SULLIVAN v. CROWN PAPER BD. CO., INC.
Cite as 719 F.2d 667 (1983)
legislative history of the Civil Rights Attor- eration to thwart the enforceii.
669
		^ w
ney's Fee Awards Act of 1976 specifically
endorses the standard devised in Johnson v.
Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714
(5th Cir.1974).' S.Rep. No. 1011, 94th
Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1976), reprinted in 1976
U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 5908, 5913.
Johnson focuses on whether the fee is fixed
or contingent as one relevant factor, but
contains the admonition that "[s]uch ar-
rangements should not determine the
court's decision." 488 F.2d at 718, quoting
Clark v. American Marine Corp., 320
F.Supp. 709, 711 (E.D.La.1970), aff'd, 437
F.2d 959 (5th Cir.1971). Johnson immedi-
ately qualifies this statement:
In no event, however, should the litigant
be awarded a fee greater than he is con-
tractually bound to pay . . "
488 F.2d at 718. This qualifying statement
can be read as either fixing the maximum
attorney's fee award at the contractual ceil-
ing or cautioning against a plaintiff wind-
fall by releasing more funds into his/her
hands than he/she is required to pay.
Nothing in the legislative history or the
case law supports the former interpreta-
tion.2 In fact, limitation of fee awards to a
contingency agreement would vitiate Con-
gressional intent to make "fee awards
an integral part of the remedies necessary
to obtain .. . compliance [with the appro-
priate statutes]" and to insure that fees
"are adequate to attract competent coun-
sel. .S.Rep. No. 1011, supra at 5, re-
printed in 1976 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News
at 5913. At its clearest, the legislative
mandate would therefore have courts con-
sider the existence of a contingency ar-
rangement, while not allowing such consid-
1- The fact that attorney's fees under the ADEA
are governed by the Fair Labor Standards Act,
29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (1976), rather than the prin-
cipal fee award statute, 42 U.S.C § 198S
(1976), is of no consequence Section 216(b)
provides only that "reasonable" fees may be
awarded. It has been the practice of federal
courts to treat the various fee-shifting anUdis-
enmination statutes as governed by the same
standards. Spagnuolo v. Whirlpool Corp, 641
F.2d J109, 1115 (4th Cir. 1981) (treating ADEA
fee award under Title Vll standards); Greene v.
Whirlpool Corp., 538 F.Supp. 352, 356 (W.D.N.
C.1982) (same). Moreover, the most recent
revisions of the Model Rules of Professional
	 		it of the
substantive statutory rights that gave rise
to the fee award provision.
II.
This Court has yet to determine the pro-
cedure by which district courts are to incor-
porate private fee arrangements into a stat-
utory fee award. As a practical matter, in
cases where the statutory fees exceed the
private contingent fee arrangements, three
distinct orders are possible:
(1)	Defendant can be ordered to pay only
the difference between the statutory award
and the contingent fee; the plaintiff had
agreed to pay. This is an inequitable solu-
tion that would give a windfall to the de-
fendant despite the finding of liability.
Such a result would also frustrate the legis-
lative policy objective that the fee itself
serve as a disincentive to future discrimina-
tory conduct.
(2)	The statutory fee should be pakl to
plaintiff's attorney with any lesser contin-
gency fee considered satisfied. This is the
accepted formulation in most circuits that
have addressed this question:
[W]e reiterate that a fee agreement is
irrelevant to the issue of entitlement and
should not enter into the determination
of the amount of a reasonable fee . . .
The better route would be to order that
the award reimburse the plaintiff, with
any excess over the amount set by the fee
agreement going to her counsel.
Sargeant v. Sharp, 579 F.2i) 645, 649 (1st
Cir.1978). The Second Circuit has similarly
ruled that
to the extent counsel receives payment of
the Section 1988 statutory award, his
Conduct define appropriate fees along the lines
of Johnson and Lindy, including the considera-
tion of "whether the fee is fixed or contingent."
52 L.W 5 (Aug 16, 1983).
2. Only one decision has held that the terms of a
contingency fee set the upper limit of a statuto-
ry award. Cooper Singer, 669 F.2d 929 (10th
Cir 1982), reh'g granted, Jan 11, 1983. De-
fendant urges this Court to follow Cooper with-
out any other support for this position. Signifi-
cantly, contrary case law is available within the
10th Circuit itself. See Fleet Investment Co. v.
Rogers, 620 F.2d 792 (10th Cir 1980).
-------
670
719 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
claim for services rendered under his con-
tingency fee arrangement with his client
shall be deemed paid and satisfied.
Wheatley v. Ford, 679 F.2d 1037, 1041 (2d
Cir.1982). See also Sanchez v. Schwartz,
688 F.2d 503, 505 n. 8 (7th Cir.1982); Cop-
per Liquor, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 624
F.2d 575, 582-84 (5th Cir.1980).
[2] (3) Plaintiff's attorney should recov-
er both the statutory fee and the contingen-
cy fee. This position, advanced by plaintiff
here, finds support in Zarcone v. Perry, 581
F.2d 1039 (2d Cir.1978), cert, denied, 439
U.S. 1072, 99 S.Ct. 843, 59 L.Ed.2d 38 (1979).
The Zarcone court reasoned that
the prospect of an award supplementing
the fee that the successful plaintiff might
be able to pay would be essential to at-
tract competent counsel.
Id. at 1044. See also Buxton v. Pate/, 595
F.2d 1182, 1185 & n. 3 (9th Cir.1979) ("[t]he
presence of a contingent fee arrangement is
of course neither necessary nor sufficient to
justify the denial of attorneys' fees").
Without rejecting the possibility of a
proper dual fee recovery as a matter of law,
we hold that the case at bar does not
present an occasion for such an award.
Zarcone itself allows for dual recovery only
when the claim involves civil rights of
broad significance, prosecuted on behalf
of a large class, and the prospective mon-
etary award, if the suit is successful,
would be modest in relation to the time,
effort and skill required of counsel ....
581 F.2d at 1044. Since the present case
involves a single plaintiff rather than a
class, has limited significance beyond the
immediate parties, and presents legal issues
that are not novel or complicated, a dual fee
recovery would appear to be inappropriate
even under the Zarcone standard.'
3. Appellee's counsel Indirectly challenges this
point by claiming that "in those cases where a
multiplier is not applied, as was the case here,
plaintiffs counsel would be awarded nothing
for undertaking the risk . ." Appellee's Brief
at 13. This claim correctly signals that any
rule of law regarding double recoveries must be
squared with this Court's endorsement of a
multiplier of the lodestar to compensate coun-
sel for the risks taken and the contingent na-
III.
[3] The record fails to indicate the pre-
cise terms of the plaintiff's contingency fee
arrangement with counsel. On remand, the
trial court should ascertain this amount and
allow a recovery of the contingency fee
amount or the statutory fee, whichever is
greater. If the statutory fee is greater,
plaintiff shall be entitled to his full dam-
ages award and his obligation to counsel
shall be deemed settled in full. Should the
contingency fee be greater, plaintiff should
be directed to pay to counsel only the dif-
ference between the statutory award and
the contingent fee.
The judgment of the district court will be
vacated and the case remanded for action
consistent with this opinion.
Vw\
(o E KEY NUMBER SYSTEM^
William B. URSIC, Appellee,
v.
BETHLEHEM MINES, a subsidiary of
Bethlehem Steel Corporation; the Pen-
sion Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corpora-
tion and Subsidiary Companies; and
D.W. Kempken, Plan Administrator, Ap-
pellants.
Nos. 83-5155, 83-5242.
United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit
Rule 12(6) on Aug. 12, 1983.
Decided Oct. 19, 1983.
Employee brought action for violation
of section of the Employee Retirement In-
ture of success. Lindy Bros. Builders v. Ameri-
can Radiator & Standard Sanitary (Lindy II),
540 F.2d 102, 117 (3d Cir.1976). As a general
matter, the use of the multiplier has striking
advantages over dual awards. The multiplier
allows the trial court to control the extent to
which the risks should be compensated, places
the burden for the risk upon the discriminator,
allows the victim full recovery and dispels any
appearance of an attorney windfall.
-------
s
Q)
+•
+
jr.
o
s-
-------
Thursday
May 27, 1982
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point
Source Category Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and
New Source Performance Standards
-------
23250
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 103 / Thursday. May 27. 1
/
Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
CFR Part 420
-ffU.2033-6]
and Steel Manufacturing Pofrrt
Source Category Effluent Umttatlona
OuideOnea, Pretreatment Standards,
Naw Source Performance
Standarda
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
action: Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is today issuing a final
regulation to limit effluent discharges to
waters of the United States and the
introduction of pollutants into publicly
owned treatment works from facilities
engaged in manufacturing steel. The
Clean Water Act and a consent decree
require EPA to issue this regulation.
The purpose of this regulation is to
specify effluent limitations for "best
practicable technology," "best available
technology," "best conventional
technology," and "new source
performance standards" for direct
dischargers and to establish
pretreatment standards for indirect
dischargers.
e This regulation shall become
effective May 27,1982.
DOftESSES: Technical information and
spies of technical document may be
obtained from Mr. Ernst P. Hall, at:
Effluent Guidelines Division (WH-552),
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
The economic analysis may be obtained
Mr. Robert Greene, Office of Policy
Analysis (PM 220), at the same address.
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
P. Hall, (202),£2B-268&
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Organization of this Notice
L Legal Authority
0. Background
A The Clean Water Act
B.	Prior EPA Regulations
C.	Overview of the Industry
Scope of this Rulemaking and Summary of
Methodology
IV.	Data Gathering Efforts
V.	Additional Data Gathering
VI Sampling and Analytical Program
VJL Industry Subcategorization .
VIE Available Wastewater Control and
Treatment Technology
A Statu* of la-Place Technology
E Control Technologies Considered
DC. Best Practicable Technology (BPT)
Effluent Limitations
X Best Available Technology (BAT) Effluent
limitations
XI. New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS)
XII. Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources (PSES)
XID. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
(PSNS)
XIV.	Best Conventional Technology (BCT)
Effluent Limitations
XV.	Summary of Public Participation
XVI.	Response to Public Comments
XVIL Summary of Changes from Proposed
Regulations
XVHl Regulated Pollutants
XIX.	Pollutants and Subcategories Not
Regulated
XX.	Monitoring Recommendations
XXL Cost and Economic Impacts
XXIL Non-Water Quality Aspects of Pollution
Control
XXIH. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
XXTV. Upset and Bypass Provisions
XXV. Variances and Modifications
XXVL Relationships to NPDES Permits
XXVU. Executive Order 12291—Regulatory
Impact Analysis
XXVHL Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
XXIX.	List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 420
XXX.	Appendices:
A.	Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Terms
Used in This Notice
B.	Development of Regulated Pollutant List
C Pollutants Considered for Specific
Limitation by Subcategory
D. Control and Treatment Technologies
L Legal Authority
The regulation described in this notice
is promulgated under authority of
sections 301, 304, 300, 307, and 501 of the
Clean Water Act (the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, 33 USC S S 1251 et seq.. as
amended by the Clean Water Act of
1977, P.L 92-517) (the "Act"). This
regulation is also promulgated in
compliance with the Settlement
Agreement in Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc. v. Train, 8 ERC
2120 (D.D.C. 1976). modified. 12 ERC
1833 (DD.C. 1979).
IL Background
The Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 established a
comprehensive program to "restore and
maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the Nation's
waters," section 101(a). 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)(1)(A);
and by July 1,1983, these dischargers
were required to achieve "effluent
limitations requiring the application of
the best available technology
economically achievable * * * which
will result in reasonable further progress
toward the national goal of eliminating
the discharge of all pollutants" ("BAT'),
section 301(b)(2)(A). New industrial
direct dischargers were required to
comply with section 306 new source
performance standards ("NSPS"), based
upon 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)(1) 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 upon
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 306 of the Act required
promulgation of regulations for NSPS,
and sections 304(f), 307(b), and 307(c)
required promulgation of regulations for
pretreatment standards. In addition to
tkc?se regulations for designated industry
c.!'°gories. section 307(a) 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
The EPA was unable to promulgate
many of these regulations by the dates
specified in the Act In 1976, 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 to promulgate, 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 ERC 2120 (DD.C 1976),
modified. 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C 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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 103 / Thursday, May 27, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
23259
significant feature is the incorporation
into the Act of several 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 65 "priority"
pollutants and classes of pollutants
which Congress declared "toxic" under
section 301(b) of the Act Likewise, the
EPA programs for new source
performance standards and
pre treatment 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" ("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
materia] 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 revises the control program for
nontoxic pollutants. Instead of BAT for
"conventional" pollutants identified
under section 304(a)(4) (including total
suspended solids, biological oxygen
demand, oil and grease and. fecal
coliform, 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 the 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 nontoxic, nonconventionai
pollutants, sections 301(b)(2)(A) and
(b)(2)(F) require achievement of BAT
effluent limitations within three years
after their establishment or ]uly 1.1984.
whichever is later, but not later than
July 1.1987.
The purpose of this regulation is to
provide effluent limitations for BPT.
BAT and BCT. and to establish NSPS.
pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES), and pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS),
under sections 301, 304. 300, 307, and 501
of the Clean Water Act. Based upon
recent court rulings which remanded the
BCT methodology to the Agency for
further consideration, BCT limitations
for those subcategories of the steel
industry where BAT limitations more
stringent than the respective BPT
limitations are promulgated are reserved
at this time and not included in this
regulation. When a revised BCT
methodology is adopted, the Agency will
consider whether BCT limitations more
stringent than the respective BPT
limitations are appropriate for the
reserved subcategories.
Prior EPA Regulations
On June 28,1974, EPA promulgated
effluent limitations guidelines for BPT
and BAT, NSPS, and PSNS for the basic
steelmaking operations (Phase I) within
the integrated steel industry. 39 FR
24114-24133,40 CFR Part 420. Subparts
A-L That regulation covered 12
subcategories of the industry: By-
product Cokemaking. Beehive
Cokemaking. Sintering. Blast Furnace
(Iron), Blast Furnace (Ferromanganese),
Basic Oxygen Furnace (Semi-Wet Air
Pollution Control Methods), Basic
Oxygen Furnace (Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods), Open Hearth
Furnace, Electric Arc Furnace (Semi-
Wet Air Pollution Control Methods),
Vacuum Degassing, and Continuous
Casting.
In response to several petitions for
review, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit remanded
that regulation to the Agency on
November 7.1975. American Iron and
Steei Institute, et al. v. EPA, 526 F Jd
1027 (3rd Cir. 1975) ("AISII"). Wh e the
Court rejected all technical challenges to
the BPT limitations, it held that the BAT
effluent limitations and NSPS for certain
subcategories were "not demonstrated."
In addition, the court questioned all of
the regulation on the grounds that EPA
had failed to consider adequately the
impact of plant age on the cost or
feasibility of retrofitting pollution
control equipment, to assess the impact
of the regulations on water scarcity in
arid and semi-arid regions of the
country, and to make adequate "net/
gross" provisions for pollutants found in
intake water supplies.1
On March 29,1970. EPA promulgated
BPT effluent limitations guidelines and
proposed BAT limitations, NSPS and
PSNS for steel forming and finishing
operations (Phase II) within the iron and
steel industry. 39 FR 12990-13030, 40
CFR Part 420, Subparts M-Z. That
regulation covered 14 subcategories of
the industry: Hot Forming—Primary; Hot
Forming—Section: Hot Forming—Flat;
1 The court also held that the 'form" of the
regulations was improper, because they did not
provide "ranges'1 of limitations to be selected by
permit issuers. This holding, however, was recalled
in American iron and Steel institute, et al v EPA,
560 F.2d 589 (3rd Cir. 1977).
Hot Forming—Pipe & Tube; Pickling—
Sulfuric Acid—Batch and Continuous;
Pickling—Hydrochloric Acid—Batch
and Continuous; Cold Rolling; Hot
Coatings—Galvanizing; Hot Coatings
Terne; Miscellaneous Runoffs—Stora
Piles, Casting, and Slagging:
Combination Acid Pickling—Batch and
Continuous: Scale Removal—Kolene
and Hydride; Wire Pickling and Coating:
and Continuous Alkaline Cleaning.
In response to several petitions for
review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit remanded the regulation to
the Agency on September 14,1977,
American Iron and Steel Institute, et al.,
v. EPA, 568 F.2d 284 (3rd Cir. 1977).
While the court again rejected all
technical challenges to the BPT
limitations, it again questioned the
regulation in regard to the age/retrofit
and water scarcity issues. In addition,
the court invalidated the regulation as
applied to the specialty steel industry
for lack of proper notice. Finally, the
Court directed EPA to reevaluate its
estimates of the cost of compliance with
the regulation in light of certain "site-
specific" factors and to reexamine its
economic impact analysis.1
On June 28,1978 the Agency
promulgated General Pretreatment
Regulations applicable to existing and
new indirect dischargers within the steel
industry and other major industries, 43
FR 27936-2773 (40 CFR Part 403). For the
most part, those regulations are
currently in effect.
On January 7,1981 the Agency
proposed BPT, BAT, and BCT
limitations and NSPS, PSES. and PSNS
for the steel industry, 46 F.R. 1858. This
final regulation follows that proposal.
Overview of the Industry
The steel industry is included within
the United States Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
Major Group 33—Primary Metal
Industries. Those parts of the industry
covered by this regulation are the
subgroup SIC Nos. 3312, (except coil
coatings) 3315, 3316, and 3317. These
include all processes, subprocesses, and
alternate processes involved in the
manufacture of intermediate or finished
products in the above categories.
The manufacture of steel involves
many processes which require large
quantities of raw materials and other
resources. Steel facilities range from
comparatively small plants engaging in
one or more production processes to
'The court also held that EPA had no statutory
authority to exempt plants in the Mahoning Valley
region of Eastern Ohio from compliance with the
BPT reguia: on*.
-------
F 1 Register / Vol. 47, No. 103 / Thursday, May 27, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
extremely large integrated complexes
engaging in several or all production
recesses. Even the smallest steel
icility, however, represents a fairly
large industrial complex. Because of the
wide variety of products and processes
in this industry, operations vary from
plant to plant
The 1980 revenues of the United
States steel industry were about 54
billion dollare. The industry ranks
behind the automotive and petroleum
industries in the values of its total
shipments; and, with about 570,000
employees, is second only to the
automotive industry in the number of
employees.
Fifteen steel corporations provided
approximately 87% of the total annual
U.S. steel ingot production. U.S. steel
production represents about 15% of
world production.
The steel industry can be segregated
into two major components: basic
steelmaking; and forming and finishing
operations. The Agency estimates that
there are about 680 plant locations
containing over two thousand individual
steelmaking and forming and finishing
operations. A listing of these plants is
contained in the Appendix B to Volume
I of the technical Development
Document.
In the first major process, coal is
converted to coke which is then
c bined with iron ore and limestone in
a blast furnace to produce iron. The iron
is then purified into steel in either open
hearth, basic oxygen or electric arc
furnaces. Finally, the steel can be
further refined by vacuum degassing.
Following the steelmaking processes
are the hot forming (including
continuous casting) and cold finishing
operations. Hot forming primary mills
reduce steel ingots to slabs or blooms
and secondary hot forming mills reduce
slabs or blooms to billets, plates,
shapes, strip, and various other
products. Steel finishing operations
involve a number of other processes that
do little to alter the dimensions of the
hot rolled product but which impart
desirable surface or mechanical
properties.
Water is essential to the industry and
is used in appreciable quantities in
virtually all process operations. An
average of 40,000 gallons of water is
i I in the production of every ton of
finished steel, making the industry one
of the highest water users of any
manufacturing industry.
The following wastewater pollutants
have historically been regulated in the
a 1 industry: Suspended solids, oil and
grease, ammonia-N, cyanide, phenols,
fluoride, iron, total and hexavalent
chromium, tin, lead, and zinc. The
discharge of these pollutants is limited
by this regulation. Other pollutants, such
as chloride, are found in the industry's
wastewaters. However, the Agency is
not limiting those pollutants in this
regulation because the technology for
their removal is presently considered to
be beyond the scope of best practicable
or best available technology for this
industry.
In addition to the pollutants known to
be present in steel industry
wastewaters, many other pollutants
became subject to consideration as a
result of the NRDC/EPA Settlement
Agreement noted earlier. The original
list of 65 pollutant classes was defined
more specifically by selecting definite
compounds within each class to
facilitate analytical qualification and
quantification and to serve as indicators
for other members of the classes. The
list of 129 specific toxic pollutants was
therefore developed.
III. Scope of This Rulemaking and
Summary of Methodology
This regulation expands the water
pollution control requirements for the
steel industry. In EPA's prior
regulations, 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
existing performances of well-known
technologies for control of familiar (i.e.,
"classical") pollutants.
In contrast, EPA's efforts are now
directed toward insuring the
achievement by July 1,1984, of the best
available technology economically
achievable, which will result in
reasonable further progress toward the
national goal of eliminating the
discharge of all pollutants. At a
minimum, this technology level
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 toxic
substances.
EPA's implementation of the Act
required a complex investigation,
described in this section and succeeding
sections of this notice. 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.
EPA studied the steel industry to
determine whether differences in raw
materials, final products, manufacturing
processes, equipment age and size of
plants, water usage, wastewater
constitutents. 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 (see Industry
Subcategorization for further
discussion]. EPA identified the
pollutants which were considered for
effluent limitations and standards of
performance, and statistically analyzed
raw waste constituents, as discussed in
detail in each subcategory report of the
Development Document.
EPA identified several distinct control
and treatment technologies, including
both in-plant and end-of-process
technologies, which are in use or are
capable of being used in the steel
industry. The Agency compiled and
analyzed historical data and newly
generated effluent quality data resulting
from the application of these
technologies. The long-term
p rformance, operational limitations,
-.d reliability of each of the treatment
nd control technologies were also
identified. In addition, EPA considered
'ne nonwater quality environmental
"npacts of these technologies, including
impacts on air quality, solid waste
generation, water scarcity, and energy
requirements.
The Agency estimated the cost of
each control and treatment technology
by using standard engineering analysis
as applied to the applicable wastewater
characteristics. EPA derived unit
process costs from model plant
characteristics (production and flow)
applied to each treatment process (i.e.,
primary coagulation-sedimentation,
activated sludge, multi-media filtration).
These unit process costs were added to
yield the total costs for each treatment
level. After confirming the
reasonableness of this methodology by
comparing EPA cost estimates to actual
treatment system costs reported by the
industry, the Agency evaluated the
economic impacts of these costs. (Costs
are reviewed in each subcategory report
of the Development Document.
Economic impacts are reviewed in the
section of this notice entitled Costs,
Effluent Reduction Benefits, and
Economic Impacts).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 103 / Thursday. May 27, 1982 / Rales and Regulations
23261
Upon consideration of these factors,
as more fully described below, EPA
identified various control and treatment
technologies including the BPT, BAT,
BCT, PSES. PSNS. and NSPS model
treatment systems. This regulation,
however, does not require the
installation of any particular technology.
Rather, it requires the achievement of
effluent limitations representative of the
proper operation of these technologies
or equivalent technologies.
The effluent limitations and standards
for BPT. BAT, BCT, PSES, PSNS. and
NSPS are expressed as mass limitations
(lbs/1000 lbs) of product and were
calculated by multiplying four figures:
(1) Effluent concentrations determined
from analysis of control technology
performance data. (2) wastewater
discharge flow for each subcategory, (3)
any relevant process or treatment
variability factor (e.g., maximum month
vs. maximum day), and (4) the
appropriate conversion factor. This
basic calculation was performed for
each regulated pollutant in each
subcategory of the industry. In those few
cases where the Agency could not relate
wastewater flow to production (e.g.,
fume scrubbers in acid pickling and hot
coating operations), specific daily mass
limitations are provided.
In evaluating the previously
promulgated BPT limitations in light of
the Third Circuit's decisions, EPA found
that in most instances those limitations
are well demonstrated and. in some
instances, are less stringent than can be
currently justified.
IV. Data Gathering Efforts
Before initiating this study, EPA
reviewed the original Development
Documents and appendices.'The
Agency concluded that additional data
were required to respond to the Third
Circuit's rulings in AISII and AISI11
and to develop regulations in
accordance with both the Clean Water
Act and the NDRC v. Train Settlement
Agreement.
The Agency sent Data Collection
Portfolios (DCPs) to ail basic
steelmaking operations and to at least
85% of the steel forming and finishing
operations in the United States. The
DCPs requested information concerning
production processes, production
capacity and rates, process water usage.
'See EPA 440/1-"4-024a: Development Document
for Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Steelmaking
Segment of the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point
Source Category. )une. 1974: and EPA 440/1-76/04S-
d, Development Document for Interim Final Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Proposed New Source
Performance Standards for the Forming. Finishing,
and Specialty Steel Segments of the Iron and Sieel
Manufacturing Point Source Category, March. 1976.
wastewater generation rates,
wastewater treatment and disposal
methods, treatment costs, location, a^e
of production and treatment facilities, as
well as general analytical information.
The Agency received responses for 391
steelmaking operations and for 1632
forming and finishing operations.
The Agency also sent Detailed Data
Collection Portfolios (D-DCPs), under
the authority of Section 308 of the Act,
to 50 steelmaking facilities and 128
forming and finishing facilities. The D-
DCPs requested detailed information
concerning the cost of installing
pollution control equipment including
capital, annual and retrofit costs. The
D-DCPs also requested long-term
analytical data and data regarding
specific production operations.
The Agency determined the presence
and magnitude of the 129 specific toxic
pollutants in steel industry wastewaters
in a two-part sampling and analysis
program involving 31 steelmaking
facilities and 83 forming and finishing
facilities.
The Agency obtained data not only
from previous studies, questionnaire
responses, and sampling visits, but also
from NPDES permit files, contacts with
pollutant control equipment suppliers,
treatability studies, and literature
searches. The data gathering program
solicited all known sources of data. All
available information was used in
developing the proposed regula' a.
V. Additional Data Gathering
After the issuance of the prop', -ed
regulation, the Agency engaged a
number of additional data gathe:ing
activities. These activities included: (1)
The collection of a substantial amount
of toxic metals data from fifteen plants
in the hot forming subcategory: (2) a
screening of over twenty cold rolling
operations for toxic organic pollutants,
and a detailed survey at one cold rolling
operation; and. (3) requests for more
detailed information to certain
commenters. These requests sought
information regarding (a) cost. flow, and
effluent quality data to permit the
Agency to fully evaluate comments
received on the proposed regulation, and
(b) the financial condition of merchant
coke and pig iron producers. These data
were placed in the public docket for this
rulemaking. In general, the additional
data gathered are corroborative of the
data the Agency originally had.
A full discussion of the results of
these additional data gathering efforts
and their relevance to the final
rulemaking can be found below in this
preamble and in the respective
subcategory reports of the Development
Document.
VI. Sampling and Analytical Program
The sampling and analysis program
for this rulemaking concentrated on the
toxic pollutants designated in the C
Water Act. as well as on the
conventional and nonconventional
pollutants found in steel industry
wastewaters. Although it was expected
that, except for cokemaking
wastewaters, toxic pollutants in the
steel industry wastewaters would be
inorganic rather than organic, the
wastewaters from each subcategory
were sampled and analyzed for the
presence of toxic organic pollutants. The
Agency has not promulgated analytical
methods for many of the organic toxic
pollutants under Section 304(h) of the
Act, although a number of these
methods have been proposed (44 FR
69464, December 3, 1979; 44 FR 75028,
December 18,1979). Additional
information on the development of
sampling and analytical methods for
toxic organic pollutants is contained in
the preamble to the proposed regulation
for the Leather Tanning Point Source
Category, 40 CFR Part 425. 44 FR 38749,
dated
July 2, 1979.
Before analyzing steel industry
wastewaters, EPA concluded that it had
to designate specific toxic pollutants for
analysis. The list of 65 pollutants and
classes of pollutants potentially includes
thousands of specific pollutants:
analyses for all of them would
overwhelm private and government
laboratory resources. In order to make
the task more manageable, EPA selected
pollutants for study in this and other
industry rulemakings. The criteria for
choosing these pollutants included the
frequency of their occurrence in water,
their chemical stability and structure,
the amount of the chemical produced,
and the availability of chemical
standards for measurement.
EPA checked for the presence and
magnitude of the 129 pollutants in steel
industry wastewaters in a two-phase
sampling and analysis program. The
Agency selected plants for sampling
which it believed were representative o
the manufacturing processes, the
prevalent mix of production among
plants, and the current treatment
technology in the industry. During the
first phase of the program. EPA samplei
ten steelmaking facilities and eleven
forming and finishing facilities. During
the second phase of the program, EPA
sampled 22 steelmaking facilities and
118 forming and finishing facilities.
The primary objective of the field
sampling program was to obtain
composite samples of wastewater from
-------
2
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 103 / Thursday, May 27, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
which to determine the concentrations
![ toxic pollutants. Sampling visits were
fide during two to three consecutive
ays of plant operation, with raw
wastewater samples taken either before
treatment or after minimal preliminary
treatment. Treated effluent samples
were taken following application of in-
treatment technologies. EPA also
sampled intake water to determine the
presence of toxic pollutants prior to
contamination by steelmaking
processes.
During the first phase of the sampling
program the Agency detected and
quantified wastewater constituents
included on the list of 129 toxic
pollutants. Wherever possible, each
sample of an individual raw waste
s i. a combined waste stream, or a
effluent was collected by an
automatic, time series sample
compositor over 2 to 3 consecutive 24
sampling periods. Where automatic
compositing was not possible, grab
samples were taken and composited
manually. The purpose of the second
phase of the sampling program was to
confirm the presence and further
quantify the concentrations and waste
loadings of the toxic pollutants found
during the first phase of the program.
EPA used the analytical techniques
described in Sampling and Analysis
Procedures for Screening of Industrial
Effluents for Priority Pollutants, revised
April, 1977. Very similar methods are
among those proposed on
December 3,1979. EPA did not find
significant quantities of toxic organic
pollutants in most steelmaking
wastewaters. The exceptions are
cokemaking and cold rolling
wastewaters.
Metals analyses for the basic
steelmaking oprations were by
inductively coupled plasma optical
emission spectrometry except that the
standard flameless atomic absorption
method was used for mercury analyses.
Metals analyses for the forming and
finishing operations were by a
combination of flame and flameless
atomic absorption methods.
Analyses for cyanide and cyanide
amendable to chlorination were also
performed using 304(h) methods.
Analysis for asbestos fibers included
transmission electron microscopy with
selected area difraction; results were
reported as chrysotile fiber count.
Analyses for conventional pollutants
(BOD5, TSS, pH, and oil and grease) and
nonconventional pollutants (total
residual chlorine, iron, ammonia,
fluoride, and COD) were performed
using 304(h) methods.
VII. Industry Subcategorization
In developing this regulation, the
Agency determined that different
effluent limitations and standards are
appropriate for distinct segments or
subcategories of the steel industry. The
Agency's consideration of industry
subcategorization included an
examination of the same factors and
rationale described in its previous
studies and the issues raised by the
court in AISII and A IS III. These factors
are:
1.	Manufacturing processes and
equipment
2.	Raw materials
3.	Final products
4.	Wastewater characteristics
5.	Wastewater treatability
6.	Size and age of facilities
7.	Geographic location
B. Process water usage and discharge
rates
9.	Costs and economic impacts
10.	Non-water quality environmental
impacts
Based upon these factors, the Agency
decided to retain the same approach to
subcategorization as outlined in
previous regulations which follows the
various manufacturing processes in the
steel industry. The Agency found that
manufacturing process is the most
significant factor and divided the
industry into 12 main process
subcategories for this regulation. Section
IV of Volume I of the Development
Document contains a detailed
discussion of the factors considered and
the rationale for selecting the
subcategories. The Agency determined
that process based subcategorization is
warranted in many cases because the
wastewaters of the various processes
contain different pollutants, requiring
treatment by different control systems
(e.g., phenol by biological systems in
cokemaking and metals by precipitation
in steelmaking). However, in some
cases, the wastewaters of different
processes were found to contain similar
characteristics. In those instances, the
Agency determined that
subcategorization was appropriate
because the variations in process water
usage and discharge flow rates. A more
detailed discussion of this issue is
presented in Volume I of the
Development Document.
The subcategories of the steel industry
are as follows:
(1) Subpart A—Cokemaking
Subcategory
Cokemaking operations involve the
production of coke in by-product or
beehive ovens. The production of
metallurgical coke is essential to
steelmaking since coke is one of the
basic raw materials necessary for the
operation of ironmaking blast furnaces.
(2)	Subpart B—Sintering Subcategory
Sintering operations involve the
production of an agglomerate which is
then used as a raw material in iron and
steelmaking processes. This agglomerate
(or "sinter") is made up of large
quantities of waste particulate matter
(fines, mill scale, and flue dust) which
have been generated by blast furnaces,
open hearth furnaces, basic oxygen
furnaces, and recovered from hot
forming operations.
(3)	Subpart C—Ironmaking
Subcategory
Ironmaking operations involve the
conversion of iron bearing materials,
limestone, and coke into molten iron in a
reducing atmosphere in tall cylindrical
(blast) furnaces.
(4)	Subpart D—Steelmaking
Subcategory
Steelmaking operations involve the
production of steel in basic oxygen,
open hearth, and electric arc furnaces
from molten iron and steel scrap
materials.
(5)	Subpart E—Vacuum Degassing
Subcategory
This operation involves the removal of
gaseous material (deoxidation) from
molten steel by applying a vacuum to
the molten steel.
f 6) Subpart F— Continuous Casting
Subcategory
This operation involves the
continuous formation of a primary steel
shape (i.e., slab, billet, or bloom) from
rr.olten steel by casting the molten steel
through a water-cooled mold.
(7)	Subart G—Hot Forming
Subcategory
Hot forming is the steel forming
process in which hot steel, in solid ingot
form, is reduced in size during a series
of forming steps into finished and semi-
finished steel products.
(8)	Subpart H—Salt Bath Descaling
Subcategory
Scale removal from specialty steels is
accomplished by immersing the steel in
molten salt baths of oxidizing or
reducing compounds.
(9)	Subpart I—Acid Pickling
Subcategory
Acid pickling is the process of
chemically removing oxides and scale
from the surface of steel using dilute
inorganic acids.
(10)	Subpart J—Cold Forming
Subcategory
In cold forming operations, steel
products are formed or reduced in
thickness or size, or acted upon to
produce a smooth surface or to control
the mechanical properties of the metal.
Rolling solutions are used in cold
-------
Federal Register / Vol. -17, \:o. 103 / Thursday, May 27. 1982 / Rules and Regulation1;
2326. j.
forming to cool and lubricate the
product during the reduction operation.
(11)	Subpart K—Alkaline Cleaning
Subcategory
This operation involves the removal of
rolling oil or other materials from the
surface of steel products prior to further
processing. The removal can be
enhanced by the electrolysis of the steel
in an alkaline solution.
(12)	Subpart L—Hot Coating
Subcategory
In the hot coating process, clean steel
products are immersed in baths of
various molten metals to deposit a thin
layer of the metal on the product
surface.
VIII. Available Wastewater Control and
Treatment Technology
A. Status of In-Place Technology
Many different wastewater treatment
technologies are currently employed in
the steel industry. Generally, primary
wastewater treatment systems
encompass physical/chemical methods
of trea'ment, including neutralization,
sedimentation, flocculation and
filtration. Treatment for toxic pollutants
require advanced technologies such as
biological treatment, carbon adsorption,
ion exchange, reverse osmosis, and
more sophisticated chemical techniques.
Within the cokemaking subcategory,
organic pollutant removal is
accomplished by biological treatment in
bio-oxidation lagoons and activated
sludge plants; and. physical/chemical
treatment in ammonia stills,
dephenolizers and activated carbon
systems. Sedimentation and filtration
are also used in this subcategory.
Treatment facilities at plants in the
sintering, ironmaking and steelmaking
subcategories rely heavily upon
flocculation, sedimentation and recycle
of treated wastewaters. Clarifters and
thickeners are principally used in
connection with polymers and
coagulants such as lime, alum, and ferric
sulfate.
Wastewaters from nearly all hot
forming operations are treated in scale
pits followed by lagoons, clanfiers.
filters, or combinations thereof.
Polymers and coagulants such as lime,
alum, and ferric sulfate are normally
used in conjunction with clarifiers.
Filters are usually either gravity or
pressure type with sand or other media.
Cold finishing treatment techniques
include equalization prior to further
treatment: neutralization with lime,
caustic or acid, flocculation with
polymer and. sedimentation. Central or
combined treatment systems are
common for these operations.
An important treatment method
commonly practiced in the steel industry
is recycle of treated wastewaters.
Recycle can be effectively used to
significantly reduce wastewater flows
and the amount of pollutants discharged
to receiving streams. Systems employing
high rates of recycle are demonstrated
in several subcategories of the steel
industry.
B. Advanced Technologies Considered
The Agency considered advanced
treatment systems to control the level of
toxic and non-conventional pollutants at
the BAT. NSPS. PSES, and PSNS levels
of treatment. Some of these include in-
plant control, however, most include the
installation of additional end-of-pipe
treatment components and all are
demonstrated in the industry.
Add-on technology to BPT was
considered for the BAT, BCT, NSPS,
PSES, and PSN'S levels of treatment for
all of the subcategories. Some of these
control measures for the toxic pollutants
include two-stage (i.e. extended)
biological treatment (cokemaking);
granular activated carbon; powdered
carbon addition; pressure filtration;
pressure filtration accompanied with
sulfide addition; and. multi-stage
evaporation/condensation systems.
Details on these advanced systems are
presented in Section VI of Volume I of
the Development Document
IX. Best Practicable Technoli .v (BPT)
Effluent Limitations
The factors considered in lining
best practicable control tecr: '-'logy
currently available (BPT) incljde the
total cost of application of technology in
relation to the effluent reduction
benefits from such application, the age
of equipment and facilities involved, the
process employed, non-water quality
environmental impacts (including energy
requirements) and other factors the
Administrator considers appropriate. In
general, the BPr technology level
represents the average of the best
existing performances of plants of
various ages, sizes, processes or other
common characteristics. Where existing
performance is uniformly inadequate,
BPT may be transferred from a different
subcategory or industry. Limitations
, based upon transfer technology must be
supported by a conclusion that the
technology is, indeed, transferable and a
reasonable prediction that it will be
capable of achieving the prescribed
effluent limits. See Tanners ' Council of
An.er-::a v. Tram. 540 F.2d 1188 (tth Cir.
1976). BPT focuses on end-of-pipe
treatment rather than process changes
or internal controls, except where the
process changes are common industry
practice.
The cost-benefit inquiry for BPT is a •
limited balancing, committed to EP^
discretion, which does not require^H
Agency to quantify benefits in mo^Sry
terms. See, e.g., AJSI I. supra. In
balancing costs in relation to effluent
reduction benefits. EPA considers the
volume and nature of existing
discharges, the volume and nature of
discharges expected after application of
BPT, the general environmental effects
of the pollutants, and the cost and
economic impact of the required
pollution control level. The Act does not
require or permit consideration of water
quality problems attributable to
particular point sources or industries, or
water quality improvements in
particular water bodies. Therefore. EPA
has not considered these factors. See
Weyerhaeuser Company v. Castle. 590
F 2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 19781.
A detailed discussion of the bases for
selecting the BPT effluent limitations is
set forth in Section IX of each
subcategory report of the Development
Document. The components of the BPT
model treatment systems are presented
in Appendix D.
X. Best Available Technology (BAT)
Effluent Limitations
The factors considered m assessing
best available technology econom'r-illj
achievable (BAT) include the a§'
equipment and facilities involves, ...j
process employed, process changes,
non-water quality environmental
impacts (including energy requirement:
and the costs of application of such
technology (section 304(b)(2)(B)). In
general, the BAT technology level
represents, at a minimum, the best
economically achievable performance
plants of various ages, sizes, process?
or other shared characteristics, As wit
BPT, where existing performance is
uniformly inadequate. BAT may be
transferred from a different industry c
subcategory. BAT may include proces
changes or internal controls, even wh<
not common industry practice.
The statutory assessment of BAT
"considers" costs, but does not requir
balancing of costs against effluent
reduction benefits (see Weyerhaeuser
Costle. supra}. In developing the BAT
limitations, however. EPA has given
substantial weight to the reasonablen
of costs. The Agency has considered
volume and nature of discharges, the
volume and nature of discharges
expected after application of BAT, th
general environmental effects of the
pollutants, and the costs and econom
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 103 / Thursday, May 27. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
impact of the required pollution control
levels.
^^>spite this expanded consideration
jPrasts, the primary determinant of
BAT is effluent reduction capability. As
a result of the Clean Water Act of 1077.
the achievement of BAT has become the
principal national means of controlling
toxic water pollution. The steel industry
discharges over forty different toxic
pollutants. EPA considered two to six
alternative BAT treatment systems for
each subcategory. A detailed discussion
of the bases for selecting the BAT
effluent limitations is set forth in Section
X of each subcategory report of the
Development Document The
components of the BAT model treatment
systems are presented in Appendix D.
XI.	New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS)
The basis for new source performance
standards (NSPS) under section 306 of
the Act is the best available
demonstrated technology. Industry has
the opportunity to design the best and
most efficient steelmaidng processes
and wastewater treatment technologies
for new plants. Congress therefore
directed EPA to consider the best
demonstrated process changes, in-plant
controls, and end-of-pipe treatment
technologies which reduce pollution to
the maximum extent feasible. EPA
nsidered two to four alternative
.atment systems for each subcategory
in selecting NSPS.
A detailed discussion of the bases for
selecting the new source performance
standards is set forth in Section XII of
each subcategory report of the
Development Document The
components of the NSPS model
treatment systems are presented in
Appendix D.
XII.	Pre treatment Standards for Existing
Sources (PSES)
Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPA
to promulgate pretreatment standards
for existing sources (PSES), which must
be achieved within three years of
promulgation. PSES are designed to
prevent the discharge of pollutants
which pass through, interfere with, or
are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTWs). The Clean Water Act
of 1977 adds a new dimension by
requiring pretreatment for pollutants,
such as toxicmetals, that pass through
POTWs in amounts that would exceed
direct discharge effluent limitations or
limit POTW sludge management
alternatives, including the beneficial use
of sludges on agricultural lands. The
legislative history of the 1977 Act
indicates that pretreatment standards
are to be technology-based and
analogous to the best available
technology for removal of toxic
pollutants. The general pretreatment
regulations (40 CFR Part 403), which
served as the framework for the
pretreatment standards for the steel
industry, can be found at 43 FR 27736
(June 26.1978).
EPA has determined that many of the
metals present in the steel industry's
raw wastewaters pass through POTWs,
may limit POTW sludge disposal
alternatives and can interfere with
biological treatment in POTWs. These
metals include: antimony, arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and
zinc.
Accordingly. EPA is promulgating
pretreatment standards for metals and
other toxic and non-conventional
pollutants in this regulation. In addition
to the factors discussed above, EPA
considered the following factors in
developing the pretreatment standards:
1.	The manufacturing processes
employed by the industry;
2.	The age and size of the equipment
and facilities involved:
3.	The location of manufacturing
facilities;
4.	Process changes:
5.	The engineering aspects of the
application of pretreatment technology
and its relationship to the POTW;
6.	The cost of application of
technology in relation to the effluent
reduction and other benefits achieved
from such application; and,
7.	Non-water quality environmental
impacts (including energy requirements).
The methodology used to develop the
pretreatment standards is the same as
that used to develop the direct
discharger effluent limitations. A
detailed discussion of the bases for
selecting the pretreatment standards for
existing sources is set forth in Section
XIII of%ach subcategory report of the
Development Document. The
components of the PSES model
treatment systems are presented in
Appendix D.
XIII. Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources (PSNS)
Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA
to promulgate pretreatment standards
for new sources (PSNS) at the same time
that it promulgates NSPS. New indirect
dischargers, like new direct dischargers,
have the opportunity to incorporate the
best available demonstrated
technologies including process changes,
in-plant controls, and end-of-pipe
treatment technologies, and to use plant
site selection to ensure adequate
treatment system installation. The
Agency is promulgating PSNS based on
the same considerations discussed in
Section XI relating to PSES.
A detailed discussion of the bases for
selecting the pretreatment standards for
new sources is set forth in Section XIII
of each subcategory report of the
Development Document. The
components of the PSNS model
treatment systems are presented in
Appendix D.
XIV.	Best Conventional Technology
(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 30,1979. the
Agency added oil and grease as a
conventional pollutant (44 FR 44501).
BCT is not an additional limitation,
but 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
ptr'.jtants from the discharge of publicly
ov -,ed treatment works to the cost and
le1. el of reduction of such pollutants
fro-n a class or category of industrial
sources. In its review of BAT for
"secondary" industries, the Agency
established BCT levels based upon a
methodology described at 44 FR 50732
(Aug. 29,1979). This methodology
compared removal costs (dollars per
pound of pollutant, measuring from BPT
to BCT) with costs for an average
POTW. The removal costs of an average
POTW was established by EPA as $1.34
per pound in July, 1978 dollars.
However, the Fourth Circuit has
remanded the regulation to the Agency
for reconsideration with instructions
that EPA revise its cost-effectiveness
test. [American Paper Institute, et al. v.
Costle, No. 79-1551). The Agency is
presently considering thoBe revisions.
XV.	Summary of Public Participation
Between November 1979 and April
1980. EPA circulated nine individual
volumes, which together comprise the
EPA contractor's draft technical report
on its steel industry study, including
available treatment alternatives and
costs. The draft technical report was
distributed to a number of interested
parties, including the American Iron and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 103 / Thursday, May 27, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 23265
Steel Institute and several member
firms the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC). and affected state and
municipal authorities. This document
did not include recommendations for
oroposed effluent limitations and
standards, but rather presented the EPA
Contractor's draft technical report on
treatment alternatives available, costs,
and other information relating to this
regulation. A meeting was held in
Washington. D.C. on May 19. I960 for
public discussion of commerlts on this
^ Tbe Agency published the proposed
regulation on January 7,1981. Based
upon several requests from the industry
to extend the comment period, the
Agency set May 8,1981 as the close of
the comment period on the proposed
regulation. EPA representatives
continued to meet with representatives
of the steel industry and other members
of the public after May 8,1981 to discuss
certain issues relating to the Agency's
preparation of the Regulatory Impact
Analysis concerning this regulation. The
Regulatory Impact Analysis is being
prepared pursuant to Executive Order
12291. In addition. Agency
representatives met with officials of
steel companies which owned plants for
which the Agency was considering
establishing alternative BAT effluent
limitations for their central treatment
facilities (see discussion Section Xlll of
the preamble). The Agency informed the
public of its intent to hold these
meetings by publishing a notice in the
Federal Register in 1981 (46 FR 32274)
and summarized the data and comments
presented at the meetings in memoranda
which were promptly placed in the
public docket for this regulation.
XVI. Response to Public Comments
The following general issues raised by
the industry and the public are
addressed below. Because of the
Agency received a large number of
comments on the proposed regulation, it
has not addressed each of those
comments in this preamble. Instead, the
major comments and the Agency
responses are set out in the preamble.
Responses to other comments are
contained in a separate document
available from Mr. Ernst P. Hall, Effluent
Guidelines Division at the address noted
at the beginning of this preamble.
1. Regulation of the Steel Industry
¦Beyond the Current Level of Discharge.
The AISI and some of its member
companies have commented that the
Agency should not establish effluent
limitations and standards for the steel
industry which would require more
stringent control than existing treatment.
To support its position, the industry
cites the significant removalcf toxic and
conventional pollutants from raw waste
loadings to the current level of
discharge. NRDC and others, however,
commented that the proposed BAT
limitations are appropriate and, in some
cases, more stringent limitations should
be established.
(a)	BPTLimitations. The BPT
limitations in this regulation are based
upon traditional, well established water
pollution control technologies. The final
BPT limitations are based upon the
average of the best existing
performances of steel industry water
pollution control facilities, and, in some
cases are less stringent than might
otherwise have been justified. Indeed,
on balance, about eighty percent of the
industry is presently in compliance with
these limitations.
(b)	BAT Limitations. Those BAT
limitations in this regulation which are
more stringent than BPT are based upon
traditional water pollution control
technologies which are generally
demonstrated on a full scale basis in the
steel industry. Based on the statute, the
Agency does not have discretion to set
any less stringent requirements.
2. Regulation of the Hot Forming
Subcategory at the BA TLevel. Industry
representatives commented that the
Agency should not promulgate BAT
limitations for hot forming operations
because toxic metals are not cor/nbuted
by hot forming processes to hot forming
wastewaters. Industry representatives
also commented that BAT limitations for
suspended solids and oil and grease
should be established at a level no more
stringent than BPT. Environmental
groups commented that the BAT
limitation for hot forming operations
should be zero discharge.
In response to these comments, the
Agency reviewed its existing data for
the hot forming subcategory and
conducted additional extensive
sampling programs at fifteen hot forming
operations in cooperation with the
industry. These data clearly
demonstrate that significant quantities
of toxic metals are generated by hot
forming operations, are present in hot
forming raw wastewaters, and are also
present in the wastewaters discharged
and from the primary scale pits used to
recover mill scale, TTiese data also
demonstrate that toxic metals are
removed to very low levels at plants
with the model BPT treatment system
installed (i.e., primary scale pit. partial
recycle, secondary settling, and
filtration). The average gross effluent
concentration of all toxic metals in the
wastewaters of these plants after
treatment is about 0.07 mg/l. The
Agency believes that at these levels, the
toxic pollutants have been effectively
controlled and that the substantial cost
(more than $300 million on an indust^t
wide basis) of full scale (96%) recyc^B
these wastewaters to further reduce^ra
discharge of toxic metals is not justified.
While zero discharge is reported to be
achieved at some hot forming
operations, the Agency found that many
of these systems do, in fact, have small,
and often intermittent, discharges. The
Agency does not believe that zero
discharge can be achieved at all hot
forming operations without the use of
costly evaporative technologies. The
data for several hot forming operations
demonstrate that wastewater recycle
rates of 95 to 99% are achievable on a
long term basis.
Based upon these factors, the Agency
has not promulgated BAT limitations for
the hot forming subcategory. As
explained in greater detail in the
development document, the final BPT
limitations were revised from those
proposed to take into account actual
performance of the BPT technology with
respect to suspended solids, oil and
grease, and flow. The Agency has
maintained high rate recycle (96%) as
the basis for NSPS as this technology is
well demonstrated throughout the
industry and will substantially reduce
the total loadings of pollutants
discharged by the process.
3. Central Treatment. The Agena^ks
received numerous comments from^jH
and its members suggesting that it
create a subcategory within the
regulation which allows for central or
combined treatment of wastewaters
from various subcategories.
The Agency has not included a central
treatment subcategory in this regulation.
There are numerous combinations of
central wastewater treatment systems
that can and are being employed,
ranging from individual recycle systems
followed by central treatment of
blowdowns and once-through flows, to
total plant-wide recycle systems with
treatment of the blowdown. Often these
combinations include the mixing of
wastewaters which are not compatible
for effective co-treatment. These
combinations are so numerous, that it is
not possible to define a central
treatment subcategory which would
effectively regulate the discharge of
toxic pollutants. The reduction in
* discharge flow and treatment of more
concentrated wastewaters provides the
toxic pollutant loading removal to be
achieved by industry's compliance with
this regulation. When incompatible
wastewaters are mixed, the toxic
pollutants are diluted and thus are not
-------
23209- Federal BegUter / Vol. 47. No. 103 / Thursday. May 27. 1962 / Rules and Regulations
significantly removed or reduced
Hjnseqnently, the discharge of target
^5an titles of toxic pollntanta wooht-
occor^s a result af the imttsata&nta
mixing of Incompatible wastewaters.
Based upon the above considerations,
the Agency believes that til*
development of a central treatment
subcategory which provides for effective
regulation of toxic pollutants is neither
possible aor appropriate. However, the
Agency las mad* co-treatment at
compatible wastewaters possible with
this regulation by carefully selecting the
: pollutants to be limited for each
subcategory. When the Agency
determined that co-treatment is
appropriate, the Agency has, as
discussed is greater detail below,
established the effluent limitations so as
to permit co-treatment. The limitations
applicable to a central treatment facility
in which compatible pollutants are co-
treated are the sum of the applicable
effluent limitations far-the individual
subcategory processes tributary to the
central treatment facility.
By establishing limitations which
co-treatment in appropriate
cases, the Agency believes it has
satisfactorily resolved this issue. The
Agency has concluded that wastewaters
the following groups of
subcategories can be treated together to
chieve the final limitations and
itandards:
Group and Subcategory
1.	Cokemaking
2.	Sintering, ironmnking
3.	SteelmaJdng, vacuum degassing,
continuous casting, acid pickling
(H*SO«, HQ), cold rolling, alkaline
cleaning, hot coating
3. Specialty steel operations, salt bath
descaling, add pickling (combination),
cold rolling
In developing the regulation so as to
co-treatment of wastewaters for
the subcategory groups, the Agency
decided not to allow extensive co-
treatment of cokemaking wastewaters
with other process wastewaters. The
Agency considered the nature of
cokemaking wastewater* and the
biological treatment currently used to
those wastewaters In developing
the BAT limitations, and believes that
cokemaking wastewaters should be
treated separately to insure the effective
removal of toxic and noo-conventional
pollutants. However, in some limited
cases, combined treatment of
cokemaking and ironmaktng
wastewaters may be appropriate and
be used to achieve die combined
limitations for those operations.
\ The Agency also believes that
^restricted co-treatment of
wastewater* from hot forming
operations with wastewaters from other
subcategories is not appropriate
because of the dilution of toxic
pollutants by the high volume hot
forming wastewaters and potential
analytical detection problems. However,
central treatment of hot forming
wastewaters with wastewaters from
other subcategories may be appropriate
provided that the metal bearing
wastewaters are adequately pre treated
prior to mixing with hot forming
wastewaters, or, provided that hot
forming wastewaters are recycled to a
high degree (Le. greater than 95%). It is
not possible for the Agency to establish
all of the conditions which define
precisely when co-treatment of hot
forming wastewaters with wastewaters
from other subcategories would be
appropriate. These determinations will
have to be made on a case-by-case
basis. Where hot forming wastewaters
are not recycled it may be appropriate
to limit toxic pollutants prior to the
mixing of wastewaters from other
subcategories with hot forming
wastewaters.
In developing this-central treatment
policy, the Agency took into account
that at many older steel plants cooling
water, surface runoff and roof runoff are
drained into existing central treatment
systems. As discussed in greater detail
below, the Agency believes that
dischargers can take the steps necessary
to divert these non-process wastewaters
from their co-treatment facilities at a
reasonable cost so as to achieve the
limitations established by this
regulation. However, the Agency
recognizes that while separation of
these non-process waters has been
accomplished at many steel plants
(including many older Bteel plants), it
may be inordinately expensive to do so
at a small number of plants.
The Agency believes its model
treatment system coft estimates, which
are based upon more costly separate
treatment systems for each operation,
are sufficiently generous to cover site-
specific and retrofit costs associated
with upgrading most existing central
treatment systems to the point where
the BPT and BAT limitations can be
achieved (including segregation of non-
process wastewaters). However, the
Agency recognizes that there may be
instances at certain plants where,
because of unique site-specific factors,
the BPT and BAT limitations or PSES
may not be achievable without the
expenditure of amounts
disproportionately higher than those
estimated by the Agency. In such
instances, the Agency believes that the
dischargers should receive alternative
BPT and BAT limitations and PSES.
Prior to issuing the proposed
regulation, the Agency met with
representatives of AISI and its member
companies regarding those plants which
they believed were entitled to
alternative effluent limitations or
inclusion in a central treatment
subcategory. At those meetings, the
Agency explained that the consideration
of whether a plant should be subject to
alternative effluent limitations could
occur either in the context of this
regulation or during the permit issuance
process. The industry representatives
presented data for 35 plants and
requested that the Agency evaluate
whether those plants should receive
alternative limitations and to do so In
the context of the effluent limitations
guidelines. Based upon those data, and
its independent evaluation of the
problem, the Agency identified seven
plants in the preamble to the proposed
regulation which it believed might be
entitled to relief from the generally
applicable limitations proposed on
January 7,1991. These plants were listed
in the preamble to the proposed
regulation and are again listed below.
PtvM and location
Cenm
ftaatmant
tacaay
i. Armco Stoat Aahtond, KY 	
2 Bethtohw* Stoat, flpaiirjwa PoM, MO
& BetNahani SM. Bun* Harbor, M	
« National Stoat Qrw«a C*y, I
& RapiAAc Stoat ^tlartan, At	J
ft \t ft 8M Inrar,
Total plant
Munptvay**
Craa*.
Total plant.
Total plant
Total piart.
npooai
lagoon
Total plant
7 tlQ <^fi, Opqup, 
-------
Federal Register / Vol- 47, No. 103 / Thursday, May 27, 1982 / Rule9 and Regulations 23267
WPOTW.
T«nM ttMDiMM plwt
The Agency believes that these 21
central treatment facilities comprise all,
or nearly alL of those facilities which
miflht qualify for alternative effluent
UStations. However, these comments
were based upon the expected cost of
bringing the plants into compliance with
the proposed regulation. Because the
Agency is promulgating a regulation
which, in some instances, if significantly
less expensive to comply with, the
Agency is uncertain whether the
commenters believe that their plants
would still qualify for alternative
effluent limitations under the previously
described standard (cost of compliance
significantly higher than that estimated
by the Agency). This is especially bo in
light of the elimination of BAT
limitation* for hot forming operations.
Compliance with those limitations was
expected to be quite costly and in many
cases was included as a basis for a
commenter's request for alternative
effluent limitations. The Agency was not
in a position to resolve this issue before
the promulgation of this regulation. As
discussed previously, the Agency is
under a court-ordered deadline to
promulgate this regulation and does not
believe that it would be appropriate to
delay its promulgation until this issue
was resolved for the 21 central
treatment facilities.
Consequently, the Agency decided to
promulgate the regulation but to
temporarily exclude the 21 centra]
treatment facilities from its
requirements until the Agency resolves
the issue. The exclusion will serve to
provide an opportunity for operators of
the 21 central treatment facilities which
asserted that they are entitled to
alternative effluent limitations based
upon the proposed regulation to present
their views on whether any of the
twenty-one plants or central treatment
facilities are entitled to alternative
effluent limitations based upon the final
regulation. These applications must be
submitted within sixty day after
publication of this regulation. Any of the
twenty-one plants or central treatment
facilities which do not reapply for
consideration during this sixty-day
period will have waived their
applications for alternative effluent
limits. -
The applications must include the
following information:
(1)	A schematic diagram of the
existing wastewater treatment facility '
showing each source of wastewater,
cooling waters, and other waters
entering the treatment facility; discharge
and recycle flow rates for each source,
and each major treatment component;
(2)	Existing monitoring data relating to
discharges to and from the central
treatment facility including pollutant
concentrations, wastewater flows and
mass loadings. As a minimum,
monitoring data should be provided for
a six month period of normal operation
of the production and treatment
facilities. The complete data as well as a
data summary including the maximum,
minimum, and mean gross discharge
loadings and the standard deviation of
the discharge loadings for each
monitored pollutant should be provided.
Any supplemental monitoring data for
toxic pollutants should also be provided.
(3)	A scale map of the area of the
plant served by the wastewater
treatment facility, including the
treatment facility and water supply and
discharge points.
(4)	An estimate of the least costly
investment required to meet the
generally applicable limitations or
standards for the facility and a
description of the treatment system
including schematic diagrams showing
the major treatment system components"
and flow rates through the system. At a
minimum, the cost estimates should
consist of a single page summary for
each water pollution control system
showing estimated installed direct cost
totals for mechanical equipment; piping
and instrumentation; foundations and
structural components; and electrical
components. Indirect costs for
contingencies, overhead and profit,
engineering fees, and any other indirect
costs must be itemized separately. The
sum of the direct and indirect costs,
which represents the owner's or
operator's total estimate, must be
shown.
(5)	The effluent limitations or
standards which could be achieved if
the discharger were to spend an amount
equal to the Agency's model treatment
system cost estimate for the facility and
the treatment facilities which would be
used to meet those limitations or
standards; schematic diagrams and cost
estimates as outlined in paragraph (5)
above should be provided for each
treatment system.
(6) Production rates in tons per day for
each process contributing wastewater to
the central treatment facility consistent
with those reported by the owner
operator in the NPDES permit
application for the central treatment
facility.
If the Agency determines that the
expected cost of compliance with the
generally applicable limitations for any
of the central treatment facilities
high in comparison to the Agency's
model treatment system cost estimate
for that facility that the applicable
limitations or standards would not
represent BPT, BAT. BCT, or PSES, as
the case may be, for the facility, it plans
to propose alternative limitations or
standards based upon the level of
treatment which can be achieved at that
facility through the installation of
treatment equipment which costs the
range of the Agency's model treatment
system cost for that facility.
The Agency intends that the
temporary exclusions for these 21
central treatment facilities apply for
only the minimum period necessary for
it to review the comments, propose
alternative limitations or standards
where appropriate and take final -
regulatory action with respect to
facilities. This is not to exceed one year
from the date this regulation is
published.
Owners and operators of these Z)
facilities which still believe that tht^Ba
entitled to alternative effluent
limitations or standards based upon the
high cost of complying with the
generally applicable limitations under
these regulations must raise that issue
within 60 days of publication of this
regulation. They will not be entitled to
request similar relief during the
permitting process through the
"fundamentally different factor"
variance process at the permitting stage.
However, they may request relief
through the variance provision based
any other permissible basis.
The Agency noted in the preamble to
the proposed regulation that the issue of
wholly disproportionate costs could be
properly handled either in the context
this regulation or, alternatively, at the
permit writing stage, under the
"fundamentally different factor"
variance provisions [40 CFR
125.31(b)(3)). The Agency also stated
that where feasible it would like to
resolve this issue in the context of this
regulation. The Agency has concluded
that it is feasible to resolve this issue in
the context of this regulation for the /
central treatment facilities which /
requested consideration during the J
comment period. Because the Agen^
-------
233W
Fedwd Register / VoL 47, No. 103 / Ttmrsday, May 27, 1982 / Rales and Regulation*
can resolve this tSsoe efficiently in the
Apteat of this regulation far the IF; r
Rtral treatment tadBtlaxpd pwwrtd»*
for conststaiicy ta both dectdbgwhMbar
to establish sftsnwito effiMRi.',-TO'
limitations and what the Hi'nlfr—ii
should be, it has decided to resofavtU*"
issue soleiyto the context
regulation fot those fadiittsa
While the Agency believes that the 21
central treatment faciiitie* comprise att.
or neatly all. of the facilities which
might qaalify lot altenattve efflnant
limitations, it ia not restricting the right
of the owner or operator at any other
facility to request niiaf from the
generally applicable llmitshn— during
the permitting process through the
"fundamentally Afferent factor*"
variance proeesa
4. Costa of the Regulation. The
Agency received several comments from
the industry regarding the Agency's cost
estimates of the model treatment
systems used aa the basis for the
proposed limitations, and on the cost
estimates for those model treatment
systems presented in the contractor's
draft technical report (October 1979)
distributed for comment by the Agency.
The industry commented that the
Agency's cost estimates are
substantially lower than industry cost
estimates for the same treatment
'ystems, and that the lower cost
.stimates would cause the Agency to
underestimate the economic impact of
the regulation on the industry.
In response to these comments and
court remand issues on prior regulations
dealing with costs, the Agency carefully
analyzed and refined its costing
methodology and cost estimates for steel
industry water pollution control
systems. Based upon this analysis, the
Agency has reached the following
conclusions:
1.	The Agency's costing methodology
is appropriate for developing industry-
wide cost estimates for water pollution
control systems that may be installed to
comply with this regulation -
2.	Agency cost estimates a—pare
favorably with actual costs taunted by
the industry for the InstafiBttna of model
water pollution control systems,
including retrofit and other «tto specific
costs.
3.	The costs actually incurred by the
industry would have to be significantly
greater than those estimated by the
Agency to produce any significant short
or long term adverse economic impacts.
For example, even if the actual cost of
compliance ware one hundred percent
greater than EPA'a estimates, there
would not be any significant economic
impacts which would change the
Agency's condosion regarding the
economic acMevabflity of tfafe
regulation.
The Agency's industry-wide cost
estimates for compliance with the
proposed regolatiou are based ^»n
model wastewater Uvatmant systems
developed for each level of tnataent
(BPT, BAT. BCT. P8KS1 NSP& and
PSNS) for seek subcategory. The sis* of
the model treatment system is defined
by the average sized prodaotiflB
operation and the rlnsl^ or model
treatment system Sow rata The model
treatment systems are enmpoaad at
standard process and wastewater
treatment components (La, pumps,
clarifiers, thickeners, vacuum filters,
chemical reaction tanks, pressure filters,
piping, concrete foundations, buildings).
Numerous coet estimates for each of
these components were developed
through the use of standard engineering
cost estimating references
quotes from vendors of pollution control
equipment Costs for eadi component of
the model treatment systems were
aggregated with standard estimates for
site specific costs (see Development
Document) to arrive ai the total
investment costs for each modal
treatment system. These model
treatment system costs were scaled by
production (0.8 factor) for each
production facility to develop the total
industry-wide investment to comply
with the proposed BPT limitations. The
industry-wide cost to comply with the
proposed BAT limitations was
determined by multiplying the model
treatment system cost by the number of
plants in each subcategory.
The BPT investment cost required for
treatment facilities not in-place as of
Janaury 1,1978 was determined by"
subtracting costs for in-place treatment
facilities reported by the industry on a
plant by plant basis. Rough estimates
were made of the treatment facilities
installed between January l, 1978 and
June 3a 1980 by subcategory to develop
required BPT costs for the economic
impact analysis. Similar estimates were
made for the BAT costs.
In determining industry-wide costs,
the Agency cos ted separate wastewater
treatment facilities for each process
operations without taking into account
extensive co-treatment of compatible
wastewaters practiced at many plants.
Thus, for many steel plants, several
treatment facilities were coated where
- only one central treatment plant exists.
This tends to overstate industry-wide
costs.
For the final regulation, the above
methodology was refined First
additional cost data for several
wastewater treatment components
reported by the industry were included
in the data base. Second, the lug*
number of individual treatment -
component cost estimates originally
developed were reviewed and adjusted
to better reflect changes in Sow. The
model treatment systems were recosted
with computer assisted determinations
of component cost by model flow rata.
Third, the aggregate costs for BAT and
PSES, as well as costs for BPT. were
determined by	mrvfal
treatment system costs by production
for each facility. Finally, a detailed
plant-by-plant update was completed for
treatment facilities installed from
January 1,1978 to July 1,1981. This
update was completed from NPDES
compliance record*, contact with
industry representatives, and personal
knowledge of selected plants by EPA
staff.
The draft Development Document
presents comparisons on a subcategory
basis of treatment system costs reported
by the industry, and the Agency's
estimated costs for the same treatment
facilities. The actual costs reported by
the industry include site-specific and
retrofit costs, where available. These
comparisons demonstrate the Agency's •
costing methodology is appropriate for
developing industry-wide cost
estimates. In its comments on the costs
of the proposed regulation, the industry
did not provide any comments on these
comparisons, but rather presented its
estimates of costs for selected treatment
facilities and used these estimates to
develop industry-wide cost estimates
which are significantly higher than those
developed by the Agency. These
estimates are also significantly higher
than those reported by AiSI in its 1981
report "Environmental Policy for the
1980's: Impact on the American Steel
Industry." The latter estimates foe
required water pollution control costs
for the period 1981-1984 are within 10%
of those developed by the Agency for
the proposed regulation.
Since the Agency's cost estimates are
well within the range of actual industry
costs for installed treatment facilities,
the Agency believes its cost estimate*
for required water pollution control
facilities will also be within the range of
actual industry costs.
Reference is made to Volume I of the
Development Document for the
subcategory cost comparisons and
additional information regarding the
Agency's costing methodology.
Reference is also made to the
subcategory reports of the Development
Document for subcategory-specific cost
changes which were made In response,
to industry comments. These include
increased energy usage for the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 103 / Thursday, May 27. 1982 / Rules and Regulation* 23269
	subcategory and increased
SSSSse.-
JJSW deletiunof«i*^rfnse
JJUiTtoacid pfckfai and lurt
coatings).
•fl* economic impact analysis of (no
coats at this regulation demonstrates
thorn are only minimal short term
and virtually no long tann adverse
impacts associated with this
regulation. Within a fairly broad range
ofTUgbar water pollution control costs,
tbe orffr"mif impacts of the regulation
•re expected to increase proportionally
to cost Thus, an increase in water
ffsfihttinn control costs by a factor of two
orthree would still produce relatively
P.il adverse economic impacts.
(Section XXI of this preamble).
5. Economic Impact Analysis. The
Agency received several comments on
its economic analysis of the proposed
regulation and, based upon these
comments, the economic analysis of the
final regulation was modified. The
economic analysis of the proposed
regulation projected the economic
impacts of the regulation under three
scenarios which reflected different
economic conditions. The Agency
developed these scenarios for the
analysis because, at that time, it was
uncertain which economic conditions
would be prevailing at the time of
promulgation of the final regulation. For
the final regulation, the Agency
analyzed two scenarios. Both scenarios
are based upon the existing economic
climate including the projected effects of ;
present tax, trade, and pricing policies, j
The only difference between the two
scenarios is their assumptions regan'
projected steel shipments. As noted _
Section XXI, the Agency t>»» concluded
that the economic impact of the fitful
regulation is not significant under either
scenario and thaLthoMipitetions and
standards are erymontfrefof achievable.
Several steel indtaitfy commenters
argued that the economic impacts of the
proposed regulation—a 5 percent
reduction in the industry's workforce, a
4-B percent reduction in Its domestic
market share along with associated
balance of trade effects—should not be
considered economically achievable.
Several environmental groups believed
that a 0.3 to 0.8 percent increase in the
Price of steel resulting from the
mgulation was not too much for-
consumes to pay. The Agency expects
the economic impacts of the final
regulation to be shorter in duration and
of much less magnitude than those
predicted for the proposed regulation:
0.6 percent or less of the industry's
workforce and domestic market share,
and a 0.6 percent price increase. The
only impact which is expected to last
after the early 1990s is the protected
price increase. This change in the
projected economic impact resulted
from a reduction in expected cost of
compliance with the regulation, a more
recent forecast of the industry's future
shipment levels and an update in the
economic impact methodology.
The commenters noted that the
magnitude of the economic impact of the
water pollution control regulation
depends significantly upon the future
level of steel shipments. An
environmental group suggested that the
alternative scenario—which projected
the highest level of shipments and the
smallest impact—was the most
reasonable. That commenter quoted
financial market sources to support this
view. Several industry commenters
suggested that the intermediate scenario
economic analysis should be based
upon a 1.5 percent annual growth rate
rather than upon a 2 percent growth
rate. Industry commenters also
suggested that the Agency should not
base the economic analysis (and
therefore projected steel shipments)
upon expected changes in government
tax. trade and price control policies.
As explained earlier, the economic
analysis of the final regulation is based
upon the existing economic condition of
the steel industry including the projected
effects of present trade, tax and pricing
policies. Under the scenario which
projects the more prolonged economic
impact the annual growth of steel
production during 1985-1990 is projected
to be about 1% or less. This annual
growth rate is representative of the
overall growth rate projected under that
scenario as it measures annual growth
rate in steel production from one peak of
an economic cycle to the next peak.
Hence, the Agency believes that it has
adequately considered the range of
expected steel industry shipments in Its
economic analysis.
The Agency's analysis concludes that
steel companies will meet the capital
requirements of this regulation by
cutting back investment in its existing
plant and equipment A commenter
suggested that the steel industry has
access to additional funds for pollution
control that would not require reducing
investment in its existing capital stock
(i.e., from industrial revenue bonds,
common stock issues and reduced
dividend payments). The Agency
disagrees with this comment While
industrial revenue bonds are issued by
government agencies, they are the legal
obligations of private firms and are
considered as such by credit analysts.
Thus, industrial revenue bonds cannot
be used to increase the funds available
to a capital-constrained industrial firm
which must maintain the quality of its
credit Moreover, the Agency does not
believe that steel companies will
undertake the issuance of new common
stock, or the financially similar action of
reducing dividend payments, until they
can demonstrate a higher future
profitability. Consequently, the Agency
believes that its conclusion regarding
capital financing requirements reflects
the financial situation facing the steel
industry and is valid.
The Agency's economic analysis is
based, in part upon the assumption that
the added costs of water pollution
control will be passed-through to the
consumers of steel products. One
commenter suggested that these added
costs would be only partially passed-
through. In the last ten years, the steel
industry's operating costs (whether or
not related to water pollution control)
have increased nearly ISO percent and,
all but a few percent of these costs have
been passed-through to consumers in
the form of price increases. The Agency
believes that the additional 0.6 percent
increase in cost which is expected to
result from compliance with this
regulation will also be fully passed-
through to consumers.
Several commenters suggested the
Agency should evaluate the economic
impact of alternative wastewater
treatment systems not selected by the
Agency. Moreover, the commenters
suggested that the Agency's economic
analysis should account for potential
cost savings to the industry resulting
from the water bubble and co-treatment
policies. The Agency does not agree. In
selecting the model treatment systems,
the Agency considered the costs of the
various alternative treatment systems
and their respective effectiveness in
reducing pollutant discharges. After
selecting the model treatment systems,
the Agency performed its economic
analysis to determine expected
economic impacts and whether the
limitations and standards are
economically achievable. The analysis
is based upon the conservative
assumption that steel plant wastewaters
from each operation would be treated
separately and not include an allowance
for possible savings associated with the
co-treatment and water bubble policies.
-------
irrr
th»
to:
Band
J #j£uki{
ifK.; hlghlff
ift6reinnrt~
£» ^©»%»fr
toryuim—ligiiWi
it} 7?5jS5.JK»k£. - llMUVMrOV
' 5* "7" \ .>r^/zra3;iSst«3»

Mi
ESSES

;;: • ,7J >-".
. J> '.'.S "h !''.' 'r*",
	 11.ULJ .¦ .1.1
t-'*- > SAT.
1 U'Jl
gnttftfw
r £ indMt«71»—_
•:.. JjJ thewmarateat|fc
- - ¦¦; hara to
-------
r^-trrrnTTT^ii i
gSSr,KS&.
E2««*wwittb» tap«tedby •
gg!!!^iM*> nwAgger +
-iSi£^^5?,of
JanfroM the cost* af added
water
r Cattiawtfrv Vs&ofWdtsr. t> On*
Mumimntsr suggested that EPA had
bflsdto adequately conaiderthe impact
rffetpopoaed limitations cm water
*»~ «pa haa fated to accurately
Mtfmate tha water consumption
MWiriitirf with industry's compliance
with the regulation; failed to consider
the adverse impact which thia water
oonnmptlan would have on oaers of
watar duwilstroam from the commenter;
and. to account generally for the
watar scarcity problems of tha arid and "
sanil-Arld western itates.
tn mponaa to the court" • remand on
tirfs issue, EPA undertook an extensive
analysis of the water conaumption
impact of both die proposed regulation
and this final regulation. Tha manner in
which tha Agency examined this issue,
and the bases for its conclusions, are <
presented in detail in Section DH of
Volume 1 of the Development
Document The Agency estimated the
watar that will be consumed by the
various watar pollution control systems
available foe uae lb the iteel Industry.
Baaed on tha assumption that the
indtstiywiB^fMorative cooling
devices, tha ApaaMtimalea the water
loss to be adg(L3ppereent of the daily
flow of steel industry proeeas waters at
the BPT level and -ess than 0J)1 percent
of daily flow at the BAT leveL The
water conaumption aaaodated with thia
regulation is ln«i jniflmnt on a
nationwide buia.
Moreover, tha Agency surveyed the
following four steel plants which it
considers to be the only major plants
located in arid or jemi-arid regions of
the country. _
Q196A CFU Steel Corporation, Puahlo»-
Cokvedo -	. .. -•
04«AKaiee*Steel Corporation^:
O402A Lose Star Steel Company; Lone1
Star, Taxaa <¦
OBMA United States Steel Corporation
Provo, Utah-
Baaed upon information provided by
these companies, the Agency found that
at those plants, virtually all of the
recycle and evaporative cooling systems
included in the model treatment systems
used to develop the limitations and
standards contained in this regulation
have been installed or are under
construction, or alternate method* of"'
achieving the limitations are being ~
practiced. Consequently, compliance -
with the regulation will not result in any
substantial incremental water
consumption at the major plants located
in arid or semi-arid regions.
Although the commenter noted above
suggested the Agency failed to account
for water consumption aaaodated with .,
"drift" fas opposed to evaporation} from .
wet cooling towers, that loss of water ..
was accounted for in the Agency's
estimate of water consumption (0.1X of
circulating water flow).
The commenter also suggested that
the increased water consumption which
will result from compliance with this
regulation will adversely affect
downstream users of water Including
agricultural and indnstriaTusers. Beyond
the Agency's determination that the
adverse impacts associated with the
estimated increaae in water
consumption is Justified by the benefit of
reducing the pollutant load discharged
to achieve the limitations, EPA is not
able to properly consider the site
specific factors dted by the commenter
in this rulemaking. Such site specific
non-water quality environmental factors
may be considered in a request for a
variance by an NPDES permit applicant
(See 40 CFR125, Subpart D). The
Agency notes that the commenter is
located in a state which haa been
delegated the authority to administer the
NPDES program. The permitting
authority which will issue the permit
and consider any requests for a variance
is uniquely suited to account for the
regional and state concerns dted by the
commenter.
b. The commenter also suggests that
the Agency Is ignoring section 101(g) of
the CWA by proposing limitations
which will result in increased water
consumption. The commenter suggests
that section 101(g) recognizes the
primacy of state water laws and
allocation systems over the CWA.
EPA doeanot agree; wyh. the	,
commentar'a	—gp
primacy of state watar laws .over tha^
CWA. The court. In ABLIL noted thA
primacy of the CWA over state wateSr
laws is basedupoa the Supremacy,, •
Clause of tha ILS. Constitution. Tnai
conclusion is equally applicable now.
and the existence of state water laws
does not prohibit EPA from eatabliahlng
limitations which Incidentally involve
the consumptive use of water. The
Agency understands, however, that. ,"
Congress intended that EPA not
unnecessarily interfere with thoee righti
It la noteworthy that EPA la preparing a
report to Congress under section 102(d)
of the CWA regarding measures to
coordinate vyater quanty and watar
quantity, lasses ana paBdaa, This report
demonstrate* the Agency's continued
sensitivity, to this issue and its effort* to
accommodataboth goals^
8. Alternate Effluent Limitation*—
Water Bubble. Inthepreamhleof the.
proposed regulation, the Agency.,
announced it was conaidering whether:
to adopt an alternate effluent limitation
policy (."water bubblsQ. The Agency,
solidted comments on whether ff abonli
adopt such a policy and. if »a what. ..
conditions oi^ the policy migjKW^.
Imposed.
~ Under the water bubble poBc&. < :
dischargers with multiple outfalls may-:
discharge greater amounta of pollutes
from ou|faU« whwi Jnwtment costa^
high is exchange for an equivalent
decrease in pollutants discharged, from
outfalls at the same plant whan..
abatement is lei» expensive, Tins, the
same reduction hi pollutant loadings ce
be obtained at leas cost .
In this regulation, the Agency haa
adopted a water bubble policy for tha
steel industry. The policy Is reviewed L
detail in Section XXVI of thia preamble
Following are the Agency's responses 1
the most significant comments receive<
concerning the proposed policy outline
in the preamble to the propoaed' .
regulation.
Several commentars stated that tha
bubble concept would be Inconsistent
and incompatible with the uae oL .
indicator pollutants. Sped fine Ifc
commenter* raised concern that under
the bubble policy, dischargers would b
allowed to discharge an Increased
amount of those pollutants for which
specific UmituHnm have not been,
established. The Agtacy shared thia
concern and examined the issue
carefully in developing its final policy.
The fa»l policy	conditions or
the use of the watar bubble. The Agrai
found that unless conditions were
imposed upon the use of the policy^
-------
frfe: ffA Wf*
*2 eddiik
S"«C

«HPv-BMhtt
yufaurf^i tft
ac&evedby
*syf
save maaeyto iMimig. ftUitwJuiotogy '*-
based ttmrttfooslmp "nsri fry the Clean
WflTVT Alt BP^y.pW^MmliMillBUIt
regnbi®)B^W|8|B6.'X. „ *-iv^"'""'^
aogruMmiwBw^ppcwnn^.
coadftlahvttdhrem$nethateaeb''
outfiiB-hrcra toacdifrdbclMcrafimif"*"
wlil^il HWIIIHEWWg Irrantf ul
[ .«».Ullwitfa3faifrWr >'l nil* -
Tha Agency haa carshSy evohnrted Ac
idviitnn^lWniiiMirf At
"fltortta* bahfe** arid has onwrtwWt
that toed ftait*"4«»<
contention, that tha Boating ttaMitj£.
would allow steal Indus
to use control itrategiee _	„	
feasible undara twttcyiwjihkmffitte^S--'
limits oo each outfUL Sift be^Nefl^"!^
major savings ¦MocUtBd'wtd^fi^^ /*^iSl-
bubble paficy wiS reaalf figaxduagU M'"
fixed control ooets. Dtsrhanpiistantaka''
advantage of these savtnjpnader f1
policy adopted by tha Agency: f-rm--":^
The Agmcy jottdtediMntimiwirt'oir"
the resource and admlniatratlve bnrdett,^
that the bubble potfcymight place oa;:1*
permit authorities. Several commsnten^
expressed concern that the polkj wuuBfc
present an addttitiaaltairdar that permit
authorities would be usable to bear. TM
Agency baa tried to design the bobbir ; }
policy to mliiluifiy its lulinhth&ttUW"-'"-"^
burden. Fbst tha Agency baa specified v*
that dtotbaigu^ mast Initiate bufaMaf
proposoliafthtdiuwuexpense:fc -f " *'
addition, as discussed above, EPA has
sought to mlnlmhBi tha resource burden
by requiring that bubbie permits hove -
fixed enforceable Bmitron each oatlall
Once these limitations an determined.-1
the cost flfwlaiilng Inspection and
self-monitmingrapartawill.be.
comparable to tha adrnhdatrattr* costr17
associated with traditional permit
practices.
Some comtgantera ware opposed, to
the condition tq the Agency's propoeed
policy which reqatradafi wastestreamr'
to meet applicable HPT requirements '
because it would restrict the utility and -
cost saving potential of the bubble. EPA.
reconsidered tbb condition and ha*- ~J
concluded that tbe requirement wooldt* *
significantly Umit opyurtunities -.
available to dischargsrslo Implement^'
efficient control strategies, particularly:
in the hot forming subcategory. The
Agency originally considered tnchuHny
this requirement to provide av
where a ___
considered
will
not
permUbwed;
do so as aoon a*
waiting joe
avoids
burdens
dischaigm
on the "
adequate opyurltmlty jsKni
was lasrreisauedi
One commenter .
proposed bubbtajSbBcx as
new source permittees front
and SuggestedthAt sucha
inappropriate. Thisinl
correct aa the Agpncg
that it would bet.
new source to fiast&H teas
treatment than is iBtMrnTTiJl
becauaeofthe bubble pattc£,
Clean Water Actaswaouscav
achieve tha TJeetDMicnstmteif
Technology* and thentfbm, the
policy should not to used

treatment ' ' -£*-^
One commenter sta
be inappropriate to
In the affluent limitation
suggested instead that atf 1
to a water bubble poficy be rewhref
during the permit issa&noa peoceaaHHM^?
-------
i'AZ No. 109 / Thurxfay. May 27, M8S / Rofaf	.
htdmMte taste poB8taat»we iftai limgtm to
ladnpofliiWBI ntf wsslswslm only
•gafast tbemnapoMalln another
wstwaatac Panwyh. ltw can be
traded fee itee bat not ftrchrondMn or
t Tredse involving cartels
•sfceabgeiy waste streams will be
Hmitad..
EPA h» identified certain process
mbestofaries with wastewaters that are
dgniflcantly different than those from
otter riaok industry subcategories,
ttwsmoed trades wtlb these
•ubeeeegotiae could resuti in* net
... sateMf ttndta toner
(I) Caimnaking. Permits iseaed under
the bubble policy which km>)ve trades
with ookamaldng wastewaters wiB not
be allowed His Agency betteverthat ;
the number and amounts of taxis
organic pollutants found in cokemaWay
waitawaters cannot be effectively
controlled under the babble policy.
(li] Cold Forming. Permits issued
under the babble policy which involve
trades with cold forming waatewutsis
wilj not be allowed. TTu! Agency
believes that the variability aad
amounts of toxic organic poUataota
associated with cold fanning
wastewater* are such that it is not
possible to ensure effective contra! of
toxic organic pollutants under the water
bubble policy.
2.	Discharger* must meet water
quality standards. A change in the. • ¦
distribution of pollutant	map
adversely affect water quality oven if
total loadings discharged do not- ¦
increase. Permit authorities may not
approve e bubble application if it would
result in a violation of water quality
standards.
3.	Each outfall must hare a specific
discharge limit Water bubble permits
may not allow limitations to be set on a
plant-wide "floating" basis. For the
reasons discussed in Section XVI of this
preamble, the Agency has decided not to
allow tha policy to be applied on a
"floating" basis.
In the preamble to die proposed
regulation, the Agency announced that it
was considering imposing a condition on
the policy which would require all
wastewaters to meet applicable BPT
limitationa. EPA has decided not to
include requirement in the bubble
policy far the steel industry. Such a
requirement could significantly restrict
the savings associated with the water
bubble aad is not necessary to achieve
levels of removal equivalent to
traditional permits, protect water
quality, or ensure enforceability. Permits
issued under this policy may allow
certain wastewaters to exceed
applicable BPT limitationa if sufficient
reductions can be achieved at other
outfalls and the other conditions for
bubble permits set out in this regulation
are met
Implementing the Water Bubble
It is the permittee's responsibility to
initiate proposals for implementing the
water bubble policy for its facilities.
Permitting authorities will continue to
traditional ¦pp*wcfcc# se!eM^r^.
techuutugf an* wmrqjatMlyhass*!
limits on aadf dfadtfqp pitf*. Doltaf t
permit issnewprpcesa, tti»<~
may propose • different set of eSwst"
limitations fot its outfe&osingth* - ¦
bubble concept The permittee must
demonstrate, to ft* satisfaction of the -v
permit Issuing antbority, that itr
proposal resmtt in a total cfischaigs
equivalent to the level reqiifaed by the
technology ad water (malty based
limitations. Whan the discharger make*
such a demonstration to the satisfaction
of tha permit issufng authority, its
NPDESperarftmsy be based upon the
alternative discharge fimftathMW.
EPA will accept proposals to modify
existing NPDBS permit*baie 'a- , J* " I } t
In tha pseamble ta thepcagwdhL -
regulatta, theAflmqransuaaoeidul
waa ronairtsrlag isstiir tlngnaa*
complying disohargeas freak erinftbe:
bubble policy. H>e Agenp hsa decider
to allow noa-asmplyina disohaigers to
propose the use of the bubble policy at
its facilities with oondition* under wU
they co jld come into ncanpllsimei Tho
Agency believes that tke flexibility to
develop compBaace stmtegtaathetesi
the bubble concept will rawWtinfsstsi
catnptiance with effluent IMMtaaaa
achicnr» tha same total <
ofeffiaeBi
0. Limitation* for TaodeMMAt Sea
commata* suggested than - > -
limitations for toxk awt alt shoold be
estabhahed far dissolved or aahhis
metals rether than for total atoCals sa
that published hydroxide sofaMMy d
for each metal should b» used ae ih»
basis for the limitation* -
The Agency considered eataMidtfi
limltatons for toxte metals on the b*
of dissolved or soluble metals in Beo
total toxic metals. However, the Age
has decided not to do so. The Hmitoi
. '1
-------
**<*« ft*******

PSi&s.	******.e.
t§. MopuM & itfKfyfii	•: '-^
StmiS fiommtatetii stated ®ft NPOE9
' ' -	-'	i	*" "- -** •
.IBOBliQIU^TI^VwBniV CV D8VT
detente^ iyper&ffinnJBra and that
^JWrejjiiirttbn should attrontalrfeny- -
^Kfcfforicg iwnfremA^fc- "':- -
^^Thepraposed regulation and thia- '.'
regulation do not coatala uijr '''.[	
monitoring requiremarit*. Hawrver. tin v
preamble to the proposed
contained • rtcammsndadT monitoring
pragma#aAftf^tofcrase# fb^etfmat*. "•'
industry wide moai6iHi% coats. A» -'
noted ta dw prtaoWlH»<»)gfefosei#'•
reguMlofc permit wittfct rfflMofbeand
by the recommended program and may
require mora or less frequent monitoring,
aa they coosfcier appropriate *¦'<
It; Ancdyttcoi Pnciuca an&"
Aumitn. AB of the oonmaata ott':>-
analytical predaioa aadaeoaaey -
pertain toanalyeeeoftnobo organla:
[i iltaliiiila TTia Imliisay iiwwjfril tlialt
tbr.Agancy'ei
- : tbafetttataitatiyi
•arvayrandta;
ooahDfea&ta^falaai
and diet tha predate* i
these anaiyaaawrpoaa-Ihatadiiitty
ala» coonaeptod than
Mltin§.wastaa«»tw eaaisdle^t;;
verification analyafagsrotooola could atlU
produce'falae jtoattivertdaotificatiana
and tfcuH It la dlfBca^ tja raadve**»pBienee.
and naphthalan*, there may baLCOrx ; -
elution with very similar compound* Mii
not with other designated toxic organic,
pollutants. These other compound* that-,
may co-elute with benzo-a-pyranrancL:«
naphthalene will consistently co-ehita-:
with the same gaa chromatography. . j
columns. Sinca the Agency recommends"
a particular column in its analytical j,
protocols audits contractors adhered to>i
the protocols, any co-elutara with.benao«j .
a-pyrene and naphthalene were takes d*
into account in the analyaaaused as ths^
basis for the limitations. Thus, if
industry laboratories foilew the
Agency's protocol the results obtained^
for determining compliance with the-.
regulation should be consistent with the
Agency's results. Furthermore, the
analytical methodology indicates the*- -
other gas chromatography columns
which can differentiate between co-
eluters may alao be used. Thus, the
Agency does not consider co-ehition of :
these compocnda to be a problem with
respect tojnonitoring for compliance' -
witii the regulation. -
For those toxic organic pollutant* -.
limited in this regulation, theAgsncgp;
has determined Oat the data undariytog.
the limitatioca are sound. _
XVIL Summary of Changes Fran. '
Proposed Rigulittm '	¦ • ;
Following ia a summary of changes
that the Agency made-to the proposed^ '
regulation in developing the final
regulation. Because of the significant :
number of changes, the supporting.
rationale and documentation for every
ooaaawtr »^lh»pt upoeerf nt^attaknf:
{8ee9e«tta»]CVI^- ^,t * ,'rr-i
1. bidBMtrfSubcttigorixmtiUL IhtiVx
AgenejnhMMfrchaasadthe majati^ n,-^
sobcatefodutlDD.of tjka JaAitfejs^^: ^
ontliaed above far Ale fhet.rokiLjcrgs
Hownwsrait ahangad !»«**»»• !rs!f -.a C
I he ftilhwafcji ¦; iaw(
subeateyw^s4af prttHde tut juui»
repfMentattve modal treetmeotfyataBKi
flow ratea and.thna. aw^ppropriate
sffluliil'Hii^isllaiiasiil•*>
. niVnaaaHiif j ~n"i ' t 'I ~n ri' i: - si -;
SfMasbtagiv*?* ii&xid~ivc taoci:
riaiuiiiHirrrtwwn^nriiiTi if '
Add * *" ""
Cold
AlkafiA
FoH
the impacts
standude
andintt#
repoftaoftfce
Z,Gumet%
remandtfttte
methodbfegjrlhril^
Agenept&i " ^
UmlUtldU
•it •t-t:

?V*
more
limitations'*!*
remaining!
BCT Lmitatldnaf&t
pollu:ants sjaidiL
subcatesory-spadflii
included ji thie
b. BAT. Upofitr^Kfi
data submittMdmpft
period and, as juried
through sampUbg
propcsaT of thlare^L

a . ¦ -
_ .
has promulgated BAT umitatiaaeno r.t
mora stringent thaa BPT limitations for
the following subcategories;'	;—j
Steebnaklng (aead-wet^^- " j
HotForaslng.	y ; •
Salt Bath DascaiingP' ,c ,, 
technologies are tha sane aa>the£PT -
technolosiea for the^Salt BathDeacaUnw
Add Pickling, Cold Rolling, and Hotea ait
Coatins subcataMriea. thsim tnd^
pollutant limitaticnsai*>iadndadWKV »
both BPT and BAT ~
Aa discasaed In greater detail fat thatf? >
Development Dbcuaent, tha Agsasy ie"1 J
not promulgatingBATflajtattooa ruct4n'-
-------
^Vofe-47t No. 103-/ Throday. May 27, 1 > / Kales

^ f-Jjthat&BPriaodrf..
urTinnT-yy effectively
SSS«H^a
££-**» to
"^TZjhitents found inthese
. -fL_. ^ Apncy could not
_ )BBStbeestehfiahedoni
eM»^cuabal^
r^Zwtt) md AlUkw Oeanfag
jfaeAgwey.todnot
_______		iniDon-
TliiMnt ~*¦*" H^T Harftettons far these
n^tagi^ihi A|nc]f boiimi thai
»fcch see present 1b
llUlllMI f" "	'—"Tr*4"
1gmrty Urnttad. anafrollad through the
"""tnYfa!
are generally not present in
BFT efibsnts* .
c. Limitations far Toxic Metalk To
pmmots osatral treatment of compatible
wutawatara. the Agency proposed BAT
ii—ii.Mmm fear i*mmIhi» lead, and zinc
for mat subcategories and copper and
nidui fix certain specialty steel
The final regulation has
been revised to make central treatment
nan feasible at both the BFT and BAT
levels of treatment Lead and zinc are
limited at the BFT or BAT level in most
subcategories and chromium and nickel
far specialty steel operation.
S. Subcategory Specific Changes, a.
Coktmaking (1) Afae/Wrt Coke Pfants.
Separate BFT. BAftPflH NSPS. and
tedadedfer
an
took* producers.
	.	r Modal treatment
technology fat cote plants which are
captive to Iran aad steal production, bat
with sHghttjr highs* flew rates found to
be typteal sifiMrrhant coh» plants.
. ffl Unutatkua and Standards. The
teal BPT BmitatioM fe» ammonia-N.
ratal cyanide, and phenols (4AAP) are
"¦•at those set eat In the
Pwpowd regulation. Th« BPT
"¦nations for suspended solids have
been relaxed. Hmrtatlnae fag totafr -
cyanide and phanola (4AAP) were
relaxed slightly at the BAT, NSPS, and
PSNS levels based upon additional data
•abmitted.dnlng.tiM comment period.
The BATphenola (4AAPJ Hrnttstian far
physkatahenrical coke plants was also
relaxed aflfehthrbaaed upon additional
data submitted duilng the comment
period He Agency rigrriflamtiy relaxed
P8B8 based apon the removal of
pollutants ts coke plant wastewetets
demonstrated in aene POTWs.
Howem, lODB ud laesi sntkortM. -•<
shonld also insare that coke-plant
pollutants discharged a< the PSEStevel "
of treatment do not Interfere with their
individual POTW operations or pasa
through POTWs.
b.	Sintmrtnfr The modal treatment
system flow wee increased to a
demonstrated level of 120 gallons/ton
for all level# of treatment Upon
reexamination, the Agency believes that,
the lndustiy>euppUed data original]*-
used by tha Agency to develop die lowers
model BPT and BAT flow rate* is nofer .
reliable. The BAT limitation* fes toxkh <
metals are beaed upon filtration ef the .
BPT recycle system bkrwdown. BAT
limitations, NSP8> PSES, and PSNS for
ammonia-N. total cyanide, aad phenols
(4AAP) are provided for those
dischargers which co-treat sintering and
iron making wastewaters. These
limitations standard* art based
upon the demonstrated performance on
a full scale basis of the selected
technology for ironmpking wastewaters.
c.	Ironmaking. The final BPT
limitations are the same as the proposed
BPT limitations. Tha Agency relaxed the
ammonia-N limitations for BAT, PSES,
NSPS, and PSNS to levels demonstrated
at a foil scale treatment system. The
Agency relied upon data from a pilot
scale treatment system in developing the
proposed BAT limitations. In addition
the 30 day average ammonia-N
limitations and standards are based
upon a concentration of 10.0 mg/1 as
compared with a concentration of 1.0
mg/1 which was used to develop the
proposed limitations and standards.
d Steelmaking. The Agency used a
model flow of 110 gallons/ton for the
Basic Oxygen Furnace—Open
Combustion and Electric Furnace—Wet
subdivisions for all treatment levels. The
model flow rates used to develop the
proposed limitations were 06 gallons/
ton and » gallons/ ten. respectively. The
Agency haa eliminated the Open Hearth
Furnace—Semi-wet subdivision because
there are no Open Hearth Furnaces with
semi-wet air pollution controls.
e„ f. Vacuum Degassing, Continuous
Casting. Limitations and standards for
chromium have been deleted to
facilitate 1
nrirl ntnnrlank far leeri sad ill hnn
been mUwrt taeaflecl Ifce * unqte. .
selectmen olUaie piaiilpftatioa —4 -
sediaantetioB a* tfaie medal EAX.
P3ES. aad PSNS treatment technotogpl^P
Filtration was the modal treatment .,
technology used ta develop tha
proposed limitations and standards Tha-
t— marrmrm
d6gUdQ| COOAktaOUS
oparattoe^aee now consiatenl'Widi,
thoaa for **et steelmaldog operations,
thus.	co-treatment of theaa
wastewater* fan sihle .
g.	HetFormung. The Ajsacy is-
promulgating, only BPT. BCT. and NSPS
for the Hot Pozmingsahcatagasy. Tha
BPT and BCT limitations are baaed upon
the same model treatment syalama used
far tha proposed HPT limitations and , j
actual performance data for thnea
systems. NSPS fat total suspended
solida aadatt and^easeare the same
as those proposed '
h.SaZf	Bath Descaling. The terms
"kotene^and "Sydrida* have bees';
replaced with the fauna "salt baft
rieacalfng-oxtrifring*; and "salt bath
descattng-redudng". respectively. TUt
Agency reevaluated the appzopdktenesa
of thetubdfvisfaas of each stse£'
finishing subcategory and the gfepoMtf ,
limitations aad standards aad hits made
changes in.the final regilatton. Fbr salt
bath descalingKixidlzing, EPA faund~
that separate limitations and standards
are appropriate for the following
operations to allow for variations hi
rinse flow requirements: batch sheet ahd"
plate, batch rod and wire; batch pipe
and tube; and afi continuous operations.
Separate limitations are also provided -
for batch and continuous salt bet!*
descaling-reducing operation* b both*
cases, revised BPT limitations end BAT
limitations no more strtagent than the
BPT limitations have been promulgated
based upon data supplied dbrtng the
comment period Limitations for
chromium and nickel are now cunaisteul
with those for combination add pickling
to facilitate central treatment
L Acid Pickling. Tbe Agency ha»-
made several changes in the Bnritattana.. .
and standards for die add picking
subcategory. EPA levlaed the
subdivisions within each ef the add
pickling operations (sulfuric.'
hydrochloric, and combination) and
established separate limitations aad
standards by product type (i*, rod
wire, coil; bar, billet, bloom pfpe. tubsi
other and strip, sheet plated These
revislonebetter reflect process -
rinse ws tar requirement* for each group
of products. A separata daily mass
limitation based upon recycle of fume
-------
lfflvAThnaatayr May-27,
nSnBSMg I . . S=B8BgpgagS8WBlWWBB
MRnem
Jh)-.
:ig^
nfthitw^*
fade*tt^.f£
. fcLitteir^
ted^a faxfe under &,
roiling ftoads. TfwatJKtt Mtdhangee in
worked j " "
L.
	 j an based upmUiJUff modal
leatmant system flowjitM far both, .
intch and coatfniiam operations. NSPB
are basednpgn amodajti»atiniinr .. .8.
system lnchidtng1U3reti9!raf-*lowa>r lZ.._
volume of prooeaa waaUreahw. th*» > fen .-
scrubbeta at I
allows
PSNS based vop<»l
lnr^ipni«l«ill^i	lutrtmurt'
«y»tcma-Ca »ra rin rtastns** other
i rtMm flwarotfaovare trtr Jaded
only iath* NSPS and KNB modal - .
I anaat systains (see ahnwiwini inula
oa Acid PirkltngjiUmlfatlcma far tendc
metal* at aUleril»aiteaiaeat air"
designed to facilitate central"treatment
of steelflnlnhtoifwmatwwaaafc j aw- ,
^	' , .f,
QoatraBedltj^v.
bytha.^;
_	$on» pollutant*-^ i
wan deletet^fat vsriooa subcategories.
fronstiu ifrwtlna anriartnlron subsequent.
to the pnwmlgatton of the ptevkwe ,iTi ..."
oudemoaetmte that thee*- r~::-r
pollutant* are not brand In sigrrffleanl ;K
quantities OMVutswaten from thoac. .c
opeiationfeliraErtain steel flniehttfr,- •
rubcategorle&wbeie. identical BPT and: ,
BAT limitation* are promulgated, the
Agency selected the pollntanta for whidn
Hiitatione are proiruigatad to faallitala4j
central ox combined treatment at" •._<
compatl bin was;rwatara>.
With few exceptions, theBPTefiuenferi
limitation* are expressed In tennfrof v '»
iw yiwuiin 30-day average HUtidmont^
daily mass effluent limitations ia
kilograms of pollutant per 1000- -
kilograms (lbsj'1000 lba) of prodncb
The limitations are calculated by
multiplying the demonstrated pollutant" J.
concentra"dona, the BPT model discharge'
3c w for each subcategory, and an.
appropriate conversion factor. For
maximum daily limitations, the long
term ave.-age concentration ia multiplied
by an appropriate variability factor, the
BPT modal discharge flow, and the
conversion factor noted above.Because^
thB Agency could not relate production
dtta directly tq water flow rates for A
fume scrahbars associated with add
pickling and hot coating operations,
daily mass affluent limitations are
expressed in kilograms per day for each,
fume scrubbing system.
E BCT. The-conventional pollutants
total suspended so ids and oil and
grease as wafi aa pH are limited undat
BCT, where BCT limitations are
promulgated. ...
C. BATandJiSPS. 1. Non-toxic, Nakp.,-
conventional Pollutants. The non-tqiri«»i.
non-convsatinnaI pollutants for whichjr
BAT limitatiom and NSPS are
promulgated are ammonia-N and.
phenols (4AAP). These pollutants at*..
subject to numerical limitations ¦ • t- ;¦
expressed in kilograms per 1000 -
kilograms (lbs/1000 lba) of product The.
Agency also promulgated limitations for
total residual chlorine for two categoriee
where chlorine may be used in the
treatmsnt process.
„ ttTatitTPolbhumjP+to *im
poQataats w*refo«*4«t ooittinteitioa#*
.above towiabfifliElvui*hesteek"^ -.-iT
.industry wasliwaJeH (eeaAppmrituB^
*Hiirt£tnideiMllHlaats>were fbaMda .
cokamatag-wastswatare. The Agancyia-
promulgatiafreffluant IfahfUtipnaln one •
or more subcategories for the foBewipg, ;
toxic poUttanta: cyanide. banaene,
naphthwleiwfeeitto(a)pyreBe>( -	»L
tatrachToroetbylena, ehranhun, lead« >-
nickaL and titoa.These poQutanta a»-
Sub)eCt-tD mmm*!"—I limitations"
eupmmdfrakttogaiin per 100ft ry-
kilogrems [Itts/1000 Ibsf of product Thff -
remaining teadftpojlatantiifaund inr steel
industry waatewj^ers, which are not ^
speciflcaH^ lin^ted ln this regulation, ' "7
wfll"be ciDntrolb^ by I&olUitidns for ,
"indicatn^polhiUnbi aa (tlacuaaed ^' .
below. As noted1 above, fin add pieJdMg/,
andhot coating o^erotl^wi.th.faina "
expressediB JtjUyayf m^day for^adi.
acrabbingayataBi , - -.r ~
a. IndicatMfaS&ati* Th»difflcuk*
and coajafanaljiaa Ihiftiemany toxift>,
paUntantaibandfiKatnt industry -j
w—tawatees.haa-pmnptad EPA to.
develop wabsmatftvemethodof "-ur^
regnlatifigtartaift'taxis poQutanta:
Inatead crf promalga€ng specific effluents
limitatiaBtf fo^Meh^Mie ftntynine
toxlg peOatairtf&aatfift die ttMhrntoy'lc^
wastewatera-abute ftwthbiUtylevek,^ -
the Agency ia picamd^Btlng efflaent-^
limitations tab certfite "buficatoK' ¦
polhitanta. These Include chiumituur!
lead, nickd, sincphenols (4AAP)6nd'
four toxic organic poOidanta. The dat#'1
available to-BPA generally sfidw that
control of the selsctedJllndicafotT
pollutants will result Ip companbl#1 "
control of other toxic pollutants found 1$..
the waatewatere but not specifically 7
limited. By establishing specific
limitations and standards for only the L
"indicator" pollutants^ the Agency will .
reduce the difflcalty. high coat, and
delays of pollutant monitoring and ...
analyses that wculd result if pollutant::
limitationa were astabliahad for each. :r.
toxic pollutant EPA aetimatea that , -
industry will save about )9 million^ -'.j-;
annually in monitoring and analysis:
costs with this approach aa oppoeedita-i
monitoring floral) pollutant* Section
of Volume I of the Development
Document discusses is detail the
pollutant*.found is steel induatry
wastewaters.and thosa for whickthe < ;
Agency is promrlgating limitationa and
standarda at th» EAT and NSPS tevelar
of treatment 8ection X of each ,
subcategory report discusses the baa
for the selection of "indicator? >
pollutants.
-------
/ Vol 4?. No. 103 / Thursday, May-27. 198fr/ gates

k-«ota tik.
lists thaw pofiatsnts detected la thr
cffiaanta of only an plant sad nnlqoely
related to that plant which have been
mrrlii^«H frnm pmpnaod mniilaHnw
Appeadfx C contains the list of
pollutant* by subcategory, far which
mttatfons are promulgated
sap"	utwyiooo-,
*aBbbt™l., ui^m* dt dav far each
j272ntfb»A»a.geM™Ie- ^
°^"*^,MUWpnrtiMtgia«it
2SSds mtha baait of concanteation.
aImt balievastha standards should
opon mass limitations (kg/lckg)
to teams thsteffactive toxic poDutant
Mntalts prodded and. to minimise the
i sot
H(	Agreement contained
gnvMont antimting the exchnkm
fau mulattos fa aertafa iartances, of
Iggde poDutants and industry
nl^piBjuilaa. TLese pmrisions have
bt— umlllnn In a Prriinri Settlement
AoeoasBl which was approved by the
District Conrt for the District of
Cofcenbio on March 9,1979.
Pueyaph 8(a){lil) of the Revised
SstdsiMnt Agreement allows the
Administrator to exclude from
ngolatke trade pollutants not
detectable by Secton 304(h> analytical
methods or other state-of-the-art
methods, Tfce tnxto poUatants not
detected and therefore, excluded from
regulation are bated in Appendix B to
thii retpiaton.
Psrapspfe 8(aHLi) of the Revised
Settlement A^eement allows the
Administrator to exclude from
ragelstkm toxic pollutants detected in
the sffiaant in only base aoeatitias and
not Ukely to cause taadc enact*
Appendix B lists this>taxfe pollutants
wash we detected |iM,ts '
The Agency estiiaatad the coats and r
ecmcmte impacts af thia teguiatie* ..
usiagtawsosnarioalas the fat—
drtmsnd far Homratirally prod—d*mt:
products. In the first scenarios which la ,v
beeed ob tenM flrowtb 1b shiaBMDfcBv >
reaching lltmllUaa tone by 198BC th» .
Agency eattinatae that thia regulation '
will require the industry to inwast aboat
$310 millin (in conatant1880 dollars).'
1964 fo> exiating soorcea andaboat $4
by 1990 far new sources This represents
about a 12 percent hmeaae in tha-
industry'* cumat investment ia wate....
pollution control fadUttee fat atttkm-
sources. The new invaaUauiil ia alaoleaa
than 2 percent of the captlei »:.¦-.
expenditures projected for the industry-.
in -be 1989-1990 period In the eeeeod
scenario, which ia baaed upon lesa
expansionary demand for steel,
products, the Agency eetimates that this
regulation will require the induatry to -
invest the same $310 """"i by 1904.
and about $270 ""Uir" by 199ft for new
sources. Thesa capital requiiaienta and
the annual coato at water pollatioa
control equipment required by the
regulation are summarized in Tables 1
and 2. The assodatad ananalixed.
incremental ooata fat tha regulation
(including interest, depredation,
oceratins. ani^ mainfminnral in Srjwinrin
1 wiQbv about 97ZB million in 1984,
increasing to $127.1 million in 199a The
Incremental effect of these costs on steel
prices is estimated to be an increase of
about 0.8 percent in the baseline price of
a ton of steeL hi Scenario Z the
a»mn»lh»r< incremental costa far tha
regulation will be about $78J million in
-------
mffl66*fllieFdHB totftf aanrfldwt*^
rriBiiftTMtfMa«lliid awm
> ®S second Scenario wlH be 1298.1
miBoirta4W'^r Tt ' ' ¦¦¦».-ft -'
Affff/ttriiutoi ffirt At ita)''1'j
lmfUsllry'flrast M»est aa additional KU.1
mfflfbtt b> lm tt comply wflh tha final
BAT lnmUttoafc hi Scenario 1. tfag" -
incremsntalBofinalaostsneceeearytir"
achieve the RAT lixnitatiana an about
tUZwWm 
ti«
ai
UT
Don
TM
48.1
' NA
4U
SIS
NA
MU
OA
NA
MU
sia
NA
¦MM
amy* -
_.:nI f* . '
Pti *v-»r
I
I

rr
itof
BBT
S1J7U
IU
lies
snu
m»
su
MJSU
IU
I4S.1
BAT
»

ISMS
mi
US*4
I to be
NA-NM I
MMl
The above capital coats for "facilities
required" are different than those
presented in the Development
Document The cost differences are
largely due to differences in modeling oT
the industry and the fact that
Development Document costs are in
1978 nominal doDars and the above
3-
B0uuuu|hi fjjjaal raymfr daaertba^™^ &'
betow^Tfr^aggi egete'dlffcrenoafrlir*^
these coab are net significant to tern*- »
of the result* of the economic Impact
analysis and wars. in fact aocoonted f®
in a sensitivity analyst*
To account far the uncertainties facing
the steel iiMfcstry ever the next decade,"
the Agency evaluated the economic
impact oft&ir rtgelatiomuiag the tmrrr •
scenarioe'dsiifrilied previously-- - -
regar&yflafQtareiWiendfof^ :
domeffiaSfrpgQjjaCed stari product*
Both sbeoanfie ate basedupoo the— '
aaaamptiuatthatcnn«nt government1 /•.
policies toward theinJhatry still? -
continue t&rpugfcouHha MWfcHtH
poHH— (nfliiili'^rllwiniuiilji ••
Recovery Tax Act of 1981 concerning' -
corporate fimrtme taxrate* depredation,
schedules; and krveetiaegt taxcrmttts; -
tha.relaxattabdlfaRnal and Informal
steel price custralfc and^ effective
enforcaattade law including
A*			In Tiilili It II the-.
economic impact of thie regulation
relatively anaUtoodfr aitha scenniotr
The iaaeiaat^al«Qataaaaodated witS^3
tharegnlatinn wsnlt ia incremental,
short-ran chaii^nite pica, nazkat afiajnt -
employment aad production of about (LA.
percent or less from their respective
baseline levels, and about 04 percent .-
for productioa Except lor a small price'
increase of about 0.6 percent in the early
1990*8 there are virtually no long rua^
impacts an production market shaia; op
employmentupder either scenario. ,
The reduced ecoaomie impact s ...
associated with the reeammendefL:.
regulation compared to that of tha
proposed regulation is a result of the
following: (1) Lower cost of thia
regulation; (2) a more favorable ¦
projected economic climate for tha
industry: and (3) a decrease in tha
Agency's estimate of the impact on
capacity due to foregone industry
modernization and reworks associated"
with water pollution control costs.
The economic Impact analysis -
contains sensitivity analyses which" •
account for effects of higher Inflation -
rates and higher water pollution control'
costs than those contained in both
scenarios; the stretchout of air pollution
control costs; and whether profits will
be increased or the price of tha product
will be reduced due to certain cost -
savings. These refetits ere also ' -
summarized in Table 6. The protected
economic Impacts of the regulation do" '
not differ significantly under the
penaitivitv analyses from the results'
described above except where tha •
-------
47£Ne. itt- /Thmdsr, May-27,
^gnw4itM^piodsiMiB4n(v
gpTanriBAX Uaftetiaauiam tow than.
M prast On that hasia. till Agency
""i^l^octBtadwitbthto ngulation an
"jlLijj m HB'lf 
ioa7t
6QJt
441 m
MMWi




Com
mti
109.10.
,7an
439.46






S1S4S
16*7T

46134
Cmh	
SSL1B
102J6
noi
4«0.15
Impact of
Reoula-
wt imiifeigfa-,
t i ¦ La
:-4tt -
¦ "!¦£ "'"T -
• -.
UCu*.
- Mm '
XZSl
mm
iSSm
mm
«ao»
of
Mr-
tot
atmm
Urn-
Employ,
mam
(thou*
Mndtof
•mp^
MS)
- j „
r ''




>40tM
83J0
69.70
399.00

nm
mrr
nza
425 76

' ntt*
flftte
7&60
423.60
FsmlWxteh KuvmtQaNnioLREauufr
r . -«

0»-


¦ '
! P*»
IMMB
Um-


HZ
nana
01
to#

Oho*
Mtf
S«lM _
9SU1
101.21
ttJtr
"44MT

SSU8
ioas*
OJS
446J6
1 We» ct imii»
'Sons AS
» t«M
Tmu &—Lone-flu* ECowomk- immct or
FttMt Wkm POtumoH Cowrmx Reaum-
TON8,1990


Do-



Prtoa
maatto
•Np*
Map-
¦5ST

S&
trmrm
d
than
(P^
(Vl0»
«and> o»


of
oan0
«•)
MuttyStttAbt




1MTI1
>490164
SSJ0
6170
itnno
Ooanaho V

He^afcia
MM
11640
6446
' 466l^
AdM Walar
WJX
116.00
64JO
Mfflf
Scratoi:

¦m
SW26
104J6
6047
401 Jt
Addad Wattr



886.77
10&96
60.M
40ft7»

¦Priowtso* DscantMf 30,1M0.
'Souck AlSt rmiWi ji Rapert 1W0.
XXII. Non-Water Quality Aspects of
Pollution Control
The elimination or reduction of one
form of pollution may aggravate other
environmental problems 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
considered the effect of this regulation
on air pollution, solid waste generation,
water consumption, and energy
consumption. This regulation was
circulated to and reviewed by EPA
personnel responsible far non-water
quality programs. While it is difficult to
balance pollution problems against each
other and against energy use, EPA is
promulgating a regulation which it
believes best serves often competing
national goals.
A detailed discussion of these impacts
is contained in Section Vm of each
subcategory report of the Development
Document Following is a summary of
the non-water quality environmental
impacts associated with this regulation:
A. Air Pollution. Industry compliance
with the proposed BPT, BAT, NSPS,
PSES, and PSNS limitations and
example, —'Titmnl usostitscf wdatdn
organic caapooadamay banlaua^
the atmosphere by aeraMenof -
cokemaldng wastewaters is fatobftoai
treatment; smaD-emisetoa* of sir -
pollutiona»ay rasaIt if liwiwiakfcif
wastewaters are aaed to qaeacb the h<
slag generated fa the pracesscaadrwa
vapor contskrfsg socftw particulate
matter will be released from thveoofc
tower system* used in several of the
subcategories. The Agency does not
consider any of these impacts to be
significant
E Solid Waste. The Agracy has
detamined that about 20 million tons
Kr year of solid waste (at 30* solids]
ve bean and will be generated by t)
steal industry In complying with t£is
regulation. Of this amount almost all
currently generated, by the steel indtu
in complying with current NPDES per
conditions. This solid waste ir
comprised almost entirely of Ueetmei
plant shx^es. EPA recognfnr thsrt '¦;;
sigiilfMiifqnamtHtes of other soffiP"
wastes, stab as steehnaklag sfa&sad
blast ftimace slag, are genaiwtterbyt
steel industry. ffowever, tftase^Bfld
wastes are generated by f&tr"
manufacturing processes amf am not
associated with this water pollution.
control regulation. For this reasons
process solid wastes are not fcnchijj
this impact analysis. The cost of *
disposing of these solid wastes were
included aa heseiiaa flMtslsthav
economic impact analysis.	^
The data gathered far thiM-ttody, -
demonstrate that the industry, collac
and dispose* of most sludges carren
generated in existing treatment systi
Hence, the industry is presently -
incurring sludge disposal cost* and
finding necessary	fitut
Agency believes that the industry w
continue to be able to do so, (EPA.ii
unable to accurately estimate the.
number of disposal sites that an
well maintained operations) -Thai
average sludge disposal cost used fa
analysis is $5.00 per ton for sludges
classified as hazardous uderKCR
and $1&00 per toafor haxardbuswi
These costs were included to then
economic impact analysis^ The Age
has determined thai the solid
impacts associated with thiaregala
are smalL
C. Consumptirn WabtrLoas.
iossisaremsBdissaeaftheltfta
1976 regulations. As discussed in d
in Section HI of Vohima I of tfaa
Development Document the Agen
-------
Mf£
wpm'
If ¦' w
'4MB& '-
wB'«jg.adi»t« Mm
^'~vvpyi-1 v ->
,	i«t . i^aii u i,v ami

ImforinftL-l
04p«gMtcf
.rfSS&i ,
r QQnaipnidbylhf steal
'(electrical-
- . ..	35th*-
^pdnsttf, Tl» Agency cqndndas Ihst tfaa -
Hq>«cfe of energy connBedfibmt. -
ccmpUimc^wlth this regulation art.
Juitiflaii is; th« benefits 4ertvedJhiia ."
{he IhBltBWfy aniT:, ,
•!'"™ jplfti TtfT	i V.t': ¦.. J
(BM*

Act
aat&ftrteeetbe Adminfttietur'
pToraibt Hbe*t management pncllcn*'
j"BMPs"J. EPA intend* to develop BMP*
which hk flJ'AppHcabte toaB '
lndu»trtaMltar{Z) apptteabkr tar*'
deslgnatwd tftdnatrlsl category, and (3fr'-=.-
provttto'nrfdaftoe to permit mitfcttMes i*•
wbetiMrtudustry fi, JdaHi— should
lncMaFwytatona amfcrrlitniF --• tvv-
nournmptta nfl> with effraaaf «flBi>1tep»'
duriagperiods of "up—l">or "bypass."
An upset, sometimes caHadan ••¦¦¦
"rxcarskm." to unintantloMAt"
n anoomptiaijcs occurring for nuoni
beyond the reaaooable controloftbe
permittee. It h&S'beanaigtiedtbafran
up—t provision in EPA's effluent-" ¦
technology caa
			that Babitttjr far
NK&jft&att^ns ftfmpropa*. Whan
occftfcBtaiwith this ttaoe, courts have .
bees divided onthe question of whether
aaexgttdt upset orexcurslnn inddantaC
mag.be hanriVi thnragLEPA's exerd**^
afaantomaat discretion. Compare^,'
MuttKhmiOitCS! v. EPA. 564 t2A
(BthQr. 1977) with WayBrfiaeusar v. .
Costle, supra and Com Refiner* -
Association, et aL v. Cottle, 594 FJd
1229 (8th Clr. 1979). See alao American
Petroleum Institute v. EPA, MO F.2d 102S?
(10th Clr. lBWIt.CPC International, toon
v. Train. 540 F.2d 1320 (6th Or. 1978)f-r«
FhfC Corp. v. Train, S39 F.2d 073 (4th.
Clr. 1978).
Whila an upset la an unintentional
episode dnring which effluent limits are
exceeded. a bypass is an act of
intentional noncompliance daring which
waste treatment facilities are
circumvented. Bypass provisions
covering emergency situations have, ini ^
the past been included in NPDBS
permits.
EPA has determined that both upset
and bypass provisions should be
included in NPDES permits and they ara
Included in the NPDES regulations, 40
GFR { 122.00, 45 FR 33283; May IB. 196a
The upset provisions 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 In fury, or .-
severe property damage. Because this
issue is resolved in the NPDES permit
regulation*, this regulation does not
address these issues.
XXV. Vadancea and Modi flea tiona
Upon the promulgation of this
regulation, the numerical effluent
limitations far the appropriate
subcategory must be included in all
federal ana state NPDES permit*:
thereafter issued to steel industry direct
dischargers. In addition, the
pretreatment standards are directly : ¦
applicable to Indirect dischargers upon
promulgation^ ,	" -
For the HPT limitations, the only'
exception to the binding limitations is
EPA's "fundamentally different factora"
variance. See & L duPont de Nemours .
and Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112 (1977);
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Cos tie, supra. Thi*
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
MPBBftMrfirt— md IsawMwWMtey
tubs dasjneViss ii»li>a»T.iHaliftwn,
las Ilia B|ial HFOlin j«|iil«lh—T» /ym -IBcii
fr aaitfifcn* wee), fca the tm andh
mplimHM bI thi "fm^*"ni>*ny" ^
diffsient factor*:' vahanoa.
Hm BAZl^tatiamia Akapdaltoe#
also are tub)eot to BPA'^ - ¦
polhitants ara aobjact to aodifitatian»*
^under aaatfanslOlM
Act Auundlf to
appbeatiooa farthaae imsiifliaWt—u : i '
must brfQadwithia	"*<»
guidaiioaa. a»40€nUta»SMBt Ikfiir;
Undag saattoyi^ottftg
appllcabtef-^toxtor 			
I. HmifHnwa OBX)HB«^-:ifcmv^ -r...
sobjaot-tu aaalha K1(aiiuasaulliji>j-..if'iJ
301(g) ,~~I|W " m1	^
dia&rgse daaonatrataa that* waatwvx'.
stream diaw iwljwilstii dt\y nI the
liiilliifsiils fiwurfiiili ll»'1iiilfi«lia" 'ia^
dealgned td damapatnda ranaai al."i : r&v
Pretreatment Standards i
sources are subject	-fnt a
"fundamentally differentfaatotf^ ^ ;
variance and credita tat polMawti /
removed by POTWa. Sea 40 C2R'40Krr
40313; 43 FR 27736 (Jnna 28, lfl78^.' ;>
Pretreatment standards for new suumrti.
are subject only to the credtt* P!U*i*k»>'
in 40 CTR 4033, New eumua^ - •
performance standards are not sabjact'
to EPA's
factors" variance or any rtaWwysf -
regulatory modifications. Saa
Train, supra.	"
XXVL RaUHonahip to NPDES PauiiUcf',"
1. Administrative Issues. Hie BPT^ ^.
BAT, and NSPS limitations and . >
standards in this regulation will be
applied to individual stad plant* . _
through NPDBS permit* issrndbf EPft?.' •'
or approved state agenda a undec
section 402 iif Ilia fliil The inawaillagi i1
section of this preamble discusaad tha^'
binding effect of this ragolatiamf -*icr-
NPDES permits, except to theaxtaot—
that variances and modiCcatiana an •
expressly aothoriiad. This aacticm •
describes several othar **pecte a£ihe-~s
interactiao of this regulattoa andNPDBS
permits..
One matter which haa been subject to
different judicial views, is the acope o&
NPDES permit proceedings in the
absence of effluent lfahitationa^ ~ .
guidelinea and standards. Under
-------
«/ Watf47. No; 103 / Thursday, May 27. 1992 / Raka and-Regglatlante. 2338t
EPAregaUttas^s
NPOB8--
UBtnaatr
^providing
3o fatqvparatr
tfeeyare-
after funa
to-of
IttaWiW
gKJSfSSrtapplicable effluent
** T-T^blfam fer> bean
€ss2ssfiu«-
J?l£~«etrict the power of any
iSS-dM authority to act in any
tooan»U1«>t with law or
5*, i» other EPA regulations.
gf policy. For example, the
CZrttUs regulation doe# not control
^^calnpoUutant does Jiot preclude
llff^riTkiiiar from limiting such
Z£aaS en a casa-by-«»« basis when
2aei5#y to cany out the purpose* of
jwActh1 addition. to thp extent that
quality standards or other
Mvldoia of «tate or Federal law
2bN Hmitatiea of pollutants not
covwedby this regulation (or require
¦on stringent limitations on covered
pcflntantsl, Kch limltatiims must be
by the permit-issuing authority.
2. gafarcament An additional topic
&*t warrants discussion is the
tlyHrtn of EPA's NPDES enforcement
¦agraD, many aspects of which have
been considered in developing this
Hfilstlmi The Agency wishes to
—r»—that although the Clean
Water Act is a strict liability statute, the
Wtiatfcm of enforcement proceedings by
EPA is discretionary. EPA has exercised
sod intends to exercise that discretion
in a manner which recognizes and
promotes good faith compliance efforts
and conserves enforcement resources so
ss to msiriwiiwi their availability for
actions against those who fail to make
good faith efforts to comply with the
AcL
Application of Effluent Limitations.
At noted in each subcategory report of
tt* Development Document all of the
fattittons and standards contained in
tt> regulation wait developed on a
J®** basis; that la. the performance of
me modal treatment systems was
dalwutlued without subtracting
attributions of regulated pollutants in
¦we waters. The Agency determined
l thatinno case it investigated did .
regulated pollutant levels found In the
intake water* have as impact on the
effluent quality from the .model
treatment systems. All of the Hm»n«wn»
and standards contained in this
regulation should be applied on a gross
basis with no allowance for pollutants
in theintake waters, except in thoe»
instances where allowances may be
granted in accordance with the net/ ^
gross provisions of the consolidated ^
NPDES permit regulations.
4. Alternate Effluent Limitation*—
Water Bubble. The Agency's response*
to comments received on the proposed
water bubble policy are presented in
Section XVL The final water bubble-
policy as it pertains to the steel industry
is outlined in Section XVI and presented
In the regulation, (Section 421X03).
XXVIL Executive Order 12991
Under Executive Order 12291, The >
Agency must determine whether a
regulation is "Major" and therefore
subject to the requirement of a
Regulatory Impact Analysis. This
regulation is Major and requires a - -
Regulatory Impact Analysis because the
annual effect on the economy is mora
than $100 million. The Regulatory
Impact Analysis for this regulation can
be obtained from Alec McErtde.
Monitoring and Data Support Division,
WH-553, US EPA. 401M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by Executive Order
12291. Any comments from OMB to EPA
and any EPA response to those
comments are available for public
inspection at the EPA Public Information
Reference Unit, Room 2922 (EPA
Library), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C.
XXV13L Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pub. L 96-354 requires EPA to prepare
an Initial regulatory Flexibility Analysis
for all regulations that may have a
significant Impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This analysis
may be done in conduction with or as a
part of any other analysis conducted by
the Agency. The economic impact
analysis described above indicates that
there will not be a significant impact on
any segment of the regulated population,
large or smalL Therefore, the Agency
. determined thai a formal regulatory
flexibility analyst* is not required for
this regulation.
XXIX. List of 8obJact* in 49 CFH Part

Iron, Steel Water pollution control
Wastewater treatment and disposal -
Dated: MajrlA 1082.
Ana M. Gonodk, ~
Administrator.
Appendix A.—Abbreviations, Aquuyaie'¦
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
Section304(b)(2)(B} of the Ad. ....
BCT—Hie best conventional pollutant
control technology, undo Section
304(b)(4) of the Act
HMP—Best management practices under
Section 304(e) of tha Act
HPT—The best practicable control. .
technology currently available cmdes
Section 301(b)(1) of the Act., .
Clean Watat Act—The Federal water' ~-
Polhttioa Control Act Amendments ai
1972 (33 U3.C. 1251 ef «e^.)»-
amended by the Clean WatatAct of
1977 (Pub. L. 95-217)
Direct Discharger—A facility whichT^
discharges or may discharge
pollutants directly into waters of I
United States .
Indirect Discharger—A facility i
introduces or may introduce-
pollutants into a publicly owned?
treatment work*
NPDES Permit—A National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination systearpesmit
issued under section 402 of the Act?. •
NSPS—New source performance
standards under Section 306 of the
Act
POTW—Publicly owned treatment
works
PSES—Pretreatment standards for .
existing sources of indirect discharge*
under Section 307(b) of the Act
PSNS—Pre treatment standard* for new
sources of direct discharge* under-
Section 307(b) and (c) of the Act*, .
RCRA—Resource Conservation and -
Recovery Act (Pub. I. 94-660) of 1979,
Amendments to Solid Waste Disposal
Act
i • ?
rs of
rwtoaP
Appendix B—Development of Regulated Pollutant List Iron A Steel Industry
m
PokjtMt
NotMM
Unlqu*
ocajrmc*
Not
trasttfe
ftaguubfi
Cli—HHl
tm
-






X

- .

-------
Wk>4f, i /#ttu—fayv May 9* l />R
-------
	 . ¦»» to uu*ul*il
¦ aNt* 4M ncl »rtr lo polutant.
MKMknii nm am miM" valynd.
L Found ¦ on* cr tmo pMntt Ml
I cgnoanraora gt gran* Bun 10 ppb In a tow) on* iron and MM* nActtagory.
Appaodbi C—RsfuUlsd Pollutants Iran
ft teal Industry
A. Cotasaking
Total Suspended Solidi
OQ ft Grease
Ammonia -
Cyanide
Ffeaools(4AAP}
NtpWalene-*-
>«"(*
pH ¦
.i n.
Total Suspended 9oMf-
0Q ft Grease
Anaemic-'
Cyanide
Rtnola(4AAPJ
Total Residual Chlorine
Lead
Zbc ,
PH
Cbmilds|
TMal ftupendMi Solida
Oil & Grease
Ammonia
Cyanide
Phenols (4AAP)
Benzene
Total Residual Chlorine
Lead
Zinc
pH
D. Steelmaking
1.	Basic Oxygen Furnace
Total Suspended Solids
Lead
Zinc
P"
2.	Open Hearth Furnace
Total Suspended Solids
Lead
Zinc
pH
3.	Electric Arc Furnace
Total Suspended Solids
Lead
Zinc
pH
E.	Vacuum Degassing
Total Suspended Solids
Lead
Zinc
PH
F.	Continuous Casting
Total Suspended Solid*
Oil & Grease
Lead
Zinc
PH
G.	Hot Forming
Total Suspended Solids,
Oil & Grease
pH
H.	Scale Removal
I.	Oxidizing
Total Suspended Solids
Chromium
Nickel
PH
2. Reducing
Total Suspended Solids
Cyanide
-------


(P8NS*
BflnroUtotoifoM luffaeanUiii t& _
degree gf affluent redaction attainable by
Bolfo^oant^fetftTtnfrty IBL'l1).'
tn««i
4J04# PretfeatmantrtgpdaribfatMea. ^ .
touroa (PSNS£ .
4JIX47 ruiiinii iiiijit«thM!!jmii>Minn di>	
degree of effluent redaction attaJa*falt>tar-
' ~ (ha eyp&ation of tha beat oamflflddatC^
' pollutant control tschoology
*•• •• -
2 *:v • 'b-<
_^v
f "W'fc• —~ **—
rr*y~r >»¦-'- .J
-a**.	. }
• :*»• •;:. . . t;- .¦-: .
B AlkaUa»Cbada». - ¦
^galSMyggted	'
LfHst Coattag
.Total Soipanded 8oHd&.
OtttGnite -
. ChramiBis (Haxavalent)
*Lea>fn jirjtt & eriaUo^^
unin ra	c»f
43&U ft a treatment slaadairta fat
asr
420a
42001 AppHcabfflty.
420US General deftni
42Q . Alternate
420.30 Applicability; description of thr— -
lronmaklng subcategory.
42031 Specialised dnflrtthifc-
421X32 Effluent limitattaaa Npraaantlag A* -
degree of affluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT-.
420.33	Effluent limitation* representing tha
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the beat available
technology economically achievable
[BAT).
420.34	New source parfoanaBea atandarda
(NWS). -
42045 Pretreatment atandarda Car wasting
sources (PSES).
420.36	Pretreatment standards for new
source* (PBN8).
420.37	Effluent Umltatkma representing the
degree of effluent redaction attainable by
tha application of tha beat auuaauUonal-
pollutant control technology (BCT).
[Reserved}
420.60 Applicability:dnori^aitat•;"
42aei 9peda) itwftnHlBaa'"^
420.62 BSfient "fr^'^^aa rifetTiTailti&riii fct .
dagraaofafflnantr»dmjlkiiiallaliiMblat|i
be application qf t^bsat ]
contMl terhpolpgli
rnn • - ^ -t
inni	^
:A
deyee of tffluauedttcme
the application at the beat available
(BAT).
"•v.iS «
T9
"1-T
49X10. Applicability; daao%^||Bef tha1
- control letihanlnp uuiiemly available
-•
flPit Efflaent tftettona tepmsaatfna.tha-
deyee at aflfoact wdnctlpn attainable by
the appUoatVaf rfte brtftavaflabla
ur tedilwiinp eonnnnitnany acUrraHe -
(8AT).
42014' New *ouroe performance atandarda
(N8PS).
42015 ftetreatnunt jllandaiHs ha a^aHng
420.40 Applicability! description ef the
steelmaking aobeatagoay.
42041 Specialised dafloltiaMi
420.42	Effluent llmitationa rapnaanUng tha
degree of effluent reduction attatnarda by
the application of the beet practicable'
control technology cuiTeotty available
(BPT).
420.43	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduption attainable by
the application of the beat available
technology economically achievable
(HAT).
420.44	New aource perfomaaca atandarda
(NSP9).
420.45	Pretreatment atandarda for exit tag .
sources (PSES).
420.64	New source performance
(NSPS).	^
420.65	Pretreatment1 atemkiili fca ajihUn^*
sourcea (PSES).	- '
420.69 Pretreatment atandarda foe i
sourcea (PSNS).
42047 Effluent llmltatkna i
degree of effluent redaction at!
die application of tha beat <
pollutant control technolnpgC|C3)^ns^}
wippw u iiov pgimiy wD0M|vy *-w •.
420.73 AppUcabllity; deacrtptian aftkeho^ J5
lormtag aobi alapaH ^ v. f.: vT
42071 Specialised definition.-vH . \r)
420.72	Efflunt llmitationa repneaottaatfaM
degree of affluent reduction attaiaahlant -
(he application of the haatpaaiilliialila j
control technology cmrently av-^'^i L.
(BPT).	' - -	\
420.73	Effluent limitation* imaaeaiilliig IM'
degree of effluent reduction attainuM£
the application of the beat available - -
technology economically acUaaabtB<'.>
(BAT).
-------
Yol~47r No. 103 / Thursday.-May 27. 1982 / Rules an$RefolatiqrtRR~
mpoto*
[fctfafc* wpieseiitingths
^jUiaJiattnn rtti'--*-u »T
l0| the best practicable
romntlymilabte
**t»ss sf i/Trr-* r^rfmiTmiimiTilii Lm
As aMiaatte of ths best available
ttJmStm iemnniylfy achievable
0*7*
aUI New soarce sammnance standards
p«n>
4MI PnlnatBmt «t»nrfa?da far aadattng
Ml IHstntatsMBl.rftnrisrdafarnew
ammCpm.
0mbt itafstow representing the
o^te flf aBsact redaction attainable by
fte cppfoattan of the btt ootrventjoaa)
yoftdaa! contra technology (BCT).
Applicability; description of the add
plittiagsabcataaDry.
4BA »p—aefinitione.
Mi«i fcmltatlsns representing the
fmm of redaction attainable by
fee appttoatian of the beat practicable
«Btm lariinnfogy currently available
IBTTV
Mftawil lhiillalliim representing the
dapae oI affluent reduction attainable by
&s sppfcatai rf the beat available
ftiiini economically achievable
(wn
QUI Niw some|mfiiinni ^
existing wastewater treatment fadBty-
showing each source of wastewater: " '
cooling water, and other water^entering
the treatment facility; discharge and'
recycle flow rates for each water source
and each major treatment component
(ii)	Existing monitoring data rel&fing
to discharges to and from the oentr%L.
treatment facility including pollutant
concentrations, flows and mas* >
loadings: As a minimum, monitoring
data should be provided for a six monttf
period of normal operation of the *
-------
priority pollutant Na«4 Brians ffir~^
(firptoi
lgvesttneBfm|6ITBJ Hrit*il the-*'.
staodaids foe th* fadllty M|*<
dascriptiau£^ traaipMBt sytfem
Hirlwrfh^ irfa«iM.ife iKapa— Jmariap
miBfamfflh^e cart estimates' should b»
comptftotf ati atajJa page summary fpr;
; wfniiilatfaa control system
ahowtagjestBaatedimteilsd direct oost
totals ft» mWwnlril equipment ptpfog
structural aqpip0BBQla^aQd;elaetricaf
camponenta. Imfireaiccsta for
engineering fseet umLmh atfw Indirect
must be itemized lepvataly. Th»
of th« (Bract Bodtiwact easts,
which rapeeaanta the-owmr'a arv .
operator's total eatimata* moat be-
wm.
(v)	The efBueal Umltatiuua or-
stndodfewhidi couidbe achievedif,
the diatitaiger wen to apend an nniii—>
to the Agpcqfajnodet tnatmant
system coat estimata for the facility and.
the tnatmant fa rilffler which woufrbe
tomeettbos«)tafaaJfcma or
standards. Schematic dtagramrand eoat-
estimate! as outEned fc. paragraph'
0>H2)fl*1 abma should be provided for
each treatment ayrlanc and
(vi)	Ftodactkna rates to tanapaaday
each procetr ccotriboUnf
wastewater to tha central tnatmant
facility tanalatent wlft ftaai ie|iuileJ
by the <
ItU,	
treatment facility.
(3) The i
subaectioa(
upon th# ojyiH^4»pc ofMEHflHiiftUftf.
that thacoat af hAa^qgttie spiiriffsd =¦
central tnatmant teHTftfea lata , .
compliancy with tha provision* of thia
• mrtn!^ *ytn{*a m
compared »
applicable lfaallBtfeaeee standard*.
would not launisaat WT, BAT, BCT, i
PSB& as thacaaamay be, for tha
eraj-wta* #59-7 . .
I«« Q*iipi ilal>Htlww^- ; c,
lafT*MM»*wSrSSiK'T
sospeiMtejSpMiiof jrta>rtapaaded :
reilihai tmm fra nhw ehtainsrlbg^-
(b)	Thir tMm-"e&aad gaaee" (oajj., ~
OAG) means the-vaJasabtainedby tha>-
medfo*«p£^aBdla«»Cntiaftati ::
(c)T3te	ttna "amniunia-W* for -
ntrniMml TngTTt* thf yihf '¦
obtained by manual distillation (at pit
0.5) foUow«iby> tha Naaalarizatkap
method epadfiad to 4t* CER 13(U~
(d)	The tera "cyanide? taaaas total::
cyanide and todefetmined by tha -
method specified in 40 CFR 136.3^ 7-
(e)	The term "phenols 4AAP" (or-.
phenolia compounds) meana the value
obtained by the method specified in 4ft
CFR IMl*
(f)	Tha term "TRC" (or total raeiduk
chlorine) mean the value obtained by
the lodometrlc titration whh as
ampere metric endpdnt method *
specified in 40 CFR 138.3.
(g)	The term "chromhnn" means totaf -
chromium and ia determined by the
method specified in 43 CFR 13&3. -
(h)	The term "hexavalent chromium"
(or chromium. VI) means tha value
obtained by the method specified in 40
CFR19&3.
(i)	The term "copper" means total
copper and b determined by tin method
spedfled fat 4a CFR 136J.
(j) The tana lead" means total lead
and is determined by the method
specified to 40 CFR. 1364.
(k) The term "nickel" means total
nickel and is dWterariaed by the anthod
specified in 40 CFR 136J.
(1) The term "sine" me ana total zinc
and ia determined by the method
specified ia 40 CFR 13&3.
(m) The tana "banieae" (or priority
pollutant Mi 4} neana tha valu»
obtatoad by As standard method
Number 009 sueUOed in 44 FR OMM*
69570	(December Si MTBf.
(n) The term. "benzo{aJpyrena"' (or
priority polhrtaat Na 73) means thai
value obtained by toe standard aathad .
Number OTP specified in 44 FR MMIfc
68570 (December 3,1379).
(o) The term "naphthalan*" (ok .
priority pollutant No. 55) means the '
value obtained by tha standard method
Number 6t8 apadfied to 44 ER6Pifll».
69571	(December X1B7V).
(p) The tar» "tetrachkiroethylene" (or
value obtained by tha standard method**
			 irfiri|>iillT7iiTTll> iniliiig^r
. 69871
(q) The term "pH" meanr&r \
obtained b|rtha^tandardjMtha*(? msz*
specified in 40 CFR
' "i--'K
T 
and beat nniirelinraiia^adagyrThKea
alternative afflsant HinftaMtOa aaani^o
determined l&t* oomAHattMi et'^	'¦
under tha sgaltolM|Kn^sitt A thoun.~
LThei *	' " •*
jm*
total masa lindtaUnt foraaph pollu
for thrcottfifiiWBtm
alternative effluent lftnBiWtWiflftft^'^
application of such ilttnilitfW BSaeal^r*
1 i nidations wouldra<^^^lBfflMaK^
from a co«nbiwstieiifrfnraae>etoto>WB
that allowed under the HmitatloBffrwt
est "" "
through L'
fb)A(	. ....
alternative effluent ffitfbt&fnfl
applicatioa of such alternative 4
limitations would result in \
any applicabla state wnfca quality!
standards.	c^-."i^ouejt
(c)	Each cmtfaB fiuuf w SO* procesr*^
wastewaters an discharged xmvthsrt)f
specific, fixed effluent Hadtatian! lor.""
each pollutant limited
Subparts A throag)kW
(d)	SubcateMn^r8pedflciL»strictWB»^
(1)	Then shallno aUen&teedl^MlF
limitations for cokmnBktn^ igpcMS ^ ^
wastewaters. ..... .V-,',".ce,
(2)	TharashaD ba ao altam»taeffiia^»
limitatioaa for cnidfaarif >iiwi ,i>
wastewaters^-- - >	-J-
(490.19
¦r.M^

The	y»f At«	u
-------
VoL.47, No.103 / Thursday, May 27,1982't Rutes and
23287
[[< •
totopublicly'
fiMKi
SUBMHrA"
:«• a, •
—^iJteoeHng^
coal !•
¦ iirfrr'r*3"' "fafr
-------
Yal jftiffafc j Thxm6a&.MBy 73..
gr
[tlBy-prodttci orimtatUng imn and
	; " " 	


-VJ ¦—=
«)'.
-Cfc*
--fr#n.-
nteW
4MH<
" Except as provided tn 40 CFlM68Srrv'"
and40a.lXa»rsafetfcqso«nsaijpbtaptn •
to this subpp^t which introduce* _ 1
pollutants fiattrl pubHcly owned '•-'
treatment woribrinns^campfy wlfljO"*.;"
CFR Part40S afcfachWthe	'
CQS^mI fciinf^notto exceed.'
15 percent of iferabo**' timtatkma; arrr—
allawedUss by prodvct coke pfaats.
* fiats wsfdesulfurtsatioo system*
anlftto thasjtfent cock systems-
genentrah kaHHd(flantTa)HM>^ -
ftlTtnTsaaaitftmrttngs nntm imnriart.
parent iti*abcwllrafiatfHH, nu -
¦ltowBifagftMimluU u*a planar"-1 -~v
which htefails fiifflSdl ammoHttT1 "'
recmraty systssis hiri jwty In tt» silsi* ,
effluenti
(|)XWi . _
limitation* aha]} be applicable to bjr
^»dtietafefbMMri$£}^fcal j
systamsv
•r-,^ >dMM8unaMe ;v

ai?»- .
AOSMv-
oloik
MBSW^






aoooosit

MUMIf


(V


praUMfito*»••>
^Seatf*
K
P)T»to.
«ueia>
Ocpais
ila..ni. nsi.a.
- wfifrt/-' 1 ¦» v t*** •
-¦at/it- 'i rfc i
H*
--vT#
jg'3

¦st.

.f i 'j
«#«•
MtDWfl

GuOWl
aam
toMoan


1 J "J-






	


peccaat^f theabove liorfUtaiN
aik/wmf £im by-pnrtnrl mfca
physical chenlc»l treatment
whfckiaw* »—t-desdftisisa
but only tr?	*1 * ' lv'.'
Jnfr—isd fesdM eg ta excanA
24 percent ol&ft ? bove-ctaodards, ar««^0
allowed for by-product coke plants. -&*o-
which hcvaumtdesnl^idxRtfaa syatanqt
but only tetSeextenf sudtsystema
genera tean i^oeaapdeBtoent voluqis:' * ¦'
(2) Increased loadings, not tQ exceed*
58 percent of Ibe abbve.standards, «*'!'
allowed far by-prodocTcoke pEaaV^1^
whichindndklmftect iuuuuilW »#j
recoveiy systwm bnt <
such systems generate an!
effluent vohnne.	o.-: »
(b)By-productcnbtmnkto# i'K-
merchants- ¦ --	-,:T ».»t
SubpmttA'
Pc*i««rlot pcfcMnt papitr
,\Z ¦ I f .	'~"V — \
The dtsdiarge of wastaimtti. :7:
pollutants from any new euuite sobfect
this subpart ihatf not exceed the
standards set forth below.
1 DM S» faigi at as to SO.
(1)	Increased Inadtng^ not to i
15 percent of tha«bo*e atanderds. are
allowed for by-product coke plant*,
which have wet daeulfurixatioa systams
but only to tha extent sochsystems- .
generate an increased, effluent vohnne.
(2)	Increased loadings, not to exceed.".
35 percent of the above standards, are .
allowed for by-product coke plants
which include indirect ammonfa
recovery systems but only to the extent
such systems generate an increased
effluent volume.
(c) Beehive cokamaking.
i2£.
smdurt.
:-v
'<3
Cyan*	
P1wx*(4*WT_
O07B1
aosoe
AMIS
ftms
(1)	Increased Wadtnga. not tq exceed- ^
« 21 percent of die above standards; are- ?, s
• allowed far by-product coke plants
which have wet dwulfurlsatton syetenrf'^
but only to the extent such systems
' generate an increased effluent volume. •
(2)	Increased loadings, not to exceed
80 percent of the above standards, are
-------

"	owned treatment wtirks mat
with 40C»iPm*a end
ZJUen the foQowini prefreatment
^tatdaftgas* wmw. '

SuefrAW A>




IvnMr
KU«H
PaM**orp<*Mnlpnf»>%
tararvr
23.
30
¦ j
— ' . ¦ 1


Wttgtpoinftpw
IWMtlfnM
(1)	Iau eased loadings, net to exceed
24 percent of the above standards, are
allowed for by-product coke plants
which have wet dwsnJ furlration systems
but only to the extent such systems
generate an increased effluent volume.
(2)	Increased loadings, m* to exceed
58 percent of tha above standards, are
allowed for by-product coke plants
which include indirect'ammonia
recovery systems but only to the extent
such systems generate an increased
effluent volume.
(b) By-product cokemaking—
merchant.
Subpart A


ternmmtamvm
PuMMoipaluM
prop«v .
-sV"
MniMiR
tor any 1
d*'
1E2F
30
am*

Kp/fcfca tpomta pm
110* fettf product
(1) increased loadings, not to exceed
21 percent of the above standards, are
allowed far by-product coke plants
which have wet deratfartzattan systems
but only to the extent such systems
generate an increased effluent volume.
(Zflltcreeeed loadings, not to exceed
SOpergent of the above standards, are
allowed far brpmdact coin plants
whi cfaincl u de indirect ammonia
reowwy systems, but only to the extant
such systems generate an increased
affluent volume. -
\f^B»ahn»6ekaaaking (Reserved^-
f 430l17 EWusnHwMHuwi ispinsntlag
^ tt m nil ¦ i — * - 		
vw ovprii of rnmmm muuuuinwpnw
by ths applcatton of ths beet oonventtonal
Except as provided In 40 CFR > .
SS 12&30-.32, any existing point soon#
subject to this subpart must achieve the- :
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent,
reduction attainable by the application -
of the best conventional technology.:
(a) By-product cokemaking—iron end
steeL
Subpart A
Suspah
Mart or indhilrt prap0%
BCT MMn
UMMI
k>«« 1
mX
aJSli
30
<0M0»

Kg/ttg 9ou«* (Mr ~
1.000 c< product
TRS
0JS8
0.0327
aisi
0.010#
0
mn
r"

Poftan or poMrt BO*«V
BCT (MUM MHM
MBdmum
tor any 1
om3?
»Hi»» far
30
con—ou
SMdn*

K»1dqg tmnJi p«
1,000 **e* product
T«
0)270 | 0140
OOSMi OMM
0*0 .		 	
1
I
B
]
BCTiMhmMMM
r
lor injTl
34
oenwe»
rtrw
r"
(1
it

(1)	Increased loadings, not to exceed ¦-
10 percent of the above limitations, arg .
allowed for by-product coke plants
which have wet desulfurization systems f
but soly ia the extent such system* .. ^
generate aalnmamigfi eiflueat voluisat .4
(2)	InnniweiHiwdliiua. sot to exceeds—
25 paroant of tbaaljave ttmiUtiens, an;
allowed for by-product ookaplaai* ,
which inchria tadtoct ammnnto. *.
recovery systems bat only to the iiii>ea*1,
that soch systems generate anlnrriaaafc
effluent vofanei
(c) Bbebtoccfomaking. Ns dtschaqp**
of process wastewater pollutants to
navigable waters;
Subcategory _
I4MJS AppfcebWty, JsscrtpBeH0<1h»
1 WNn M tang* ct ao to ».ft
(1)	Increased loadings, not to exceed
11 percent of the above limitations, are
allowed for by-product coke plants
which have wet desulfurization systems
but only to the extent such systems
generate an increased effluent volume.
(2)	Increased loadings, not to exceed
27 percent of the above limitations, are
allowed for by-product coke plants
which include indirect ammonia
recovery systems but only to the extent
that such systems generate an increased
effluent volume.
(b) By-product cokemaking—
merchant
Subpart A
The prayis&Bs of this subpart are
applicable to discharges and to the
introduction of pollutants into pnbBi^fl
owned treatment works resulting ftw y
- sintering operations conducted bfthevi.r,
heating of ban bearing wastes tniiH ^
scale and dual from blajtfurna<^*.ajBt
stee(making furnace*} together with flb*»
iron ore, limestone, and coke floes in ah
ignition furnace to produce an ,
agglomerate for charging to the blasf s
furnace.
t *
9 42021 gpertelred Muttons r
S42(L22 Effluent fcnttetfone
UW O9yVf Ov fmWWlfflBUOTPW
oynwapppcnonovvwDOTi
oonfrol Mmelooy currently
Except as provided in 40 CFR TTHjBV
.32, any existing point source subject to
this subpart must achieve die following
effluent limitations representing the—
degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best *
practicable control technology currently^
available.
-------
-^4
&W+U:
X-. fr«mH9f^,#<(s, ,,;(j
TJ^ ,*4-' '' *||g^*gJLggJ ; >• ry^'
MTKMJl 	
*g"y<«fpw>WB-j><'. i _•:> •
^ ^ PnwjV' rt? '. "* ^
•*»»>}£.-. i<*«l 'ri)»5 y\» r:; ¦-¦ '•* * *»j ¦..;
n; n. ^.' .. ¦ -y ;.- k . -i ¦
/?' Bxcept as provided ia 40 CF&40&7K "
-:r-» ani408.13, any agisting torn cutyanfr ...
to this subpart which introduces
¦>u*	" "'v'	,r'j jT
mmS***' t—l—Uujl	.-	:T, -1
The'proristobMf this sabpattaof-i "
applioshle.fedi»ahaJ9e»ajidt»th4k, <
Introduction of pollutants into publieijt.c»i
owned trastQBiai works resulting fraBH
lronmkfag aumtkmstn which imora.
is reduced* t* molten iron in a bias*
furnaoa*- <-f«- . •• - .
raet^TW pro»4
SubpartB

¦» •

^ KtfttcL	
-- <-< 1,080 Vtf product
~ ^ " v
aoifib
0901QV
C^36Dt
aoomt
CjOOMOI-
rywMt4- ' ¦

TBTI' ( ,
0 mm
Qjemn
* WW

itaois
umm



PoMvt of pakJM pnpartr
•
TERES?.
iar'anr't
3L
30
SMdQW

K«^*g (paundi m
1,000 fet at pndua

oaim
oooioe
0000100
0JMB7B
1X0004(0
OJ3O0DP
OMOKt'
aoeooBt
aoooiss
aaaoiio
CyvMi'
nsi, 1,(1^^'



'Th»
'TflsM
MN|
g*T*;<4*MV |420l2«
{402J4 Mm
The discharge of wastewater
pollutants froQ&ny new sourca subject
to this subpart shall not exceedths .
standards sat forth balsw.
- 'r- t.vrttJ\<$ :
Except as provided in 40 CFR 40S.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.
Subpart B
¦ TZTyr^rrsnrmTcr

r ij- , • !"¦

^23L
gnaa^



t,0Qp t$ t0 pm* -

' own
QJOTtl
AAA
OlOQIM ¦

00189
QlOOSOI
AflOOMM
tym** »
OlOOIOO

QAOOTO
nfmmn
TUT »
ftfllWW


aooosTf
QMfMtt
0400118
odooi»

MMmi or poluM pnpmff
tar iww tomm
!b?SJT
4m
521
*0
•mam

ty*t*am+pm
IjOO S| «l gradual

aoiao
oosioo
ooooioe
&00097S
Ql0004CO
oooeoi
0J0QBQ9•
oooooaw
000010
0000190

¦NWUBUAA^I
» —


(a) The tenn "ferromanganese blast.
furnace" maans thaee blast furnaces
which produce molten iron containing.,
more, than fifty percent manganasa^
(b> The tenn-"Iron blas\fumace>~ _.
means all blast furnaces except
ferromangnitfise blast furnaces: —
f43oaa EfnMM
the degree of effiuent reduction
oontrol technology mivi0|f i
Exoepta^pnovided tn 40CFR
|| 12L3Q-.82, any existing point source
sub)e<^ to tfd| subpart must achieve thf^
following effluent limitations	v\
representing-thaf degree e# effluent	
reaction attainable by the applications
of the best pnuctfcabk coateoi,	«
technotegxourwntly avaUabta^r^y,,!.
(a) Iron blattfamaom y, ¦: : -vs
SummO. -- ^ ...
W
KO/Mafrw***
1.000 tt<*c
T«ft
otom

immnwdm hi
0.181
(L0637
000781
ooasto
(1
rywitto
002M
ftfrfttsr
fAAAB)
pW
(1

¦ WW ¦» rmq» at SO to SA
(b) Fermmanganeee blast furnaom.
SuerwrrC
MuMflTpMMFPl
JauL



mm*
•j .t'.-'r-.. -V-
ij8»mpwi^i

OlSIS
010*
04V


0488
ftfm
OtS8
f tJ9m

p"



toisstosa
-------
Fides aT BiglaW / Vol 47,. Not 103 / Thursday. May 27, 1962 Rales and Regulation* SBl
aittj—fa—
l4aufiiiiM(a
tfw degree of affluent reda
'	r~
py
Except
J2, any (ft
this sabpart
effluent
degreeof ef&u
by the application a? tfceljestavailahJft
technology economicaUjr achievable.
[a) Iron blast furnaqa.,
SutemrC ¦
IP ! CFR Part 4fl» and achiev* the fotiowtatv
u» pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
(a) IronbJast fumxm^-
1"'""	SubpartC	
PoluM or potanl

3L
. 30
fttodrma*
tar any 1
d*

kq/mcq fioouDd» m
1,0001* of product

04067*
0.00293


(b] Fenvmanganese blast furnace.
[Reserved]
8420J7 [Reserved]
Subpart P—Otaetmaklnfl Subcategory
(42040 AppfcabMtr. deawlpOon of the
tar XW- MS- ba mkM art* «hn
n of tgmatlnr«SMMMat (i paoSoad
(b) Fenvmanganese blast furnace.
[Reserved]
{4303S
Except aa provided in 40 CPR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart which introduces
pollutants into a pabUcty owned
treatment works must comply with 40
Hie provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges and to the
introduction of pollutants into publicly
owned treatment works resulting from
steehnaldng operations conducted in
basic oxygen, open hearth, and electric
arc furnaces.
§ 42041 Spocttbotf doflnMofMr
(a) The term "basic oxygen furnace
steelmaking" means the production at
steel from molten iron, steel scrap,.
fluxes, and various noa hi nations
thereof, in refractory lined furnaces by
addtBgioxjfsnC;
(b) The term "open hearth furnace _
staalmakii^' mean* the protfaetiae<
steel from molten iron, steel scrap,
fluxes, and various combinations
thereat in refractory lined fuel-find
furnace* equipped with regenerative
chambers to recover heat from die fine
and combustion gases.
(cj 11m term "electric arc farnae»- -
steelmaking" means the production of
steel principally from staid scrap sad
fluxes te-rafraetory lined furnaces by
paaetog an electric enrrent through the
scrap or steal bath,
¦ (d) The term "wet" means those
steelmaking air rJaenlng systems that
primarily use. water for furnace gaa. . _
"i '
(el Tha term "semi-wet" means those
steehnakingralrtfasning systems that
usa water far the sole purpose of
iwmHitwitin »Kn temperature an<^
humidttjtoLfuniace gases such that the
gitscc may b« cleaned in dry air
pollution controi~iystems.
(f) The term "open combustion*;,
means those basic oxygen furnace^ -. -
steelmaldng wet air cleaning systems
which are designed to allow excess air
to enter tha all pollution control systeqi
for tha parpoas- of combusting tha- 	
carbon monoaddain furnace gasec*
[g> Thr tarar "suppressed combos^B
means those basic oxygen famaoe-^^
steehnaldng wet ait deaniagisystem* -
which are rfaalgmwi to limit os suppreee
the combastioa of carbon oaaoiBdd»kr:
furnace gases ty restricting tba aont
of excess air entering tha air potation,
control system.
{U04I Effluent!
TO O90FWQV mwmmM rVOmKII
a. ..		——*-» — ^
Uf TO	w TO IMK
control technology Qumilty avttaHa
Except as provided in 40 CPR lS5JO-
.32. any existing point source subject to
this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the
degree at effluent reduction attainable
by tha application of the best
practicable control technology curmitly
available.
(a)	Basic oxygen furnace
steelmaking—semi-wet; and electric arc
furnace steelmaking—eemi-wst No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
(b)	Basic oxygen furnace
steelmaking—wet-suppressed
combustion.
-------
Vj»^4r,;N*•
!«-
ajianr.i dt" = ._• ^^»hj
¦	jw»r
.3.'i-y*if-aK.f a>,a -
'-anh -u—.r ..•„ iui
. •witsytw^ «:,->»
«iirt *»? r~.Ti i'-¦-(»	' ut
andefm.iik mzfiumum strnhnokin# ~
wet v-:'^' -•¦:¦- v - - '
Trr:
OlOW'j
"•
-e
(c]BoiaaxygaafumaeacitMt
steelmaking—we* opm-oaabaaikmi y
( hetnthfamnm ttmlnnking wait,
and electric an famac* stmlmikiag—-
wet ¦	;
V- •
¦FT MM HMBW
tarvy?
ofdSP
vmm mr
30

Kft/Mo (pow** par
mm
Ql06ST
::
' a 0229
o



to i«np of &01» SA
SaA	— - -« -	-
49 GfiHMnl ¦WlVOOnV rV^mnanf
Jt» dlyw of irnuwil reduction attmiiH
		¦- - "	aJ Mm *¦ - -¦*-
^¦ni ^ppSGSBQfl Of VH MK IVNW
^Rhnotopy tooiioinlcily MMwiblii
Except aa provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
.32, any existing point source subject to
this subpart mast achieve the following
efQaant HmitaHona representing the .
degree of affluent redaction attainable -
by thr appllcatltaa of the boat available
technology economically achievable.
(a)	Basic oxygen furnace
steelmaking—semi-web and electric arc
furnace steelmaking—eemi-wet No
discharge of process wastewater-1
pollntants tonavigable water* ~
(b)	Basic oxygen furnace '
'making—wet-suppressed .
bustioa.
SubpartD
,-iJvxnn;


i
\
*
i
1?S5T
0^
. 30
001—CU
•Mdms
Ko/ttg (pom* par
1,000 b) of profeet

ll
^rnrrrTf

0.0000030


r
(c) Basic oxygen furnace
ilmaking—wet open combustion;
hearth furnace ateelmaking—web
V,1. - .
'I 4
	
srtsjr
23.
9
STdS

KeMg(powdi«»
1JM0 fe) of product
1 a-4
OlOOMIS
ojooaas
OlOOOISS
&JDB0BB9


1430144 Neweeuroe
The discharge of wastewater
pollutants from any new aosroe subject
to this subpart shall not exceed the
standards set forth below.
[a]	Basic oxygen furnace
ateelmaking—eemi-web and electric arc
furnace steelhaking—semi-wet
[Reserved]
(b)	Basic oxygen furnace
ateelmaking—wet-suppressed
combustion.
SubpartD
PofluMni or pofluivjt property
SSrio
A^vaa*
ofddy
far
30
nonmu
-
K^MtB 
-------

Subpart 0^
f 42081
[Raaarvad]
(42042 Effluent
a the degree of affluent rerturttow
by the apptotlen of "
control technology cunentfy
SUBPAHKC^"
¦'tvC.-: *i-:.¦>.• v..~.


, 00001*,

Mm
•!

"


(cj Basic oxygon furnace
- Except as provided in 40-CFR 125.30-
.32, any existing point source subject to
this svbpert most achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the
dapw of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently'
available.

pitoiwoi ttMvdi

~
Aww
31


•w m*

*0*9*
rnmmpm

1,000 b| of product

&oant
o


A IS
91m
0400141
PH	
11
(»
electric arc furnace stmtmnkfng. wl
SUVMIIX

PlWWIIHU IIBrtBUI

tar vy 1
ss.
30
oormcu
day*
1.000 b) of (TOduot
OjSOMIS
O000S20
(d) Opea hearth furnace
steelmaking—»wt [Reeetved)
1420.47 Effluent Iwiltattona mwesendng
- »	- - - m	.	m	* * ¦
mi N^ti ov wmm* noucwon imnmi
by the appfcatton of the beat conventional
control technology.
(a)	Basic oxygen furnace
steelmaking—semi-wet: and electric arc
furnace steelmaking—semi-wet No
discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
(b)	Basic oxygen fumaoe
steelmakiag—wet-suppressed
combustion. [Reserved]
(c)	Basic oxygen furnace
steelmaking—wet—open combustion;
electric arc furnace steelmaking—wet.
[Reserved]
(d)	Open hearth furnace
steelmaking—erved] -
¦t4 b9.'E- :v
'VWNnlnn>t»ilWliM
amiss
ojwsw
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges and to the
introduction of poDataats into publicly
owned treatment works resulting from
vacuum degassing operations conducted
by applying a vacuum to molten steel
Subpart E
§

BPT **!¦« Mufoafr
PafluUrt or paluttni popart*
Mttdnwn
tar any 1
at
SB .


•ndw

K#A*0
-------
VoL .4T^ Nof J€6 /. Thuwday^ May 27, 1962 /:RuIm

•tlQBA
142044 New aowroepertonr
Hit provisions of this i
applicable to discharge* i
intredttctfttittf pollutants intrf]
owned treatment works i
the aoatiaoaa casting of molten atari
into Iqtanmdiat* or semi-fMshed stte) "•
products through water coolsd molds*.
941041
[naaarvad]
The discharge of wastewater
polhrfuftrfftatf tftyaetr "soarcs robject
to tftfiTrobpartdheil not exceed the -
standards set IbrfrbelbW.	^ '
•-•c.-tt ,c - i.-.
rz • • -I SuawurrF . .. .
7rji *
* ¦ ¦¦¦ ¦'*
petanSroMMedi
PtUMlfMtpW
" j
Wiri'l*
aw
frUTMi
SE
30
WIHJU
943042
the degree of effluent i
Df uiv-^pKnon Of D1V ^iNuunv /
¦	1*1,1 « - «- . - I - —, — -	.1	'
oomroi ncnnoiogy Qunvnny ivmhml .
Except a*provided in 40 CFR 12540?.
.32, any existing point source subject fo
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.
. SubpartF
Poflutat or poluttnt preparer
BPT aflluant tiatfuf
"Mttdnwn
tar any 1
vtfuaatar
90
UJHWttl
9m df

Kg/ttg (porta par
1.000 M of product
TOO - -
04780
04234
<*
0.0260
04079
O
na i n ¦ f
r"

'MNfrft* rang* <*««»»&
142043 Effluent Initiations uprisen ting-
m QVfTvv or iiiimih raoucoon iumdw
Dy mi application or ma Mat avanaoM
tachnoiogy aconomAcatfy acMav9Ma»
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 achlnriiiv 1
.'a,.
SuapmrF-

BAT aflfcart BMMon*
PoftJB* or pofeMproparty
yB*HM
lor any 1
m
sSL
90


Mm
Kg/M« (peundi p«
1jOOOt)e0(


04000313
ft

0400141



W*s (pom* p»
1,000 b) of product
TSSmm
OM.
ana.
PH-
. 0.00790
_ 0.00313
- 04000039
_ 0.000141
0.00281
0.00104
0.0000319
0.000040*
0
'WVtoffwrangaaf 64 to94.
9 42043 PretieatmeiH standards for
existing sources.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source sabject
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.
SubpartF
PoManl cr potutM prapvly
Pratraatmant Mndvdi
for cdrtng aomaa
Ms*num
tar any 1
Avoraga
cimj
*fcjoa lor
30
oonaacu

Kg/ttg (poirdi par
1,000 fc) of product

0.0000913
0,0000469

0.000141

942046 Pretreatment
tar new
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.
SubpartF

tar n«v
Petulant or pototant prapartp
Mailwn
tar any 1
m
SSL
30
nor—m
tfcada*
Load..
Kg/ttg (parti pm
1.000 fe) of product
0.0000038 I 0.0000313
SuBPMtr.^rrQofffliK*tf-
»» *
PotiM or poflutart prapar*
. . . " t
kr twm aomas
taTanT?

0400141
QQpQQJBQ


9 42047 [ReeerredT
Subpart Q—Hot Forming Subcategory
§ 420J8 Aw. deeorlptton ot tt»-
hot fonnhiQ aubcataoatyw
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges and to the
introduction of pollutants into publicly"
owned treatment works resulting from -
hot forming operations conducted in
primary, section, flat and pipe and tab*
mills.
(42a71
(a)	The term-"hot forming" means '
those steel operations in which
solidified, heated steel is shaped by.
rolls.'
(b)	The term "primary mill" means
those steel hot forming operations that >
reduce ingots'to blooms or slabs by
passing the ingots between rotating stpel
rolls. The first hot forming operation
performed on 'solidified steel after It is
removed from the ingot molds is carried
out on a "primary mill".
(c)	The term "section mill" means''
those steel hot forming operations that
produce a variety of finished and semi-
finished steel products other than the- -
products of those mills specified below
in subsections (d). (e), (g), and (h).-
(d)	The term "flat mill" means those
steel hot forming operations that reduce
heated slabs to plates, strip and sheet,
or skelp.
(e)	The term "pipe and tube mill"
means those steel hot forming
operations that produce butt welded or
seamless tubular steel products.
(f)	The term "scarfing" means those
steel surface conditioning operations in
which flames generated by the
combustion of oxygen and fuel are ueed
to remove surface metal imperfections -
from slabs, billets, or blooms.
(g)	The term "plate mill" means those
steel hot forming operations that
produce flat hot-rolled products which
are (1) between 8 and 48 inches wide
and over 0.23 inches thick; or (2) greater
than 48 inches wide and over 0.18 Inches
thick.
(h)	The term "hot strip and sheet mill"
means those steel hot forming
-------
- ytgjj1 1	^ / Ttaraday. May y> TBKZ/ mH and RBgnlatfona 23298

operation! Oat produce flat UtwHwE*«
products other man platan
(i) The lam "QMciaiiyataar
thaaa iImIhm jwiajljialali
Blwaaatn'iifcipfct
the propertie»*|l
individual aHoytm
aluminum
columbinm.
Hfnnlnm tOngStaB, vanadium.
zirconium) exceed 9% or the total of alL.
alloying elements exaeed59L > ,' *
Ui-lht turn "carbon steal" means,
thoaa steel product* other than specialty
steel products.
(k) The term "carbon hot forming
operation" («f"carbao") means those ¦
hot fanning operations which produce a
majority, on a tonnage baste, of carbon-
steel products-	*
(l)The tenn."specialty hot forming
operation" (or "specialty") applies to all
hot forming operations other man
"carbon hot forming operations."
§420.7% Effluent!
the degree o<<
*	^ 	m			a	h i a - 	»-»-
ny to wppfKwnon ot to DvnprvcP6wit
control technology cwrentty bvbRbMb.
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.
(a) Primary mills, carbon and
specialty.
(1) Without scarfing.
SubpartQ
SuanwrO—Continued
MhM «r paflntont pmpar*
SbItJ""
oar
Am
of A
vHm tor
- 30

Kg/tog (powdi p«
1.006 Mo* product
¦ret
0,190
00374
»
aosai


<*

'WW* ft* to Ml
(qWithsnaiftlq
SubpartQ
MUM or poUwt praparty
BPT«Mu«m
tmttltons
SanyT
day
Avtraoi
oidfly
v*mfar
90
oon—cm
*«d«t
Kg/Mig (poundi par
1.000 fc) ol product

BPTafltaM
Madnua
tar inr 1
»
UU—I3U-
PH		
(1

• WHR f« nng* or ftO • Ml
(b) Section mills.
(1) Carbon.
SubpartQ
Potuttnt or paMM prapMy.
BPT mm* MMom
Iteiww
tor v* 1
«sc
utuatfar
30 ..
Mdiyi

Kq/Wq (powidi gm
predttol
roa
OJW
tfflttl
OlIM




ratio iota
(2) Specialty.
Subparts

BPT aUtonl fMttfOTB
PoOutant or poOutwt property
Mtodmum
lor any 1
d*
* wiy
of ddy
vabttar
30
UOHMM

Kg/WtQ (poindip*
1,000 b+ of product
ws
0794
0.0641

0.0661

(1
(1

'ww*t •»«*•«< to t> to.


(c) Flat mills.
(1) Hot strip and sheet mills, carbon
and specialty.
Subpart Q


BPT «*«* MMIn
or pofluM pnpartp
torwj"?
d»
Annot
ot A
««M W
30
(today*

Kg/ttg (poind* pv
1,000 to) of product
T«*
0.427
0.160

aior

<1
(1

guar ww »-

BPT MMMMm
f
Mmfcrnw
tar anr I





K0"*tP
auidipar -

1^00 w of product

0227
0JM1
AAA
0.0606


(»

i«utu
(3) Specialty plate mills.
Subparts
PaMM  u
(d] Ptpa and tnbe mills, oarbon
specialty.
Subpart 
'MM a» nnga ot M to «JX
' (2) Carbon plate mills.
} 420.74 Nearsauroa
The	of wastewater
pollutants from any new source subject
to this subpart shall not exceed the
standards set forth below.
(a) Primary mills, carbon and
specialty.
-------
103 / Thursday, May "ZJ. 1982 / Hulas and Regulations
m—jaaeas" ~	. .	
; (l} Hot strip and sheyt mills, carbon
aoAjpedalty. .
1-. . JtWiu .itf.1-
1430.71.
-,	- • -1- 'iffify
s£fi±:
P"	;	:
rr&rr.—*———
Mm i



MOT ?P«h»* papa*
tarany"?
mmkt
?J
<*
WWI II



' ¦. > X' Jv-'ii tiyi'fr y.
¦ -:¦ '
Aay existing sowce subject to tb£r < ,
subpart which introduce* potluUnfa totou
a publicly owned tnatnentwork* must
comply with 40 CPK Part 403. - - ;,
{420.76 Pretreetwnt
K«fl*o feou*o por
1400 at of i
atMtoSA.

TM
0.0*36
0^109
oiio
0^ '
fM


5.{SI With scaffiugt


* SUBPART®-
y.-. .*		

' • ii- <4
_¦ — ,j ,
t-
'HMNntoorangaofUtoM
(2] Carbon plate mills.
SubpartG
for new
Any new source sub|etit to this-
subpart which introduces pollutant* into
a publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR Part 403."
P.'i . t
f 420177 Effluent tmWeMuoo rapr—enUfig ,
Uito-OQQrQO Of OTnMOTl fvQBBHMI
by thMpploitlfln ot Um N^ooouqNqiiiI,.,
3L
30 _
Mutant or pofcOT property
• . r;
K®/»6 ******
1,000 fa» of produel
Msdnun
lor my 1
<*y
srsr
tfuaafar
30
mo
TMK
¦¦ ae*kr
frimm
„ MWS
AAA

'J*

'^mnfMianoaof euOtotiiL ^ —
04 Section mills.
jl j Carbon.
, Subpart Q
'• t »* p
• A •
MUM or poluMnt trnxm*
r . tT,
Nov nurco
MtoOnun
torony 1
Avtraga
oldriy
valuaa tor
30
LUMLM
tfva day*
<" /, ¦ -
Kg/Uig (pouadi por
. ' 1400b) of produrt
t,000 ft} C* podBCft
TW»
0J)234
040604
000(76
ftiu»
pw
(1


.«.• \ "V* * i. . J
Except ait provide(fSa46Cflf. 125J0^
32. any existing point source subject to, .
this subpart must achieyatha following |'!
effluent limitations representing the •'
degree of efflaeat'iMioUsa attainable^ *
by the app&eatfonjtfdkg^efT: jV-'
conventtonajflecBfl^^r. .	7;
(a) Primary mills, carpon and
specialty*, ' ' , ^
(1) Without scarfing" " J,
o I H.i'. i. * .
t
1 WWwi the rang* of flJ) to 0.0
(3) Specialty plate mills.
Subpart G
Subpart a:

PoMutant or pofcitart property
performance
for any 1
ivaraoa
*ddy
tfuee w
T88L-
OM.
PH-
0.0334
000
(V,
Kg/kfcg (poundi par
1,000 to) of producti
00129
«-v
Mfanpotaewftfe. /'
(2) Specialty^ >~~
«k. H	- >
.Jjf»^_oo ' '
TSft
00100
0.00378
run
0002S0
pM

»

Trr
1 *W*b too nngi of 6.0 to M
(d] Pipe and tube mills, carbon and
^	specialty.
gg~r
¦Plouj
SubpartG
torp*«r*prapo*.
	 ,p ¦.
'J3A ¦£*'*.
tar
j!-/;
kb/MffrouMMMr*
1400 to) 4
	 	- ''
o«tr
ojxt»



tv-.
(V

¦)MMn too rano* of &rto Ml
(c) Flat mills.
Potutori or potutonl prepony
Now aourca
Itedmin
tor any 1
m
Avarago
of ady
nofuoonr
10
oarmai-
kwdqa

Kg/Mg (pouidi por
1400 to) of pmouc*
TS»
00360
0.00017
<»
04190
QAO .
pM
(1

Podutont or pofkitoni propoly
BCTofltooMMtoaoi*
Moidnuo
•or ony 1
H,.
30^
•wdoiio
'
Ke^tgtpondipar
14001» of product
rma
aiao
049M
(1
04001
~7i
rvui
pM

1 WWn tha ranga of 6.0 to WX
(2] With scarfing.
SubpartG '
F^Nutonl or pofhjtonl prepv^f
BCT aOuM MWIono
toTonJT
- m
<7d9T
30
notion
M«doy«

Kg/Mig (pauKk por
1400 to) of produol
TM
azrr
0,tMWD
<1
04830
mn
p«
(1

1 Wtthn tfi» range of 6.0 to 9J0
1 WWHn da ring* of 64 to Ml
(b) Section mills.
(1) Carbon.,
-------
FMadMhOH*- /rVoL 47V No. 103.I Thursday. May 27. 1982 / Bale* an&Bagulatians 23297

•i ,-r -s f . ' ' \
BCTMKMbm


33.
>0
*•<*»

' b/lteta

• - x' 1 - '
, 1,0001* of product

QJI7
OOM4
0.194
/MA
phi •
O
<1

Subpart a
¦ IMMi M tanja of &D IS Ml
(2) Specialty.
Subpart a
PoUM or poMM prapvy
BCrcMMMDns
1Mnn
lor any 1
Amtioi
of diy
ttiuoa for
30
eon—cu
to*

Kg/Wop (poundi por
1JJOO to) el product
TUft
0L224
O06A1
O
0.0A41
run
pU
O

OIIDBLOl
(c) Plat mills.
(1) Hot strip and sheet mills, carbon
and specialty.
SubpartQ

9CT iflumt amtsflont



MuM or poluttnt proportjr
M®dmum
tor any 1
dejf
at daft
v*mkx
30
oontocu*
too d«ya

Kg/WcQ (poundi par
t^OD of product
TRS
0.427
0.100
AAA
0.107
r"
n
(J

¦wmn M nng*  tiiUiono
MuM or poMtfi
Itednwn
tar any 1
3L
y

ooraacu


•Ada*

K^OdcQ (powidi por

1.000 b) of product
TOO
0.100
0.0S79


r"

<1

'«Wi 9» rang* of M to 9.0.
(d) Pipe and tube mills, carbon and
speciality.
SubpartQ
PodiMnt ar podutant prapany
BCT affluant Mam
Msdnun
tor any 1
aa»
Avaraga
irk
30
001—cu
*»d^«
TBS
Ko/Mig (pounds par
1.000 fe) al product
oii a
0.0630
00796
run
f>"

surface scale from the sheet or wire
products in continuous processes.
(g) The term "batch" means those
descaling operations in which the
products are processed indiscrete
batches.
(4201*2 Effluent ImlUUotf »epi—tiUny
qm ovqtn of ifiwini rtoueoon msmH#
By qm appnoaoon or dm oesi precncaMO
control technology cuiwitly avsAaMe.
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.
(a) Salt bath descaling, oxidizing.
(1) Batch, sheet and pilate.
SubpartH
r cffluM
Subpart H—Saft Bath Descaling
Subcategory
S 420.80 AppBcabBlty; deacrtpllun of the
salt bath descaHng subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges and to the
introduction of pollutants into publicly
owned treatment works resulting from
oxidizing and reducing salt bath
descaling operations.
S420J1 SpedaNzed definition*.
(a)	The term "salt bath descaling,
oxidizing" means the removal of scale
from semi-finished steel products by the
action of molten salt baths other than
those containing sodium hydride.
(b)	The term "salt bath descaling,
reducing" means the removal of scale
from semi-finished steel products by the
action of molten salt baths containing
sodium hydride.
(c)	The term "batch, sheet and plate"
means those descaling operations that
remove surface scale from sheet and
plate products in batch processes.
(d)	The term "batch, rod and wire"
means those descaling operations that
remove surface scale from rod and wire
products in batch processes.
(e)	The term "batch, pipe and tube"
means those descaling operations that
remove surface scale from pipe and tube
products in batch processes.
(f)	The term "continuous" means those
descaling operations that remove
or pofcUrt prepfty
Human
o» any 1
4m
*n»aua
ot da>
•Muaanr
30
Awdaya

Kg/ttg fcowdi par
1,000 fe) at product
¦nw
0JO4
0.002B3
0^879
0i00117
OOOOS7S
(1 -

Mtr*H
pM

1 WVNn the ronga of 610 to 9-0-
(2) Batch, rod and wire. -
SubpartH
Aoflutont or poflulvit
BPT •Muanl lri<1lui»
Mrtm
ol any 1
vtfuwfar
30
conaaou-
9m dap
Keflifcg (poundi par
1,000 *» al predial
TSS._
Ctremtan..
NKkai	
pH._
0.0123
0.0017S
0.001M
(1
0.OS2A
£000701
(V
¦wmn tha rang* al &0 to 9.0.
(3) Batch, pipe and tube.
SubpartH

OFT aMaant kMadona
Mutant or pofuant propar%
Ub*iub
lor any 1
«naiMa
ot d>
otalb
»
ttiadaya
Kg/ttg (pom* par
1.000 «* 
-------
AJMh-	• IPfr ^vThttfiday. May 27,lflB2> / Jbki «&dR*gui«tian»
.. JIJ.W '
irrrssfaboiwenf
"SfiK*.
' - ettab&c atttm&n
1 WJ.'/J mamtf WB?
7*r"-'.- -nuto'layi*
-fltiSi 9*0?* ra-^b^
;.-iw rreieerir wi»
S-iuji n .¦» «;.i- ;.yr " *5JS P
33323155^83 U5h2?«: i
"¦ 			  a*U batfa d—callngi oxidizing, -
' 3t?3 j^T -;«r	fflBMdu ahaa* and plate.
S»	.
CT- V. .=V Jfi- -r
8UBPMTH
BAT
«m3T
<*uaaJor
10
•*aom»
-
-yoo? < f* * *
1.00014 at proAjel
TBSU
oyaritfa.
Ch»o
PH.
aaoiae
* aoouft
000128
<>
0.0407
0.00064*
o.o
ra**0®Mt
(2) Continuous. -
SubmrtH.
23L
(pom* par
1,000 ») ai product
PH-
ojMa
O007M
(1
AW
OOM»
(*
•¥HWn flv rwga of &0 to &0.
j420JW EfflmwH
lhidi|nio( tffluKtlf
^ ||^	— * 4^-	>
Of m^pVBaVOIrOl D1V D9K1
Except u provided In 40 CFR 128.30-
.32, ten existing point source subject to
this subpart most achieve the following
effkiealUmitattons representing the
degree of eflhtent reduction attainable
by lha application of the best available
MSriM M gdUM pnpMT.
MBdmua
tar any 1
<**
^3?
mum nr
30
1Mdq*
-. - -
Kg/ttg (pound! par
1.000 M at port Ml

aoosn
000117
0.00087#
f" 1' -

(2) Batch, rod and wire.
SubpartH
ftoflutont or pdk*rt pnparty
BAT afRUOTl MMm
Mfednun
for any 1
day
AMtagt
iH.
»
oonaaou
tlva daya

Ktf/tdtg (powrii par
1^0 W of pradttt*-

0.00175
0.001 as
0000701
000082ft
Mr*«l

(3) Batch, pipe and tube.
Subpart H
Pofluttnt or poflutant praparty
BAT affluant fciitaUuf
Uttomurr
lor any 1
**
«ahiaaii»
30
*• daya

Kff/ttg (poundr par
1,000 fe) of product

0.0070»
0.002B4
aoosis


(4) Continuous.
SubpartH
Poiuttnt or poSulM propady
BAT aflbant >ii
-------
FSdml ltegbter /Vol 47, No. 1D3 / Thursday, May 27, 1982 / Rule» an* Regulation^ 23299
Subpart tt-€ontinued
p««uim qi ***** pssi^P--

3L
90
«Mdm»




'WW* t» imp <*10*10.
(3) Batch, pipe and tube.
SubpartH
Poflutani qi poiiM prepay
Nan aoifsa
MaOmum
Mr any 1
23T
0* Mr
v*uaafar
30
eon—ou
0m daya

Kq/IAo (pouida por
1 jOOO M af product
TM
0.490
0.007CS
0.0063#
<1
0.213
0.00264
0.00213


r*4

1WMn tha qngt of &0 to 9.0l
(4) Continuous.
SubpartH
RoluMni or polutani prepaity
Nowaotfoo
partonnanoo ttsndafda
Magdmm
•or any 1
o*y
AMrm
of dafc
values tor
30
eonaao>
tfca aaya
Kg/tog (pcuvfe par
1.000 to) of product
TS&-
Qwnfen.
Mcfcat	
pH	
0A964
0.00138
0.00124
¦MM) Eh* rang* of «.0 IB 9.0.
(b) Salt bath descaling, reducing.
(1) Batch.
Subpart H

Nawaoirea
pvfcfMMi Mndvdi
PoflutfTor poMM
Msdmum
ftvraoa
of dafr

for «ny t
day .
X
conaaa>»
fee day*
Ka/kkg (poundi par
1,000 fc) or prtx&jct
TB8_
CyanU*-
ChunMn -
Nk*
PH_
00010Z
0.00136
0X0122
O
1 ) of predial
Chromriun..
0.00802
0.00263
(2) Batch, rod and wire.
SubpartH
QJQ4Q7
0.000330
0.000542
0.000407
O

Av^tabwit Mfldadi
tor aaaanfl aovon
PoOutant or poflutu property
Madman
tor any 1
day
Awaua
ofd3y
vafcjea tor
30
ccnaacw
feaaaye

Kg/tog (poinds par
1.000 to) of product

000173
040156
0000701



Kg/HQ (poundi par
1,000 W of product
dVORMI.
0.00700
0.0QZM
0JM21J
(4} Continuous.
Subpart H
0.00117
o.oooe7«
Polutant or pofcrtant proper*
PfUflaftiani itandardi
tor atoedng aotfoae
IMnrn
tar any 1
day
Avwaoa
£5L
30
oonaacu>
•va days

tig/Meg (potfidapar
1,000 to) of predial

QMm
QJ0134
04)00661
000410


(b) Salt bath descaling, reducing;
(1} Batch.
SubpartH
PoMam or polutani praparty
Pretaaffnant atendarda
tor Mating aouroea
Masdmura
tor any 1
day
*7SS!
*

KoA*q (poiM par
1.000 to) of product

0.00102
0.00130
040122
0.000331
0.00064
0.00040*

fffntrt

(2) Continuous.
SubpartH
PoMan or pehitanl praparty
PrMMMtlt Mfdat
for ajuaBnQ anvoaa
Mtodmum
tor any i
day
Avaraa
ofdaA
«afciaa i
30
oonaea
Ova da)

KortfcQ (poirda pa
1.000 to) of predua

0.0060ft
000750
0.0018
0.009Q
0J5022



(42046 Putt Batmen t »m>dfcls for new
(3) Batch, pipe and tube.
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
-------
47V No. 10ft / Tkurwfay; May 27,
(b> Salt bath dmetieyreduoing.
(HBiirit * — ¦ -
Suae artH
r-*« V *¦*#*•%. ~ -1 -
PMMknwl MndMi
lor mv lomi


30
t**4y»
IjOOO fe| at produet
-
' 000178
0J00W
tftfnwt
- . ..
oaottt


j£w
* C •.», •<*
of poftivt prepsty
*rtt ^ V* '
l'nlv« «: »; *
atmSda^rn**
KUOM
UMIM
loranyl
OV
5X
vafcMtor
30
' . v .r*
ft \ *
WHb feaundapar
	Til nl inn—

0.00102
000136
0001ZI
0.0003M
040M07

KM*

(2) Continuoua. . ...
SubpartH
PolutM at pdMant pnpadp
PlWI—UIH
alMarta tor naur
•eurcw
Mndnun
tor any 1
dm
M dm*

Kg/Wig (pond* par*
1.000 U at predial
"rr"-
OOOSM
OOO780
o.ooen
li§

Mr**

£3} Batch, pips and tuba.
- SUBPART H
S 420J7 Effluent BmttaHona wprwnUnfl
IlkA	— A —	-M. , || , -tt-»	1«-
UW CMQreOOV tRWHii fMUCUOfl ¦twMMDM
||u Mm	jkJ |i^ |k**|
uj bh appocnon ov inv Dm convvnooiwr

Mr na» •ounw"*
-i;
i
i
UgMam
«TNV>
dm
of d3C
MtoMtor
«
(MdVS'
Kg/ttg (poiadtp*
l^ea t*af pmcM
ojxrro*
0.0030*
oaoei*
(Q CaoflntunM.
Except at 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 affluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best
conventional technology.
(a) Salt bath descaling, oxidizing.
(1] Batch, sheet and plate.
SubpartH
^ SlJBPMW II

-
' "1 " '(¦
Bdrjjuiat
MbMorpokiMpnp*^
2TS5?
<*r
AvOTfll
otdMfc
NduM nr
. 30
uerimu-
OM dty*
Kg/Mp tICVK* pat
1,000 fej.af product
T8S_
pn_:
a«29-
<1
0.08M
(1
1 <»• v? ;
IjOOO fe| at product
TSS—
pM_
0JO4
O
Kgftkg (pouidt p»
1,000 at product
o.or*
(1
TSS_
PH-
I-' 	
&0O13I
OOOH4
0000419
1 MNi»» ring* of 00 to (lO
(2) Batch, rod and wire.
(1
00407
(1
1 MM *» nngp at 00 ID OO.
(2) Continuous.
-------
Federal Register / Voh No- 103 t Thorsday, May 27, 1982 / Rules aa&frguiations 23301
Subpartrt

SCTtftoart
MMM
PaUmt <* n .*iHi< ?
tor any t
|Maaa
s3L
30
...

9m daya

Kg/ttg (peuidi pm

t.OOO fa) « product
TOO
0.0632
Otti
nH -	
U
<1
'V«m ft* ring* el &0 ID fc&
Subpart I—Acid Picking Subcategory
8 42a90 ApplloMtty. deeulptlon of the
ecM ptcWnfl wbcinjofy.
The provision* of this subpart are
applicable to discharges and to the
introduction of pollutants into publicly
owned treatment works resulting from
sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, or
combination acid pickling operations.
S 420.91 Bpeclalliod definitions.
(a)	The term "sulfuric add pickling"
means those operations in which steel
products are immersed in sulfuric acid
solutions to chemically remove oxides
and scale, and those rinsing operations
associated with such immersions.
(b)	The term "hydrochloric acid
pickling" means those operations in
which steel products are immersed in
hydrochloric acid solutions to
chemically remove oxides and scale,
and those rinsing operations associated
with such immersions.
(c)	The term "combination acid
pickling" means those operations in
which steel products are immersed in
solutions of more than one acid to
chemically remove scale and oxides,
and those rinsing steps associated with
such immersions.
(d)	The temr"fume scrubber" means
those pollution control devices used to
remove and clean fumes originating in
pickling operations.
(e)	The term "batch" means those
pickling operations which process steel
products such at coiled wire. rods, and
tubes in discrete batches or bundles.
(f)	The term "continuous" means those
pickling operations which process steel
products othaf than in discrete batches
or bundles.
(g)	The term "add recovery" means
those sulfuric add pickling operations
that include processes for recovering the
unreacted add from spent pickling add
solutions.
(h)	The term "add regeneration"
means those hydrochloric acid pickling
operations that include processes for .
regenerating acid from spent pickling
add solutions.
(i) The term "neutralization" means
those add pickling operations that do
not include add recovery or add
regeneration processes.
(D The term "spent add solution" (or
spent pickle liquor) means those
solutions of steel pickling adds which
have been used in the pickling process
and are discharged or removed
therefrom.
(k) The term "rod, wire and coil"
means those add pickling operations
that pickle rod, wire or coiled rod and
wire products.
(I) The term "bar, billet and bloom"
means those add pickling operations
that pickle bar, billet or bloom products.
(m) The term "strip, sheet and plate"
means those acid pickling operations
that pickle strip, sheet or plate products;.
(n) The term "pipe, tube and other"
means those add pickling operations
that pickle pipes, tubes or any steel
product other than those induded in
paragraphs (k), (I] and (m) herein.
{420.92 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the beat practicable
control technology currently evaHabio, ¦
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.
(a) Sulfuric add pickling (spent add
solutions and rinse waters).
(1) Rod. wire and coil.
Subpart I
PoMM ot pokjtirt pvoparty
BPT affluarrt hmrtationa
Mudrrun
tor any i
Avoraoa
of dam
vahiaa for
30
oonaaaK
Ova daya

K9/M19 (pounds par
1,000 t>) of product

0.0818
0.0880
0000526
0.000380
0.0360
0.0117
0.000175
aoooii7
(1
OM 1
71*
0*4

XV* Imttattona tor a* and gr«
in thai ba

whm acid pcMinQ wastawaiara w
traatad wtth
oott roflng
•WtMn M ot 6.0 to B.O.


(2) Bar, billet andhtoone
Subparts
*
. fttfutartf or potuttrt proparty
BPT afluafll MtaMona
Maximum
tar any 1
Jfc
30
eonaacu
Swa day«
-
Kfl/ttQ (panda par
1.000 fe) of product
T»
00263
s 00113
0.000169
0.000113
00113
0.00375
0 0000963
0.0000371
»


pM

'Tht Immuhim (or a* and gran* tfia* b* wcttc*
rtttnacttpfekanffiMMMMn art mmd wan oott roa^
¦wmn «m we>« &o to
(3] Strip, sheet and plate.
Subpart I

BPT afltajant imttaSdi
Mutant or poiMant proparty
Mftdmum
Avarao
of

for any 1
<*y
30
ciaiaac


9m dm
Kprtftg feowida pi
1,000 fc) at produ
TSS—
O&Q1.
Zinc.
PH~
0.0226
0000331
0.000225
(1
0.0223
00075
00001
0.0000
¦Th» l»toMur» tor ori and graaaa Ml t*
wftan aod	— " ~ 		
'WtthH «»imp iii9u»i tor cM and pw
whm add pcWny aaaiimaiara arc
tm iMl 6a
tractod attft
<£
•wmn tn rang* of 6.0 e ta


(5) Fume scrubbers.
-------
/ Vok.47, Na 103 /- Thnwday; May 27. 196Hnka. Raftd*<

TM-
MT^'
tM ¦ •
' M -

OJIt


oom

0 — .
ooom


¦0~ • >
*-*
" V,*


1
; • \
1	i - in, ,
8T2I?
3H?
39 V.
•75*-
¦"i ;. - . •
Kg/Ida |pev*» par'
TM
o.ia#
trnni
umm
n
oi» *
0MI
oooom
• fi || [\ «f
AftA I

VbM


(c) Cambinatiaaraddpiskling (spent
nriii inlntlnn and rlnn walais) ....
(1) RocLWlre, and CoiL
.. Suivwn	-
*11—Ui
St
30
KO/ttatoaattpv
UOOSktolprMm
t'vifj V -'** .•"v " - • * - '	<- >•
Tfurabove limitations shall be.,
applicable to each fame Krubbsr
aasadstsdwith a sulfuric add pickling
operation.
- -(fa) Hydrochloric add pickling (spent
addsohrttoatand rinse waters),
win and coll
•nur
0.149
04636
MM
0.000661
A W|
n*ni ,


OOOTJ
. QJOItt
n

pM
) of product

Q.141
aoc ta
MBM-


0JW9 ¦
»—~ -
0.000H9
- 0.000907
0r^j)4

OOQOttA
p«


(2J Strip, sheet and plats.
Subpart!
'Tt»	tor a« an* t
itiw idd petting wMMilm w Wtsd vMh cold raflnQ
'WHNn vm ran0> of 60 to 9.0
The above limitations shall be
applicable to each fume scrubber
associated with a hydrochloric acid
pickling operation.
(5) Add regeneration.
Subpartt
W*S from* par '
TM
aooTS
ftOMt
aoas.
0MMS






pM
(1
n

'Tha Unguium «or ol wt i
wnen odd iiliUm i
wastawatarft
'WitNn »¦ (angtolMeajtk
(3) Strip, sheet and plate—-
continuous.	"

BPT afStMtd MaMan
PoMb* or polutort prapMr
MBdnun
tor any *
A*2S
30
oenmat
Mdm
•
em
Zke_

PoiuM or poMni prapw^r
BPT mm* MMom
MBdnun
tor any 1
AwiM
of dtfy
vtiuM tor
30
conMou-
fr* diyt

t
i
1
m
355S2
as
1&3
8.46
OO610
00646
ftin 1
1 aaH
7W
pM

Subpart I
ft
'Th» Imftofcna tar ol and ya— mm# I	_
Mm hM pddn| %hmhmi w mm Mi ooid roMng
*«Mi 0a tanga of &0 to M.
(3) Pipe, tube and other products.
'Tt» *i«a»mia tar a* and
•run aod picttng i
¦Within th* fanga at 40 to (A
The above limitations shall be
applicable to the absorber vent scrubber
wastewater associated with
hydrochloric add regeneration plants.

BTTtfMMIn
Poluteni or poluttnl prepwty
<*r
vtfuMtor
30





ouadipv

tllBlUrt
TCft
0486
6l1W-
nan »
Otft

000636
0^0290.
000169

0.00668
pM
O



'Tt» h'.tAlkjim tor oft and yam M ft* an
MaddptaUtog wmtmmmn nMMrikMi
'\MMn M rang* ol &0 to (L& •
(4) Strip, sheet and plate—batch.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 103 / Thursday. May 27, 1982 / Rules andReydationa- 23303
Subpart I
or polutant
5E
30
K0fl*a panda par
1.000 bl 01 product
TSft
a 134 -
0.097V
run *
0.0079
aom

0 00182
000173

aooo57»
rt
pM


¦WDNn tha r»nga ol #.0 to s.o.
(5) Pipe, tube, and other products.
Subpartl
BPT alfkiant Mtafloni
Poflutsnt or polutanl praparty
Utodnum
tor any i
day
Avaraga
of dm
valuator
30
conaacu*
toaday*

Kg/ldtg (pomls par
1,000 to) of product
TO
0225
0.09*4
000322
000289
0.0904
00322
0.00129
0000964



pH

'Tha fcn*attuna tor oi and yaaja thai ba appfc-abia
«rtwn pad pcMng wMfamiii w traatad wtti oold roUng
(ha rang* of &0 to 9.0.
(8) Fume scrubbers.
Subpart I
Polutant or polutant praparty
•
BPT affluant Bmtatona
Msdtnum
tor any 1
day
Avaraga
OA diif
vatuaafor
30
conaacu-
0va day*
KBogrsms par day
TSS.
OAQ'	-
Chromium.
Nlcfcal		
pH-
5 72
2.45
0.0019
0.6736
(1
lTT* hntfaUona tor oi and
whan aod pcjuyiq wastawam
*W»w) tha png» of fl^O to SUX
The above limitations shall be
applicable to each fume scrubber
associated with a combination acid
pickling operation.
8 420.93 Effluent Bmltattona representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
.32, any existing point source subject to
¦ this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable.
(a) Sulfuric acid pickling (spent acid
solutions and rinse waters).
(1) Rod. wire and coil.
Subpart I
Subpart*
2.43
0 61#
0.0327
0.0245
<1
MUM dr polutant praparty
BAT offluonl IMOttont
Madman
tor any 1
M
vatuaa tor
30
conaacu
thw daya

Ko/kkg rpevri* par
1.000 t>) of predict
l«f<
O O
0.000175
aoooii7
7W

(2) Bar, billet and bloom.
Subpart 1
Polutant or polutant proparty
BAT aflluant imttaftona
Maximum
tor any 1
day
Avaraga
iHr
30
co»»a
trva days
Kg/ttg (pounda Mr
1.000 to) of product

0.000939
0.000313
7**
0.000828
0.000209

BAT sfQuant Mfesttona
PoMart or po8utarl praparty 1
Madman
tor any 1
dm
Avaraga
Si
fca daya

Kioyama par day
iAMf
0.0338
00244
00123
000819
71m.

The above limitations shall be
applicable to each fume scrubber
associated with a sulfuric acid pickling
opera tion.
(b) Hydrochloric acid pickling (spent
acid solutions and rinse waters).
(1} Rod. wire and coiL
Subpart 1
Pi* ill or poMH praparty
BAT aAuarn
Madman
lor any i
Avaraga
of dtfy
yaluaator
30
conaacu
ft* days
Kg/kkg (panto par
i.ooo to) of product
2tou.
ooootao
0.000*13
0.000307
0.000204
(2) Strip, sheet and plate.
Subpart I
Poau—n or polutant p upai%
BAT amuant
tor any I
Avaraga
of dafly
vatoaa tor
30
rtoao
ttva days
Kg/ttg (pounds par
1,000 to) of product
Zinc..
OOOOS26
0000350
0.000175
0.000117
(3) Pipe, tube and other products.
Subpartl

BAT aftuant Immfluna
Polutant or polutant proparty
Maidnwn
tor any 1
day
Avaraga
of dsJy
vatuaatoi
30
oonaacu-
ft* daya

Kg/tog (poinds par
1.000 tot of product

0.00192
aoooe3i
7W
0.00128
00004H

(4) Fume scrubbers.
(5) Fume scrubbers.
-------
TfamH&y< kfay 27.1 /Rafej: gatoflMII**;
iWnw
W-ttO-tSUKcC''


4





!3SV 1 ;


.. .$1.


Y5?U.'4
M9MM1VMII
pickHftgoperetion.
tffrAehfri^imraHBiii -
summk

BATMMMm
PnaMvpMbHir^
r^naiiiBH
2H

lor any 1
day
30


¦k» aa»

Off .
00616
0X646
¦
ai6»


The above limitations shall be
applicable to the absorber vent scrubber
wastewater associated with
hydrochloric add regeneration plant*.
(c) Combination add pickling (spent
,dd solution and rinse waters).
Rod, wire, and coih
SubpartL _

BAT af6uant imUtona
WuM at polutrt praparty
Madnwn
tor any 1
Oar
ofdafc
MkMNr
30
oonaaou
#*a daya

Kg/ttg (pouidi par
iJOOVof produt

OOQ713
nonnMiy
MM
0X0182
0X00636

(2} Bar, bgttet and bloom^
--
SUBPART

BAT aMaat Mtfpna
PoMnt« pcMtf praparty
(or any 1
5E
30
WHWWA.


•(•day*
*0/1*6 (pomda par
ixooaiof poduot
aoooee*
oxooaM
0.000289
Strip, start and plate*—
ifiiiillrtiiimf.
• I' : '

BAT (MmM mm

*» 1
3L
30


•Mdm«
Kg/ttg fcauida par
14)00 fc| of produol
0.00626
ft frtomn
oxouo
(4] Strip, sheet, and plate—batch.
Subpart I
Poautant or pofluM praparty
BAT afluant fciatalona
MairiwuHi
lor any 1
Oay
AMOOB
ofdafc
vafuaafcr
30
6vaday»

Kg/tog (powida par
1,000 b) of product

0X0192
000173
0,000766
0X00676


(5) Pipe, tube, and other products.
Subpart 1
Poautant or poautant praparty
BAT afRuant Imttalona
MBrinun
for any 1
day
valuator
30
oonaacu
9m daya

Kg/Meg (pomfc par
1,000 ft) of product

0.00322
0.00269
0.00129
0.000064


(6) Fume scrubbers.
Subpartl
Po9utant or poflutant praparty
BAT affluMH Imttattona
Majdrrun
for any 1
nnvif«f
0x000*19


|M
IV



*Tt»	tar o« antf
iNn add pdftiQ '
1 MNn tfw 0 «X to Ml
(Z) Bar. billet and bloom.
Subpart I
Pototanf or pofcrtant prepay'
M-hTTTb.*
tar any t
2X
r »
awdayv

kg/hho 
o.ooooaot
u
pM


i tfa rang* of &0 to 9-0.
(4) Pipe, tube and other products.
-------

Subpart I

^ N—rtOWPt
pvtonwoi imdn
PsfcM cr pafetoMpp^*
wr^-, .



talMiftr
90



(2) Strip, sheet, and plate.
Subpart I
PoMant or pofeto* pnpartr
Kq/Mv (pew* par
1 MO fet ol product
ton'
ota'
Zfcie—
pH_
aagt
tww
-11
ajoosn
Kgflftg (pounda par
tMa«dpMM
TSSl.
OM1.
'Tha IWa8ui» tar oi and 9
1 wti 1 ¦!¦» m
•VMMn ta ianga ol OO10 8A
(5} Fume scrubber*.
Subpart I
Bne~
PH —
0J0117
oooeoi
0.0000791
aaooooot

Naw ootfg^^
Pduam or t iQiiMil peptrty
MMnum
lor «ny 1
Av«ria»
iH,

m-
conwfiu
(Swdifk
PaMM or pcfuM praparty
Wtogwma par day
paitoiniaima ttandvda
tar my 1
AMIfMA
oidX;
MMIto
30
Tsa_
oae>.
zmc-
pH_
5.72
2.45
aoaes
OOMS
n
0418
00123
ooosia
n
Kg/Hig (powla par
1.000 W ol product
Tsa.
OtQ'
Lead..
appioMa One—
'Tin Imauona lor ol ml faiM	_i
«**> pod ptcMng iMMiln n MM wNh uM roMing
Of &0 MM.
PH..
0.0321
0.0138
0.000208
0000138
The above limitations shall be
applicable to each fume scrubber
associated with a sulfuric acid pickling
operation.
(b) Hydrochloric add pidding (spent
add solutions and rinse waters].
(1) Rod, wire, and coiL
Subpart I
¦MMn «• rang* o« &0 to Ha
(4) Fume scrubbers.
Subpart I

Hem iouroa
pvlonTwci lOndHi
Poiutam or poflutart piupwfr

«»aiaua
j***L
• •
toaiv I
"
valuaa tor
30
conaaou-
th^daya
Ktf/Mo {poundi par
1,0901» of prat*
Poflum or poauonl proparty
Nawaoiroa
MBdmuni
tor any 1
Averaga
o
-------
1-4	/..X^noaday, May 27,. lag! ^Jfatef and .Regulations
»eti6l»eifcroL-avvjffith3>t ^ Part 4M and adiiro the following.
pretraatment atanauoa for exiating
(a) Sulfuric add (spent add solutiona-
dttafwitsn) ¦
Cm^-wtre, and cott.
rKV *i »	..
¦-.' *«» . 'SUBPART I
SUBPART I	-------


!
1
lor any
aw
i«^da^jrs;
tfUkU
apfflcahte toVachfume acrabber-
aaaodatedwtth a combination add
pickling opera Hon.
|«MI
Except aa provided in 40 CFR 403.7
403.13, any exiating source subject
to thli subpart which introduces
polintanta into a publicly owned
treatment wotka muat comply with 40
2he~
0000179
OOOfrtf*-
(b) Hydrochloric add pickling (apart-
add solutions and rinse waters^, ' '
(1) Rod. wire, and coiL
Subpart I,
(2) Bar, billett, and bloom.
Subpart I
1
a
1
1
¦iMi^iiJi tar «M|
sotfoaa
tar any 1
day
90
oonaaui
tfcw daya

Ke/ttg Qpowidi par
1,000 fe| of predict

0.000199
0.000119
0.00006tt-
0.0000378
71m.

(3) Strip, sheet and plate.
Subpart 1
. .
PMNMnl
atandvda to Matog
MUM or pofluM proparty
Madman
tar any 1
day
«
valuta tor
30
rooaaui
4m daya

Kg/fckg (pounds par
1.000 of preduot
t—ft
0000339
0.00022S
0.0000113
0.0000781
71m.


^*n-"2u«a^-—'*

1mmn
d*
St
30
•m daya
K0/UEQ tipotff* p*
1.000M of prodi^
2btt-
0000819

(2) Strip, attest and plates
Subpart-! -
• r.
. : s-	. . r«

atmMfetoaMt"
Po9uM or pdUM Mpa*
taran*l.
• / -r>
:S"
tnd®--
K0/M* (pound*
1.000 of product
2nc_
0000628
0.000360
aoooirs
0.000117
(4) Pipe, tube, and other products.
Subpart I
(3) Pipe, tube, and other products.
Subpart I

«anMBtaTSa*«
•omaa
Podutanl ar podutard pnparty
Mudntaw
tar any 1
d*
ShX
wMetr
90


Madmt

Kft^Ofp
owdipv

14300 b)orfpmal

mSnlTSni
¦ana
PoluM or psMM prepay
IHitim
tar ary t
sar
30
oonaaei^
9wd^fdv
Kq/Mq feouidrpar
1,000 fet of product
2nc-
0.1
0.000826
0000919


ftlflftlH
71m.
O0012S
ft(TtMM98


(4) Fume scrubber.
(5) Fume acrubber.
-------
Federal Reghtes / VoL G, No. 109 / Thursday. May 27, 1982 / Rule* and Rftgelattrme 7 ' 2Mt7
Suamwri
Subpmk I

on)
ysst

mSSSTSmimt
wamm
PtfMsaarpcMMpnportr
kMmia
tor «n» 1
sSL
30
eon—cu
d*s
2nc_
CUH46
Kg/Mtg (pouidi p»
1,000b| o» product
00121
OCM1*
Noti—Hi Asm 1
(5) Add regeneration.
SU8PAKTI
PoluM or poMant prop**
ftvtwtwt
MndanH for aria*#
mnaa
IMddmum
tor#* i
Awim
01A
vthitt fof
30
oonaaou
tfcad^t

Ktogrvm par Ay
1—4
&24S
ai83
0.0810
0.0544
7W

Nom^TTw Mm iirfW thai bo apparawa to tw
tbaortm want aentffcar mmtmmtm aaaodaM w0) hydro*
cWortc add r*ganara8or> planfe
(c) Combination add pickling (spent
acid solutions and rinse waters).
(1) Rod, wire, and coiL
Subpart t
PoUv* or poMM prapoty
PntTNtMRf
standards for gotfnp
KWOM
IMmi
(or any t
dty
Awkm
of da*
valuoa for
30
oonaaou
Ovadaya

Kg/ttg (pounds par
1.000 W of product

04X813
040189
0.000893
0400638


(2) Bar. billet and bloom.
Subpart!
PQfeiMt v poMnl
atandante for «Mng
•ooeaa
tar wrf 1
*1
80
oonaacu
todays
imti
aundapv
of product


0.000384
>"f i»
0.000094
0.000280


(3) Strip, sheet, and plate
continuous.

' 04KW
11

ft W**



(4) Strip, sheet and plate—batch.
Subpart I
PMuant or poMM propony
Madman
for any 1
da*
Ahmqi
otdf
valuator
30
conaacu
tea da*

Kg/M* (pomdi par
1,000 fe> of pnM
n™«"
wottr
&00173
oooow
0.000679
MM.fl

(5) Pipe, tube, and other products.
Subpart 1
Podutanl or po*uHM ptcpMy
aUndirm torariaang
•otfcaa
iorSj"?
Averaop
0< ttM
VtluMW
30
coawci^
t*a day*

Kg/tto (pound* par
1,000*1 of pro**

0.PP2M
oooiao
0.000084


(6) Fume scrubber.
Subpart)
nww v puHMi prafwiy
A^Otfaaanart
nieai
Otodmum
tor an* 1
Avaraaa
Of dm
voluaator
30
iffUM)
ft* day*
Kioa km p» <%
comply with 40 CFK.PMt40& and	
achieve the following pre treatment
standards for new iniimna
(a) Sulfuric add pickHqg (spent eckt-
sotedons and rim waters).
- (1) Rod. wire, coiL
Subpart!*
Roman or poUnt mMv
krort
m
23,
JO
tvOMfeiotpraftat
Lmt-.
Zkc-
ooooosas
ornate
aocoaae
[2] Bar. billet, end bloom.
. SuePAirrr
PoXeS otpcSKMlpwpotfr
t tor KM

Km*o«enr
tJOOttolpnMt
ojomm
Zinc-
ftWUUI/S
ojoooiss
GUXXJ012S
(3} Strip, sheet and plate.
Subpabx L..
, •
MnMilvtM
nMm«pOHWP«pwqf
MMfcHUH
lor any 1
d*
oldaP
HfcMfat
30
K0/i*b fecundi p*
1,000 fe) olf
»rif
0.0000781



0.0000167


(4} Pipe, tube, other products.
Subpamt*

(lasts
worrtt
0JQ3ZT
QA248
KMvdMni
Mndv^nrrwr


Mom—'n» *ow Mas to ipptat
tenttm mpocMM «Nh • canwmdon m
of&n0oi%
14HLN Putieetiiiwil ilsr JprJs ft
H Id Mtfl
3d picking PodUMorpoiuMprapv^
W MW
Wufcwurn
torviyl
30
WW
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
K£/tog gmrdi par
USBtUM "
IV
0.000013>
00000*38
7HM
0.0000871
OJOOQM

-------

,gf t-J>1,
SUBWWH^
i* vua
7 \ TT* ¦» <
*,„v , ^
h • '
tar nav aetata*
tor any 1
. 0*
oldX
vtfuaafar
30
OOHMU

navwmvm**
V ' IA °«> -
OXOOi
04040
0412s
040010


(4) Strip, sheet siirtuftski batch*
" ¦ HT.v JSUBWWTI


P>>fcnnnin*T»Hi«»

SSL

lor any 1
m
vriuaa far-
30 -
.

toada*'
kg/Mq (powi* pv
WOO U o» predud
•>« «?
(S) Hydrochloric add pickling (spent	(c) Combination add pickling (spent
nriri ialttrturftsfnririntm mhin)	add solutions and rinse waters).
(l)|$b) ol product
*gn*Q (pom* par
1 >0p0 to) ol product
ML1

0.0000781
OMOO0W Chlim*—
0000107
00000067



aoooiso
0.0000901



Chromium _
Mckal	
0.0419
04730
0.0887
0424$ •
(3) Pip*, tub*, and other products.



WWt
PeMaf si psSttM i
npa^F.%
•"5s-
33
^ a*
imdqn
(3) Strip, sheet and plate-
continuous.
Subpart I
*0/1*0 flpMdi par
f .000 fe} ol predid
2bia.
0400200
aoooi38
aooooum
0.0000460
(4) Fume scrubber.

PrataatmarK atandardi
tar nav acucaa
Mm or poflulMI proparty
iiaimw
tor any 1
day
Avaraaa
Ol Wtf
vatuaaior
30
oeraao»
ft* day*

k0/kfco (powida pai
1400 b) of product

0i000710
aooooao


0400210

§ 420.97 Effluent MinHitlons rspre—ntHig
mi QtyTtv or •muMH rMuoooo mmM
bv ttw loodcitkM ol tftt btft c&fwontftaMl
technology.
Except as provided In 40 CFR 125.30-
¦32, any existing'point source subject to .
this Bubpart must achieve the following,
effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best
conventional technology.
(a) Sulfuric add pickling (spent add
solutions and rinse waters)
(1) Rod, wire and colL
-------
Fadanl RagUtar / VoL 47, No. 103 / Tbundayv May 27, 1983 / Rates and Ragbbflibli 2338ft:
Subpart I.
(5) Fume scrubbers.
¦ Subpart I
Susnftrrf*

acr «0kaol bMMM
Mum a pcauort papony
Modnun


tor aar t
9ft


oonaaa*


tfvoda*
MMltri
BCT oflkMnt MMMont
tar mr 1
31
K^ldtg (pound» p»
1,000 W at product
•1
Mum of pduMtp^opiiiy
BCToflbartMMana
tor any)
<*y
vafcjMtor
90
conaacn
to iter*

K0fl*a (poind* par
1,000 b| of product

&oea»
00119
OL0113
000079
rwiAi
pM

¦Th» >i*1w tor ol an* <
WW acM p*cWng ¦HnMiH W
¦WW*1tn* rarga o( &0 to Mi
(3) Strip, sheet and plats.
Subpart I

BCT aJfaanl Imtfucm
•

Avmm
i
k
!
Maximum
of dafy

for any 1
30
conaoaj
Ifco day*
Kg/ld
PH_
tut
(X0A2C
«
0.M28
0020*
(1
TSS-
lor ofl and groaaa rtal'ba lUJifOtt
t mtoaMaMi aoW n*r
¦WMiMmgirfUBIlt
(2) Bar, billet and hkxam.
Subpart I
oad'
172
2.46
n
2.4ft
'WIS
(V
T«
QJM
o.i»
0.0*9
O
oto *
am
pW
<*

'71* tofti
float tor ct ¦* grm
¦ Mfta

The above limitations shall be
applicable to each fume scrubber
associated with a sulfuric add pickling
operation.
(b) Hydrochloric add pickling (spent
add solutions and rinse waters)*
(1) Rod, wire and coiL
Subpart I
¦Wan odd ptctSng awtaaaaan tn
"VWNn «w nnga at u to M
(4) Fume scrubbers.
Subpart]

BCT affluant MMtono
MMM 9 poMM praparty
Mfidmum
lor any l
dV
*naraaa
eldSi
vaiuaa far
90
oonafw
*oa*a
Nbpamaparday
Tar,,-
0.00791
ITh*	ta> ol and oraaaaatoN to apfflcg*
lw kU ptokflng MMMln Ifl MM wtti oom rotting
usewmtn.
• MW*> •» mnpa of10 ID tA
(4) Pipe, tube and other products.
Subpart I
Poautant or poAAnt (nparty
SCT (MUOM MUM
•Mm
•or m> 1
*v
irsK
«tu*!tar
30
fionaao^

Kg/Mg bounds Mr
1.000 M Of product
TftS
0l14S
CL0S1S
n
00913-
00204

pM

'Tha *r*mon lor o« and graaaa Ml b* ¦PP* tt»A
(2) Strip, sheet and plate.
Subpart 1
PaMmt or poMM pfQ9VV
BCT •nuoal tmmarm
MMIW»
tar mirl
m
Avanoa
Ot d mj gnat* to
¦W tCU |NW|) tMIVBM W
'Wmn tt* rang* ol 10 to SA.
The above limitations shall be
applicable to each fume scrubber
associated with a hydrochloricacid
pickling operation. -
(5) Acid regeneration.
Subpart!
V
Poiutant or pofttM proparty
BCT aflhurt MMom
Madnuit
tor any 1
o* daay
vaiuaa
30

Uogmpvdqr

3SJ
1«a
1&3
146
«
Af) 1
1*4

t #» rang* «* S» to Ml
(3) Pipe, tube and other products.
'Ttia tiiladttd tar of ao* i
VnactopicMng tammmtn i
•WWn ow tang* at SAto ml
The above limitations shall be
applicable to the absorber vent scrubber
wastewater assodated with
hydrochloric add regeneration plants.
(c) Combination add pickling (spent
add solution and rinse waters).
(1) Rod. wire, and colt
-------
Vgb 47>-Wb? m.fe'ThnaafrgfcMay 27,

~.-.V Kifli
. ~V45 _»
;• •&»
~ V>"*G+.
£* * ? m 	
K»Us (poundi pv
1,000 ti) or product-

(L22S.
&0SS4
_ n
nose*
aoazt
AM 1


'Tha MHm lor ol and yaaaa «¦« ba nMk
whan aort pcMhg antfaaaaa aca HMd aMh aaU ice*s
'IMMi taiwga « U t» SA
(6) Fume scnibben.
Subpart 1
Wum or poluMpnpv^
BCTaflkanl kmMloni
IUIMI
lor any 1
i^um nr
30
001—cu

K»o»araap«da»
Tftfl
5.78
146
n
246
0J10
(1
nam
pu

'Tha fciiHiBum tar ol «nd fiwM ba top
¦hw acid pcUn| MMMMn afa BwMd wtt cold
¦wmn ffw ranga of 1-0 to 9.(1
The above limitations shall be
applicable to each fume scrubber
associated with a combination add
pickling operation.
Subpart J—Cold PonninQ Subcategory
S 430.100 AppSeabONy; description of the
cold forming eubcatagoiy.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges and to the
introduction of pollutants into publicly
owned treatment works from cold
rolling and cold working pipe and tube
operations in which unheated steel is
passed through rolls or otherwise
processed to reduce its thickness, to
produce a smooth surface, or to develop
controlled mechanical properties in the
steeL
OLOSIS
oi>its
<>
9420.101
(a)	The term "recirculation" meant
those cold rolling-operations which
include recirculation of rolling solutions
at all mill stands.
(b)	The term "combination" means
those cold rolling operations which
include recirculation of rolling solutions
at one or more mill stands, and once-
through use of rolling solutions at the
remaining stand or stands.
I u „aij l 4 IV"
(c)	Tlw tarn "dbaot appttaatfcQ" .
means those cold roffliijf Operation?. .
which tnclude"«Bce-through use of f
rolling solutions at all Bill stand*.
(d)	The tafm."singie stand" means ¦
those recirculation or direct application
cold railing mills which include only one
stand of work rolls.
(e)	The tana "multiple stands'* means
those recirculation or direct application
cold rolling mills which include more
than one stand of work rolls.
(f)	The term "cold worked pipe and
tube" is sans thosecold fcJrming .
operations that processL unheated pipe
and tube products using either water or
oil solutions for cooling and lubrication,
{420.102 Effluent liwrtaBmie reprseenUng
the degree oi effluent reduction attainable
by the appacellon of the beat praMfhto
control technology cut i e rtfy eveaebM.
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 redaction attainable
by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently^
available. 		
(aJCbldroDUqfa^M^ * " ^
(1) Recirculation—single stand. :f»,
SutvwTJ
PoauM or poiuM .
&PT aflhant bnMoni
Martmum
lor wy 1
far
30
Md^l

K«m«^aun*pv
1,000 b) of product
TS*
aooi»
nrftftnat
ooooaot
ftOOONM
(LOOOOCOt-
0.000000^
OJOOOOCttt
n
nrremtf




"r**41
0.0000198

aooeoott

pH
04Q00031
S


'Tht fcmauni lor (twontm ond ntcM Ml tm
bte In Btu of thoMtar *—d Urine wtwrt oottf
MMMMn vi (tmM Mi 9 oonttMlon son
111 ia!g* at SlO Id (A -
(2) Recirculation—multiple stands.
Subpart J
Mum or poSuM pnpa*
BFT (MuaM MSSkm
SfSj"
.
3L
30
Mdov^i
T«
*Qf*Qp
ijwii
oiffidipw,
Jt '

aooiis
(L00104
0^000416
0.0000166
aooootia
run


0^)00104
1 *r*
ftlWWlM
M«<4r«l »

-------
/ VoL fir, No. 103 / Thursday. May 27; lflBa Rataw auk
8uWMTJr-Cofl*ued
SubwwtJL
" K- - -
- . %_ .
APT aMuant MUflono
'T" *
:,!¦** 1
3t
SB
7W>

A0MB1M

ftMM


s
r"
W


(2) RedtcBialliai nilllpia sUinda:
Subpart J -
MM* or peunl prap«V
lor tfvoffkn) and rkkal rfal b*
MUM • pattM
0PT «f(1uarg MMm
far any 1
**
«aftMB%r
90
9» day*
v
Kq/Mcq (poundi pv
1.0001*01 product
TW1
00751
00919
040129
0000099
000119
0000099
0.000128
I0WN
00379
00128
(tooosn
0000199
000097V
OOOOIS
run

tmmM
•



0
pM

!Tbt imni» ipr iiiimfcii and turn b»
bit In law of 0w» tar M «nd flnc whan eotf roflng
WtMMlWS OOfcWlad Vtt dMC^NQ Of oonttnMov
acid ptettnQ wtMtm
•ww* ranpa of 94 to 9A.
(4) Direct application—single stand.
SOBPAAT J
MM at peSutot prep**
BPT «fHu«nl MMm
Masdmum
tor any 1
**r
Avwiai
al dim
afcesfer
30
oonaacii

K9/H10 (pwida par
l,000b|4predijol
TM
ItMM
00119
000979
0.0001SO
0-000119
00000979

0.00939

OiXioa/t
' —
OOOOIflB
tfntmf1

7W.
0JJ90113







3


'T)k
i to ataato and ntoW >M M appto*-
ns «rfi«n ooW ml"
			j gr csnttitten i
Hi In In H toa to ml «nj Ifev afc«n ooW roeng
en «M
'Tte >nWi<» tar tfrafam mtf riOU M b»  04k
(b) Cold worked pipe and tube.
(1)	Using watty. No discharge of
process wastewater pollutants to
navigable waters.
(2)	Using oil solutions. No discharge
of process wastewater pollutants to
navigable waters.
i 420.103 Effluent Mtatione representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the sppiurtion of the beet avstfsMe
technology economlcafly i
(3) Combination.
9UVART J
Except as provided in 40 CFR125.30-
.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,
(a) Cold rolling mills.
(1) Recirculation—single stand.
Subpart J

wnrnmm .
to9uM or poMM prapa*.

AMrwa
at dtfv
vafciaa v
9> •
9wd^»

1,000 W of produtf

oboia
f) mm
0000901
q'Wtt
" —*
MrM 1
000*19
AfMMVe

000097V
OOQ0t99




0000>90




BAT«Mtmn>
IntaflofW
PoluM or polulirt preparer
Madmum
tartny 1
Avaraoa
at daw
vMa%r
30
oonwcu

K0/Mg (pswidi p«
1,000 •* 01 product
IWkN 1

onmrnnti


omwrtt

00000199


0.0000071



ft

(4) Direct application—single stand.
SubpsitJ
Po9uM or po9uM propartr
BAT affluMl «mna9ona
MuHw
Iv any 1
9V
NlMW
30
(Madav*

tpetfrti par
1^00 1 piaPiJ -

000097V
0009199
049999991
O0991T9
OOUB8W
• —<*
OiXXMO
*1*1111 ii
71m
0090tY9

0090997V
00000999
TafjMuiu^Hw.

(5) Direct application—multiple
stands.
-------
/ -Voif- 47. 108 /: Ttonday^May y> 1982 / RbIm and-Jbgalattw "t
SuWwMH5
i.	...
QumurrJ
•# • rptf.' «„¦<.»
Ndawmd
pdrtMnandi dvdMi
vji*. r > :
• - •
torST?
¦35,
»
oanaacu-
Ivddv*
8UBWWT J
M k !¦ d tMM lor Mad md ane ahdd add «•* podng iiihi
wmmmtm* mrnymmt *m d—tos ar uumUndSuw Id >*M*i t» i*ng> t* u to Ul
~ - '	(3) Combination.
(b) Cold worked pipe and tub*
(1)	Using water. No discharge of
process wastewater pollutants to
navigate waters
(2)	Using oil solutions. No discharge
of pracaaawastawatar pollutants to
navigable waters;
(42&10* New
The discharge of wastewater
itants from any new source subject
jis subpart shall not exceed the
standards sat forth below.
(a) Cold foiling mills.
(1) Recirculation—single stand. -
Subpart J
Pclutoni or pduam pra»w%
partonnanoa Mndvdi
ftMrun
lor any 1
Avngi
of dA
vafciaa far
30
Nd^i

Kg/Msg (peuidt pm
1.000 b) of pradwi
TM
aom«r~
&OOOOOM
*00000*1
¦ OQQQPgg
OLQH00S1
OM







9W.



"1 - 11^1111111111^^

S~~


lTh» Mtfoni lor ofararrtun arid nioM aha! to WpAo»
fata * to* * toi tar tod and *w whm odd roan»
dd pk*k««
•tMMiVar
k m euiiMmwi
inqialUfeU
(2) Recirculation—multiple stands.
MMant or pofluM popart*

tar any 1
sx
^toiaafar
90
oonaao»
flwdQ*

flpowda pv
1.0db fe) of product
TWI
0.0321
ooiei
QM4I
(LOOOS1F
aoooosu
0.00016*
(X0000642
in "*
'HO
0.0136


i«_4
&00Q244
UL*.l 1
a0004M
iw
000016)

0.0000643
aooooBis
r*?redicroe ootd ppanq
wdMM n MM adh dNGdh( or ocnttindlQii Mo
'"'•wifitn ff» rang* at &0 ID UL
(4) Direct application—single stand.
Subpart J
Pd6uM or poluM prapart
Naw aeuoa
tar any 1
toy
Avaraaa
of wr
Mbaatar
30
oonaauu
feadmt

Kg/Wg (powida par
1,000 fe) of predud
TM

000619
0^0104
00000416
OAnoiM
00000311
OJ0QOO1O4



0.000104

*fr^r
0^000030
O.OOOOJIJ
0.0000104
OittOOlM



s

ft


'Tha Imrtattona tor ctanhM and nfc** Ml to «piaft>
Ma In ftau o# thoaa tor ta«d and flne nhan cold
laMMtari ara traaiad iVi daaoain^ or umittafen n
pMHno watawatart.
•Wtnn tha rarga ol &0 to aa
(5) Direct eppticattos^-flmS^ile
stands. , ¦
Subpart J
«
parlorraanoa aiMvdi
Poflutanl or podutart prapartf
5?S!m
toy
iH,
30
Nd^a
		
Kq/Mq ^wndipv
IJOOO of pM*ar
TM
OlOTSB
'
1t flWf -
Aft/?
aoin
nmtoiti

040111
1 Mi
040Q646
0XW106
nnnmt
OH0O16S


ooooin

doooiti

QjOOOUC
•

r"
(V


'TO* >i«tn« tor otvaa*m and iMal M M «la
bid In Bm of HomJoi tad'mmSLmS
d» m is so.
(b) Cold worked pipe and tube mills.
(1)	Using watsr. No discharge of
process wastewater pollutants to
navigabla water*.:
(2)	Using oil solutions. No discharge- -
of process wastewater pollutants to
navigable waters.
1420.106 PietrertmenHlanJsr—log-
Except as provided in 40CFR 409if -
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
pre treatment standards for existing
sources.
(a) Cold rolling.
(1] Recirculation—single stand.
Subpart J

ftafMtnart todarti
Polutani or poMutvd praparty
MKtoMM
lor any 1
d«
«taaa«r
30
BOnwm
tta

(powto par
iWfcf of pwrtrt




oon
ft
»T' n«
ojooocnm
AMMMt
7bw
nnrrnQt|





00000861

¦Thd fciMlud tar crnmuR aid rtofcat Mi bd
tk In hu ol Odd* tor lad M ano andn odd
¦MiiMMiri ara traatod adh dntatog or oan
(2) Recirculation—multiple stands.
:a.
-------
Fadaraf Register ^VoK 47, No. 103 / Thnraday, May 27,19»' / Rnfag and Regulation* 23913'
SUBPART,*
SUWAffTj
Susrwrra
TCf »='¦
ft or
ages!.
.rav.tfs^:
MUM or
tor adatng aaureaa
KBftHl (MMUHda par
1.0091* a* product
Kg/ttg (poundi par
1.000 fctafs
1 Tha MMona to linuKun and (MM Ml ba w*>
bla In Mu of M to laad aid dne atari ookt
(3) Combination.
Subpart J
PoMutant or pofcoit proparty
Pfattaatmanl ttndvdi
tor coaBng aouoaa
Mdrinun
tar any 1
*y
Avaraoa
of daw
valuaa far
30
ouri—uu
tfca day*
.
Kg/ttfl (pounds par
1,000 to) d product

0JXJ128
0.000669
000113
0.000976
&000126
0.000166
0.000501
0.000168
0.000376
0.000129
Immf
MMnl »
7W-





'Tha mfcattona tar cfvorrium and ricM thai ba Tptca-
ttfa in lau d thoaa tar laad and zinc whan cold rotaQ
wastawadrt vv traaiad wtth daacaAno or add
(4) Direct application—single stand.
Subpart J
Poiuttnt or poflutant proparty
PvMtnant atandarda
tor nstng aouroaa
toranyT
Avaraga
of m
vatum tar
30
oonaatu
6w d>ya
Kq/Uiq (powto par
1.000 t» d product
Omrtm'
Zktt._
Tatraertoroathj*
OOOOS76
ami as
o.oooMa
QJJ00118
04000376
QJOOOflM
aoooiso
0.0000669
0.000113
0.0000970
•Tha MMona tar dvamfcin
• In Im d tKM tar iMd
and nIM Ml ba
and *c whan oold
daacainQ or cofflttHitew
(5) Direct application—multiple
stands.
Tha UMii to cMomkn and nfckal M ba u	
bla In tm of tftoaa to laad and dne atwi coM (cans
n>NM dnolng or aomttnrtort acta
(b) Cold worked pipe and tube mills.
(1)	Using water. No discharge of
process wastewater pollutants to
publicly owned treatment works.
(2)	Using oil solutions. No discharge
of process wastewater pollutants to
publicly owned treatment works.
{ 420.106 PretiMtiiiwU standards for new
Except as provided in 40 CFR } 403.7,
any new source subject to this subpart
which introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and
achieve the following pretreatment
standards for new sources.
(a) Cold rolling.
(1) Recirculation—single stand.
SUBPART J
Poiutant or polMnt proparty
Pratraatmant ctandvda
for rmi aoucaa
Uaadmum
tor any 1
day
Avaraaa
of dak
vafuaa for
30
oonaacu-
tfra day*

Kg/tog (pouidi par
1,000 fc),d produol

00000206
0.0000064
aooooosi
0.0000063
0.0000021

MinkM >
0.0000166
0.0000063
00000021
7W*.
»>i'| im	

aooooosi



lTha HmiaBuna tor chromium and niofcd thai ba appflo*
bla in liau d thoaa tor laad and the whan odd roinq
wutawatar* ara vaatad idth daacainQ or corndraflon ado
pcfckng iwitawtari.
(2) Recirculation—multiple stands.
vduaatar
30
Poflutant or pdUvt proparty
^Tr'asr*
?
MUMUI
tar ary 1
Awn
SSL
30
oonaao^
t^adaj*

K0/t*g (poundtpar
1,000 d produol

0j0000416
0.0000116
r. .
poop
i
1

p p o |





•Tha MWtana tar dauniaa and nfcfcd what ba applet
da In lao at Xoaa tar hadm* rinc whanedd roSng
vaatamin ara taflad vflh daacainQ or oorttataaflon add
(3) Combination.
Subpart J
Poautar* 9 peMam prapany
Piaaaauin atanttrda
tor rmm aauraaa'
Mtadmum
tar any 1
(toy-
AMraoa
dddy
wdunte
30
6m««b

Kq/Ueq ^awdp par
1,000 t*d product

0.000643
0UJ00844-
a000217
0.0606914
0000168
0i000064t

firhd 1
nnnrw^f

0000161

0.0000642
0.0000613


i na waaona w cmniin ano nma w ov
Ua in lau d thoaa tar laad and dnc nftan cotd reflnQ
wutnaM ara taatad wtfi daacainQ or ooMMtti add
(4} Direct application—single stand.
Subpart J
Poiutant or polutant proparty
PiatiaaUK HwtaiUi
tor nav aoueaa
Mrtww
tor any 1
**
Avaraoa
30
conaaou
to daya
Kp/ttQ pom* par
1,000 b) d product

0.000104
a0000416
a0000156
04000313
00000104

kMdll


0.0000913

OJJ000104






¦Tha Bnttaiona tar ohromium and nicfcaf tfwfl b»
da ¦> Mau d tftoaa tar laad and _dnc whan ootd
wastawaftam ara traatad vritfi daacainQ or cotndndtan
(5] Direct application—multiple
stands.
-------
Thursday. Miy; V, Ut2^ lhdH>
ofthe
Ibeeept as provided In 40 CFR 12JL30-
.32. any existing point source subject to
thi» subpart must achieve the following
efBaaoi limitations representing the
degree of effluent redaction attainable
by the application of the best
conventional technology.
U) Cold rolling mills.
(1) Recirculation—singla stand.
Subpart.)

BCT aAanl fciflattuiia
NSUMSIarpoSuURRt
far any 1
«
vriuaafcr
30
con—tu-
tfca'•-<-" -v-
'» J-. .
PolulMor poMrtpeparty
ii
tar any 1
rsx
vahiaawr
- 30*
nonmi
l»diya

Kg/kkg (pom* par
1/100 fe) of product

(L0082S
[ 040313
i 0.00104
AAA
0.00261
OubpaW J Ca*wd
mXc
kMttirtittlMtii..
Sr	"SmmoTmS
t (b^Cold worked pipe aid tube mills.
,\ (1) Using watu. No dilchargB of
praoeee-wastwatar pollutants to publicly
owned treatment works.
UJ Ueingail ss/ations. No discharge
of n«oas*waatsnvatar pollutants to
paaBely owned toatimmrwarica.
H*EWT
558
4
'lor any 1
fii'l!

«
(1

¦MB* t* onfft OlAO ID Ml
(3) Combination.
Subpart J
ftauttnt or poflutont prooar*
acr«M
lor any 1
St
30
comma*
IffdM

Kg/Mg txjunda par
1.000 M a) profciat
TRft
0 0751
0J031J
O
04970
04180
3

pM

'WMMn tw ranga of LO to 84l
(4) Direct application—single stand
Subpart J

— I—mill III rMinii
PolluiaWor poUanl property
Martrmfn
tar any i
Hay
'i df
vahMBfcr
30
uwm
Kg/kkg [poundi par
1,0001» of product
TSS.
OAQ .
pH..
0,0229
0.00M#
O
#» m (t SjO 10 IA.
(5) Direct application—multiple
stands.
Subpart J
PoAjtont or poiuttnt propwty
BCT anuart HWaUum
Mtodmuni
tor any 1
(toy
2*3?
viA
30
ccnaacu
day*

Kg/hko par
1400 to) of poduot -
T*S
0.100
0.0417
04601
04187

pM

'WlMn 9m rangt of 64) to 84.
(b) Cold worked pipe and tube.
(1]	Using water. No discharge of
process wastewater pollutants to
navigable waters.
(2)	Using oil solutions. No discharge
of process wastewater pollutants to
navigable waters.
Subpart K
The provisions of this subpart artr
applicable to discharges and to the
introduction of pollutants Into publicly
owned treatment works resulting from
operations in whjch steel and Steel
products are immersed in allmHnw
rlanninj baths to remove mineral and
animal fats or oils from the steel, and.
those rinsing operations which follow
such immersion^ '
0.0113
0-0057B
(1
{420.111
(a)	The term "batch" meansihose '
alkaline cleaning operations wUcfc-
process steel products such as coiled
wire, rods, and tubes in discrete batches
or bundles.	^ f
(b)	Hie term "contfitobua" means
those alkaline denning operations
which process steel products other than
in discrete batches or bra dies.
{ 420.112 Effluent fcnMsttone lepreeenUm
the degree of effluent reduction atMnaMs.
by ttw appleatlen of Mm beat pracflcabMc i.
oontrol technology wieiiBy svsBsblaL '
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125JO-
.32, any existing point source sublet to .
this subpart must achieve the tallowing^
effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently
available.	¦*"" '
(a) Batch.
Subpart K-


Pofcitont or polutont praparty
MnAiun
lor any 1
«
vtouaa nr
30
CUtoOU
Md^l
Kg/kfcg toouM p*
1,000 fc| m product
OtO.
PH-
0.0730
awn
O
00311
0-OUM
»
'WBNn tfiarangao»*0to9.0.
(b) Continuous.
Subpart K

BPTafeartMtottM*
Potmartt or poMutont prapviy
Udnn
tor any 1
vaiuaator
10.



KQ/ttQ (pomll par
1400 to) of produott
T$S	
0.1Q2 04438
OAQ	
04438 I 04148
-------
Fwlmiil Register / Vol. 47, No. 103 / Thursday. May 27, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 23315
Subpart K—Continued
" 4
WT«*wtamMem
#5?
. t"
JMHI
SSL
ao
•Adq*
pH	

<1
¦«m «¦ mgt ot M • Ul
9 miri tinBMvMnnoniraprvMnrnQ
||u	--J , -H a -
uii QVyH ov vnuni wwcoon inwiw
uj on	ot on bmi iybhw
tidinolOQif soBnonkM^ soMtviMib
The Agency has determined that there
are not significant quantities of toxic
pollutants in alkaline cleaning
wastewaters after compliance with
applicable BPT limitations. Accordingly,
since the BPT level of treatment
provides adequate control the Agency
is not promulgating more stringent BAT
limitations.
S 420.114 Hew aouroe performance
The discharge of wastewater
pollutants from any new source subject
to this subpart shall not exceed the
standards set forth below.
(a) Batch, and continuous.
SubpartK

Not aoiroo




Am
PoButant or poNutonft properly

of 
-------
Wi 47T No. 1 / Thttrtdgy, May 27, 1982'/,

J



.
*1
«>» .


i^r. —

r
... oasts


I*4
** • •
0,0927
-c (i
00100
(1

	
- -fl . T *»-*».. ~.i ' ••.
—	• .	1
The above timltsHnns shall b>.
applicable to each fiyne wrobbar
associated with any w the ooatlag.
operaJrlanaipBCiflarf ebavq,
{420.123 Effluent
the degree of
0^ biv ^pionvii Of «W DOTS
Except as provided tn 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.
(a) Galvanizing, tens coating and
other coatings.
(1] Strip, sheetpaad miscellaneous
.products scrubbers.
Subpart L
PdHart¦¦ -tH-*	-l-nw—II
•^gawrtett	¦ t*
, •	-•• ,	.	- mm
PeWWW.,RW
BAT MMtfi
Msdnun
•or my 1
Of
St
30
Qcm—qi-

Kg/ttfl Sxxnli pw
ijOOO of poduel

000461
000300
0.000801
oooiso
0^)0100
CLOOCODO



(c) Fume scrubbers.
SubpartL

BAT aMumi MMtona
pQflutwt or poMrt proparty
Itedmun
lor mf 1
Ami
of dtfr-
vakiaanr.
30
oonaaou-
M days

Kflparctar

0,0900
O012S
ooom
0^0183

0XB46
OOfHW



The discharge of wastewater
pollutants from any new source subject
to this subpart shall not exceed the
standards set forth below.
(a) Galvanizing, teme coating and
other coatings.
(1) Strip, sheet, and miscellaneous
products.
SubpartL
MjM oi poftM propanj
MM*
lor any 1
inx
30
lM4o»

K0^*Q Pm
1.000 M 01 ppoduol
n»

&OTM

OjOIM
i —~
nnmoBf



TflflfTTTIMffl
Oponftao f*—
fM
0,000007*
oooooia
n


'Tbs tmftalona kw Mm
Ma arty to ja»—Itfitf
I dMMfe* I
(bj GalV«sd^<^<^a6athigs.
(lj Wfifc£racbcEs and faatsnen.
8wwmi-
a •
Ww» «OUH3>
partanian9a tondwdi
y
WUM orpoftKM prapvtr
IWnni
lor any 1
sac
i^m tar
X



•n»	lor »nw rtrarturn ih«» b» i. .
to	is opamoni Mich dtacfivsi
" 11 t J*"	>ri^ j-
. 9	WWS
ou.
ZVw_
OtowHuw ftmi'awft.'-
pH	:	
oitb .
0.0791' :
been*
ojooont
sjomso
ir - - iv *
um'-i
oaatr
ojukbH
CL0000RM
i tor ha
•TfM
I* only to yauMtiHg
•¦tmm taitatfnaaimi
'WMNn V»JVnS*.of4K) to OA
[c) Fume scrubbers.'**1 **' V
' 'itl *. ¦ :¦* r
SUwwtrl
•Th» MMtan* tor hBMtant crtwrtum bt mmlcm-
ony ii 9•*¦""9 aparoona
The above limitations shall be
applicable to each fame scrubber
associated with any of the coating
operations specified above.
5 420.124 New source performance


"rKium«orpdhih«-
•**"* " -J


•l "r"
lity*


tar any t
/

TRfl
&7t
2y««
OOMS
OMtO
0.004S0
rt
041*
041S*
ooosi*
0001
to this subpart which introduces _ „ ¦
pollutants into a publicly owned-,
treatment works mast comply with 40> 4
CFR Part 403 and achieve the following «
pretreatment standards for existing.
sources.
of to «jQ.
(a)
other ooetings.'
(1) Strip, sheet and
products..
-------
Federal Register 7 Vol. 47, No. 103 / Thursday, May 27, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 23317
SubpartL
piaaaamw* iiaidanja tar artaflng
niM
Potent or poflutant
PUPI^
tor any 1
Am
otdSf
vtfuaator
30
conaacu
9* day*

*9/1*9 $omda par
1,000 to) of prodint

0.00113
0000751
0000190
0.000376
0.000290
0,0000601
7fcw


lTha >»*afluna tor hMMtant uhrtjitton ahafl ba ante*-
Ma or*f to upaiaflom vrtttfc Oamarga
v«aia«a*an ton tha tfromaia nnaa alap.
(b) Galvanizing and other coatings,
(lj Wire products and fasteners.
Subpart L
PoManl or pcauamt proparty
PntniMft atandarda
tor anatoig aourcaa
Matirrum
tor any 1
day
A\*raga
of daily
wakm for
30
conaacu
twa day*

Kg/tog (porta par
1,000 to) ol product
i —
0.00451
OJXOOO
0.000601
0.00150
000100
0000200



'TTw fci*aflm» tor run ttmn chomn thai ba appttea*
bto orty to yahaiitfiu oparanona dtocnaiy
mMmIvi (rum tfw dvonM Aw atap.
(c) Fume scrubbers.
Subpart L
MkJttnt or po*u)aa preparty
PiMubfiart rtandarda
tor ooaang sources
Mnmun
tor any 1
<*1
Awm
of daSi
vaiuea tor
30
conaacu-
bva days

Kg par day
»—rf
111
boo
0 0123
000019
000163
7i«G		 .


'H» IjulaBuna tor him mini ohrorriun M ba
Ha or~» lo yiltumitf wnmiun onch
' ntudraiMiiiNikfi
The above limitations shall be
applicable to each fume scrubber
associated with any of the coating
operations specified above.
S 420.126
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 pre treatment
standards for new sources:
(a) Galvanizing, teme coatings and
other coatings.
(1) Strip, sheet and miscellaneous
products.
Subpart l
PoMnt or poflutant proparty
Prattaatmant atandarda
tornawaouoaa
Utodmum
tor any 1
<*y
Avaraoa
of d«3y
vatuaa wr
30
conaacu-
ttva daya

Kg/tog (potnfe par
1.000 to) of product
1 mmA
0.000262
0.0000039
0.0000626
0.0000125


0.0000376
lTha Imttflona for haxavaiant chromtm ahafl ba
Ma onfy to flUvinun oparattona dtacharga
«aataa«tara from tha chromtto nrtaa atap.
(b) Galvanizing and other coatings.
(1) Wire products and fasteners.
Subpart L
Pollutant or poflutant proparty
Piauaauiwm
tor naw aouroaa
Modnwn
tor any 1
Avaraoa
of dtfy
vtfuaator
X
conaacu
tfra daya

Kg/tog (pounda par
1,000 to) of product

0.00T13
0.000751
0.000150
0.000376
0.000250
0.0000501

ntvrvrmwn »
'Tha Smrtattant tor haxavatont chromium ahafl ba appfiea-
bta only to qaKanmng oparabona nMi dtscnarga
waatawatart from tha chroinata ma atap.
(c) Fume scrubbers.
SubpartL
Poflutant or poflutant proparty
Pratraatmant standarda
for naw aourcea
Maj*T*an
tor any 1
4*1
Avaraoa
of dam
values tor
30
oonaacu»
ttva daya

KMoyama par day
1 aaH
0.036$
0 0245
0.00490
00123
0.00819
0.00163

QvomUn Q**a»atorO ,_
•Tha Bmrtaaona for
M only to QiMnonQ
weswreiES torn the -
effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best
conventional technology.
(a) Galvanizing, terne cdating, and
other coatings.
(1) Strip, sheet and miscellaneous
products.
SuspartL
Poauant or poauant proparty
8CT aMum >imun
Madmum
tor any 1
day
Avaraga
0< itSf
vttumlar
30
day*
Kg/tog (pouida par
1.000 to) at product
TSS-
o*a.
ph-
0179
0.0791
(1
0.0791
aozso
ft
"Mttn to fang* ol SJ> Id ».0i
fb) Galvanizing and other coatings.
(1) Wire products and fasteners.
Subpart L
ctvomun ahafl ba apptica-
oparsttona otmh dtacnarga
The above limitations shaU be
applicable to each fume scrubber
associated with any of the coating
operations specified above.
{ 420.127 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the beet conventional
technology.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
.32, any existing point source subject to
this subpart must achieve the following
Poautan! or polutont proparty
BCT afllaant
matottona
Marimum
tor any t
Awaiana
ofdSy
vAiaa tor
30
conaacu
*»adaya

K^/kkg (pound! pa^
1J0W to) of prodk^

0.701
0.30?
0.100
run
0.300

(t


1WWHn tha ranga of 6.0 to 9.0.
(c) Fume scrubbers.
Subpart L
Poflutant or poflutant proparty
BCT affluam HHimn
Maidmun
tor any 1
Avaraoa
of dm
vatoaa tor
30
conaacu
9m daya
Kloorama par day
TRH
36.1
16J
1&3
S.45
rurt
pM

The above limitations shall be
applicable to each fume scrubber
associated with any of the coating
operations specified above.
[FR Doc. aa-l«17 Fllad 5-B-HC Ml am)
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Official Business
Penalty tor Private U»
MOO
Fourth-Class Mail
Postage and Feet Paid
EPA
Permit Mb. 6-38
Washington DC 20480
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: MAR 3 1283
>ub*
Iron A Steel Effluent Guidelines Settlement Agreement	f
t-
FROM:
Steven Schatzow, Directo
Office of Water Regulations & Standards (WH-551)
TO:
All Regional Administrators
All State Directors
( 1
The Environmental Protection Agency has recently entered into a settlement
agreement with the American Iron & Steel Institute, various steel companies
and the Natural Resources Defense Council, which resolved all challenges
raised with respect to the effluent limitations and standards promulgated
for the iron and steel manufacturing point source category (published on
May 27, 1982; 47 FR 23258). I have enclosed a copy of the agreement.
Pursuant to the agreement, the parties have requested the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals to stay the effectiveness of those provisions of the
regulation identified in Exhibit B. The parties also agreed that each
amendment and preamble provision contained in Exhibits B and C will be
treated as a duly promulgated rule or interpretation until EPA has taken
final action on each respective provision (see Paragraph 6). The members
of the steel industry which are parties to the agreement are listed on page
1 (fn. 1) of the agreement.
If you have any questions regarding this matter you may contact Mr. Terry Oda
at (215) 597-8911 or Mr. Gary Amendola at (216) 835-5200.
?«JPr ,
EPA Form 1320-6 (R.V. 3-76)
-------
(Revised 4/18/84)
IRON AND STEEL
CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
This summary provides industries In the Iron and Steel category and
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) with the information necessary to
determine compliance with pretreatment standards for this industrial category.
The Iron and Steel categorical standards were established by the Environmental
Protection Agency in Part 420 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(40 CFR 420). This summary is not intended to substitute for the regulations
published in the Code of Federal Regulations or the Federal Register. For
specific information, refer to the Federal Register citations given below.
Important Dates
Proposed Rule: January 7, 1981
Final Rule: May 27, 1982
Effective Date: July 10, 1982
Final Rule Amendments:
June 7, 1982
September 22, 1982
October 14, 1983
Correction Notices:
November 10, 1983
November 14, 1983
Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR)
Due Date: January 6, 1983
Compliance Dates:
Federal Register Citation
Vol.
46,
P«
1858, January 7, 1981
Vol.
47,
P»
23258, May 27, 1982
Vol.
47,
P*
24554, June 7, 1982
Vol.
47,
P«
41738, September 22, 1982
Vol.
48,
P«
46942, October 14, 1983
Vol.
48,
P-
51647, November 10, 1983
Vol.
48,
P«
51773, November 14, 1983
-	Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES): July 10, 1985
-	Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS): July 10, 1985
SUBCATEGORIES. SIC CODES, AND REGULATED POLLUTANTS
The Iron and Steel industry has been divided into twelve subcategories.
The subcategories are listed below, along with the SIC codes for the indus-
tries and the pollutants regulated under each subcategory.
Subcategory
A. Cokemaking
SIC Codes*
3312
Regulated Pollutants
Ammonia, Cyanide, Phenols
(4AAP)
B. Sintering
3312
Ammonia, Cyanide, Phenols
(4AAP), Lead, Zinc
~Industries in SIC group 3312 that are engaged in coil coating, other than hot
dipcoating, are not regulated under the Iron and Steel categorical standards.
-1-
-------
IRON AND STEEL (cont.)
C.	Ironmaking
D.	Steelmaking
E.	Vacuum Degassing
F.	Continuous Casting
G.	Hot Forming
H.	Salt Bath Descaling
I.	Acid Pickling
J.	Cold Forming
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coating
3312
3312
3312
3312
3312, 3315,
3317
3312, 3315,
3317
3312, 3315,
3317
3316
3312,	3315,
3316,	3317
3312,	3315,
3317
Ammonia, Cyanide, Phenols
(4AAP), Lead, Zinc
Lead, Zinc
Lead, Zinc
Lead, Zinc
Chromium, Nickel, Cyanide
Chromium, Nickel, Lead, Zinc
Chromium, Lead, Nickel, Zinc,
Naphthalene, Tetrachloroethy-
lene
Hexavalent Chromium, Lead,
Zinc
-2-
-------
IRON AND STEEL (cont.)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES (PSES)
POLLUTANT LIMITS (In kg/Kkg of product unless otherwise noted)
Subpart

Aanonta
Phenol
Chlorine (4AAP)
Naphtha-
lene
Tet rachloro-
ethylene Chroniua
Cyanide
(Total)
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Hexavalent
Chroaiua
A. Cokemaktng 1
1. Iron and Steel
Ave.
Max.
0,0322
0.0645
0.0215
0.043


0.00859
0.0172




2
2. Merchant
Ave.
Max.
0.0375
0.0751
0.025
0.0501


0.0100
0.0200




3. Beehive*
B. Sintering^
Ave.
Max.
0.00501
0.0150
0.0000501
0.000100


0.00150
0.00300
0.000150
0.000451

0.000225
0.000676

C. Ironaaklng
Iron
Ave.
Max.
0.00292
0.00876
0.0000292
0.0000584


0.000876
0.00175
0.0000876
0.000263

0.000131
0.000394

Perro-
nangnnese*
D. Steelaaklng
I. Basic Oxygen
Furnace
(BOP): Seni-
wet*
2.
B0F: Wet-open
Ave.
0.000138
0.000207


Max.
0.000413
0.000620
3.
BOF: Wet-
Ave.
0.0000626
0.0000939

suppressed
Max.
0.000188
0.000282
4. Open Hearth
Furnace: Wpt*
-------
IRON AND STEEL (cont.)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES (PSES) (Continued)
POLLUTANT LIMITS (in- kg/Kkg of product unless otherwise noted)
Phenol	Naphtha- Tetrachloro-	Cyanide	Hexavalent
Subpart	Anonla Chlorine (4AAP)	lene	ethylene	Chroalua (Total) Lead	Nickel	Zinc Chroalua
5. Electric Arc
Furnace (EAF):
Se»l-wet*

6. EAF: Wet
Ave.
Max.


0.000138
0.000413

0.000207
0.000620
E.
Vacuus
Degassing
Ave.
Max.


0.0000313
0.0000939

0.0000469
0.000141
F.
Continuous
Casting
Ave.
Max.


6.0000313
0.0000939

)
0.0000469
0.000141
G.
Hot Foralng**






H.
Salt Bath
Descaling







a. Oxidizing -
1. Batch, Sheet
and Plate
Ave.
Max.
0.00117
0.00292


0.000876
0.00263


2. Batch, Rod
and Hire
Ave.
Max.
0.000701
0.00175


0.000526
0.00158


3. Batch, Pipe
and Tube
Ave.
Max.
0.00284
0.00709


0.00213
0.00638


4. Continuous
Ave.
Max.
0.000551
0.00138


0.000413
O.OOI24


h. Reducing -
1• Batch
Ave.
Max.
0.000542
0.00136
0.000339
0.00102

0.000407
0.00122


2, Continuous
Ave.
Max.
0.00304
0.00759
0.00190
0.00569

0.00228
0.00683

-------
IRON AND STEEL (cont.)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTINC SOURCES (PSES) (Continued)
POLLUTANT LIMITS (In kg/Kkg of product unless otherwise noted)
Phenol	Naphtha- Tetrachloro-	Cyanide	Hexavalant
Subpart	Anaonla Chlorine (4AAP)	lene	ethylene	Chroalua (Total) Lead	Nickel	Zloc Chroalua
I. Acid Pickling
a. Sulfuric
Acid Pickling -
1. Rod, Wire,
and Coll
Ave.
Max.
0.000175
O.OOOS26
0.000234
0.000701
2.
Bar, Billet,
and Blooa
Ave.
Max.
0.0000563
0.000169
0.0000751
0.000225
3.
Strip,
Sheet,
and Plate
Ave.
Max.
0.000113
0.000338
0.000150
0.000451
4.
Pipe, Tube,
and Other
Ave.
Max.
0.000313
0.000939
0.000417
0.00125
5.
Fuae 4
Scrubber
(kg/day)
Ave.
Max.
0.0123
0.0360
0.0164
0.0491
b. Hydrochloric
Acid Pickling -
1. Rod, Wire,
and Coll
Ave •
Max.
0.000307
0.000920
0.000409
0.00123
2.
Strip,
Sheet,
and Plate
Ave.
Max.
0.000175
0.000526
0.000234
0.000701
3.
Pipe, Tube,
and Other
Ave
Max.
0.000638
0.00192
0.000851
0.00255
4.
Puoie j
Scrubber
Ave.
Max.
0.0123
0.0368
0.0164
0.0491
5.
Acid Re- ^ Ave.
generation Max.
(Absorber
went scrubber)
(kg/day)
0.0819
0.245
0.109
0.0327
-------
IROW AHP STEEL (cont.)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES (PSES) (Continued)
POLLUTANT LIMITS (In kg/Kkg of product unless otherwise noted)
Subpsrt
Aononla Chlorine
Phenol	Nsphtha- Tetrachloro-	Cyanide
(4AAP)	lene	ethylene	Chronlun (Total)
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Hex*valent
Chromiua
Combination
Acid Pickling
1. Rod, Hire, Ave.
and Coll	Max.
0.000852
0.00213
0.000638
0.00192
2. Bar, Billet, Ave.
and Blooa Max.
0.000384
0.000960
0.000288
0.000864
3. Strip, Sheet, Ave.
and Plate - Max.
Continuous
0.00250
0.00626
0.00188
0.00563

i
4. Strip, Sheet, Ave.
and Plate - Max.
Batch
0.000768
0,00192
0.000576
0.00173
5. Pipe, Tube, Ave.
and Other Max.
0.00129
0.00322
0.000964
0.00289
6. Fuse	Ave.
Scrubber	Max.
(kg/day)
0.0327
0.0B19
0.0245
0.0735
J. Cold Foralng
a. Cold Rolling
1. Reclrcula- Ave.
tlon. Single Max.
Stand
0.0000021 0.0000031
0.0000084
0.0000209
0.0000031
0.0000094
0.0000063 0.0000021
0.0000188 0.0000063
2. Reclrcula- Ave.
tlon, Multl- Max.
pie Stands
0.0000104 0.0000156
0.0000418
0.000104
0.0000156 0.00003(3 0.0000104
0.0000469 0.0000939 0.0000313
3. Combination Ave.
Max.
0.000125 0.000188
0.000501
0.00125
0.000188 0.000376 0.000125
0.000563 0.00113 0.000376
-------
IRON AND STEEL (cont.)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTINC SOURCES (PSES) (Continued)
POLLUTANT LIMITS (In kg/Kkg of product unless otherwise noted)
Phenol	Naphtha- Tetrnchloro-	Cyanide	Hexavalent
Subpart	Aoaonla Chlorine (4AAP)	lene	ethylene	Chromium (Total) Lead	Nickel	Zinc Chroalua
4. Direct
Application, Ave.
Single	Max.
Stand
0.0000376 0.0000563
0.000150
0.000376
0.0000563
0.000169
0.000113
0.000338
0.0000376
0.000113
Direct	Ave.
Application, Max.
Multiple
Stand
O.000167 0.000250
0.000668
0.00167
0.000250
0.000751
0.000501
0.00150
0.000167
0.000501
b.
Cold Worked
Pipe and Tube
Mills
K. Alkaline
Cleaning**
L. Hot Coating
a. Galvanizing
and Other
Coatings -
Strip, Sheet,
and Misc.
Ave.
Max.
0.000376
0.00113
0.00050
0.00150
0.0000501
0.000150
b. Galvanizing - Ave.
Hire Products Max.
and Fasteners
0.00150
0.00451
0.00200
0.00601
0.000200
0.000601
Fuae
Scrubbers
(kg/day)
Ave.
Max.
0.0123
0.0368
0.0164
0.0491
0.00163
0.00490
Ave. " Average of dally values for 30 consecutive days
Max. ¦ Maximum for an/ one day
•This subpart Is reserved.
**No numerical limits were established for Industries In this subcategory. However, they are subject to the General Pretreatment Standards In 40 CFR 403.
-------
IRON AND STEEL (cont.)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS POR EXISTING SOURCES (PSES) (Continued)
'increased loadings, not to exceed 24 percent of these standards, are allowed for by-product coke plants that have wet desulfurlzatlon systeas, but only to
the extent that such systems generate an Increased effluent voluae. Increased loadings, not to exceed 58 percent of these standards, are allowed for
by-product coke plants thst have Indirect aaaonla recovery systeas, but only to the extent that such systeas generate an Increased effluent voluae.
1
Increased loadings, not to exceed 21 percent of these standards are sllowed for by-product coke plants that have wet desulfurlzatlon systeas, but only to
the extent that such system generste an Increased effluent volune. Increased loadings, not to exceed SO percent of these standards, are allowed for
by-product coke plants that have Indirect aaaonla recovery systens, but only to the extent that such systeas generate an Increased effluent voluae.
^The standards for aanonla-N, cyanide, and phenols (4AAP) are applicable only when alnterlng wastewater Is treated along with lronaaklng wastewater.
4
These Halts apply to each fuse scrubber associated with sulfuric acid pickling operations.
Vhese Halts apply to each fuae scrubber associated with hydrochloric acid pickling operations.
6
These Halts apply to absorber vent scrubber wastewater associated with hydrochloric acid regeneration plants.
^For processes regulsted by Subpart J, the llalta on chromlua and nickel apply In lieu of the Halts on lesd and zinc when cold rolling wastewaters are
treated with descaling or coabtnatlon acid pickling waters.	1
00 8
I Discharges froa these operstlons to Publicly Owned Treataent Vorks are prohibited.
-------
IRON AND STEEL (cont.)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES (PSNS)
POLLUTANT LIMITS (in kg/Kkg of product unless otherwise noted)
Subpart

Aoaonta
Phenol
Chlorine (4AAP)
Naphtha-
lene
Tetrachloro-
ethylene Chroalua
Cyanide
(Total)
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Hexavalent
Chroaiua
A.
Cokeaaking |
1. Iron and Steel
Ave.
Max.
0.0322
0.0645
0.0215
0.043


0.00859
0.0172





2. Merchant*
Ave*
Max.
0.0375
0.0751
0.025
0.0501


0.0100
0.0200




3. Beehive*
B.
Sintering1
Ave.
Hax.
0.00501
0.0150
0.0000501
0.000100


00.00501
0.00100
0.000150
.0.000451

0.000225
0.000676
1
C.
Ironaaking
1. Iron
Ave.
Hax.
0.00292
0.00876
0.0000292
0.0000584


0.000292
0.000584
0.0000730
0.000219

0.0000876
0.000263

2. Ferro-
aanganese*
D.
Steelaaking
1. Basic Oxygen
Furnace
(BOF): Seal-
wet*











2. BOF: Wet-open
Ave.
Max.





0.000138
0.000413

0.000207
0.000620


3. BOF: Wet-
suppressed
Ave.
Hax.





0.0000626
0.000188

0.0000939
0.000282

4. Open Hearth
Furnace: Wet*
-------
IRON AHP STEEL (cont.)
PRETREATHENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES (PSNS) (Continued)
POLLUTANT LIMITS (In kg/Kkg of product unless otherwise noted)
Phenol	Naphtha- Tetrachloro-	Cyanide	Hexavalent
Subpart	Amonla Chlorine (4AAP)	lene	ethylene	Chroalua (Total) Lead	Nickel	Zinc Chroalua
5. Electric Arc
Purnace (CAP):
Seal-wet*

6. EAF: Wet
Ave.
Max.


0.000138
0.000413

0.000207
0.000620
E.
Vacuua
Degassing
Ave.
Max.


0.0000313
0.0000939

0.0000469
0.000141
P.
Continuous
Casting
Ave.
Max.


0.0000313
0.0000939

j
0.0000469
0.000141
G.
Hot Poralng**






H.
Salt Bath
Descaling







a. Oxidizing -
1. Batch, Sheet
and Plate
Ave.
Max.
0.00117
0.00292


0.000876
0.00263


2. Batch, Rod
and Hire
Ave.
Max.
0.000701
0.00175


0.000526
0.00158


3. Batch, Pipe
and Tube
Ave.
Hax.
0.00284
0.00709


0.00213
0.00638


4. Continuous
Ave.
Hax.
0.000551
0.00138


0.000413
0.00124


b. Reducing -
1. Batch
Ave.
Hax.
0.000542
0.00136
0.000339
0.00102

0.000407
0.00122


2. Continuous
Ave.
Hax.
0.00304
0.00759
0.00190
0.00569

0.00228
0.00683

-------
I ROW AND STF.RL (cant.)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES (PSNS) (Continued)
POLLUTANT LIMITS (In kg/Kkg of product unless otherwise noted)
Phenol	Naphtha- Tetrachloro-	Cyanide	HexavalenC
Subpart	Aaaonla Chlorine (4AAP)	lene	ethylene	Chrotnlua (Total) Lead	Nickel	Zinc Chroalua
1. Acid Pickling
a. Sulfuric
Acid Pickling -
I. Rod, Wire, Ave.
and Coll	Max.
0.0000313
0.0000939
0.0000417
0.000125
2. Bar, Billet, Ave.
and Blooa Max.
3. Strip,	Ave.
Sheet,	Max.
and Plate
4. Pipe, Tube, Ave.
and Other Max.
5. Fui
Scrubber
(kg/day)
Ave.
Max.
b. Hydrochloric
Acid Pickling -
1. Rod, Wire,
and Coll
Ave.
Max.
2. Strip,
Sheet,
and Plate
Ave.
Max.
3. Pipe, Tube, Ave
and Other Max.
4. Pui»e 5 Ave.
Scrubber
(kg/day)
Max.
0.0000188
0.0000563
0.0000250
0.0000751
0.0000250
0.0000751
0.0000334
0.000100
0.0000438
0.000131
0.0000584
0.000175
0.0123
0.0368
0.0164
0.0491
0.0000376
0.000113
0.0000501
0.0000150
0.0000250
0.0000751
0.0000334
0.000100
0.0000688
0.000206
0.0000918
0.000275
0.0123
0.0368
0.0164
0.0491
-------
IRON AND STEEL (cont.)
PRF.TREATMENT STANDARDS POR NEW SOURCES (PSNS) (Continued)
POLLUTANT LIMITS (In kg/KVg of product unless otherwise noted)
Phenol	Naphtha- Tetrachloro-	Cyanide	Hexavalent
Subpart	Ammonia Chlorine (4AAP)	lene	ethylene	Chromium (Total) Lead	Nickel	Zinc Chroalum
Combination
Acid Pickling
1. Rod, Wire, Ave.
and Coll	Max.
0.000117
0.000292
0.0000876
0.000263
2. Bar, Billet, Ave.
and Bloom Max.
0.0000667
0.000167
0.0000501
0.000130
Strip, Sheet, Ave.
and Plate - Max.
Continuous
0.000284
0.000710
0.000213
0.000618
4. Strip, Sheet, Ave.
and Plate - Max.
Batch
0.000100
0.000250
0.0000751
0.000223
5.	Pipe, Tube,	Ave.	0.000167	0.000123
and Other	Max.	0.000418	0.000376
6.	Puae	Ave.	0.0327	0.0245
Scrubber	Max.	0.0819	0.0735
(kg/day)
J. Cold Forming
a. Cold Rolling
1. Recircula-
tion, Single
Stand
Ave.
Max.
0.0000021 0.0000031
0.0000084
0.0000209
0.0000031
0.0000094
0.0000063
0.0000188
0.0000021
0.0000063
2.
Recircula-
tion, multi-
ple Stands
Ave.
Max.
0.0000042 0.0000063
0.0000167
0.0000418
0.0000063
0.0000188
0.0000125 0.0000042
0.0000376 0.0000123
3. Combination Ave.
Hnx.
0.000217
0.0000542 0.0000813 0.000543
0.0000814 0.000163 0.0000542
0.000244 0.000488 0.000163
-------
IROW AND STEEL (cont.)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES (PSNS) (Continued)
POLLUTANT LIMITS (In kg/Kkg of product unless otherwise noted)
Phenol	Naphtha- Tetrachloro-	Cyanide	Hex*valent
Subpart	Aaoonta Chlorine (4AAP)	lene	ethylene	Chrontua (Total) Lead	Nickel	Zinc Chromium
4. Direct
Application, Ave.	0.0000418	0.0000156 0.0000313 0.0000104
Single	Max.	0.0000104 0.0000156 0.000104	0.0000469 0.0000939 0.0000313
5. Direct	Ave.	0.000484	0.000182 0.000363 0.000121
Application, Max.	0.000121 0.000182	0.00121	0.000545 0.00109 0.000363
Multiple
Stand
b. Cold Worked
Pipe and Tube
Mills7
K, Alkaline
Cleaning**
L> Hot Coating
a. Galvanizing
and Other
Coatings -
Strip, Sheet,
and Misc.
Ave.
Max.
0.0000939
0.000282
0.000125
0.000376
0.0000125
0.0000376
b.
Galvanizing -
Ave.
0.000376
0.00050
0.0000501

Wire Producta
Max.
0.00113
0.00150
0.000150

and Fasteners




c.
Fuae
Scrubbers
(kg/day)
Ave.
Max.'
0.0123
0.0368
0.0164
0.0491
0.00163
0.00490
Ave. » Average of dally values for 30 consecutive days
Max. ¦ Maxima for any one Hay
•This subpart Is reserved.
**No numerical llnlts were established for industries In tills subcategory. However, they are subject to the Ceneral Pretreataent Standards In 40 CPR 403.
-------
TROW AMD STEEL (cont.)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES (PSNS) (Continued)
'increased loadings, not to exceed 24 percent of these standards, are allowed for by-product coke plants that have wet desulfurlxatlon sjrsteia, but only to
the extent that such systeas generate an Increased effluent volume. Increased loadings, not to exceed 58 percent of these standards, are allowed for
by-product coke plants that have Indirect amsonla recovery systeas, but only to the extent that such systems generate an Increased effluent voluaa.
Increased loadings, not to exceed 21 percent of these standards are allowed for by-product coke plants that have wet desulfurlxatlon ayateas, but only to
the extent that such systeas generate an Increased effluent volume. Increased loadings, not to exceed 50 percent of these atandarda, are allowed for
by-product coke plants that have Indirect aaaonla recovery systeas, but only to the extent that such systeas generate an Increased effluent voluae.
Vtie standards for aoaonla-N, cyanide, and phenols (4AAP) are applicable only when sintering wastewater Is treated along with lronaaklng waatewatar.
These llalta apply to each fuae scrubber associated with sulfuric acid pickling operations.
These Halts apply to each fuae scrubber associated with hydrochloric acid pickling operatlona.
For processes regulated by Subpart J, the Halts on chroalua and nickel apply in lieu of the Halts on lead and zinc when cold rolling wastewaters are
treated with descaling or coablnatlon acid pickling waters.
r
Dlschsrges froa these operations to Publicly Owned Treatnent Works are prohibited.
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
DATE: NOV 1 7 1982
subject. Inorganic Chemicals Guidelines
Permit Writers Workshop
FROM: Jon Barney
-J2J3
Permit Section (5WQP)
T0: file
The subject workshop was held in Dallas, Texas, on November 3 and 4, 1982,
at the Dupont Plaza Hotel. It was put on by the Effluent Guidelines Divi-
sion (EGD) and the Permits Division in Headquarters. I was asked by the
sponsors to attend to represent Region V and participate in one of the three
panels. For a list of the attendees on the first day, see Attachment 1.
About 40 people participated, including representatives of Regions II
through VII, 6 states, and Headquarters. Public interest groups, industry,
and other members of the public were not invited and did not attend (to
the best of my knowledge).
The intent of the workshop was to present a brief summary of the final
Effluent Guidelines for the Inorganic Chemical industry, which were pro-
mulgated June 29, 1982, and then to encourage frank, open, nuts and bolts
discussion among permit writers and others on how to issue BAT permits
for this industry. In general, I believe the objective was accomplished.
A great deal of practical permit-writing experience was represented at the
meeting, and the group was small enough (barely) that much extended dis-
cussion involving everyone did occur. Occasionally the discussion got
somewhat heated, due to differing approaches and interpretations of poli-
cy, regulations, statutes, etc. But this seemed helpful in clarifying
some of the issues and perhaps indicating where increased coordination is
needed by headquarters or the Regions.
Several actual draft or final BAT permits for inorganic chemicals plants
were presented to the group for discussion, with the permit writer ex-
plaining (and defending) his rationale. This triggered a number of dis-
cussions on specific techniques of information gathering, limit deriva-
tion, and monitoring. Rather than trying to summarize the entire work-
shop, I will present highlights below, including items of information of
general interest. The agenda for the workshop is Attachment 2.
Inorganic Effluent Guidelines
Tom Fielding, the Project Officer for Inorganics, gave a run-down of the
current status of the Guidelines for this category. They have identified
177 subcategories (basically, different major inorganic products). Of
these, 63 presently are listed in the CFR and 114 are not. Of the 63
listed, 3 were deferred to Phase II and 50 were excluded from regulation
under the provisions of 118 of the Revised Consent Decree. The regulation
EPA FORM 1320-6 (REV 3-76)
-------
2
promulgated in June covers the remaining 10 subcategories. Phase II will
consider the 3 that were deferred plus the 114 that were not listed in the
CFR. Attachment 3 is a handout from Fielding providing additional informa-
tion on the status of the Inorganic Chemicals Guidelines. Attachment 4 is
a condensed version of the promulgated Guideline.
- <
Litigation
Dow Chemical Company filed suit against the Guidelines on October 10, 1982.
There will be no immediate effect of this action—the regulation is not
stayed. Ed Stigal 11s opinion is that Dow's case is weak, based inappropri-
ately upon data from the Treatability Manual.
BCT
The new BCT regulations were published in the Federal Register on October 29,
1982. The redefined cost test uses a value of $0.27/1b for treatment of BOD
by a POTW.
Treatabil ity Data
EGD has a large body of treatability data on metals collected as part of the
Inorganics Guideline development. Because of the similarity of metals remo-
val technology across industrial categories, these data could be useful for
developing permit limitations in a wide variety of cases. Copies of the
report of a treatability study done in 1979-80 are still available.
Development of Guideline Numbers
EGD used all of the data including high values during upsets, etc. Data
points were rejected only when some portion of the treatment system being
evaluated was out of service completely. The daily maximum was set at a
level such that 99 percent of the data points fell below it; the monthly
average was set such that 95 percent of the monthly averages fell below it.
The Guideline covers process wastewater only—no cooling water or storm-
water.
Asbestos
Stigall said that Asbestos was not addressed sufficiently in this regulation
because an adequate analytical method was lacking.
Regulated Pollutants
Only a few metals are limited in the Guidelines—the ones that were highest
in the raw waste. The assumption was that all metals present will be con-
trolled by the treatment required to control those with limits (indicator
approach). Larry Kane pointed out that the permit writer has a responsibi-
lity to address all pollutants present, even if some are not covered under
the Guidelines. The decision on which to limit should be based on potential
harm and treatability. I mentioned a tool for confirmatory monitoring we are
-------
3
using in the Region: a short-term requirement for the permittee to sample
and analyze an effluent for a suspected parameter, with a self-destruct
clause allowing the requirement to be deleted if the levels found are not
significant. I also pointed out that the 2C permit application often does
not provide adequate information to do BPJ/BAT.l irnit development, since the
data on the priority pollutants is on the final effluent only. Usually it
is necessary to determine the pollutant loadings from the various processes,
some of which will be covered by the Guidelines, and some of which will not.
Toxicant Permit Limits Based on Water Quality Standards
Oscar Cabra, Region VI Permit Chief, said they have had serious problems
trying to base permit limitations for toxicants on narrative water quality
standards ("the four freedoms"). He said they do not now attempt to use
WQS unless they have numerical standards and a load allocation for that
stream segment. Otherwise the problem is too complex and they cannot back-
up the limits adequately. They are sticking with technology-based limits
exclusively in Region VI.
A number of people disagreed with this view. Joe Davis, Region III, said
the technology-based limits were always meant to be a minimum level of treat-
ment, with further control to be implemented where needed for WQ. Nick
Casselano, Region II, described their program to require biomonitoring studies
by companies found to have toxic effluents. Jim Vincent, NEIC, pointed out
that a permit for the City of Niagara Falls was issued recently with a number
of WQ-based toxicant limits. Larry Kane described how Indiana had been
successful over the years in setting limits based on narrative WQS.
Cabra was not convinced. He said a company could combat a limit based on
aquatic toxicity by choosing an extremely tolerant indigenous species and
showing that the level of toxicant discharged was not harmful. Later, in
discussing a specific permit, Ed McHam of Region VI Permits said he was
careful not to "fall in the trap of enforcing a narrative WQS approach,"
so this appears to be standard procedure for Region VI. However, Region VI
is placing in many BAT permits a requirement to do a one-shot, 24-hour,
static fish bioassay to check for acute toxicity following imp!anentation
of BAT treatment.
Backs!idi ng
Bob Dicks of Texas Department of Water Resources said they often draft per-
mits with limits significantly tighter than Effluent Guidelines, primarily
based on the fact that the dischargers are presently meeting these tighter
levels. The inorganic chemicals facility permit he discussed specifically
had limits that were 1/10 of the new Effluent Guidelines numbers. Mike
McGhee of Region IV said he had not yet seen a case in their Region where
he could justify not backsliding! In general, the other state and Regional
representatives said they were holding firm on backsliding at present and
believed the burden of proof was on the dischargers to justify any roll-
backs. The language in the recent consent decree on the permit regulations
would seem to facilitate backsliding, if not make it mandatory. But there
was agreement that this change was still far from being finalized, and we
should continue to oppose backsliding in the meantime.
-------
4
Ammonia
There was some discussion of ammonia limitations in permits, initiated by
Larry Kane's presentation of permit development for duPont, East Chicago.
West Virginia said they have a WQS for un-ionized ammonia. McGhee of Region
IV said they have found that the only problem with ammonia discharges is oxy-
gen depletion. He said that about 25 percent of the discharged ammonia is
oxidized in the stream. They do not know where the unoxidized ammonia goes.
Ed Stlgal 1 pointed out that fish kills have been caused by ammonia under the
ice in winter. McGhee allowed as how they did not have any ice in Region IV.
Cone!usions
It was quite clear from the discussion at the workshop that the various
Regions and states (and headquarters) interpret, the existing statutes and
regulations quite differently in a number of areas as to the authority avail-
able to the permitting agencies to impose certain'kinds of controls, e.g.,
BMPs, anti-backs!iding, §308 requests, biomonitoring, water quality based
toxicant limits, etc. Differences in philosophy, enthusiasm to control
toxicants, etc., clearly affect the degree to which each government entity
exploits the authority it believes it does have. I believe that workshops
such as this one are valuable in that they allow extensive grass-roots commu-
nication between the actual permit writers on the procedures presently in
use. Some of the differences that arise are disturbing, but this is an
excellent forum to put them on the table and expose them to constructive
peer criticism.
Attachments as stated
cc: Sutfin/Bryson
Fenner
Manzardo
Dzi kowski
Pratt
Milburn
Newman
Clemens
Redmon
yDiks
-------
(Revised 8/2/84)
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I)
CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
This summary provides industries subject to the Inorganic Chemicals
(Phase I) Categorical Standards and Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
with the information necessary to determine compliance with these standards.
The Phase I Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing standards were established by
the Environmental Protection Agency under Part 415 of Title AO of the Code of
Federal Regulations (AO CFR A15). This summary is not intended to substitute
for the regulations published in the Code of Federal Regulations or the
Federal Register. For specific information, refer to the Federal Register
citations given below.
Important Dates
Proposed Rule: July .24, -1980
Final Rule: June 29, 1982
Final Rule Correction:
December 8, 1982
Effective Date: August 12, 1982
Amendment: January 21, 1983
Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR)
Due Date: May 9, 1983
Compliance Dates:
- Pretreatment Standards for Exi
r Pretreatment Standards for New
discharge
Federal Register Citation
Vol. A5, p. A9A50, July 2A, 1980
Vol. 47, p. 28260, June 29, 1982
Vol. 47, p. 55226, December 8, 1982
Vol. A8, p. 277A, January 21, 1983
ting Sources (PSES): August 12, 1985
Sources (PSNS): From commencement of
SUBCATEGORIES AND SIC CODES
The Inorganic Chemicals (Phase I) category is broken down into 63 sub-
categories that correspond to the inorganic compounds being produced. Each
subcategory is regulated as shown below.
Subpart
Subcategory
PSES
PSNS
A
Aluminum Chloride
P
N
B
Aluminum Sulfate
P
P
C
Calcium Carbide
R
P
D
Calcium Chloride
R
P
£
Calcium Oxide
R*
P
F
Chlor-alkali



- Mercury Cell
E
P

- Diaphragm Cell
P
P
Source: Summary of the Effluent Guidelines Division Rulemaking Activities,
Environmental Protection Agency, July 1983.
-1-
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING•(PHASE I) (cont.)
G	Hydrochloric Acid	E	E
H	Hydrofluoric Acid	E	P
I	Hydrogen Peroxide	E	E
J	Nitric Acid	E	E
K	Potassium Metal	R	P
L	Potassium Dichromate	P	P
M	Potassium Sulfate	R	P
N	Sodium Bicarbonate	R	P
0	Sodium Carbonate	E	E
P	Sodium Chloride	R	P
Q	Sodium Dichromate and
Sodium Sulfate	E	P
R	Sodium Metal	E	E
S	Sodium Silicate	E	E
T	Sodium Sulfite	R	P
U	Sulfuric Acid	E	E
V	Titanium Dioxide	E	P
W	Aluminum Fluoride	E	E
X	Ammonium Chloride	E	E
Y	Ammonium Hydroxide	E	E
Z	Barium Carbonate	E	E
AA	Borax	R	R
AB	Boric Acid	E	E
AC	Bromine	R	R
AD	Calcium Carbonate	E	E
AE	Calcium Hydroxide	R	E
AF	Carbon Dioxide	E E
AG	Carbon Monoxide and
Byproduct Hydrogen	E E
AH '	Chrome Pigments	P P
AI	Chromic Acid	R R
AJ	Copper Sulfate	P P
AK	Cuprous Oxide	E E
AL	Ferric Chloride	P N
AM	Ferrous Sulfate	E E
AN	Fluorine	R R
AO	Hydrogen	R R
AP	Hydrogen Cyanide	E P
AQ	Iodine	R R
AR	Lead Monoxide	P E
AS	Lithium Carbonate	E E
AT	Manganese Sulfate	E E
AU	Nickel Sulfate	P P
AV Strong Nitric Acid	E E
AW	Oxygen and Nitrogen	E E
AX Potassium Chloride	R R
AY Potassium Iodide	E E
AZ Potassium Permanganate	E E
BA Silver Nitrate	P N
BB Sodium Bisulfite	E P
BC Sodium Fluoride	P E
BD Sodium Hydrosulfide	E E
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
BE
BF
BG
BH
BI
BJ
BK
Sodium Hydrosulfite
Sodium Silicofluoride
Sodium Thiosulfate
Stannic Oxide
Sulfur Dioxide
Zinc Oxide
Zinc Sulfate
E
R
E
R
E
E
R
E
R
E
R
E
E
R
Key: P = Promulgated
R = Reserved or Deferred to Phase II
N = Not addressed
E = Excluded under provisions of the NRDC Settlement Agreement
(Paragraph 8)
The inorganic chemicals manufacturing industry is classified under
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 281, Industrial Inorganic
Chemicals. The final regulation for this industry applies to parts of SIC
subgroups 2812, Alkalies and Chlorine; 2813, Industrial Gases; 2816, Inorganic
Pigments; and 2819, Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified.
REGULATED POLLUTANTS
The pollutants regulated by the Phase I Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing
categorical standards are chromium, copper, fluoride, iron, lead, mercury,
nickel, selenium, silver, zinc, and cyanide.
SUBCATEGORY A - ALUMINUM CHLORIDE PRODUCTION
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES (PSES)
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Limit
pH
5.0 to 10.0
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
SUBCATEGORY B - ALUMINUM SULFATE PRODUCTION
PSES
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Pollutant or	Maximum for Any	Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property	One Day (mg/1)	(mg/1)
Zinc	5.0	2.5
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES (PSNS)
Any new source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must comply with the following pretreatment
standards.
(a)	There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants into
navigable waters.
(b)	A process wastewater impoundment that is designed, constructed, and
operated to contain the precipitation from the 25-year, 24-hour
rainfall event as established by the National Climatic Center of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the area in
which such impoundment is located may discharge that volume of
process wastewater equivalent to the volume of precipitation that
falls within the impoundment in excess of that attributed to the
25-year, 24-hour rainfall event, when such an event occurs.
SUBCATEGORY C - CALCIUM CARBIDE PRODUCTION
SUBCATEGORY D - CALCIUM CHLORIDE PRODUCTION
SUBCATEGORY K - POTASSIUM METAL PRODUCTION
SUBCATEGORY N - SODIUM BICARBONATE
SUBCATEGORY T - SODIUM SULFITE PRODUCTION
PSNS FOR SUBCATEGORIES C, D, K, N, AND T
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters.
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
SUBCATEGORY E - CALCIUM OXIDE PRODUCTION
SUBCATEGORY M - POTASSIUM SULFATE PRODUCTION
PSNS FOR SUBCATEGORIES E AND M
Any new source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must comply with the following pretreatment
standards.
(a)	There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants into
navigable waters.
(b)	A process wastewater impoundment that is designed, constructed, and
operated to contain the precipitation from the 25-year, 24-hour
rainfall event as established by the National Climatic Center,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the area in
which such impoundment is located may discharge that volume of proc-
ess wastewater equivalent to the volume of precipitation that falls
within the impoundment in excess of that attributed to the 25-year,
24-hour rainfall event, when such an event occurs.
SUBCATEGORY F - CHLOR-ALKALI (CHLORINE AND SODIUM OR POTASSIUM HYDROXIDE
PRODUCTION)
PSNS
1) MERCURY CELL PROCESS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (mg/1)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(mg/1)
Mercury
0.11
0.048
PSNS MASS LIMITS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Average of Daily
Maximum for Any	Values for 30
One Day (kg/kkg	Consecutive Days
of product)	(kg/kkg of product)
Mercury (T)
0.00023
0.00010
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
2) DIAPHRAGM CELL PROCESS
PSES


Average of Daily


Values for 30
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/1)
(mg/1)
Copper (T)
2.1
0.80
Lead (T)
2.9
1.10
Nickel (T)
1.6
0.64
PSES MASS LIMITS
Average of Daily
Maximum for Any	Values for 30
Pollutant or	One Day (kg/kkg	Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property	of product)	(kg/kkg of product)
Copper (T)
0.018
0.0070
Lead (T)
0.026
0.0100
Nickel (T)
0.014
0.0056
PSNS


Average of Daily


Values for 30
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
One Day (nig/l)
(mg/1)
Lead (T)
0.53
0.21
-------
[NORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
PSNS MASS LIMITS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Lead (T)
Maximum for Any
One Day (kg/kkg
of product)
0.0047
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(kg/kkg of product)
0.0019
SUBCATEGORY H - HYDROFLUORIC ACID PRODUCTION
PSNS
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Pollutant or	Maximum for Any	Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property	One Day (mg/l)	(mg/1)
Fluoride (T)	100	50
Nickel (T)	0.66	0.20
Zinc (T)	2.2	0.66
PSNS MASS LIMITS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (kg/kkg
of product)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(kg/kkg of product)
Fluoride (T)
Nickel (T)
Zinc (T)
3.4
0.020
0.072
1.6
0.0060
0.022
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cone.)
SUBCATEGORY L - POTASSIUM DICHROMATE PRODUCTION
PSES
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Pollutant or	Maximum for Any	Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property	One Day (mg/1)	(mg/1)
Hexavalent Chromium	0.25	0.090
Chromium (T)	3.0	1.00
PSNS
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters.
SUBCATEGORY P - SODIUM CHLORIDE PRODUCTION
PSNS
(a)	Any new source subject to this subpart that uses the solar evapora-
tion process must achieve the following new source pretreatment
standards: There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters, except that unused bitterns may be
returned to the body of water from which the process brine solution
was originally withdrawn, provided no additional pollutants are
added to the bitterns during the production of sodium chloride.
(b)	Any new source subject to this subpart and using the solution
brine-mining process must achieve the following standard: There
shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters.
SUBCATEGORY Q - SODIUM DICHROMATE AND SODIUM SULFATE PRODUCTION
PSNS
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Pollutant or	Maximum for Any	Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property	One Day (mg/1)	(mg/1)
Chromium (T)
Hexavalent Chromium
Nickel (T)
1.0
0.11
0.80
0.50
0.060
0. AO
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
PSNS MASS LIMITS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (kg/kkg
of product)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(kg/kkg of product)
Chromium (T)	0.0088	0.0044
Hexavalent Chromium	0.00090	0.00050
Nickel (T)	0.0068	0.0034
SUBCATEGORY V - TITANIUM DIOXIDE PRODUCTION
SULFATE PROCESS PSNS
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Pollutant or	Maximum for Any	Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property	One Day (mg/1)	(mg/l)
Iron (T)	- 8.50	2.50
Chromium (T)	0.57	0.30
Nickel (T)	0.38	0.20
SULFATE PROCESS PSNS MASS LIMITS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Aivy
One Day (kg/kkg
of product)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(kg/kkg of product)
Iron (T)
Chromium (T)
Nickel (T)
4.10
0.27
0.18
1.200
0.140
0.095
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
CHLORIDE-ILMENITE PROCESS PSNS


Average of Daily


Values for 30
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/1)
(mg/1)
Iron (T)
5.30
1.60
Chromium (T)
0.23
0.12
Nickel (T)
0.33
0.17
CLORIDE'
-ILMENITE PROCESS PSNS MASS LIMITS



Average of Daily

Maximum for Any
Values for 30
Pollutant or
One Day
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
(kg/kkg of product)
(kg/kkg of product)
Iron (T)
0.320
0.096
Chromium (T)
0.014
0.0072
Nickel (T)
0.020
0.010
CHLORIDE PROCESS PSNS


Average of Daily


Values for 30
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/1)
(mg/1)
Iron (T)
5.30
1.60
Chromium (T)
0.23
0.12
CHLORIDE PROCESS PSNS MASS.
LIMITS



Average of Daily

Maximum for Any
Values for 30
Pollutant or
One Day
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
(kg/kkg of product)
(kg/kkg of product)
Iron (T)
0.52
0.16
Chromium (T)
0.023
0.012
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PEASE I) (cont.)
SUBCATEGORY AH - CHROME PIGMENTS PRODUCTION
PSES AND PSNS


Average of Daily


Values for 30
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/l)
(mg/l)
Chromium (T)
2.9
1.2
Lead (T)
3.4
1.4
Zinc (T)
2.9
1.2
(a)	Existing source? that annually introduce less than 210,000 cubic
meters per year (55 million gallons per year) of chrome pigment
process wastewater into a publicly owned treatment works are subject
only to the general pretreatment standards specified in 40 CFR Part
403.
(b)	Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13 and paragraph (a) of
this section, any existing source subject to this subpart, that
introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and achieve the pretreatment standards
for existing sources (PSES) for Subcategory AH.
PSES AND PSNS MASS LIMITS


Average of Daily

Maximum for Any
Values for 30
Pollutant or
One Day
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
(kg/kkg of product)
e
(kg/kkg of product)
Chromium (T)
0.31
0.13
Lead (T)
0.36
0.15
Zinc (T)
0.31
0.13
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
SUBCATEGORY AJ - COPPER SULFATE PRODUCTION
PSES AND PSNS


Average of Daily


Values for 30
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/1)
(mg/1)
Copper (T)
3.2
1.1
Nickel (T)
6.4
2.1
Selenium (T)
1.6
0.53
PSES AND PSNS MASS LIMITS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day
(kg/kkg of product)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(kg/kkg of product)
Copper (T)	0.0030	0.0010
Nickel (T)	0.0060	0.0020
Selenium (T)	0.0015	0.00050
SUBCATEGORY AL - FERRIC CHLORIDE PRODUCTION
PSES
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Pollutant or	Maximum for Any	Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property	One Day (mg/1)	(mg/1)
Total Chromium	3.0	1.0
Hexavalent Chromium	0.25	0.09
Copper (T)	1.0	0.50
Nickel (T)	2.0	1.0
Zinc (T)	5.0	2.5
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
SUBCATEGORY AP - HYDROGEN CYANIDE PRODUCTION
PSNS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (mg/1)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(mg/1)
Amenable Cyanide
Total Cyanide
1.7
11.0
0.36
4.0
PSNS MASS LIMITS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day
(kg/kkg of product)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(kg/kkg of product)
Amenable Cyanide
Total Cyanide
0.10
0.65
0.021
0.23
The term amenable cyanide means those cyanides that can be treated by
chlorination. It is determined by the methods specified in AO CFR §136.3.
SUBCATEGORY AR - LEAD MONOXIDE PRODUCTION
PSES
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (mg/1)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(mg/1)
Lead
2.0
1.0
-------
I'tj ORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (coat.)
SUBCATEGORY AU - NICKEL SULFATE PRODUCTION
PSES AND PSNS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (mg/1)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(mg/1)
Copper (T)
Nickel (T)
1.1
1.1
0.36
0.36

PSES AND PSNS MASS
LIMITS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day
(kg/kkg of product)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(kg/kkg of product)
Copper (T)
Nickel (T)
0.00074
0.00074
0.00024
0.00024
SUBCATEGORY BA - SILVER NITRATE PRODUCTION
PSES
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (mg/1)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(mg/1)
Silver
1.0
0.5
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
SUBCATEGORY BB - SODIUM BISULFITE PRODUCTION
PSNS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (mg/l)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(mg/l)
Chromium (T)
1.3
0.42
PSNS MASS LIMITS


Average
of Daily
Maximum
for Any
Values
for 30
Pollutant or One
Day
Consecut
:ive Days
Pollutant Property (kg/kkg o
f product)
(kg/kkg of product)
Chromium (T)
0.0020
0.00063
SUBCATEGORY BC - SODIUM FLUORIDE PRODUCTION
PSES
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (mg/l>
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(mg/l)
Fluoride
50
25
-------
Dear [Name of Company Representative]:
[Control Authority] has reason to believe that your firm discharges
process wastewater to a publicly owned sewage treatment works. If so, you may
be required to comply with Federal and local industrial wastewater pretreat-
ment regulations.
The regulations that may apply to your firm are part of the National
Pretreatment Program, which was prescribed by Congress in the Clean Water Act
of 1977. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the
General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR Part 403) on June 26, 1978, and sub-
sequently amended them on January 28, 1981. The purpose of the program is to
control toxic and incompatible pollutants discharged to sanitary sewer systems
by non-domestic users of the systems. These pollutants can cause adverse
effects on human health and the environment by interfering with sewage treat-
ment plant processes, contaminating sewage sludge, or passing through the
treatment plant untreated into receiving waters. As part of the pretreatment
program, EPA also has established or will establish National Categorical
Pretreatment Standards for 25 industry categories. These standards limit the
quantity or concentration of some or all of the 126' toxic pollutants that
these 25 categories may discharge to sanitary sewer systems. Industries in
these categories that discharge to a sewage treatment system are required to
comply with applicable categorical standards as well as with the General
Pretreatment Regulations and local pretreatment standards.
On June 29, 1982, EPA promulgated categorical standards for the 24
Subcategories in the Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing industrial category (40
CFR Part 415). The standards became effective on August 12, 1982. Attachment
A provides information that can help you determine whether your firm must
comply with these standards. It also lists important dates, regulated
processes and pollutants, and discharge limits for regulated pollutants. For
further information or if you have any questions, please contact [Control
Authority].
-------
(Revised 5/7/84)
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I)
CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
This summary provides industries subject to the Inorganic Chemicals
(Phase I) Categorical Standards and Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
with the information necessary to determine compliance with these standards.
The Phase I Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing standards were established by
the Environmental Protection Agency under Part 415 of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (40 CFR 415). This summary is not intended to substitute
for the regulations published in the Code of Federal Regulations or the
Federal Register. For specific information, refer to the Federal Register
citations given below.
Federal Register Citation
Vol. 45, p. 49450, July 24, 1980
Vol. 47, p. 28260, June 29, 1982
Vol. 47, p. 55226, December 8, 1982
Important Dates
Proposed Rule: July 24, 1980
Final Rule: June 29, 1982
Final Rule Correction:
December 8, 1982
Effective Date: August 12, 1982
Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR)
Due Date: February 9, 1983
Compliance Dates:
-	Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES): August 12, 1985
-	Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS): From commencement of
discharge
SUBCATEGORIES AND SIC CODES
The Inorganic Chemicals (Phase I) category is broken down into 63 sub-
categories that correspond to the inorganic compounds being produced. Each
subcategory is regulated as shown below.
Subpart
Subcategory
PSES
PSNS
A
B
C
D
E
F
Aluminum Chloride
Aluminum Sulfate
Calcium Carbide
Calcium Chloride
Calcium Oxide
Chlor-alkali
-	Mercury Cell
-	Diaphragm Cell
P
P
R
R
R
E
P
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
Source: Summary of the Effluent Guidelines Division Rulemaking Activities,
Environmental Protection Agency, July 1983.
-1-
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
G
Hydrochloric Acid
E
E
H
Hydrofluoric Acid
E
P
I
Hydrogen Peroxide
E
E
J
Nitric Acid
E
E
K
Potassium Metal
R
P
L
Potassium Dichromate
P
P
M
Potassium Sulfate
R
P
N
Sodium Bicarbonate
R
P
0
Sodium Carbonate
E
E
P
Sodium Chloride
R
P
Q
Sodium Dichromate and



Sodium Sulfate
E
P
R
Sodium Metal
E
E
S
Sodium Silicate
E
E
T
Sodium Sulfite
R
P
U
Sulfuric Acid
E
E
V
Titanium Dioxide
E
P
w
Aluminum Fluoride
E
E
X
Ammonium Chloride
E
E
Y
Ammonium Hydroxide
E
E
Z
Barium Carbonate
E
E
AA
Borax
R
R
AB
Boric Acid
E
E
AC
Bromine
R
R
AD
Calcium Carbonate
E
E
AE
Calcium Hydroxide
R
E
AF
Carbon Dioxide
E
E
AG
Carbon Monoxide and



Byproduct Hydrogen
£
E
AH
Chrome Pigments
P
P
AI
Chromic Acid
R
R
AJ
Copper Sulfate
P
P
AK
Cuprous Oxide
E
E
AL
Ferric Chloride
P
N
AM
Ferrous Sulfate
E
E
AN
Fluorine
R
R
AO
Hydrogen
R
R
AP
Hydrogen Cyanide
E
P
AQ
Iodine
R
R
AR
Lead Monoxide
P
E
AS
Lithium Carbonate
E
E
AT
Manganese Sulfate
E
E
AU
Nickel Sulfate
P
P
AV
Strong Nitric Acid
E
E
AW
Oxygen and Nitrogen
E
E
AX
Potassium Chloride
R
R
AY
Potassium Iodide
E
E
AZ
Potassium Permanganate
E
E
BA
Silver Nitrate
P
N
BB
Sodium Bisulfite
E
P
BC
Sodium Fluoride
P
E
BD
Sodium Hydrosulfide
E
E
-2-
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
BE	Sodium Hydrosulfite	E	E
BF	Sodium Silicofluoride	R	R
BG	Sodium Thiosulfate	E	E
BH	Stannic Oxide	R	R
BI	Sulfur Dioxide	E	E
BJ	Zinc Oxide	E	E
BK	Zinc Sulfate	R	R
Key: P ™ Promulgated
R =» Reserved or Deferred to Phase II
N ™ Not addressed
E * Excluded under provisions of the NRDC Settlement Agreement
(Paragraph 8)
The inorganic chemicals manufacturing industry is classified under
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 281, Industrial Inorganic
Chemicals. The final regulation for this industry applies to parts of SIC
subgroups 2812, Alkalies and Chlorine; 2813, Industrial Gases; 2816, Inorganic
Pigments; and 2819, Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified.
REGULATED POLLUTANTS
The pollutants regulated by the Phase I Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing
categorical standards are chromium, copper, fluoride, iron, lead, mercury,
nickel, selenium, silver, zinc, and cyanide.
SUBCATEGORY A - ALUMINUM CHLORIDE PRODUCTION
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES (PSES)
Pollutant or

Pollutant Property
Limit
pH
5.0 to 10.0
-3-
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
SUBCATEGORY B " ALUMINUM SULFATE PRODUCTION
PSES
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (mg/1)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(mg/1)
Zinc
5.0
2.5
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES (PSNS)
Any new source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must comply with the following pretreatment
standards.
(a)	There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants into
navigable waters.
(b)	A process wastewater Impoundment that is designed, constructed, and
operated to contain the precipitation from the 25-year, 24-hour
rainfall event as established by the National Climatic Center of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the area in
which such impoundment is located may discharge that volume of
process wastewater equivalent to the volume of precipitation that
falls within the impoundment in excess of that attributed to the
25-year, 24-hour rainfall event, when such an event occurs.
SUBCATEGORY C - CALCIUM CARBIDE PRODUCTION
SUBCATEGORY D - CALCIUM CHLORIDE PRODUCTION
SUBCATEGORY K - POTASSIUM METAL PRODUCTION
SUBCATEGORY N - SODIUM BICARBONATE
SUBCATEGORY T - SODIUM SULFITE PRODUCTION
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable
PSNS FOR SUBCATEGORIES C. D. K. N, AND T
waters.
-4-
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
SUBCATEGORY E - CALCIUM OXIDE PRODUCTION
SUBCATEGORY M - POTASSIUM SULFATE PRODUCTION
PSNS FOR SUBCATEGORIES E AND M
Any new source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must comply with the following pretreatment
standards.
(a)	There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants into
navigable waters.
(b)	A process wastewater impoundment that is designed, constructed, and
operated to contain the precipitation from the 25-year, 24-hour
rainfall event as established by the National Climatic Center,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the area in
which such impoundment is located may discharge that volume of proc-
ess wastewater equivalent to the volume of precipitation that falls
within the impoundment in excess of that attributed to the 25-year,
24-hour rainfall event, when such an event occurs.
SUBCATEGORY F - CHLOR-ALKALI (CHLORINE AND SODIUM OR POTASSIUM HYDROXIDE
PRODUCTION)
PSNS
1) MERCURY CELL PROCESS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (mg/1)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(mg/1)
Mercury
0.11
0.048
PSNS MASS LIMITS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (kg/kkg
of product)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(kg/kkg of product)
Mercury (T)
0.00023
0.00010
-5-
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
2) DIAPHRAGM CELL PROCESS
PSES


Average of Daily


Values for 30
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/1)
(mg/1)
Copper (T)
2.1
0.80
Lead (T)
2.9
1.10
Nickel (T)
1.6
0.64
PSES MASS LIMITS
Average of Daily
Maximum for Any	Values for 30
Pollutant or	One Day (kg/kkg	Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property	of product)	(kg/kkg of product)
Copper (T)
0.018
0.0070
Lead (T)
0.026
0.0100
Nickel (T)
0.014
0.0056
PSNS


Average of Daily


Values for 30
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/1)
(mg/1)
Lead (T)
0.53
0.21
-6-
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
PSNS MASS LIMITS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (kg/kkg
of product)
Average of Dally
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(kg/kkg of product)
Lead (T)	0.0047	0.0019
SUBCATEGORY H - HYDROFLUORIC ACID PRODUCTION
PSNS


Average of Daily


Values for 30
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/1)
(mg/1)
Fluoride (T)
100
50
Nickel (T)
0.66
0.20
Zinc (T)
2.2
0.66
PSNS MASS LIMITS


Average of Daily

Maximum for Any
Values for 30
Pollutant or
One Day (kg/kkg
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
of product)
(kg/kkg of product)
Fluoride (T)
3.4
1.6
Nickel (T)
0.020
0.0060
Zinc (T)
0.072
0.022
-7-
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
SUBCATEGORY L - POTASSIUM DICHROMATE PRODUCTION
PSES
Average of Dally
Values for 30
Pollutant or	Maximum for Any	Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property	One Day (mg/1)	(mg/1)
Hexavalent Chromium	0.25	0.090
Chromium (T)	3.0	1.00
PSNS
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters.
SUBCATEGORY P - SODIUM CHLORIDE PRODUCTION
PSNS
(a)	Any new source subject to this subpart that uses the solar evapora-
tion process must achieve the following new source pretreatment
standards: There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters, except that unused bitterns may be
returned to the body of water from which the process brine solution
was originally withdrawn, provided no additional pollutants are
added to the bitterns during the production of sodium chloride.
(b)	Any new source subject to this subpart and using the solution
brine-mining process must achieve the following standard: There
shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters.
SUBCATEGORY Q - SODIUM DICHROMATE AND SODIUM SULFATE PRODUCTION
PSNS


Average of Daily


Values for 30
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/1)
(mg/1)
Chromium (T)
1.0
0.50
Hexavalent Chromium
0.11
0.060
Nickel (T)
0.80
0.40
-8-
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (coat.)
PSNS MASS LIMITS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (kg/kkg
of product)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(kg/kkg of product)
Chromium (T)
Hexavalent Chromium
Nickel (T)
0.0088
0.00090
0.0068
0.0044
0.00050
0.0034
SUBCATEGORY V - TITANIUM DIOXIDE PRODUCTION
SULFATE PROCESS PSNS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (mg/1)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(mg/1)
Iron (T)
Chromium (T)
Nickel (T)
8.50
0.57
0.38
2.50
0.30
0.20
SULFATE PROCESS PSNS MASS LIMITS


Average of Daily

Maximum for Any
Values for 30
Pollutant or
One Day (kg/kkg
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
of product)
(kg/kkg of product)
Iron (T)
4.10
1.200
Chromium (T)
0.27
0.140
Nickel (T)
0.18
0.095
-9-
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
CHLORIDE-ILMENITE PROCESS PSNS


Average of Daily


Values for 30
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/1)
(mg/1)
Iron (T)
5.30
1.60
Chromium (T)
0.23
0.12
Nickel (T)
0.33
0.17
CLORIDE-
-ILMENITE PROCESS PSNS MASS LIMITS



Average of Daily

Maximum for Any
Values for 30
Pollutant or
One Day
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
(kg/kkg of product)
(kg/kkg of product)
Iron (T)
0.320
0.096
Chromium (T)
0.014
0.0072
Nickel (T)
0.020
0.010
CHLORIDE PROCESS PSNS


Average of Daily


Values for 30
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/1)
(mg/1)
Iron (T)
5.30
1.60
Chromium (T)
0.23
0.12
CHLORIDE PROCESS PSNS MASS
LIMITS



Average of Daily

Maximum for Any
Values for 30
Pollutant or
One Day
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
(kg/kkg of product)
(kg/kkg of product)
Iron (T)
0.52
0.16
Chromium (T)
0.023
0.012
-10-
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
SUBCATEGORY AH - CHROME PIGMENTS PRODUCTION.
PSES AND PSNS


Average of Daily


Values for 30
Pollutant or
Maximum for Any
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
One Day (mg/1)
(mg/1)
Chromium (T)
2.9
1.2
Lead (T)
3.4
1.4
Zinc (T)
2.9
1.2
(a)	Existing sources that annually introduce less than 210,000 cubic
meters per year (55 million gallons per year) of chrome pigment
process wastewater into a publicly owned treatment works are subject
only to the general pretreatment standards specified in 40 CFR Part
403.
(b)	Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13 and paragraph (a) of
this section, any existing source subject to this subpart that
introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and achieve the pretreatment standards
for existing sources (PSES) for Subcategory AH.
PSES AND PSNS MASS LIMITS


Average of Daily

Maximum for Any
Values for 30
Pollutant or
One Day
Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property
(kg/kkg of product)
(kg/kkg of product)
Chromium (T)
0.31
0.13
Lead (T)
0.36
0.15
Zinc (T)
0.31
0.13
-11-
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
SUBCATEGORY AJ - COPPER SULFATE PRODUCTION
PSES AND PSNS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (mg/1)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(mg/1)
Copper (T)
Nickel (T)
Selenium (T)
3.2
6.4
1.6
1.1
2.1
0.53
PSES AND PSNS MASS LIMITS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day
(kg/kkg of product)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(kg/kkg of product)
Copper (T)
Nickel (T)
Selenium (T)
0.0030
0.0060
0.0015
0.0010
0.0020
0.00050
SUBCATEGORY AL - FERRIC CHLORIDE PRODUCTION
PSES
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Pollutant or	Maximum for Any	Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property	One Day (mg/1)	(mg/1)
Total Chromium
3.0
1.0
Hexavalent Chromium
0.25
0.09
Copper (T)
1.0
0.50
Nickel (T)
2.0
1.0
Zinc (T)
5.0
2.5
-12-
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cone.)
SUBCATEGORY AP - HYDROGEN CYANIDE PRODUCTION.
PSNS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (mg/1)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(mg/1)
Amenable Cyanide
Total Cyanide
1.7
11.0
0.36
4.0
PSNS MASS LIMITS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day
(kg/kkg of product)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(kg/kkg of product)
Amenable Cyanide
Total Cyanide
0.10
0.65
0.021
0.23
The term amenable cyanide means those cyanides that can be treated by
chlorination. It is determined by the methods specified in 40 CFR §136.3.
SUBCATEGORY AR - LEAD MONOXIDE PRODUCTION
PSES
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (mg/1)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(mg/1)
Lead
2.0
1.0
-13-
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
SUBCATEGORY AU - NICKEL SULFATE PRODUCTION.
PSES AND PSNS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (mg/1)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(mg/1)
Copper (T)
Nickel (T)
1.1
1.1
0.36
0.36

PSES AND PSNS MASS
LIMITS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day
(kg/kkg of product)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(kg/kkg of product)
Copper IT)
Nickel (T)
0.00074
0.00074
0.00024
0.00024
SUBCATEGORY BA - SILVER NITRATE PRODUCTION
PSES
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (mg/1)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(mg/1)
Silver
1.0
0.5
-14-
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (PHASE I) (cont.)
SUBCATEGORY BB - SODIUM BISULFITE PRODUCTION.
PSNS ;
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for Any
One Day (mg/1)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(mg/1)
Chromium (T)
1.3
0.42
PSNS MASS LIMITS
Maximum for Any
Pollutant or	One Day
Pollutant Property (kg/kkg of product)
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Consecutive Days
(kg/kkg of product)
Chromium (T)
• 0.0020
0.00063
SUBCATEGORY BC - SODIUM FLUORIDE PRODUCTION
PSES
Average of Daily
Values for 30
Pollutant or	Maximum for Any	Consecutive Days
Pollutant Property	One Day (mg/1)	(mg/1)
Fluoride	50	25
-15-
-------
-------
Tuesday
November 23, 1982
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
Leather Tanning and Finishing Industry
Point Source Category; Effluent
Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment
Standards and New Source Peformance
Standards; Rule
-------
52848 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 228 / Tuesday, November 23. 1982/ Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 425
[WH-FRL 2231-5]
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Industry Point Source Category,
Effluent Limitations Guidelines,
Preteatment Standards and New
Source Performance Standards
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency.
action: Final rule.
summary: This regulation limits the
discharge of pollutants into navigable
waters and into publicly owned
treatment works by existing and new
sources that are leather tanning and
finishing facilities. The Clean Water Act
and a consent decree require EPA to
issue this regulation.
The purpose of this regulation is to
specify effluent limitations for "best
practicable technology", "best available
technology", "best conventional
technology", and "new source
performance standards" for direct
dischargers and to establish
pretreatment standards for indirect
dischargers.
dates: In accordance with 40 C7R
100.01 (45 FR 26048). these regulations
will be considered issued for purposes
of judicial review at L-00 P.M. Eastern
time on (two weeks after Federal
Register publication date). They will
become effective January 8,1983, except
sections 425.04 (b) and (c) which contain
i.iformation collection requirements
which are under review at OMB. The
compliance date for Pretreatment
Standards for Existing Sources fPSES) is
N'ovember 25.1985.
Under Section 509(b)(1) of the dean
Water Act any petition for judicial
review of this regulation must be filed in
the United States Court of Appeals
within 90 days after the regulation is
considered issued for purposes of
judicial review. Under Section 509(b)(2)
of the Clean Water Act the regulation
may not be challenged later in civil or
criminal proceedings brought by EPA to'
enforce its requirements.
aooresses: Technical information may
be obtained by writing to Donald F.
Anderson. Effluent Guidelines Division.
fWH-ssai. rPA. 401M Street S.W„
^Washington. ^CT"2046Q_pr thrqtiglu
V^caliing (202) 382-7189. Economp
tnforma tion-mav be ohlajfledfrom
Joseph V. Yance. Office of Analysis and
Evaluation (WH-586), at the same
address, or through calling (202) 382-
5379. Three weeks after the date of
publication of this regulation in the
Federal Register, the Record, including
copies of the development document
and economic analysis, and responses
to public comments will be available for
public review in EPA's Public
Information Reference Unit Room 2404
(Rear) (EPA Library), 401 M Street. SW„
Washington. D.C. The EPA information
regulation (40 CFR Part 2) allows the
Agency to charge a reasonable fee for
copying. Copies of the development
document and the economic analysis
may also be obtained from the National
Technical Information Service.
Springfield. Virginia 22161 (703/487-
6000).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Technical information: Donald F.
Anderson. (202) 382-7189; economic
information: Joseph V. Yance, (202) 332-
5379.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Organization of this Notice
L Legal Authority.
Q. Scope of this Rulemaking,
m. Summary of Legal Background.
IV.	Prior Regulations.
V.	Methodology and Data Gathering
Efforts.
VL Suboategorization and Water Use.
A. Subcategorization
R Water Use
VH Summary of Promulgated Regulations.
A.	BPT
B.	BAT
CBCT
D.NSPS
E.PSES
F.	PSNS
vm Costs and Economic Impact
IX Non-water Quality Environmental
Impacts.
X. Pollutants and Subcategories Not
Regulated.
XL Best Management Practices.
XIL Upset and Bypass Provisions.
XEL Variance* and Modifications.
XTV. Relationship to NPDES Permits. •
XV.	Public Participation.
XVI.	Small Business Administration (SBA)
Financial Assistance.
XVIL List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 425.
XVIH OMB Review.
XDt, Appendices.
A.	Abbreviations. Acronyms, and Other
Terms Used in This Notice
B.	Toxic Pollutants Excluded
I. Legal Authority
This regulation is promulgated under
the authority of Sections 301, 304, 306,
307, 308 and 501 of the Clean Water Act
(the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.. as amended by the Clean Water
Act of 1977 (Pub. L 95-217)), also called '
the "Act" It also is promulgated in
response to the Settlement Agreement in
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
v. Trai:i. 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976),
Modified. 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979).
IL Scope of This Rulemaking
This regulation applies to the leather
tanning and finishing point source
category which is included within lha..
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
Major Group 3100. Leather and Leather
Products. That part of the industry
covered by this regulation is the
subgroup SIC 3111.
The regulation promulgated today
establishes effluent limitations and
standards to control specific toxic,
nonconventional and conventional
pollutants for nine subcategories in the
leather tanning and finishing category:
(1) Hair pulp, chrome tan. retan-wet
finish; (2) hair save, chrome tan, retan-
wet finish: (3) hair save, non-chrome
tan, retan-wet finish; (4) retan-wet finish
(sides); (5) no beamhouse; (6) through-
the-blue; (7) shearling; (8) pigskin; and
(9) retan-wet finish (splits).
Best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT) effluent
limitations are established for all
subcategories. The technology basis of
the BPT limitations is biological
treatment specifically high solids
extended aeration activate^ sludge.
They include mass based limitations
(kg/kkg or lb/1.000 lb of raw material)
for one toxic pollutant (total chromium),
and four conventional pollutants (BOD5.
TSS, oil and grease, and pH). These BPT
mass limitations are derived utilizing
subcategory median water use ratios
and BPT effluent concentrations
described later in appropriate sections
of this preamble, and variability factors
described in the Development
Document
BAT and BCT limitations also are
established for all nine subcategories in
the leather tanning and finishing point
source category. For this regulation the
technology basis of and mass based
effluent limitations for BCT and BAT are
the same as the promulgated BPT
limitations. The BCT effluent limitations
control four conventional pollutants
(BOD, TSS, oil and grease, and pH). The
BAT limitations control one toxic
pollutant total chromium.
NrSPS are mass based and are
established for all nine subcategories
and limit one toxic pollutant (total
chromium), and four conventional
pollutants (BOD, TSS. oil and grease,
and pH). NSPS are based on the same
technology and effluent concentrations
and the same variability factors as BAT.
but the mass based limitations for NSPS
are different from those for BAT
because the NSPS limitations are based
on reduced water use.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 23. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52849
Finally, this regulation establishes
categorical pretreatment standards for
one toxic pollutant, total chromium, for
all subcategories. These standards are
concentranon based and apply to
existing and new source indirect
dischargers. The categorical
pretreatment standards for total
chromium contained in this regulation
do not apply to indirect dischargers in
subcategory 1 processing less than 275
hides per day. in subcategory 3
processing less than 350 hides per day
or in subcategory 9 processing less than
3600 splits per day. Categorical
pretreatment standards also are
established for the control of sulfides in
subcategories 1. 2, 3,6, and 8 where
unhairing operations are included.
However, this regulation includes a
provision which allows the POTW to
certify that discharge of sulfide from a
particular facility does not interfere with
its treatment works. If this certification
is made and EPA determines that the
submission is adequate, it will publish a
notice in the Federal Register identifying
those facilities to which the sulfide
pretreatment standard would not apply.
Finally, the Agency is adopting a new
format to make the regulations more
readily usable and understood by
regulating authorities, the industry, and
the public.
m. Summary of Legal Background
The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 established a
comprehensive program to "restore and
maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the Nation's
waters" (Section 101(a)). To implement
the Act EPA was required to issue
effluent limitations guidelines,
pretreatment standards and new source
performance standards for industrial
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 1978. 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 in
promulgating effluent limitations
guidelines and pretreatment standards
for 65 "priority" pollutants and classes
of pollutants, for 21 major industries.
[See Natural Resources Defense
Council Inc. v. Train. 8 ERC 2120
(D.D.C. 1976), modified. 12 ERC 1833
(D.D.C. 1979)].
Many of the basic elements of this
Settlement Agreement were
incorporated into the Clean Water Act
of 1977 ("the Act"). Like the Settlement
Agreement, the Act stressed control of
the 65 classes of toxic pollutants. In
addition, to strengthen the toxic control
program. Section 304(e) of the Act
authorizes the Administrator to
prescribe "best management practices"
(BMP) 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.
Under the Act the EPA program is to
set a number of different kinds of
effluent limitations. These are discussed
in detail in the proposed regulation and
development document The following is
a brief summary;
1.	Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available (BPT).
BPT limitations generally are based on
the average of the best existing
performance at plants of various sizes,
ages and unit processes within the
industry or subcategory. In establishing
BPT limitations, the Agency 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 the
control technologies, process changes
and nonwater-quality environmental
impacts (including.energy requirements).
The total cost of applying the technology
is balanced against the effluent
reduction.
2.	Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT). BAT
limitations, in general represent the best
existing performance 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 5?^ilities
involved, the process employee the
engineering aspects of the control
technologies, process changes, the cost
of achieving such effluent reduction and
nonwater-quality environmental
impacts. The Administrator retains
considerable discretion in aligning 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 discharges of
conventional pollutants from existing
industrial point sources. Conventional
pollutants are those defined in Section
304(a)(4) [biochemical oxygen
demanding pollutants (e.g.. BOD5). total
suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform
and pH] and any additional pollutants
defined by the Administrator as
"conventional" i.e.. oil and grease. (See
44 FR 44501: July 30.1979.)
BCT is not an additional limitation but
replaces BAT for the control of
conventional pollutants. In addition to
other factors specified in seetion
304(b)(4)(B), the Act requires that BCT
limitations be assessed in light of a two
part "cost-reasonableness" test
American Paper Institute v. EPA. 660
F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1961 J- The first test
compares the cost for private industry
to reduce its conventional pollutants
with the cost to publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) 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 stringent 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
ordered 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 has
corrected data errors and applied a
second cost test A revised BCT
methodology was proposed in the
Federal Register on October 29,1982 (47
FR 49178).
EPA identified no economically
achievable technology beyond BPT
(biological treatment) capable of
removing significant amounts of
conventional pollutants from leather
tanning and finishing wastewaters.
Therefore, BCT is being set equal to
BPT, and is not subject to the "cost-
reasonableness" test
4.	New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS). NSPS are based on the best
available demonstrated technology.
New plants have the opportunity and
are required to install the best and most
efficient production processes and
wastewater treatment technologies.
5.	Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources (PSES). PSES are designed to
control the discharge of pollutants that
pass through, interfere with, or are
otherwise incompatible with the
operation of a publicly owned treatment
works (POTW). Tbey must be achieved
within three years of promulgation. The
Clean Water Act of 1977 requires
pretreatment for pollutants that pass
through the POTWs in amounts that
would violate direct discharger effluent
limitations or interfere with the POTWs
treatment process or chosen sludge
-------
32850 Federal Register / VoL 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
disposal method. The legislative history
of the 1977 Act indicates that
pretreatment standards are to be
technology-based analogous to the best
available technology. 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
pretreatment regulations, are found at 40
CFR Part 403 (43 FR 27738 [June 26.
1978); 46 FR 9462 (January 28. 1961 J], •
& Pretreatment Standard for New
Sources (PSNS). Like PSES. PSNS
control the discharge of pollutants to
POTWs that pass through, interfere
with, or are otherwise incompatible with
the operation of POTWs. PSNS are
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
consider? the same factors in
promulgating PSNS as it considers in
promulgating PSES.
IV. Prior Regulations
EPA promulgated BPT. BAT, NSPS,
arid PSNS for the Leather Tanning and
Finishing Point Source Category on
April 9.1974 (39 FR 12958:40 CFR Pan
425. Subparts A-F). The Tanner*'
Council of America (TCA) challenged
these regulations, and the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit left BAT
and PSNS undisturbed, but remanded
the BPT and NSPS regulations for
several reasons (see Tanners' Council of
America vs Train 540 F-2d 1136 [4th Cir.
1976.]). EPA promulgated pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES)
within the Leather Tanning and
Finishing Point Source Category on
March 23.1977 (42 FR 15686; 40 CFR Part
425, Subparts A-G). These regulations
established general pretreatment
prohibitions and specific pH standards
for indirect dischargers. These PSES
regulations were not challenged and are
currently in effect.
Previously promulgated best
practicable control technology currently
available (BPT) and best available
tecnnolcgy economically achievable
(BAT} limitations, new source
performance standards (NSPS),
pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES) and pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS) are
superseded by this regulation. This
regulation also establishes best
conventional pollutant control
'echnolosy Limitations (BCT].
On July 2.1379 (44 FR 38746). EPA
proposed BPT. BAT. BCT. NSPS. PSNS.
and PSES regulations. EPA accepted
comments on the proposed regulations
until April 10, I960. In their comments
on the proposed regulations, the leather
tanning industry claimed that the data
and other supporting record material
relied upon by EPA in proposing these
regulations contained a large number of
errors. The Agency has responded by
not only completely reviewing the entire
data base and all documentation
supporting this rulemaking, but also by
conducting a program to acquire
supplemental data during and after the
comment period.
In the Federal Register for June 2.1962
(47 FR 23956), EPA made available far
public review and comment
supplementary technical and economic
data and related documentation
received after proposal of the
regulations. The Agency also
summarized the preliminary findings of
how these supplementary record
materials might inflnnw final
rulemaking.
V. Methodology and Data Gathering
Efforts
The methodology and data gathering
efforts used in developing the proposed
regulation were discussed in the
preamble to the proposal (44 FR 36749-
38751. July 2.1973). The notice of
availabiity of supplementary record
materials (47 FR 23956, June 2.1962) also
discussed data gathering and review
efforts. In summary, before publishing
the proposed regulation in 1973, the
Agency conducted a data collection,
analytical screening, and analytical
verification program for the leather
tanning and finishing industry. This
program stressed the acquisition of data
on the presence and treatability of the
65 toxic pollutants and classes of toxii:.
pollutants discussed previously. The 6o
toxic pollutants and classes of
pollutants potentially includes
thousands of specific pollutants. EPA
selected 123 specific toxic pollutants for
study in this rulemaking and other
industry rulemakings. (Analytical
methods are discussed in Sampling and
Analysis Procedures for Screening of
Industrial Effluents for Priority
Pollutant (U.S. EPA. April 1977)). Based
on the results of that program. EPA
identified several distinct treatment
technologies, including both end-of-pipe
and m-plant technologies, that are or
can be used to treat leather tanning and
finishing industry wastewaters.
For each of these technologies, the
Agency (i) compiled and analyzed
historical and newly-generated data on
effluent quality, (ii) identified its
reliabilities and constraints, (iii)
considered the nonwater quality
impacts (including impacts on air
quality, solid waste generation and
energy requirements), and (iv) estimated
the costs and economic impacts of
applying it as a treatment and control
system. Costs and economic impacts of
the technology options considered are
discussed in detail in Economic Impact
Analysis of Effluent Limitations and
Standards for the Leather Tanning and
Finishing Industry (EPA 440/11-62-001.
November 1962). A more complete
description of the Agency's study
methodology, data gathering efforts and
analytical procedures supporting the
regulation can be found in the Final
Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines New Source
Performance Standards and
Pretreatment Standards far the Leather
Tanning and Finishing Industry Point
Source Category (EPA 440/11-62-018.
November 1962).
VI. SubcategorizatioQ and Water Use
A. Subcategorizatian. In 1979, the
Agency proposed seven subcategories
for the leather tunning and finishing
industry on the basis of hide or skin
type, and process employed. The seven
subcategories were as follows:
1.	Hair Pulp, Chrome Tan, Retan-Wet
Finish
2.	Hair Save. Chrome Tan. Retan-Wet
Finish
3.	Hair Save or Pulp, Non-Chrome
Tan. Retan-Wet Finish
4.	Retan-Wet Finish
5.	No Beamhouse
6.	Through-The-BIue
7.	Shearling
Upon further review of the industry
and in response to public comment. EPA
is establishing'two additional
subcategories, pigskins (subcategory 8)
and retan-wet-finish-splits (subcategory
9). In the 1979 proposal, the processing
of pigskins was included in subcategory
1. However, the nature of pigskin is
different from that of cattlehide (the
predominant raw material in
subcategory 1), and the subprocesses
utilized to produce finished leather are
different. Given proper water
conservation and recycle and reuse
techniques, the processing of pigskins
results in different water use and
pollutant loads from the processing of
cattlehides. Accordingly, a separate
subcategory, pigskins (subcategory 8),
was required. In the 1979 proposal, the
retanmng and wet finishing of splits was
included in subcategory 4. However, a
split is a different raw material than
grain sides, and the subprocesses
utilized to produce finished leather are
-------
Federal Register f VoL 47. No. 226 / Tuesday. November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52851
different. Given proper water
conservation and reuse and recycle
techniques, the retan-wet finishing of
splits results in different water use and
pollutant loads from the processing of
grain sides. Accordingly, a separate
subcategory, retan-wet finish-splits
(subcategory 9). was added. These two
new subcategories were discussed in the
June 2.1982 notice of availability.
Subcategorizatian tn this industry a.
based primarily upon the raw materials
and the three major groups of
subprocesses utilized at a plant
(beamhouse [hair removal), tan yard
[tanning] and retan-wet finish [further
tanning, coloring, oil replenishment
surface coatirg^ These factors have the
most significant influence oa water use
and pollutant generation. These two
factors are interdependent because the
subprocesses utilized depend upoc the
nature of the raw materials and their
state of preprocessing. For example,
cattlehides to be processed into "crust"
leather (largely finished leather, except
for any soecai surface coating or color)
require all three major groups of
subprocesses: (1) Hair removal (hair
dissolving or pulping). (2) tanning with
divalent chromium, and (3) retanning.
coloring, oil replenishment (fatliquoringV
and surface coating (subcategory one).
Cattlehides and sheepskins without hair
(wool) and add preserved (pickled)
require only chromium tanning,
re tanning, and wet finishing
(subcategory five). Pigskina require
some hair (stubble) removal, chromium
tanning, banning, and wet finishing
(subcategory 8).
Subcategories don in this industry is
incidentally related to the final products
produced because as a result of the
subcategoraadoQ factors Le- the raw
materials and subprocesses used, there
is a typical mix of final products for -
each subcategory. For example,
predominant final products are shoe
uppers, upholstery and garment leather
for subcategory one: they are shoe
uppers, (cattlehides) garments, work
gloves, and lining material for
subcategory five: and shoe upper*
(suede or grain) and work gloves for
subcategory 8.
Commpsters suggested that the
Agency also should base
subcategorizabon upon the quality of
final products produced. The quality of
final products is related both to
quantitanve and qualitative measures.
Quantitative measures include standard
tests utilized in industry Laboratories by
tanners and buyers (e.g_ shoe
manufacturers) to determine leather
properties germane to their intended
jse. For example, determinations of the
percent of drrnrriirm content by weight
the "boil" test, and other tests of
mechanical properties provide
standardized bases for determining
whether final leather products are
acceptable for their intended use. The
qualitative meassres of final product
quality are subjective factors, such as
the "feel" of leathers. The Agency has
not used either the quantitative or
qualitative »ni>»
-------
52852 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
Table 2—Continued
SuOC4t«9ory
Hmm
tow mo
(9*ton
om
pound)
of Dtami
n oata
buid
»crw*inq
flow rtoo
Q
2-5
z


In response to the notice of
availability, several commenters
expressed serious concerns regarding
the lack of homogeneity in raw
matenals, processing methods, and final
product mix within subcategories as
these relate to the validity and
achievability of water use ratios for
existing and new sources. The Agency
again reviewed, and revised where
appropriate, the data presented in the
]une 2.1982 Federal Register (see 47 FR
23959) underlying the median and
reduced water use ratios for all
subcategories.
In reviewing the water use (and
wastewater pollutant load] data, the
Agency applied the same criteria as it
employed in developing the water use
ratios published in the lune 2.1982
notice of availability. ITiese criteria are
as follows:
(1)	For a plants' data to be included in
the data base utilized to characterize
water use and waste loads for any
subcategory, at least 80 percent of the
plants' production must be in one
subcategory, or data for each processing
operation representing a separate
subcategory at a plant must be for a
segregated and measurable wastewater
stream. Mixed subcategory plants which
did not meet this criteria would not be
included in the data base because water
use ratios and pollutant loads derived
from these plants would not be accurate
for a single subcategory.
(2)	The location at which the
wastewater was sampled (i.e.. before or
after treatment and type of treatment)
and the sampling technique (grab,
composite, flow proportional) must be
reported so that the data could be used
properly to characterize raw waste and
the performance of various treatment
system components.
(3)	Production and Dow values must
be reported for the days of sampling so
that pollutant concentrations could be
converted to mass and normalized to
production. Average or estimated values-
were used only with the approval of the
individual tannery and upon verification
of the data source and validity of the
averages or estimates.
(4)	Production data (in pounds) must
be reported on the basis specified for
each type of raw material to allow flow
and pollutant loads to be normalized for
each subcategory.
Upon review of these criteria and in
response to several commenters,
adjustments were made in the number
of plants included in the data base for
subcategories one. three, four, five, and
seven. Specifically, nine plants in
subcategory one were dropped, seven
because they were mixed subcategory
plants which did not meet the criterion
discussed above, one plant included in
this subcategory by mistake, and one
because of lack of documentation for
water use estimates. In subcategory
three, one plant was dropped because it
was a mixed subcategory plant which
did not meet the criterion discussed
above. Three plants were deleted from
the subcategory four data base, one
plant due to undocumented water use
estimates, one plant included in this
subcategory by mistake, and one plant
due to a limited and unverified period of
water use data. In addition, the raw
material weight basis for one plant was
corrected and the plant's water use ratio
recalculated. One plant in subcategory
five was deleted due to undocumented
water use estimates. One plant in
subcategory seven was eliminated due
to lack of documentation for the
accuracy of the flow data. These
changes are reflected in the median Qow
ratios represented in Table 1 and in the
adjustments for new source flow ratios
in four subcategories, as represented in
Table 2. Mixed subcategory plants
which were deleted from the data base
(Tables 1 and 2) used to characterize
water use and waste loads for each
subcategory would, however, still
receive prorated mass limitations.
Examples of how prorated mass
limitations are calculated for mixed
subcategory plants can be found in the
Development Document.
From an examination and analysis of
all available flow and pollutant data, the
Agency has determined that there is a
direct relationship between the primary
sub categorization factors of raw
materials and groups of subprocesses
utilized and water use and pollutant
loadings. Accordingly, the Agency has
developed water use ratios for each
subcategory which are achievable for
each plant within that subcategory.
Since the raw materials and
subprocesses utilized by individual
plants within a subcategory are very
similar, it is the Agency's judgment that
water use for individual plants within a
subcategory can also be similar. The
water use for plants within a
subcategory are, however, often
different The Agency believes that
water conservation, recycling and reuse
of water and/or good housekeeping
practices can be used by each plant
within a subcategory in order to arrive
at the flow ratios specified in Tables 1
and 2. Examples of plants which have
utilized these techniques are addressed
in Chapter VII of the Development
Document. Since water conservation
and recycle and reuse techniques are
available for all three groups of
subprocesses and. therefore, applicable
for each of the subcategories for this
industry, those techniques also are
available for mixed subcategory plants.
Examples of how mixed subcategory
plants could achieve prorated water use
ratios are addressed in Chapter VII of
the Development Document
In response to several commenters'
concerns about the ability of plants
which manufacture certain final
products to meet the subcategory water
use ratios, the Agency examined and
analyzed all available water use data.
The Agency attempted to separate
further some subcategories by
predominant final products and
developed median water use ratios for
these products. These water use ratios
were not significantly different from the
median water use ratios established for
the subcategories from which these
attempted separations were made. The
data available to the Agency indicate
that different plants making the same
mix of salable final products have
different water use ratios depending
upon the extent to which they
implement water conservation and
recycle or reuse methods. Accordingly,
the Agency has concluded from analysis
of available data that there is no
relationship between final products
manufactured and water used which
supports further separation of
subcategories. A comparison of water
use data and final product mixes is
discussed in the Development
Document
Several commenters criticized the
data base underlying flow ratios in
certain subcategories as being meager.
For example, in subcategory seven
water use ratios were based on data
from one plant out of the universe of
eight plants. The Agency recognizes that
in some instances the data base was
limited. The Agency actively solicited
data from the industry. Three data
collection questionnaires were
developed in cooperation with and
mailed directly to member tanneries by
the Tanners' Council of America. These
cooperative data gathering efforts
resulted in the bulk of the data used in
this rulemaking. The Agency also visited
plants, sampled wastewaters, and
conducted related specific data
gathering efforts to supplement these
industry supplied data. All data
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. Sc. 228 / Tuesday, November 23. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52853
ga thering efforts were described in the
proposal (44 FR 38749). the notice of
av ailabihty (47 FR 23958), and detailed
in the Development Document It is the
Agency's belief, as confirmed by
comment from the Tanners'' Council of
America, that all available data that
exist hare been acquired by EPA. In
several instances, the industry
submitted only a limited amount of
accurate and verifiable flow data. Far
those subcategories, the Agency
reviewed the manufacturing and raw
material data for each pi am is the
subcategory. Since there were no
significant differences in manofacuring'
and raw material data for plants within
the subcategory, the available Sow data
was judged representative of the plants
within the subcategory.
VH. Summary of Promulgated
Regulations
The 5oal regulations reflect the
changes discussed above and other
changes made in consideration of public
comments provided in response to the
proposal and the notice of availability,
and further evaluation of the
information upon which the notice of
avauabihty was based. Following ut a.
review of the proposed regulation and
the notice of availability, a summary of
the changes Era a. proposal to
promulgation, and an explanation of the
reasons for the changes.
A brief seminary of the technology
bases for each of the final regulation*
aiso is presented below. A more
detailed summary is presented La the
Ds velopcr.ent Document far Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Leather Tanning and Finishing
Point Source Category. The BPT. BAT.
aid N'SPS technologies outlined below
are the same and apply to all
subcategories, and the final effluent
concentrations resulting from the
application of the technology are
identical for all subcategories. However,
the BPT. BCT. and BAT mass limitations
for each subcategory vary due to
different median water use ratios (see
Table 1} among the subcategories. The
N'SPS mass limitations for each
subcategory vary due to different
reduced water use ratios achievable by
new sources (see Table 2).
The Agency proposed PSES
regulations which controded sulfide end
chromium to the same concentrations in
all subcategories. The proposal also
included control for ammonia. The
promuJga ted PSES and PSNS regulations
are based on different technologies,
outlined below. These standards appty
to two group# of subcategories. The first
group are those with onhairiny
operations (subcategories 1. 2, 3. 6, and
8), and the second group are those
without unhairing operations
(subcategories 4, 5. 7, and 9 J.
PSES for the first groop of
subcategories includes concentration
based standards for both sulfide and
total chromnun. As tfacwwd below, the
sulfide standard will Dot apply if the
receiving POTW certifies, after
consideration of ail reLevust factors, that
the	discharged by a particular
facility does not interfere with the
treatment works. II thia certification is
made and EPA determines that the
submission is adequate, it will publish »
notice in the Federal Register identifying
those facilities to which the sulfide
pre treatment standard would not apply.
The chromium standard does not apply
to small plants is. subcategory 1 or
subcategory 3.
PSES for the second group of
subcategories includes only total
chromium concentration based
standards, which do not apply to «m;»H
plants in subcategory 3. The PSNS
model treatment technology and
pretreaiment ru-tairlc the same as
those for PSES. Pretreatment standards
for ammonia have been deleted far all
subcategories.
The 30 day average limitation* and
standards that were proposed have been
replaced with monthly averages based
upon eight days of sampling, oi
approximately twice per week, during
any calendar month. Eight day monthly
averages were used in developing the
monthly limitations and standards,
because this sampling frequency is
expected to be typical for compliance
monitoring in this industry.
NPDES authorities may adopt more
frequent monitoring requirements as
may be necessary on a case-by-case
basis. Moreover, individual plants in the
industry may choose to sample-nore
frequendy than twice per week, for
example to improve process control for
biological treatment systems.
Compliance by a given discharger with
these (eight day) limitations would be
bases oa the arithmetic average of the
actual number of measurements taken
during a calendar month, regardless of
their frequency.
A. BPT. In these regulations. EPA is
promulgating BPT effluent limitations
guidelines foi all nine subcategories of
the leather tanning and finishing
industry.
The BPT regulations promulgated by
EPA on April 9.1374 (39 FR 129581 were
remanded by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fouth Circuit in
Tanners' Council of American v. Train,
supra. The court held that (lj The
Agency's basis for technology transfer
from the meat packing industry to the
leather tanning and finishing industry
was not supported in the record, and (2)
EPA's consideration of seasonal
variability in effluent concentrations
and the need for cold climate
adjustments was inadequate.
In 197a the Agency proposed BPT
regulations based upon equalization,
primary coagulation-sedimentation, and
biological treatment in the form of high
solids extended aeration, activated
sludge. The same technology was the
basis for tentative effluent limitations
included in the June 2.1382 notice of
availability, and the BPT effluent
limitations now being promulgated
Technology transfer from the meat
packing industry is not the basis for this
regulation. The use of this BPT
technology has been demonstrated by
plants in subcategories 1. 3. and 4. but it
has not been applied in all remaining
subcategories where wastewater
treatment is uniformly inadequate. Most
of the existing biological treatment
systems in the industry are inadequate.
For example, gome of the plants: (1J Do
not have the equipment necessary to be
operated as high solids extended
aeration activated sludge: (2} have
overloaded activated sludge systems; (3)
have simple lagoons with inadequate or
no aeration facilities: (4) are poorly
operated; or (5) suffer some combination
of all of these inadequacies. EPA has
documented these inadequacies on a
plant-by-plant basis and evaluated the
equipment and costs necessary to
achieve extended aeration activated
sludge treatment and the BPT effluent
concentrations. The Agency believes
that given the similarity in the
treatability of wastewaters in all
subcategories, this technology will
remove effectively pollutants from
wastewaters of all subcategories and
will remove them to the same final
effluent concentrations in each
subcategory. The basis for this
conclusion is discussed in the
Development Document. Consequently,
the Agency has transferred this
technology and the achievable final
effluent concentrations, from
subcategories 1. 3. and 4 in which this
technology has been demonstrated, to
the remaining subcategories. To ensure
that these effluent limitations are
achievable by plants hi all
subcategories, differences among
subcategories in wastewater volumes
and pollutant loads resulted in different
unit process designs and associated
costs. Most importantly, adjustments
were made in the sizing of primary
coagulation-sedimentation tanks and the
aeration capacity and hydraulic
-------
52854 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 229 / Tuesday. November 23. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
detention time required for activated
sludge aeration basins. The Agency's
design and costing procedures have
been tailored further to each individual
direct discharger.
As described previously in the June 2,
1982 notice of availability (47 FR 23960-
61), EPA is adopting final effluent
concentrations, as follows: BOD5-40
tng/1; TSS-60 mg/l: Oil and Grease-20
mg/L Chromium (Total)—1 mg/L The
variability factors listed In Appendix A
of that notice (47 FR 23964). together
with median flow ratios presented in
Table 1 of this preamble, have been
applied to the above long term final
effluent concentrations to establish
monthly average and maximum day
mass based effluent limitations for all
nine subcategories. Final effluent
concentrations and variability factors
can be combined with median water use
ratios derived separately to develop
mass limitations because the Agency has
found that the wastewaters from all
subcategories can be treated to the same
concentrations, while the median water
use ratios have been demonstrated
separately by plants in each
subcategory. In support of this
methodology, the Agency found that
these mass based BPT effluent
limitations, or the effluent
concentrations, or both, were achieved
by the three representative plants (two
POTWs. nos. 50 and 55, and one direct
discharger, plant no. 47). The two
POTWs are considered representative
of direct dischargers because they both
receive more than 95 percent of their
wastewaters from tanneries, and
because they both use the BPT model
treatment technology, i.e., primary
treatment followed by activated sludge
biological treatment. Data from these
plants includes periods of winter
operation by the two POTWs, both
located in Maine. Review of data in the
record for these two POTWs reveals
consistent effluent quality for winter
periods. This finding demonstrates that
periods of winter operation and cold
climate locations do not warrant higher
effluent Limitations.
As noted previously, BPT effluent
limitations are being promulgated for
two new subcategories (no. & pigskins
and no. 9: retan-wet finish, splits).
However, the BPT limitations for these
two new subcategories are based on the
use of the same technology, biological
treatement, as for the BPT limitaUons for
all of the remaining seven subcategories
proposed originally in 1979. The June 2.
1982 notice of availability included
tentative effluent limitations for ail nine
subcategories. Thus the Agency believes
that all commenters had an opportunity
to present their views on these new
subcategories and that separate notice
and comment is not necessary.
The Development Document presents
the methodology for developing these
BPT effluent limitations, the engineering
aspects of achieving these effluent
[imitations, a description of the
technology, the costs and effluent
reduction benefits, and the non-water
quality environmental impact of these
effluent limitations.
The Agency's analysis Indicates
implementation of BPT will require
investment costs of S10.5 million, and
total annualized cost of S5.7 million (Erst
quarter 1982 dollars) in order to upgrade
existing treatment facilities for the 17
direct dischargers.
These costs are expected to result in
closure of 2 plants causing
approximately 155 people to become
unemployed. This is approximately 1.3
percent of the plants and 0.3 percent of
the total employment in the industry.
The cost of production is estimated to
increase by 0.6 to 2.3 percent The total
mass of regulated pollutants removed
from existing discharge to BPT would be
5.3 million pounds per year of
conventional pollutants (BOD5, TSS,
and Oil and Grease), and 44,000 pounds
per year of total (bivalent) chromium
from current discharges (547,000 pounds
per year from raw waste). EPA has
determined that the effluent reduction
benefits of this regulation justify its
costs.
B. BAT. The technology basis of the
proposed BAT effluent limitations (see
44 FR 38753-38755; July 2.1979) was BPT
biological treatment preceded by in*
plant control, water conservation,
stream segregation, and pre treatment of
the segregated beamhouse stream by
catalytic sulfide oxidation and flue jas
coagulation-sedimentation, and
followed by upgraded biological
treatment through powdered activated
carbon (PAC) addition, and multimedia
filtration. The proposed BAT effluent
limitations would have controlled one
toxic pollutant (total chromium). Five
nonconventionai pollutants also would
have been controlled (chemical oxygen
demand (COD), TKN, ammonia, sulfide,
and total phenols (as measured by the
4AAP procedure listed in 40 CFR Part
138, Standard Methods}). All of the
pollutants controlled by BAT, including
the conventional pollutants BOD, TSS,
Oil and Grease, and pH. were proposed
as indicators for the control of toxic
organic pollutants discharged from
leather tanning and finishing plants.
As a result of comments on the
proposed regulations, and
comprehensive analysis of supplemental
data and documentation gathered after
proposal, the Agency indicated in the
June 2.1982 notice of availability (47 FR
23961) that it had reviewed the options
previously set forth In the BAT proposal,
and redefined those options. Proposed
OPTION I had been based on the
addition of in-plant controls and
segregated stream pretreatment to BPT
technology. However, in view of the
increase in cost for this control
technology and the economic posture of
the industry, EPA announced that it
would consider BAT OPTION I to be
equal to BPT. In addition, EPA
announced that it would combine the
effluent limitations and costs of
proposed OPTION II. based on activated
sludge upgraded primarily by powdered
activated carbon (PAC) addition, with
those of proposed OPTION I, primarily
based on in-plant control and segregated
stream pretreatment. This combination
would be considered BAT OPTION IL
The addition of multimedia filtration,
(previously OPTION HI) which was the
basis for the proposed BAT regulation,
remained as OPTION m. The Agency
also indicated that it was no longer
seriously considering proposed OPTION
IV. which was based on the end-of-pipe
addition of granular activated carbon
columns, because such technology
would be too expensive and lacked
demonstrated use in this industry. BAT
OPTION n, as amended, would require
an incremental investment cost beyond
BPT of S17.6 million, with total
annualized cost of S7.5 million. This
OPTION would remove 4.2 million
pounds per year of nonconventionai
pollutants (COD. TKN. ammonia,
sulfide, and total phenol [4AAP]). and
2.000 pounds per year of total chromium.
Incidentally, this OPTION would
remove 0.&4 million pounds per year of
conventional pollutants (B0D5, TSS, Oil
and Grease). The Agency's economic
analysis indicated that of the 13 plants
analyzed, five may close if this OPTION
were selected.
In reviewing all available engineering
and economic data and information, the
Agency concluded that attainment of
BAT limitations based on BAT OPTION
II would not be economically achievable
for this industry. In addition, this
technology has not been demonstrated
in this industry at this time. Based on
these findings, the Agency has
determined that more stringent
regulation of toxic pollutant discharges
from the leather tanning industry is not
justified at this time and that BAT
effluent limitations should be
established equal to BPT limitations.
Therefore, review of BAT OPTION III
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52855
was not necessary because it was even
more costly and would result in even
more plant closures. Moreover, BAT
OPTION ID also has not been
demonstrated in this industry.
The nonconventional pollutants TKN,
ammonia, COD. sulfide, and total phenol
(4AAP) were not controlled by BPT
technology; these pollutants were
controlled by BAT OPTIONS II and IZL
However, because BAT OPTIONS II and
III were neither demonstrated nor
economically achievable. EPA is not
incorporating limitations for these
nonconventional pollutants in the BAT
(BPT) limitations.
State and local regulatory authorities
may find it necessary to establish
pollutant limitations in addition to and/
or more stringent than those established
by these regulations, where needed to
achieve or maintain the appropriate
receiving water quality. In these
instances, the development document
includes guidance on the range of
anticipated performance of further
control technologies. Specific effluent
concentrations have not been included
for BAT OPTIONS 0 and III because
these technologies are not demonstrated
in this industry at this time.
C.	BCT. The proposed regulations had
set BCT effluent limitations equal to
those proposed for BAT (44 FR 38755).
However, after review of the
supplemented record EPA Indicated in
the June 2.1982 notice of availability (47
FR 23961-23962) that no economically
achievable conventional pollutant
control technology beyond BPT could be
identified. Accordingly, EPA is
promulgating BCT effluent limitations
equal to BPT effluent limitations for all
subcategories.
D.	i\'SPS. The basis for new source
performance standards (NSPS) under
Section 306 of the Act is the best
available demonstrated technology.
New plants have the opportunity to
design the best and most efficient
leather tanning processes and
wastewater treatment technologies, and,
therefore. Congress directed EPA to
consider the best demonstrated process
changes, in-plant controls, and end-of-
pipe treatment technologies which
reduce pollution to the maximum extent
feasible.
The technology basis of proposed
NSPS was the same as the technology
basis for the proposed BAT limitations.
The proposed NSPS standards (44 FR
38755), were therefore the same as the
proposed BAT effluent limitations.
The June 2,1982 notice of availability
(47 FR 23962) indicated that the Agency
was considering adopting BAT (BPT)
technology with reduced flows as the
basis for NSPS mass based standards.
The Agency is promulgating NSPS based
upon the same end-of-pipe technology
and effluent concentration limitations as
utilized in the promulgated BAT (BPT)
with reduced flows because this is the
best available demonstrated technology.
The Agency received comments on
the basis for and the achievability of
new source water use ratios. As noted
previously in this preamble, the Agency
reviewed the data base in response to
those comments and adjustments were
made in new source water use ratios for
four subcategories. These new source
ratios (see Table 2), identified in eight of
the nine subcategories, have been
demonstrated by at least one plant in
each of these eight subcategories, and
have been incorporated in the mass
based NSPS standards.
The cost of NSPS would be less than
BAT for an existing source in eight of
the nine subcategories because new
plants can use more efficient processing
methods which require less water use
(see Tables 1 and 2). Because the cost of
treatment technology is most dependent
upon wastewater volume, new sources'
would be able to build smaller and less
costly treatment systems. Similarly, the
mass of pollutants discharged by these
new source systems would be less than
the mass of pollutants discharged by
existing sources. This is true because
new sources can achieve the same final
effluent concentrations as existing
sources. In the shearling subcategory,
the new source water use ratio was the
same as the median water use ratio.
Therefore, the costs of end-of-pipe
technology and the mass of pollutants
discharged by new sources would be the
same as for existing sources. Examples
of costs and pollutant removals for
selected model plants are presented in
the Development Document. The
economic analysis indicates that these
NSPS regulations are not expected to
significantly discourage entry into the
industry or result in any differential
economic impacts to new plants.
£ PSES. The Clean Water Act of 1977
requires pre treatment for pollutants that
pass through POTWs in amounts that
would violate direct discharger effluent
limitations or interfere with the POTWs
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. 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.
As noted in the June 2.1982 notice of
availability (47 FR 23962-23963), EPA
reviewed the entire basis for the
proposed PSES concentration limitations
for ammonia, sulfide, and chromium. As
part of that review and in response to
comments. EPA developed two
additional technology options
(TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS I and II)
which are less costly and require less
space for installation than the
technology option (TECHNOLOGY
OPTION III) which served as the basis
for the proposed PSES regulations.
These two new technology options were
described, along with their costs and
projected economic impacts, in the
notice of availability. Details on these
technology options are presented in the
Development Document Discussion of
the regulatory option selected by EPA
for the promulgated regulations follows.
Ammonia. In-process substitution of
epsom salts for ammonia in the deliming
process served as the basis for the
proposed pretreatment standard for
ammonia. In their comments on the
proposed regulations, industry supplied
data and information on side-by-side
pilot processing tests with and without
in-process substitution. Based on that
data and information, the Agency agrees
with the industry that the substitution of
epsom salts for ammonia may adversely
affect finished leather quality and
increase costs because of its operational
difficulty. There are no other available
pretreatment technologies which afford
substantial removal of ammonia.
Accordingly, EPA has decided that
pretreatment standards for ammonia
will not be promulgated.
Sulfide. EPA proposed (44 FR 38756-
38757) a pretreatment standard for
sulfide of "zero discharge" (not
detectable by the 304(h) analytical
method) based upon catalytic oxidation
of segregated unhainng wastewaters.
The standard would have been
applicable to all subcategories. Sulfides
were controlled by PSES because of the
potential for interference resulting from
release of massive quantities of
hydrogen sulfide gas in sewers,
headworks. and sludge management
facilities at POTWs. Fatalities
attributable to release of hydrogen
sulfide gas have been documented. In
response to the proposal, the industry
commented that the standard (0.0 mg/1)
was not achievable, and that the
standard would not improve treatment
^efficiency or water quality.
The |une 2.1982 notice of availability
(47 FR 23963) indicated that the severity
of these problems varies by pH and time
(slug loading), and by POTW
(comingiing of varying quantities of
-------
52856 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
municipal and industrial wastewaters m
collection sewers). Review of the
supplemented data base regarding the
performance of catalytic sulfide
oxidation technology revealed that a
lor.g term average effluent concentration
of 9 mg/1 could be achieved in total
sewer discharges, with a maximum day
variability factor of 2.7. EPA further
indicated that only a maximum day
limitation would be effective, because
the most severe hazard posed by
hydrogen sulfide occurs during rapid
fluctuations in pH caused by
unequalized slug loading. The maximum
day concentration would reduce the
potential for interference problem* to
the maximum extent feasible by
available technology. The Agency
indicated that it was considering
applying the maximum day {iretreatment
standard (24 mg/1) to plants in
subcategories (nos. 1. 2.1 8. and 8)
which incorporate sulfide tm hairing
operations and discharge high
concentrations of sulfides. Sulfides are
discharged by plants in the remaining
subcategories, but at concentrations
typical of domestic sewage, thus not
imposing any ad&bonal interference or
operational costs than would be
experienced without these wastewaters.
Pretreatment Technology OPTIONS L fl.
and ILL discussed in the )une 2.1982
notice of availability, all include sulfide
control for these five subcategories.
The Agency has included in this
regulation a sulfide analytical method
different from that promulgated under
Section 304(h) of the Act. This was
necessary because the 304(h) sulfide
analytical method was subject to
interferences. The method included in
this regulation is that utilized by the
Society of Leather Trades' Chemists,
Method SLM 4/2. The sulfide
pretreatment standard is based upon
this method. Although this method has
not been formally proposed by the
Agency, it served as the basis for the
tentative sulfide pretreatment standards
announced in the June 2.1982 notice of
availability, and it was referenced in the
supplemented record. Therefore, the
Agency has determined that there has
been adequate opportunity for comment
The Agency indicated in the fune 2,
1982 notice of availability that it was
considering two regulatory options for r
sulfide controL The first option was to [
promulgate a categorical pretreatment
standard applicable to all plants in the
above noted five subcategories. The
second option was to promulgate a
categorical pretreatment standard which
would include a provision for waivers
from this standard. A waiver could be
requested by the POTWs receiving
unhairing wastewaters from tanneries
and would be based upon evaluation of
site specific factors which determine the
degree of interference (hazard to human
life) attributable to the high sulfide
concentrations.
Those state and local authorities
which commented generally agreed with';
the need for sulfide control. However,
site specific factors were cited as :<
important in determining the degree of
interference that would exist Most
tanners either rejected totally the need
for sulfide control or recommended that
waivers be allowed for individual
POTWs. Some commenters indicated
that a waiver process would impose
unnecessary procedural burdens, and
that some POTWs would choose not to
invoke the waiver process even if
sulfide control were not necessary.
EPA is promulgating a categorical
sulfide pretreatment standard applicable
to subcategories with unhairing
operations (nos. L 2. 3,6, and 8) based
on catalytic sulfide oxidation technology
in order to prevent interference to the
maximum extent feasible by available
technology. EPA estimates that the
investment cost of sulfide pretreatment
and wastewater neutralization alone
would be as high as S34 million with
total annual costs of S18 million if all
plants in these five subcategories are
required to comply with the standard.
No closures were anticipated for this
cosL This cost would effect removal of
5.3 million pounds/year of sulfide.
Hydrogen sulfide at POTWs presents
serious fatal hazards to life.
Occurrences of hydrogen sulfide related
deaths have been noted at POTWs
receiving tannery wastewater. However,
because the degree of interference will
varyjEPA is adopting a waiver ~j
procedure which would allow affected!
POTWs to certify that uncontrolled
discharge oi sulfide does not interfere
( With their particular treatment works,
c. The POTW would make this finding
) based upon an evaluation of a I ~
nonexclusive list of criteria set out in the
regulations. After making these findings
f the POTW would be required to allow^i
; for public comment by notice in a local
/ newspaper, and by public hearing if
i requested. The POTW would then \
¦ forward its findings and results of public
comments and certify in writing to the
" Water Management Divisiom Director in
I the appropriate EPA regional office that 1
,3 local circumstances do not require a c—*
categorical pretreatment standard for I
; sulfide. The regulations also indade a I
procedure with appropriate deadlines^
/ for POTWs to follow for invoking this]
waiver. \
The Agency recognizes that it is
virtually impossible to cover all possible
combinations of factors which could
occur at individual POTWs. Therefore,
the Agency has elected to include;in the
regulations a list of general factors^
which. at a mfmnnm nmst be
considered by POTWs when certifying
that there is no interference caused by
sulfide in their treatment works. These"*
factors are;-		
(l)'TheTpresence and characteristics
of other industrial wastewaters which
can change sulfide concentrations. pH.
or both.
POTWs that serve few if any
industrial indirect dischargers, other
than tanneries which employ unhairing
operations, have little or no wastewater
to contribute either to sulfide
concentration changes, or to pH
changes, especially decreases in pH
which tend to liberate hydrogen sulfide
gas.
POTWs that have significant
industrial wastewater contributions,
especially wastewaters that are not
equalized and may include sludge loads
or consistendy low pH wastewater, may
experience substantial difficulty in
maintaining very high concentrations of
sulfide in solution and are likely to have
interference.
V(2)xThe characteristics of the sewer/
interceptor collection system which
either minimize or enhance
opportunities for release of hydrogen
sulfide gas.
Leather tanneries with unhairing
operations connected to POTWs by
short pressure mains will experience
little or no difficulty in maintaining
sulfides in alkaline solution during
wastewater transit from the indirect
discharger to the POTW headworks. In
this instance, the pressurized sewer
system contributes to maintaining
dissolved sulfides, thus decreasing, the
likelihood of interference.
POTWs with long gravity interceptor
sewers, with "dead spots" and other
discontinuities in hydraulic profile
probably will have difficulty
maintaining sulfides in solution, and
interference is likely. In this case,
reducing the sulfide concentration
entering the sewer by sulfide
pretreatment will minimis the potential
for release of massive quantities of
hydrogen sulfide gas daring wastewater
transit to the POTW.
(3) The characteristics of the receiving
POTWs headworks. preliminary and
primary treatment systems, and sludge
management facilities which either
minimize or enhance opportunities for
release of hydrogen sulfide gas.
V
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52857
FOTWs with facilities that have very
short hydraulic detention times and are
enclosed in well ventilated buildings
have reduced opportunities for release
of hydrogen sulfide gas.
POTWs with facilities that are
enclosed in very confined and poorly
ventilated buildings and have long
hydraulic detention times have
enhanced opportunities for release of
hydrogen sulfide gas and substantial
risk to human life.
(4) The history of any sulfide related
interference problems at affected
POTWs is of major importance in
determining the need for a pretreatment
standard for sulfide.
Five years is the suggested minimum
period of historical review of any
interference incidents as they relate to
the presence of elevated sulfide
concentrations from leather tanneries
with unhairing operations, and to the
first three factors relating to the POTW
noted above.
The Agency considered relying solely
on the prohibited discharge standards
(Section 403.5) of the general
pretreatment regulations in place of a
categorical pretreatment standard for
sulfide. However, the Agency rejected
this approach because of the special
interference problems presented by the
very high concentrations of sulfides in
the unhairing wastewaters generated by
this industry, the very serious nature of
the problem, and the availability of
control technology.
Chromium. The proposed regulation
(44 FR 38736-57) included a
pretreatment standard (concentration
limitation) for chromium (total), 2 mg/1,
applicable to all plants and based upon
coagulation-sedimentation of combined
wastewater streams. The June 2.1982
notice of availability (47 FTl 23963)
reasserted the Agency's concern for
pass through of chromium (trivalent)
based on the performance of well
operated POTWs. For the cities studied,
chromium removal by well operated
POTWs achieving secondary treatment
averaged 65 percent This is
substantially lower than the removals
required by BAT level treatment (95-98
percent), and therefore the Agency
indicated that it was considering a
categorical pretreatment standard for
chromium. The Agency indicated that its
basis for the standard was pretreatment
Technology Option IL which included
coagulation-sedimentation of segregated
and equalized tanyard and retan-wet
finish wastewaters. It also was noted
that from 5-10 percent of the plants
might not have adequate interior space
or adjacent land to install this
technology.
Comments submitted by the industry
focused on three major issues. First, the
industry claimed that the Agency's
finding of chromium pass through based
on the POTW study was erroneous. The
industry cited the low POTW effluent
concentrations as the significant finding
of the POTW study, not the percent
removals. Second, the industry asserted
that trivalent chromium is not
significantly harmful to the environment,
citing as supporting evidence the EPA
Office of Solid Waste action that
removed all tannery wastes (process
solid wastes and wastewater treatment
sludges) from the list of hazardous
wastes because they did not contain
hexavalent chromium. Third, the
industry commented that the number of
plants which do not have adequate
space to install pretreatment technology
was greater than estimated by EPA.
Parts of the industry further objected to
the Agency's assumption that parking
lot space was available for treatment
facilities.
The Agency has decided to
promulgate a categorical pretreatment
standard for chromium (total).
Categorical pretreatment standards are
necessary in this case because the
percent of chromium removed by well
operated POTWs achieving secondary
treatment requirements is less than
required by BAT for direct dischargers.
This definition of pass through satisfies
two competing objectives set by
Congress: (1) That standards for indirect
dischargers be analogous to standards
for direct dischargers, while, at the same
time. (2) that the treatment capability
and performance of the POTW be
recognized and taken into account in
regulating the discharge of pollutants
from indirect dischargers. The Agency
compares percentage removal rather
than the mass or concentration of
pollutants discharged from the F9TW
because the former would not take into
account the mass of pollutants
discharged to the POTW from non-
industrial sources and the latter would
credit the indirect discharger with the
dilution of the pollutants m the POTW
effluent to lower concentrations due to
the addition of large amounts of non-
industrial wastewater.
EPA has decided to regulate trivalent
chromium in these pretreatment
standards because the total quantity of
trivalent chromium generated by
indirect dischargers in this industry is
nationally significant (5.7 million lbs/yr)
when compared to other industrial
categories, such as the metal finishing
industry (8.9 million lbs/yr) and
inorganic chemicals industry-chrome
pigments subcategory (1.4 million lbs/
yr), where chromium also is regulated.
Information in the record indicates that
while trivalent chromium is not as toxic
as hexavalent chromium from the
human health standpoint, trivalent
chromium exhibits chrome aquatic
toxicity (24 hr toxicity value
approximately 50 p.g/1), as confirmed by
ongoing EPA studies^o develop a water
quality criteria for trivalent chromium. .
Therefore, both forms of chromium
(trivalent and hexavalent) are
environmentally significant and are
appropriate to be regulated under the
Clean Water Act The commenters
submitted no information which would
justify excluding chromium from these
regulations.
The basis for the chromium
pretreatment standard is Technology
Option Q with two different
concentration limitations depending
upon subcategory. The achievable long
term effluent concentration for
chromium (total] is 8 mg/1 for those
subcategories (nos. 4. 5.7, and 9) which
do not have beamhouse operations. The
achievable long term effluent
concentration for chromium (total) is 5
mg/1 for those subcategories (nos. 1. 2. 3,
6. and 8) which do have beamhouse
operations.
EPA's economic analysis projected
that the cost of chromium control would
result in disproportionate economic
impacts on small plants in subcategories
1, 3 and 9. 4-5 of 6 small plants in
subcategory 1,1-2 of the 3 small plants
in subcategory 3, and 4-5 of 9 small
plants in subcategory 9 were projected
to close. No less costly chromium
control technology options or less
stringent chromium standards could be
identified for these plants. Therefore,
the PSES regulations for chromium do
not apply to small plants which process
less than 275 hides/day in subcategory
1, less than 350 hides/day in
subcategory 3, and les3 than 3600 splits/
day in subcategory 9. However, small
plants in subcategories 1 and 3 would
8nil be subject to sulfide pretreatment
standards, and small plants in
subcategories 1. 3 and 9 would still be
required to comply with general
pretreatment regulations.
Pretreatment Technology Option II
includes both sulfide and chromium
control. The total investment cost of
chromium control alone could be as high
as &105 million with total annualized
costs of as high as S28 million if all
plants not exempted from these
regulations were required to install this
technology. This cost may result in the
closure of one to three plants among all
plants covered by these chromium
pretreatment standards. The total mass
-------
52858 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 22S / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
of trivalent chromium removed would be
5.2 million pounds per year.
Constraints on the availability of
interior plant space and adjacent land
were considered by EPA. and an
attempt was made to develop further
separations within subcategories or
alternative effluent limitations to-take
this factor into account The Agency
specifically solicited comment in the
notice of availability as to whether any
plants would have inadequate space to
install the recommended chromium
cuntrol technology. However, EPA did
not receive and does not have the
detailed information and data needed to
define the total population of indirect
discharging plants that do not have
adequate space to install the model
chromium treatment technology.
Therefore, the Agency believes that the
more appropriate approach is to grant
variances from the chromium
pretreatment standard based upon a
specific demonstration by the indirect
tiischarger, as provided by the general
pretreatment regulation (} 403.13], of the
fundamentally different factor (FDF) of
inadequate interior plant space or
adjacent land. In the event that
sufficient detailed submissions are
received within 180 days of the effective
date of these regulations, as required by
§ 403.13. to precisely define those plants
which do not have adequate space for
chromium removal technology, an
amendment of PSES regulations may be
possible. Such submissions would have
to conform to the requirements of
§ 403.13. and include at a minimum: (1]
Detailed information and data on
interior plant layout and adjacent land
(diagrams noting all areas with current
uses and dimensions); (2) details on the
least costly pretreatment system
including ail unit processes to be used to
meet the chromium standard and the
area required, as well as pertinent
details of any pretreatment facilities
already in place: (3) the itemized cost of
each of the additional treatment system
unit processes which must be added,
and the cost of any additional land
which must be obtained, or other plant
modifications that would be necessary
to accommodate the additional facilities;
(4) process flow diagram and production
rates: and (5) the pretreatment
-standards which could be achieved if
the discharger were to spend an amount
equal to the Agency's model
pretreatment Technology Option II (that
portion not required to achieve the
sulfide pretreatment standard).
In reviewing the information and data
submitted by plants in support of their
request for FDF variances, it must be
noted that the Agency considers
reallocation of that portion of available
interior plant space and adjacent land
(including parking lots) necessary to
install pretreatment technology to be an
appropriate requirement. Reallocation of
all or a portion of parking lots for
treatment facilities has been
implemented by a few plants in this
industry and by plants in other
industrial categories.
It must be noted that the Agency has
promulgated concentration based
pretreatment standards for sulfide and
chromium. The amount of water used at
any plant is not germane to the
achievability of these standards.	r
Therefore, indirect dischargers will havel
added flexibility because water use
reduction is not necessary to achieve
these standards. The Agency believes
that the cost of pretreatment technology
can be minimiTPrl by first reducing to
the maximum extent feasible the volume
of wastewater to be treated. For this
reason, the Agency has utilized reduced
water use ratios (see Section V of the
Development Document) achieved by
existing sources only in calculating the
costs of PSES.
The Agency has considered the time
for compliance for PSES. Few leather
tanning and finishing plants have
installed and are properly operating the
treatment technology for PSES.
Additionally, many plants in this and
other industries will be installing the
treatment equipment suggested as model
technologies for this regulation at about
the same time, and this may result in
delays in engineering, ordering,
installing, and operating tins equipment
For these reasons, the Agency has
decided to set the PSES compliance date
at three years after publication of this
regulation.
F. PSNS. The Agency proposed
pretreatment standards for new sources
(PSNS) which were based on the same
technology required for PSES, plus
physical-chemical treatment by the
Chappell Process. One of the comments
received by the Agency was that the
Chappell Process was not reliably
demonstrated. EPA agreed that this
process has not been demonstrated for
immediate use in all subcategories.
Therefore, in the June 2.1982 notice of
availability (47 FR 23963), EPA indicated
that it was considering establishing
PSNS based on the same pretreatment
technology option chosen for existing
sources (PSES). The Agency has decided
to adopt Technology Option II and the
same concentration based pre treatments
standards for sulfide and chromium
(total) as promulgated for PSES. Aa
noted in the discussion of PSES, reduced
water use is not necessary to achieve -
these concentration based standards.
It must be noted that because new
sources can select among the most
efficient processing methods and the
most advantageous sites at which tg
locate, variances based upon
fundamentally different factors (FDF)
(Section 403.13) are not available.
However, if a POTW certifies that the
discharge of a new facility (operating in
any of subcategories 1, 2, 3, 6, or 8)
would not interfere with its treatment
works, the sulfide pretreatment
standards-would not apply as noted for
PSES. EPA does not consider the sulfidei
waiver to be an FDF variance because
ithe waiver relates to conditions at the:
POTW. not conditions at the new >
soureeT		1
Vm. Costs and Economic Impact
Executive Order 12291 requires EPA
and other agencies to perform regulatory
impact analyses of major regulations.
Major rules are defined as those which
result in an annual cost of S100 million
or more, or meet other economic impact
criteria, such as cause major increase in
costs or prices, or significant adverse
effects on the ability of domestic
producers to compete with foreign
enterprises, or on competition,
investment productivity, or innovations.
The promulgated regulation for leather
tanning is not a major rule according to
the definition and therefore does not
require a formal regulatory impact
analysis. This rulemaking satisfies the
requirements of the Executive Order for
a non- major rule.
The complete economic impact
assessment is presented in Economic
Impact Analysis of Effluent Limitation
Guidelines and Standards for the
Leather Tanf.ing Industry. EPA 440/11-
82-001. This report details the
investment and annual costs for the
industry as a whole and for typical
plants covered by the proposed
regulanon. Compliance costs are based
on engineering estimates of capital
requirements and annual costs for the
effluent control systems described
earlier in this preamble, and include
cost estimates for waste treatment
sludge disposal. The report assesses the
impact of effluent control costs in terms
of price changes, production changes,
plant closures, employment effects, and
balance of trade effects. The impacts of
each regulatory option are discussed in
the report
EPA has identified 156 facilities
engaged in wet tanning which are
covered by this regulation. Total
investment costs for BPT, BCT. BAT,
and PSES are estimated to be as high as
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 226 / Tuesday. November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52859
Siro million, with total annual costs of
S51 million, including depreciation and
interest. These costs are expressed in
first quarter 1982 dollars and are based
on the determination that plants will
move from existing freatment to BAT.
and from no assumed pre treatment to
PSES. They are considered an estimate
of the upper limit of actual costs that
will be mcuiTed because the sulfide
pre treatment standards may not apply
to all indirect dischargers in the affected
subcategories, some KDTWs may grant
credits for chromium removal arid
reduce substantially (if not totally} the
cost to individual plants of chromium
pre treatment and some plants may be
granted FDF variances from chromium
pre treatment standards because of lack
of available space for installation of
technology. Furthermore, some plants
may find less expensive technologies,
than used by EPA in this analysis, to
comply with the regulations. Finally,
while EPA assumed no treatment in '
place at indirect discharging plants for
purposes of economic impact analysis,
as many as 25 percent of the plants
actually have in place portions of the
technology needed to comply with PSES
The major economic impact projected
as a result of compliance costs for this
regulation is the potential closure of 3 to
5 tanneries employing 253-460 persons.
Closure estimates are those projected to
result from the regulation after
estimating baseline closures. Leather
price increases are expected to reduce
the demand for domestically produced
leather by 1.5 to 2.0 percent, as a result
of somewhat increased imports of
leather and leather products. EPA has
determined that these costs are justified
in light of the effluent reduction benefits.
In order to evaluate the potential
impacts, economic model plants were
developed to represent plants according
to industry subcategory, size and type of
discharge (direct or indirect). The major
decision criteria for plant closure are
based on net present values (NPV) and
cash flows. The cash-Dow analysis
projetfs revenues and expenditures for
each year over the life of the investment
and indicates whether the firm could
meet debt repayments. The NPV
analysis discounts the cash flow3 of the
plant over the life of the investment to
estimate whether the owners would
choose to close rather than comply with
the regulation.
In response to comments on the
proposal and the notice of availability,
changes were made in the Agency's
analysis. The profitability of the model
plants were reduced by about 40 percent
to reflect average conditions over the
past 12 years. The cash flow test now
uses a five-year repayment period for
loans, instead of the 15 years assumed
previously. In addition, costs were
added for sludge disposal. These
changes are discussed further in the
comments section of this preamble.
BPT/BAT/BCT- As stated previously,
the Agency is promulgating BAT and
BCT limitations which are the same as
BPT limitations. These regulations will
affect 17 existing plants. Investment
beyond the pollution control equipment
already in place is estimated at S10.5
million, with total annualized costs of
S5.7 million..
. These costs are estimated to increase
the cost of production at the tanneries
by 0.6 to 2J percent This regulation
may result in the closure of 2 plants
causing approximately 155 people to
become unemployed. This is
approximately 1J percent of the plants
and 0.8 percent of the employment in the
industry.
PSES. Investments to implement the
promulgated pre treatment standards are
estimated to incur costs of as high as
S159 million, with an annualized cost of '•
S45 million if all 141 plants were covered
by these standards. These costs could
increase the cost of production of 0.5 to
3.3 percent over the life of the
investment This regulation may result
in the closure of 1 to 3 plants causing
approximately 100 to 305 people to
became unemployed. This is
approximately 1 to 2 percent of the
plants and 0J to 1.6 percent of the
employees in the industry. These
economic effects take into account that
small plants in the retan-wet finish,
splits subcategory, and small plants in
the hair save or pulp, nonchrome tan.
retan-wet finish subcategory and extra-
small plants in the hair pulp, chrome
tan. retan-wet finish subcategory are not
covered by the chromium pretreatment
standards. This exclusion ia necessary
in order to avoid any disproportionate
economic impacts on this segment of the
industry. Without the exclusion, the
analysis of compliance costs indicates
significant impacts for these small
plants. The 6 extra small plants in
subcategory 1, 3 small plants in
subcategory 3. and 9 small plants in
subcategory 9. would have incurred an
additional investment cost of S9.4
million, and total annual costs of $2.4
million. Plants corresponding to the
small model plants are the least
profitable and are currendy operating at
marginal levels. EPA estimates that J
these plants were subject to the
chromium pretreatment standards. 9-12
of these IB small plants may have closed
rather than install treatment technology.
Since all 18 plants represented by the
model plants are marginally profitable,
and the model plants were projected
closures, the chromium pretreatment
standards do not apply to any of these
18 small plants. No less costly
technology to control chromium could be
identifed for these plants. However, all
of these plants remain subject to general
pretreatment regulations, and the six
small plants in subcategory 1 and
subcategory 3 may still be required to
comply with the sulfide pretreatment
standards.
h'SPS and PSNS. While the industry in
general has been declining in terms of
production and number of plants, some
new tanneries have been established
near cattle slaughtering facilities away
from the traditional centers. Since NSPS
and PSNS are essentially the same as
BPT and PSES. these regulations for new
sources have no incremental economic
effect. In fact cost to new sources may
be less than costs for existing sources
because new sources can utilize the
most efficient processing methods which
generate less wastewater and. therefore,
install smaller sized control
technologies.
In addition. EPA has conducted an
analysis of the incremental removal cost
per pound equivalent for each of the
proposed technology-based options. A
pound equivalent is calculated by
multiplying the number of pounds of
toxic pollutant discharged by a
weighting factor for that pollutant The
weighting factor is equal to the water
quality criterion for a standard pollutant
(copper), divided by the water quality
criterion for the pollutant being
evaluated. The use of "pound
equivalent" gives relatively more weight
to removal of more toxic pollutants.
Thus, for a given expenditure, the cost
per pound equivalent removed would be
lower when a highly toxic pollutant is
removed than if a less toxic pollutant is
removed. This analysis, entitled, "Cost-
Effectiveness Analysis for the Leather
Tanning Industry," is included in the
record of this rulemaking.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
Public Law 96-354 requires that a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis be
prepared for regulations proposed after
january 1,1981 that have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Although this regulation was
proposed before january 1981 and all
significant impacts on small entities
have been eliminated by exempting
some small leather tanners from
chromium standards required by the
PSES regulation, the Agency has
prepared a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. This analysis most:
-------
52860 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
•	Describe the reasons, objectives,
and legal basis for the final rule;
•	Describe, and where feasible,
estimate the number of small entities, as
(in most cases) defined by Small
Business Administration (SBA) affected
by the final rule:
•	Describe the reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements:
•	Identify any Federal rules that may
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
final rule:
•	Describe any significant
alternatives that would accomplish the
stated objectives, and minimize any
significant economic impacts of the final
rules on small entities.
This analysis may be done in
conjunction with or as a part of any
other analysis conducted by the Agency.
This final rulemaking and the economic
impact analysis supporting the final rule
satisfy the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Many of the provisions of the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis have
been addressed in detail in other
sections of this preamble. Sections I and
II discuss the legal authority and
objectives of the proposed rule. Section
XV of this preamble discusses public
participation. The Agency is not aware
of any other Federal rules that may
overlap or conflict with this final rule.
The economic analysis underlying the
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was
included in the Economic Impact
Analysis of the proposed regulations,
and in the Economic Impact Analysis
and the Leather Tanning Economic
Summary which accompanied the June
2,1982 notice of availability. The
accompanying economic impact
analysis includes a revised assessment
of the impacts associated with this rule
and outlines the other regulatory options
the Agency considered.
Approximately 80 percent of this
industry or 94 plants, have 200 or fewer
employees per facility. (The SBA has
proposed to define small businesses in
the leather tanning industry as entities
with 200 or fewer employees. See 47 FR
18993, May J. 1982). The Agency
estimated initially that application of
PSES Technology Option IL chromium
removal, to all indirect dischargers
would cause closures of 10-15 small
plants. Nine to twelve estimated
closures were concentrated in the
smallest size groups in subcategories 1,
3. and 9, with one to three projected
closures in other size groups and
subcategones. To reduce the economic
impact, the Agency excluded 18 existing
plants corresponding to the extra-small
subcategory 1 model plant, the small
subcategory 3 model plant, and the
small subcategory 9 model plant from
the requirements of PSES Technology
Option II (chromium removal). These
small plants are required to comply with
the general pretreatment regulations.
Moreover, the small plants in
subcategory 1 and subcategory 3 are
required to meet the PSES sulfide
pretreatment standard. It is not
expected that the plants excluded from
the chromium requirement would close
as a result of the remaining
requirements of this regulation. These
exdusions would not provide relief for
one to three small plants in two
subcategories; however, no further
exclusions were made because the total
number of plants corresponding to the
affected size groups in the applicable
subcategories is 24-27; hence a large
number would receive relief compared
to the few projected to require relief.
At the selected option for BAT (BPT],
2 out of the 14 small direct discharge
plants would close. The Agency believes
that this technology is economically
achievable despite these closures in
light of the significant pollutant removal.
IX. Nonwater Quality Environmental
Impacts
Eliminating or reducing one form of
pollution may cause other
environmental problems. Sections 304(b)
and 306 of the Act require EPA to
consider the nonwater quality
environmental impacts (including energy
requirements) of certain regulations. In
compliance with these provisions, the
Agency 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 nonwater
quality programs. While it is difficult to
balance pollution problems against each
other and against energy use. the
Agency believes that this regulation will
best serve often competing national
goals. 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. Implementation of
PSES. PSNS, BAT (BPT], BCT, and NSPS
are not expected to have any significant
air pollution impacts. However, minimal
amounts of volatile organic compounds
may be released to the atmosphere by
aeration systems in activated sludge
treatment facilities at direct dischargers.
3. Solid Waste. Implementation of
these regulations by existing and new
sources will generate sludges from
wastewater treatment which must be
disposed. As noted previously, separate
Agency action removed both process
solid wastes and wastewater treatment
sludges from the list of hazardous
wastes under RCRA, thus facilitating
disposal at substantially lower cost than
for hazardous wastes. Implementation
of PSES by Technology Option II wdl
generate 116.000 kkg (metric tons).per
year (wet basis, 20 percent solids) of
sludge. Implementation of BAT (BPT)
will generate 30.000 kkg (metric tons)
per year (wet basis. 20 percent solids) o£
sludge. The Agency has assumed that
these sludges will be disposed in
available off-site landfills. The cost of
off-site landfill disposal of these sludges
was assumed to be S20 per wet ton, or
$100 per dry ton (20 percent solids). The
resulting total annual O 4 M cost for
sludge disposal is $2.5 million for all
indirect dischargers, and $0.7 million for
all direct dischargers.
The sludge generation rates and unit
disposal costs associated with PSES and
BAT (BPT) are projected to be the same
for PSNS and NSPS. The mass of sludge
and disposal costs for selected model
plants are presented in the Development
Document.
C.	Consumptive Water Loss.
Treatment and control technologies
which require extensive recycling and
reuse of water may, in some cases,
require cooling mechanisms. Where
evaporative cooling mechanisms are
used, water loss may result and
contribute to water scarcity problems, of
concern primarily in arid and semi-arid
regions. These regulations do not
envision recycling requiring evaporative
cooling mechanisms and. therefore, will
create no additional consumptive water
loss.
D.	Energy Consumption.
Implementation of PSES by Technology
Option II will require 53 million kwh/yr
of electric power. Implementation of
BAT (BPT] will require 17 million kwh/
yr of electric power. This represents an
increase of approximately 1 percent
above power usage for production to
achieve PSES, and an increase of
approximately 3 percent above power
usage for production to achieve BAT
(BPT). Similar percent increases in
energy usage would be expected for new
sources.
X. Pollutants and Subcategories Mot
Regulated
Paragraph 8 of the modified
Settlement Agreement approved by the
District Court for the District of
Columbia on March 9,1979 (12 ERC
1833), contains provisions authorizing
the exclusion from regulation, in certain
circumstances, of toxic pollutants and
industry categories and subcategories.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 47. No. 226 / Tuesday. November 23. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52861
,4. Exclusion of Pollutants. On
December 18.1980. EPA submitted an
affidavit explaining that the Agency
ecided not to regulate certain of the 129
toxic pollutants under the authority of
Paragraph 8{a)(iii) of the modified
Settlement Agreement Since that time,
the Agency acted to remove three
organic compounds from the list of toxic
pollutants. All three of these pollutants
were among those excluded from
regulation because "they are not
detectable by Section 304(h) analytical
methods or other state-of-the-art
methods."
The Agency has gathered additional
data since these regulations were
proposed, as described previously in the
Methodology and Data Gathering Efforts
section of this preamble. Based upon
analysis of this additional data, together
with the data used in the proposal, the
Agency is revising its exclusion of
pollutants. Of the 12S toxic pollutants,
71 are excluded from regulation under
the authority of Paragraph 8(a){iii) of the
modified Settlement Agreement because
"they are not detectable by Section
304(h) analytical methods or other state-
of-the-art methods."
Among indirect dischargers, 54 of the
remaining pollutants are excluded from
regulation because there is no available
pretreatment technology which is
economically achievable that will
remove these pollutants prior to
discharge to POTWs. Pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES)
and new sources (PSNS) are included in
these regulations to control the
remaining toxic pollutant, chromium.
Among direct dischargers, 34
pollutants are excluded from regulation
because "they are detected in treated
effluents in trace amounts and neither
cause nor are likely to cause toxic
effects;" 7 pollutants are excluded from
regulation because "they are detected at
only a small number of sources within a
subcategory and are uniquely related to
those sources;" and 13 pollutants are
"present in amounts too small to be
effectively reduced by technologies
known to the Administrator." These
pollutants are excluded under authority
of Paragraph 8(a)(iii). The pollutants and
the specific reasons for their exclusion
are presented in Appendix B. The
pollutant (total] chromium is controlled
by BPT; because BAT is being
promulgated equal to BPT. total
chromium is controlled.
B. Exclusion of Subcategories and
Point Sources. On May 10.1979, the
Agency submitted an affidavit excluding
from regulation leather products
manufacturing, including Shoes and
Related Footwear (SIC 3131-3149). and
Gloves. Luggage, Personal Goods, and
Miscellaneous {SIC 3151-3199} under the
authority of Paragraph 8(a)(iv) of the
Settlement Agreement. The Agency is
not regulating this portion of SIC major
group 3100 because the amount and
toxicity of each pollutant in the
discharges do not justify the
development of national regulations.
XL Best Management Practices
Section 304(e) of the Clean Water Act
gives the Administrator authority to
prescribe "best management practices'*
(BMPs). EPA. through its OfSce of Water
Enforcement, is offering guidance to
permit authorities in establishing BMPs
required by unique circumstances for a
given plant BMPs are not addressed in
this regulation.
XIL Upset and Bypass Provisions
A recurring issue is whether industry
guidelines should include provisions
authorizing noncompliance with effhient
limitations during periods of "upset" or
"bypass." An upset sometimes called
an "excursionis an unintentional
noncompliance occurring for reasons
beyond the reasonable control of the
permittee. It has been argued that an
upset provision in EPA's effhient
limitations is necessary 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. ~. EPA. 564 F 2d 1253
(9th Qr. 1977} with Weyerhaeuser v.
Costle, 590 P. 2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978)
and Corn Refiners Assn., et al. v. Castle,
594 F. 2d 1223 (Bth Cir. 1979). See alio
American Petroleum Institute 7. EPA.
540 F. 2d 1C23 (10th Cir. 1976); CPC
International. Inc. v. Train, 540 F. 2d
1320 (8th Cir. 1976): FMC Corp. v. Train.
539 F. 2d 973 (4th dr. 1976).
An upset is an unintentional episode
during which effhient limits are
exceeded; a bypass, however, is an act
of intentional noncompliance during
which waste treatment facilities are
circumvented in emergency situations.
We have, in the past included bypass
provisions in NPDES permits.
We determined that both upset and
bypass provisions should be included in
NPDES permits and have promulgated
Consolidated Permit Regulations that
include upset and bypass provisions.
[See 40 CFR 122.60. 45 FR 33290 (May 19,
1980).J 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 permittees will be entitled.to
upset and bypass provisions in NPDES
permits, this final regulation does not
address these issues.
Yin. Variances Modifications-
Upon the promulgation of this
regulation, the effluent limitations for
the appropriate subcategory must be
applied in all Federal and State NPDES
permits thereafter issued to direct
dischargers in the leather tanning and
finishing industry. For the BPT effluent
limitations, the only exception to the
binding limitations is EPA's
"fundamentally different factors'"
variance. (See EJ. du Pont de Nemours
Sr Co. v. Train 430 US. 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 will not be
included in the leather tanning and
finishing 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. To apply for
these modifications a discharger must
be in compliance with BPT. Because this
rule will make BAT equal to BPT, EPA
does not expect any applications for
Section 301(c) or 301(g) modifications.
[See 43 FR 40895 (September 13,1978).]
Pretreatment standards for existing
sources are subject to the
"fundamentally different factors"
variance and credits for pollutants
removed by POTWs. (See 40 CFR 403.7,
403.13; 43 FR 27736 (June 26,1978)).
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"
variance or any statutory or. regulatory
modifications. (See EI. du Pont de
Nemours and Co. v. Train, supra.)
-------
52862 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 220 / Tuesday. November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
XTV. Relationship to NPDES Permits
The BPT limitations and NSPS in this
regulation will be applied to individual
leather tanning and finishing plants
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 the extent that variances and
modifications are expressly authorized.
Other aspects of the interaction between
these limitations and NPDES permits are
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
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 Where
manufacturing practices or treatment
circumstances warrant additional
controls, such limitations may be
technology-based in conformance with
the legislative history of the Act
However, such limitations are subject to
administrative and judicial review as
part of the permit issuance process. 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. The Agency
emphasizes that although the Clean
Water Act is a strict liability statute, the
initiation of enforcement proceedings by
EPA is discretionary. The Agency has-
exercised and intends to exercise that
discretion in a manner that recognizes
¦ and promotes good-faith compliance
efforts.
XV. Public Participation
The Agency solicited public comment
on the proposed rules and the notice of
availability- of additional information
published in the Federal Register on July
2.1979. and June 2.19a2. Also, on
February 15.1980, in Washington. D.C..
the Agency held a public hearing on the
proposed pretreatment standards for the
leather tanning and finishing industry.
Individual public comments received
on the proposed regulation and the
notice of availability, and the Agency's
responses, are presented in two reports,
"Responses to Public Comments,
Proposed Leather Tanning and Finishing
Industry Effluent Guidelines and
Standards," and "Responses to Public
Comments, Notice of Availability,"
which are part of the public record for
this regulation.
A summary of the Agency's responses
to major comments follows:
1.	Comment: In their comments,
members of the leather tanning industry
claimed that the data and other
supporting record material relied upon
by EPA is proposing these regulations
contained a large number of errors.
Instances of repetitive data,
unsupported data, and misuse of data
were noted.
Response: In response to this
comment the Agency reviewed the
entire data base and all documentation
supporting this rulemaking. All historical
data points were examined for
background documentation, accuracy,
and applicability. In its review of the
data base, the Agency has corrected -
errors relating to data previously
submitted by the industry, including
production levels, water use ratios, and
technology cost As discuss'ed in detail
in the Subcategorization and Water Use
section of this preamble and the
Development Document data points
from a number of plants were eliminated
from the data base utilized to develop
water use ratios.
EPA also conducted a program to
acquire new data during the comment
period. This program involved sending
56 information requests (developed in
cooperation with and distributed .by the
Tanners' Council of America}, 43 i?te
visits, and 10 wastewater sampling
visits. The Agency acquired a significant
amount of additional information and
data on production levels, wastewater
flow, as well as control and treatment
technology performance and cost The
Agency is confident that the available
data base accurately reflects the nature
of the leather tanning industry, its water
use and pollutant loads.
2.	Comment: A number of industry
representatives, the TCA. and several
consultants questioned the pollutant
removal efficiencies stated by the
Agency for the recommended treatment
technologies. The commenters said that
there was a difference between
"capability to achieve" the specified
removal efficiencies and the level of
removal efficiency achievable with
"reliable performance." The commenters
believed that the limitations and
standards should be based on "reliable
performance."
Response: As stated in the June 2.
1982 notice of availability (47 FR 23958-
23965), the Agency has reviewed"and
revised its basis for evaluation of
effluent limitation and standards. The
Agency recognizes that levels of
"reliable performance" may not be as
stringent as the "capability to achieve."
and has established the limitations and
standards in this regulation based upon
performance which can be reliably
achieved. The review and analysis of
the updated data base also included
recalculation of variability factors for
regulated pollutants. The resulting long
term average performance and the
normal variability which describe the
effluent reduction achievable by BPT
and PSES technologies are
representative of "reliable performance"
by full scale operating data submitted
by tanneries. More stringent long term
average effluent concentrations and
variability factors as proposed and as
represented by non-selected BAT and
PSES options were capable of being
achieved but did not represent "reliable
performance."
3.	Comment: Several tanneries
presented data documenting previous
efforts to reduce water consumption.
The commenters said they had taken all
of the feasible water conservation steps
and that further reduction in water use
which would be necessary to meet mass
based limitations and standards would
result in adverse changes in finished
leather quality.
Response: As discussed previously in
this preamble, the Agency does not have
any data showing a correlation between
subcategorization and final product
quality. The reduced flow rates for
existing and new sources were derived
from data which show these values can
be achieved and are being achieved or
surpassed in every subcategory by at
least one plant which utilizes raw
materials and processing methods
typical of each subcategory to produce
salable final products of commercially
acceptable qualities. A more detailed
discussion of final product quality and
subcategorization is presented in the
Subcategorization and Water Use
section of this preamble and in the
Development Document
4.	Comment: Several commenters
claimed that the median and reduced
water use ratios utilized by the Agency
were not representative for a
subcategory because the data did not
represent homogeneous processing
methods and final products. For this
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 226 / Tuesday. November 23. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52863
reason several industry members
claimed that establishing mass based
limitations and standards, utilizing
specific water consumption values
related to production levels,
significantly reduces the tanners' ability
to aiter processes to accommodate
varying raw material and final product
mixes.
Response: The Agency concludes that
the tanners ability to alter processes to
accommodate varying raw materials
and final product mixes will not be
constrained by application of th«se
regulations. Moreover, the Agency
believes that the water use ratios are
representative for each subcategory. The
revised median water use ratios
developed by the Agency, and
summarized in Table 1 of the June 2,
1982 notice of availability (47 FR 23959),
were based upon extensive data
supplied by 90 plants in the industry. In
utilizing these data, the Agency
considered a broad range of differences
in raw materials (cattlehide, sheepskin,
pigskin, shearling, blue splits and grain
sides, etc.) and three major groups of
subprocesses (beamhouse, tanyard. and
retan-wet finish). The Agency
subcategorized the leather tanning
industry based on these factors because
they had significant influence on water
use and waste load generation.
Subcategorization was found to be
related incidentally to the final products
produced because, as a result of the
primary subcategorization factors i-e.,
the raw materials and groups of
subprocesses used, there is a typical mix
of final products for each subcategory.
Day to day variations in raw materials,
final product mixes, and attendant
water consumption are reflected by the
individual data points which underlie
these median flow ratio values.
Since the raw materials and
subprocesses utilized by individual
plants within a subcategory are very
similar, it is the Agency's judgment that
water use for individual plants within a
subcategory also can be similar. The
Agency believes that water
conservation, recycling and reuse of
water and/or good housekeeping
practices can be used by plants within a
subcategory in order to arrive at the
flow ratios specified in Tables 1 and 2.
In response to comments, the Agency
attempted to separate further some
subcategories by predominant final
products and developed a median water
use ratio for these predominant final
products. These water use ratios were
not significantly different from the
median water use ratios established for
the applicable subcategory. Therefore,
the data available to the Agency
Indicate that different plants making the
same mix of salable final products of
commercially acceptable quality have
different water use ratios depending
upon the extent to which they
implement water conservation and
recycle or reuse methods. Accordingly,
the Agency has concluded from analysis
of available data that there is no
relationship between final products
manufactured and water used which
supports further subcategory
separations.
Those plants with unique mixes of
processing methods and final products
covering more than one subcategory
would have mass based NPDES permits
or mass based pretreatment standards if
the local POTW elected to do so,
developed in a prorated basis to provide
discharge allowances for each product
or process utilized at a given plant
Since water conservation and recycle
and reuse techniques are available for
all three groups of subprocess and.
therefore, applicable for each of the
subcategories for this industry, those
techniques also are available for mixed '<
subcategory plants. Examples of how
mixed subcategory plants could achieve
reduced water use are addressed in the
Development Document
5. Comment: In response the notice of
availability, the Tanners' Council of
America provided examples for each
subcategory of plant water use data
which they claimed were misused or not
representative of that subcategory. The
Tanners' Council of America criticized
the Agency's data base as being meager
in some subcategories and provided
examples of subcategories with
inadequate data bases.
Response: The Agency has reviewed
each individual example of alleged data
verification from contributing plants.
While the Agency believes that major
changes in subcategorization are not
necessary, minor adjustments have been
made in the data bases for four
subcategories and are summarized
previously in this preamble. These
adjustments are discussed in the Water
Use section of this preamble, and
detailed in the Development Document
Most notably, seven plants were deleted
from subcategory one because they
were mixed subcategory plants. Three
plants were deleted from subcategory
four, two because of inadequate
documentation and one because of an
error in subcategory placement and a
fourth p:ant had its raw material weight
basis corrected and flow ratio
recalculated; all resulting in an
increased median flow ratio and
substantially increased reduced flow
ratios for subcategory four. In cases
where subcategory flow ratios
increased, costs were recalculated
completely (PSES costs for
subcategories 4 and 7). For those
subcategories where flows decreased,
costs remained the same (PSES costs for
subcategories 1. 3, [small chan&e.sj and 5
[large change]).
The number of plants included in the
data base utilized to define water use
for each subcategory closely reflects the
total number of plants in each
subcategory of the industry; some of the
subcategories do not have many plants
In them. Therefore, the Agency found a
commensurately limited amount of
accurate and verifiable data in the
following subcategories: hair save,
chrome tan, retan-wet finish
(subcategory 2)—4 plants; through-the-
blue (subcategory 8)—3 plants; shearling
(subcategory 7)—1 plant pigskin
(subcategory 8)—2 plants; and retan-wet
finish (splits) (subcategory 9)—* plants.
The Agency has actively solicited data
from the industry. In several instances,
the industry submitted only a limited
amount of accurate and verifiable flow
data. For those subcategories the
Agency reviewed the manufacturing and
raw material data for each plant in the
subcategory. Since there were no
significant differences in manufacturing
and raw material data for plants in the
same subcategory, the available data
was judged representative for all plants
within the subcategory.
6. Comment: A number of commenters
claimed that trivalent chromium is not
significantly harmful to the environment
and should not be regulated. As
supporting evidence that trivalent
chromium is non-toxic, these
commenters cited actions taken by the
EPA Office of Solid Waste (OSW) to
delist all tannery wastes (from
processing and wastewater treatment)
which contain trivalent chromium, and
to specify hexavalent chromium in the
hazardous waste listing criteria.
Response: Since chromium (total) is a
toxic pollutant as defined by the Clean
Water Act and occurs in nationally
significant amounts (6.3 million tbs/yr),
the Agency must set effluent limitations
for chromium. Moreover, as discussed
below, there is pass through of
chromium at POTW3 and the Agency is
required to set pretreatment standards
for chromium. Information and data
available indicate that trivalent
chromium is not nearly as toxic as
hexavalent chromium from the human
health standpointwhich was the basis
used by OSW in delisting all tannery
wastewater treatment sludges and
process solid wastes. However, trivalent
chromium doea exhibit chronic aquatic
-------
32864 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
toxicity. Ongoing EPA efforts to develop
water quality criteria for trivalent
chromium confirm chronic aquatic
toxicity (24 hr. toxiaty valae
approximately 50 ng/1). Therefore, the
Agency believes that it is appropriate to
regulate trivalent chromium.
7.	Comment A number of commenters
indicated that chromium pass through at
POTWs receiving tannery waste has not
been properly evaluated. They believe
that the significant finding in the POTW
study interim report is that very low
chromium concentrations were found.
They believe that chromium
pre treatment is not necessary because
the POTWs discharge low
concentrations even through the study
also showed POTW removal rates to be
lower than those required of direct
dischargers with BAT limitations.
Response: Section 307(b) of the Act
requires that categorical pretreatment
standards be established if EPA
determines that the introduction of
pollutants from a point source category
would interfere with, pass through, or
otherwise be incompatible with a
POTW. Pursuant to the general
pre treatment regulations, categorical
pretreatmeat standards are necessary
where the percent removal by POTWs is
less than required by BAT for direct
dischargers (Le., pass through). Because
there is pass through of chromium at
POTWs. chromium pre treatment
standards for indirect dischargers were
established by the Agency. At POTWs
where chromium does not pass through,
removal credits may be granted to
tanneries to reduce the amount of
pretreatment necessary. If the POTWs
achieve chromium removals comparable
to those required by BAT. the POTW
would grant removal credits to the
indirect dischargers which would
increase the standards to concentrations
typical of raw wastewaters, thus
eliminating the need for pretreatment
8.	Comment Several commenters
cited the increased costs associated
with disposal of tannery sludges if they
are classified as a hazardous waste due
to the presence of chromium. The
commenters contend that trivalent
chromium does not interfere with land
application of sludge and therefore
should not be used as a limiting factor in
sludge disposal.
Response: Chromium bearing wastes
are no longer listed as hazardous by the
Resource Recovery and Conservation
Act (RCRA). This action should
facilitate the disposal of sludges from
treatment of tannery wastewater.
9.	Comment Tanners and their
consultants commented on the proposed
sulfide limit of OjO mg/1 as being
impossible to meet and unnecessary.
Since domestic sewage contains sulfide
in measurable quantities, requiring an
industrial discharger to a POTW to
remove all sulfide would place a burden
on the industry which would not result
in any improvement in either water
quality, treatment efficiency, or
personnel safety.
Response: In response to comments,
the Agency has reviewed data in the
supplemented record on the
performance of sulfide oxidation and
finds that, for indirect dischargers with
unhairing (beamhouse) operations, a
long-term average total sulfide
concentration of 9.0 mg/1 can be
achieved in total sewer discharge.
Accordingly, the Agency has revised the
basis for the sulfide pretreatment
standard from 0.0 mg/1 to 9.0 mg/1 for
indirect dischargers with unhairing
operations which discharge very high
sulfide concentrations. Sulfide
limitations are not necessary for indirect
dischargers in the "no beamhouse"
subcategories (subcategory numbers 4.
5. 7, and 9) because the sulfide
concentrations in raw wastewaters from
plants in these subcategories typically
are less than 9.0 mg/L Achievement of
the sulfide pretreatment standard will
minimize sulfide interference to the
extent feasible by existing technology,
including the very serious sulfide-related
risks to human life In sewage collection
and treatment systems at affected
POTWs. A more stringent technology
based sulfide pretreatment standard,
which would relate to human safety
criteria, cannot be supported at this
time. The preliminary treatment step of
sulfide oxidation for beamhouse
subcategories has the added benefit of
reducing the oxygen demand in
subsequent aerobic treatment processes
at POTWs.
10: Comment Industry representatives
commented on the lack of a proven
substitute for ammonia in the deliming
process and indicated that ammonia
substitutes do not produce leather of
acceptable quality.
Response: As indicated in the funs 2.
1982 notice of availability, EPA has
withdrawn the proposed ammonia
pretreatment standards and effluent
limitations and eliminated all associated
costs for in-process ammonia
substitution previously included in BAT
and PSES technology options. EPA also
is no longer considering regulation of
ammonia as part of the BAT, discharge
limitations. Although the Agency did not
find final product quality to be a factor
requiring further subcategorization, the
Agency did consider leather quality in
eliminating in process substitution for
ammonia as a recommended technology.
This decision was based upon the
comments that in-process substitution
for ammonia with epsom salts would not
be feasible in light of its adverse effect
on the properties of leather, and that its
costs were substantial
EPA recognizes, however, that site
specific water quality problems may
require more stringent permit
requirements for ammonia on a case-by-
case basis. Accordingly, the Agency has
retained the cost, in BAT OPTION IL of
technology to achieve nitrogen control
by biological nitrification (i.e.,
pretreatment of segregated streams to
reduce TKN in raw wastewater, and
additional aeration and chemical
addition to control pH in activated
sludge systems). EPA engineering
evaluation of end-of-pipe technologies
(i.e.. BAT OPTION H) indicates that
consistently low TKN and ammonia
effluent concentrations can be achieved
with proper design and diligent
operation of wastewater treatment
systems. However, these concentrations
have not been demonstrated in this
industry.
11.	Comment Several commenters
were concerned that the Chappell
process, the basis for the proposed
PSNS. is not proven and should be
investigated further before it is accepted
as providing pollutant removals equal to
proposed BAT end-of-pipe treatment
technology (extended aeration activated
sludge upgraded with powdered
activated carbon addition followed by
multimedia filtration).
Response: The Chappell process was
operated for only a short time at a small
(25,000 gallons per day of wastewater)
tannery which did not operate a
beamhouse. The Agency has decided
that, due to a lack of operating data
from sustained, full-scale operation
including treatment of unhairing
wastewaters, the process cannot be
recommended as an alternative to
biological treatment by extended
aeration activated sludge, and will not
be used as the basis for PSNS.
12.	Comment Several direct
dischargers commented that their
present discharge does not have any
adverse effects on the receiving water
and therefore no additional treatment
processes should be required.
Response: The Clean Water Act
requires existing industrial dischargers
to achieve "effluent limitations requiring
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available"
(BPT) (Section 301(b)(1)(A)), and
"effluent limitations requiring the
application of the best available
technology economically achievable"
[BAT] (Section 301(b)(2)(A)). The
Agency has found that the best
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52865
included in the economic impact
analysis of the proposed regulations.
Response: In developing revised costs.
EPA developed credits for in place
control technology for direct
dischargers. These credits were
estimated on a plant specific basis by
the following methodology. First,
estimates were prepared for the cost of
upgrading each plant to BPT technology
utilizing as much as possible of Ln place
technology. Second, estimates were
prepared for the total cost of BPT
technology assuming that no technology
was in place at any of the plants.
Finally, the plant specific credit was the
difference between these two costs.
These credits were utilized in the
economic impact analysis for each
plant.
22. Comment: The industry sponsored
economic analysis stated that the
economic effects of the proposed
regulations were understated for three
major reasons, as follows:
•	The compliance costs estimated by
EPA were too low; therefore the
consultants' sensitivity analysis
calculated closures also using
compliance costs which were two and
three times those estimated by EPA;
•	The 21-year time period over which
EPA calculated the economic impacts of
pollution control expenditures was too
long; the study concluded that a five-
year period was appropriate; and
•	The interest rate used by the EPA to
discount cash flows to obtain the net
present value after pollution controls
(9.9 percent) was too low; the analysis
concluded that a higher discount rate of
15.9 percent representing the
"opportunity cost of capital." should
have been used.
The industry consultant said that the
proposed regulation would cause many
more tanneries to close than EPA's data
or studies indicated. The study
concluded that as many as half the
current total number of tanneries would
close.
Response: Since the proposal, and as
noted previously in this preamble. EPA
has reviewed carefully and revised
where appropriate the compliance costs
of all control technologies. As a result
capital costs have increased
considerably. However, annual costs,
which were used in the net present
value analysis and which considered
both capital as well as operation and
maintenance costs, have increased only
modestly. Accordingly. EPA believes
that the TCA consultant's estimates of
costs two and three times the Agency's
estimates were overstated.
The 21 year period over which the
EPA economic models were calculated
co\ers the construction period and the
operating life of the equipment The
industry study concluded that the five-
year period it incorporated was more
appropriate for the calculation of impact
because it better reflected the
uncertainty in the industry. EPA
believes that the uncertainty factor was
adequately reflected Ln its assumption
that the loan for pollution control
equipment must be repaid in five years.
By using a five year period, industry
appears to have placed little value on
the years of useful economic life
remaining in the plant and pollution
control equipment at the end of five
years. In effect the cost of pollution
control and producing leather over the
five year penod were overstated,
leading to an overestimate of closure
impacts.
Subsequent to the proposal the
Agency revised its discount rate to 11
percent The Agency believes that this
was a reasonable estimate of the after-
tax cost of capital to the tanning
industry. This discount rate was based
on industry data for recent years which
indicates a pre-tax cost of debt of 17
percent and a pre-tax rate of return on
equity of 17.5 percent
In net present value analysis, a higher
cost of capital increases the likelihood
that a company's earnings would be
judged an inadequate return on
investment and that the company would
be a closure prospect The Agency
carried out analyses using the industry's
assumption of a 16 percent cost of
capital and found that closure was
predicted, even with no pollution control
expenditures, for six out of 22 model
plants. Because this is a higher
incidence of closure than would be
expected under average conditions (and
with no pollution control costs), the closure
estimates resulting from the 16 percent
discount rate were inconsistent with the
known rate of industry closure .since
proposal (1979). Therefore, the
industry closure estimates
were overstated. The Agency believes
that these three factors taken together
overstated substantially the likely
closures resulting from the cost of these
regulations.
23. Comment- The industry sponsored
economic study questioned the
assumption that costs would not be
passed through in higher prices. It was
stated that many tanners would attempt
to pass on cost increases, although
probably only those in a strong
competitive position would be able to do
so.
Further, it was stated that the added
costs would weaken the position of U.S.
tanners with respect to foreign
manufacturers. It was estimated that an
increase in the price of domestically
produced leather of 3 to 6 percent as
suggested by the 1979 EPA report would
cause a reduction in the demand for
domestic leather production of 4.5 to 9
percent
Response: The 1979 EPA economic
report did not assume that costs would
be passed through in higher prices for
finished leather goods. In response to
comments received on the notice of
availability, the Agency has done a
detailed analysis of the relationship
between costs and increased pnces and
the consequent effects on imports and
exports.
The Agency now agrees that there
would be some increase in the price of
domestically produced leather, and that
this would cause some increase in the
imports of leather and leather products,
resulting In a reduction in the demand
for domestically produced leather by 1.5
to 2.0 percent The industry study
overestimated the likely leather price
increase, as well as its effect on demand
for leather. The relationship between
price increases and demand for leather
is discussed in the economic analysis of
these regulations.
24.	Comment• The notice of avilability
assumed that pollution control
expenditures would be financed in large
part by 15 year loans. The Tanners'
Council stated that probably no more
than 10 percent of the firms would
qualify for long-term borrowing without
guarantee and that the economic
implications for industry members
would be very serious if loans were
made for shorter periods, even up to five
years. The commenter noted that many
companies would simply be unable to
obtain the required financing.
Response: In response to this
comment the Agency conducted a
telephone survey of tanners and bankers
on the terms of financing that would be
available for pollution control
equipment Based on the survey, the
Agency found that loans for pollution
control equipment would likely be for
shorter periods than 15 years—three to
seven years. The Agency then revised
its economic analysis to use a 5 year
repayment period. A cash flow analysis
was then carried out incorporating the
assumption of a five year repayment
period.
Regarding the comment that loans
would not be available at all. the impact
analysis assumes that if the plant would
be viable by the net present value test
and it could cover the loan repayment
loans would be available.
25.	Comment: The Tanners' Council of
America stated that EPA had apparently
determined not to conduct a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis to assess the impact
-------
52866 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
17.	Comment Numerous commenters
indicated that the use of indicator
pollutants for BAT to reflect removal of
toxics in a failure of EPA to set specific
numerical standards as required by the
NRDC Settlement Agreement The
industry preferred specific toxic
pollutant limitations.
Response: EPA examined carefully
the presence and level of toxic
pollutants in the industry's wastewaters.
As explained previously, EPA has
established a specific limitation for the
one toxic pollutant chromium, which it
found at treatable levels. No other toxic
pollutants or indicators will be
controlled by BAT because no
economically achievable technology
beyond BPT was identified which also
afforded treatment specifically for toxic
pollutants found in these effluents. The
12 toxic pollutants, other than
chromium, found in treated effluents
(see Table 4, 47 FR 23959) are not
projected to be at concentrations which
are effectively treatable by any
available technology known to the
Administrator, and therefore these 12
toxic pollutants have been excluded
from regulation as provided by
Paragraph 8(a](iii) of the revised
Settlement Agreement.
18.	Comment: Commenters noted that
the conditions in the leather tanning
industry deteriorated substantially
between the time economic data was
collected [1978] for the proposal and
their publishing [1979].
Response: In response to these
comments^ EPA completed a
reassessment of the economic
conditions of the industry, with the
assistance of summary data provided by
the TCA. financial data provided by a
number of individual firms, and other
data collected by the Agency. The basis
for the economic analysis was updated
to reflect conditions through 1979,
including hide prices, demand for and
prices of finished leather, plant
utilization rates, international
competition, and related factors, with
control technology cost data expressed
in first quarter 1980 dollars. As part of
this reassessment EPA evaluated seven
additional model plants for indirect
dischargers, in addition to the 15 model
plants evaluated for the proposed
regulations. Plant specific analyses were
performed again for 13 of the.20 direct
dischargers, including consideration of
an allowance for previous expenditures
on in-place control technologies.
19 Comment: The Tanners' Council of
America criticized EPA's use of data
from 1975 and 1976 noting that this
penod was not representative for the
industry. The TCA noted that significant
changes In the economic condition of the
industry, unrelated to the recession,
have occurred since proposal of the
regulations in 1979. Since the last half of
1981 and the first half of the 1982, the
long-term decline of the indnstry has
taken a sharply accelerated pace due to
accelerated decline in the UJ3.
production of shoes and other leather
products: increased foreign competition
in leather markets; failure of negotiated
agreements with leather exporting
countries; rise of unfavorable fashion
trends: and rebound in export of U.S.
hides. The TCA claimed that the capital
investment and operating expenses
necessary to implement the technical
options being considered will have
greater impact on the industry than
perceived by EPA.
Response: The Agency agrees that the
profit rates for the modef plants were
based on a period which was
nonrepresentative for the industry. The
profit rates were largely based on a
plant survey taken in 1976 and primarily
reflect profit rates for 1974 and 1975
when profits were the highest over the
past 12 years. In response to this
comment the Agency revised the profit
rates by using an average profit rate for
the period of 1969-1981 instead of a
profit rate based on the years 1974 and
1975. Accordingly, the profitability of the
model plants has been reduced by
approximately 40 percent This change
increased the number of potential plant
closures resulting from installing the
treatment equipment
The factors cited for the decline in the
leather tanning industry, however, were
not unique to the end of 1961 and 1982.
The factors cited were cyclical and their
effect on the decline in the industry is
captured in the long-term data used in
the economic analysis. The current
sharp decline is due predominately to
the generally weak economic conditions,
not an underlying change in the factors
cited by the TCA.
20. Comment• Many commenters
stated that the capital, as well as
operation and maintenance costs, used
for the recommended technologies were
significantly underestimated. To
document this the TCA prepared their
own model plant costs for tanneries in
subcategories 1,2. 3, 4. and 5.
Response: EPA performed a
comprehensive review and revision of
the entire engineering design and cost
development procedure. All the cost
estimates appearing in the June 2.1982
notice were updated to first quarter 1980
values. Design factors of the unit
processes for all treatment technologies
were found generally to be correct
while a number of inadequacies were
found in the cost development
procedure used for the proposed
regulations. The Agency has revised the
subcategory median water use ratios,
which generally increased, and the cost
curves. Moreover, the Agency has
revised the cost estimates by now
including a 23 percent allowance for
engineering and contingency costs,-and
for interest during construction. In
addition, the Agency has revised its
costs by assuming that all construction
work is to be done by contract labor
instead of tannery workers. In reference
to this last item. EPA's cost estimates
may now be higher than what actual
installed costs would be. since
historically tanners have used in-house
labor extensively for installation of
treatment systems. Taken together,
these changes have resulted in
substantial increases in the cost of
control and treatment technologies. The
cost estimates submitted by TCA were
three to five times higher than the
estimates used by the Agency to
evaluate the economic impact of the
proposed regulation. The Agency's
revisions in cost have served to reduce
the discrepancies between the TCA and
Agency estimates.
There are. however, remaining
differences between the TCA and
Agency estimates. A portion of the
remaining differences were attributed to
the fact that the TCA model plant costs
included items that EPA believes were
not justified. For instance, the TCA
included the cost of recovery and reuse
systems for vegetable tanning
(Subcategory Three), brine (Subcategory
Five), and degreasing solvent
(Subcategory Five). These systems are
used extensively in the industry and
provide return on investment. Therefore,
the Agency believes these costs should
not be included as wastewater
treatment costs. In addition, the TCA
did not take into account the reduced
chemical purchase requirements for
production purposes which occur due to
operation of chemical reuse and
recovery systems. The TCA model plant
costs also include expenditures for
reconstructing process equipment to
facilitate waste stream segregation and
chemical recovery and reuse. As an
example, the cost of constructing a new
beamhouse was included for
Subcategories One and Two. The
Agency believes that these measures are
not required by this regulation and must
be justified to improve production
efficiency.
21. Comment: Several commenters
stated that capital expenditures made
for wastewater treatment and
pretreatnent in contemplation of
complying with the 1972 Act should be
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday. November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52867
practicable control technology currently
available that also is economically
Gi_hievable and cost effective is
equalization, primary coagulation-
sedimentation. and biological treatment
in the form of extended aeration
activated sludge. This technology
achieves significant reduction in all
pollutants, toxic as well as conventionai
and nonconventional pollutants.
Accordingly, this technology serves as
the basis for BPT effluent limitations.
The Agency's review of the direct
dischargers indicated that the existing
effluent quality generally was very poon
in a small number of cases final effluent
concentrations were found to be only
marginally lower than raw waste
concentrations either periodically or
consistently. Environmental analysis of
existing discharges indicated that
aquatic and human health toxicity
values for certain toxic pollutants
pentachlorophenol trivalent chromium,
naphthalene) were exceeded under low
flow conditions. In light of these
findings, the Agency has found it to be
environmentally necessary and cost-
effective to require upgrading of existing
treatment facilities in order to improve
the general level of effluent quality of
most plants, and to improve the
consistency of effluent quality of other
plants. It must be noted, however, that
the Agency has not found additional
technology options and associated
effluent limitations more stringent than
BPT to be economically achievable for
the category as a whole at this time.
Therefore, the Agency has decided BAT
should be no more stringent than BPT.
However, the Agency also recognizes
that in certain instances site specific
water quality considerations may
require permit requirements more
stringent than BPT effluent limitations
based on case-by-case analysis.
13. Comment: Several tanneries and
POTWs stated that indirect dischargers
located in large metropolitan areas may
contribute only a small percentage to
the total waste stream. Application of
national pretreatment standards to these
tanneries therefore is not necessary to
assure proper operation of the POTW.
Response: The Agency recognizes that
some indirect dischargers located in
large metropolitan areas may contribute
oniv a small percentage to the total
wastestream. Under the Clean Water
Act and the general pretreatment
regulations, pretreatment standards for
indirect dischargers are required if the
introduction of pollutants would result
in pass through, interference, or
otherwise would be incompatible with
POTWs. The Agency has determined
that pretreatment standards are
necessary for the leather tanning
industry because trivalent chromium
passes through POTWs and because
sulfide can interfere with POTWs.
Where chromium does not pass through
the POTW, removal credits are
available to reduce the need for
pretreatment POTWs also may certify
that the sulfide pretreatment standard
should not apply to certain contributing
indirect dischargers if site specific
evaluation indicates that sulfide
interference is not a problem.
14.	Comment: Several tanneries and
POTWs commented that the
pretreatment standards in the proposed
regulations could require daplicate
treatment in instances where the POTW
has facilities specifically constructed for
the treatment of tannery wastewater.
Furthermore, in some cases construction
of these facilities has been financed by
the tannery while ownership and
operation is the responsibility of the
POTW.
Response: As noted in the
response to the previous comment,
categorical pretreatment standards are
necessary where pass through has been
demonstrated. However. 5 403.7 of the
general pretreatment regulations
provides for granting of removal credits
achieved at POTWs. In cases where
POTW facilities have been specifically
designed to treat leather tanning and
finishing wastewaters, it is likely that
the POTW would be able to grant a
credit for chromium removal to the
indirect discharger. Where the POTW
achieves removals comparable to BAT,
credits probabiy would eliminate the
need for pretreatment
15.	Comment: The Tanners' Council
of America commented that the
proposed pretreatment regulation
discouraged the use of POTWs by
industry by requiring new sources to
provide pretreatment equivalent to BAT,
and thereby contravened the intent of
the Act to encourage joint treatment.
Response: The proposed pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS) were
based upon technology equivalent to
BAT. The proposed PSNS contained
limitations equal to BAT for ammonia,
sulfide, and chromium, which were more
stringent than those proposed for PSES,
as well as limitations for BOD5, COD,
TSS, Oil and Crease, Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen, and Phenol. A specific range
was included for pH. After review of the
entire technology, performance, and cost
basis for the proposed PSNS. EPA
revised PSNS. The PSNS being
promulgated today is based on the same
technology and regulates the same
pollutants to the same concentrations as
PSES, not BAT.
16. Comment: Several tanners cited
the lack of available space for
construction of wastewater
pretreatment facilities as a constraint on
the industry's ability to comply with the
proposed PSES. The Tanners'-Gouncil of
America, in responding to the notice of
availability, also objected to the use of
employee parking space for
pretreatment facilities.
Response: During the comment period
for the proposed regulations, the
Agency's representatives visited a total
of 59 of the 141 indirect discharging
tanneries including tanneries in the
urban areas of Chicago. IL Milwaukee,
Wfc Peabody-Salem, MA; and
Gloversville-Johnstown, NY. Based on
the findings of these visits the Agency
predicted that 5 to 10 percent of the
leather tanning industry does not have
space available for construction of
wastewater pretreatment facilities.
The Agency did not have sufficient
data to identify all indirect discharging
tanneries with inadequate space to
install chromium pretreatment
technology, and could not establish
specific exemptions or alternative
effluent limitations for these plants.
Therefore, in the notice of availability
the Agency solicited comment and
additional data concerning plants with
inadequate space to install the
recommended pretreatment technology
(47 FR 23962). However, additional
substantive input was not received,
even though EPA extended the comment
period to facilitate receipt of such
comments. EPA does not have sufficient
detailed information regarding space
availability to define the population of
plants which have less than adequate
space to install the recommended
pretreatment technology for chromium.
The Agency believes that the more
appropriate approach is to grant waivers
based upon a speafic demonstration by
the indirect discharger, as provided by
the general pretreatment regulation
(§ 403.13), of the fundamentally different
factor of inadequate interior plant space
or adjacent land. Should sufficient
detailed data be received to identify
those plants which do not have
adequate space for chromium
pretreatment technology, an amendment
of PSES regulations may be possible.
The Agency considers reallocation of
that portion of available interior plant
space and adjacent land (including
parking lots) necessary to install
pretreatment technology to be an
appropriate requirement Reallocation of
all or a portion of parking lots for
treatment facilities has been
implemented by plants in other
industrial categories.
-------
52868 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
of the regulation on small business. As
part of its comment, the Tanners'
Council reviewed the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act as well as the
EPA guidelines for implementing the
Act. and provided such an assessment
for indirect dischargers. Defining small
businesses as those with 200 or fewer
employees, the TCA found 68 percent of
the 140 indirect dischargers would be
classified as small business. For these
tanneries, the TCA noted that the
criteria for a significant impact would be
met in varying degrees, for three of the
four criteria suggested in the EPA
Regulatory Flexibility guidelines:
•	Compliance costs more than 5
percent of production cost:
•	Compliance costs as a percent of
sales for small entities more than 10
percent higher than for large entities
(diseconomies of small scale):
•	Capital costs a significant portion of
capital available.
The TCA concluded it was therefore
imperative for EPA to give
consideration, under the terms of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. to the
dramatic impact that the regulation
would have on small business.
Response: While the draft economic
report did not contain a separate section
on small business analysis, Chapter VIII
of the draft report which presents
estimates of impacts on model plants of
various sizes, provides the information
for such an analysis. A regulatory
flexibility analysis is included in the
final report.
EPA believes that in terms of the
three criteria considered by the TCA.
either the impacts were not as dramatic
as indicated by the Council, or that the
impacts were not confined to small
plants.
TCA estimated a significant impact in
terms of compliance cost as a percent of
production cost based on data in the
economic report on annualized cost for
the first year of operation. This figure
overstated compliance cost because it
did not take into account the tax
implications of pollution control
eYpenditures and because the economic
model estimated the highest costs in the
first year of operation, and lower costs
for subsequent years. A better measure
ot" compliance cost was provided by the
-statistic on price increase required to
maintain a company's rate of return on
investment equal to its baseline value.
Averaged over the years of operation of
the pollution control equipment, this did
cot exceed five percent for any of the
model plants. Over the first five years of
operation, which were of most
immediate concern, the rquired price
increase exceeded five percent for only
one model plant (small nonchrome tan).
The criterion referring to adverse
scale diseconomies holds for all sizes of
model plants, except for the largest
model plant in each subcategory. Hence,
for the tanning industry, this criterion
was not useful for distinguishing
impacts on small plants.
In assessing impacts in terms of the
third criterion, capital requirements and
capital availability, the Tanners' Council
commented that most of the small
tanneries would not qualify for 15-year
loans. However, as the TCA also stated,
this also appeared to be true for tanners
in general. Hence, on this criterion
alone, there was not a basis for
distinguishing impacts on small plants.
The Agency believed that more stress
should be placed on the fourth
regulatory flexibility criterion, not
mentioned by the TCA in this context
the likelihood of closures. EPA believed
that the economic effects of concern
would best be assessed in terms of
closure analysis. For the notice of
availability, no closures were projected
for indirect dischargers (and only one
for the direct dischargers). However, as
a result of comments received, the
Agency revised its economic analysis.
The initial result was that a substantial
number of closures were projected
among small plants with indirect
discharge. In order to reduce the
economic impacts. PSES was revised so
that the smallest plants in subcategories
1. 3 and 9 would not be covered by the
chromium removal requirement The
details of this analysis, and the
exclusions, are given in this Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis portion of this
preamble.
28. Comment- In response to the notice
of availability, one commenter
questioned EPA's operation and
maintenance costs as understated
because of omission of sludge disposal
and effluent monitoring costs.
Response: EPA has reviewed its
operation and maintenance costs
carefully, compared to those provided
by the commenter. The Agency has
found that sludge disposal costs, while
included in preliminary costs and
economic analysis, were inadvertently
omitted from the costs summarized in
the June 2. 1982 notice of availability.
The cost of treatment system sludge
disposal now has been added. The cost
of installing and operating effluent
monitoring facilities were included in
the notice of availability for all plants.
However, the cost of sample analysis for
sulfide and total chromium was omitted
for indirect dischargers: these costs now
have been included.
27. Comment- The Tanners' Council of
America and other commenters
considered the long term average
concentrations for the BAT options not
selected [BAT OPTIONS II and III] very
stringent and not demonstrated within
the industry. They expressed the
concern that these concentrations xould
be misused by premitting authorities.
Response: The Agency agrees that the
concentrations projected for BAT
OPTIONS II and III have not been
demonstrated, and therefore could be
misused by permitting authorities.
Accordingly, the Agency has deleted
these concentrations from the
Development Document The final
Development Document however,
includes the range of expected
performance for these technologies, in
place of concentrations because the
specific concentrations included in the
notice of availability have not been
demonstrated in this industry at this
time.
28. Comment In response to the notice
of availability, most industry members
commented that sulfide pretreatment
standards were not necessary and
should be used as guidance. Some
commenters were concerned that the
waiver process suggested in the notice
of availability would impose
unnecessary procedural burdens, and
that some POTWs would choose not to
invoke the waiver process even if
sulfide control was not necessary. State
and local authorities generally agreed
with the need for sulfide pretreatment
standards, and some considered the
limitations under consideration too
lenient
Response: Under Section 307 of the
Clean Water Act and the general
pretreatment regulations, pretreatment
standards for indirect dischargers are
required if the introduction of pollutants
would result in interference with
POTWs. The Agency believes that a
pretreatment standard for sulfide is
necessary to minimize the potential for
interference, such as the hazard to
human life associated with very high
sulfide concentrations in wastewaters
from plants with unhairing operations.
Accordingly. EPA has decided to adopt
a sulfide pretreatment standard, but will
allow POTWs to certify to EPA that
these standards should not apply to
specified indirect dischargers upon
consideration of factors discussed
previously in this preamble. The Ager.cv
will require POTWs to certify that these
factors have been considered and that
waivers are warranted. The Agency has
streamlined the procedural process for
sulfide waivers and believes that the
procedural burden will be minimized.
The concentration limitation is
achievable by the catalytic sulfide
oxidation technology, affords
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 225 / Tuesday. November 23. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 528S9
substantial reduction in sulfide
concentrations, and minimizes the
attendant risk to the extent feasible. As
discussed above, a more stringent
pretreatment standard cannot be
supported at this tune.
XVI. Small Business Administration
(S8A) 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
Program, the Section 503 Program, and
the Regular Guarantee Program. All the
SBA loan programs are only open to
businesses with net assets less than 58
million, with an average annual after-
tax income of less than S2 million and
with fewer than 250 employees.
The guaranteed pollution control
program authorizes the SBA to
guarantee the payments cm qualified
contracts intered mto by eligible small
businesses to acquire needed pollution
control facilities when the financing is
provided through pollution control
bonds, bank loans and debentures.
Financing with SBA's guarantee of
payment makes available long-term
financing comparable with market rates.
The program applies to projects that
cost from SI50,000 to S20000Q.
The Section 503 Program, as amended
in July 1980, 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 debentnrers 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 oa the
Regular Guarantee and Section 503
Programs contact your district or local
SBA Office. The SEA coordinator at
EPA headquarters is Ms. Frances
Oesseile who may be reached at (202)
425-7874.
For further information and specifics
on the Guaranteed Pollution Control
Program contact: U.S. Small Business
Administration, Office of Pollution
Control Financing. 4040 North Fairfax
Drive. Rosslyn. Virginia 22203. (703) 235-
2902.
XVD. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 425
Leather and leather products industry.
Water pollution control Waste
treatment and disposal
xvm. OMB Review
The regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by Executive Order
12291. Any comments from OMB to EPA
and any EPA response to those
comments are available for public
inspection at Room M2404. U.S. EPA.
401 M St.. SW., Washington. D.C. 204BO
from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday excluding federal
holidays.
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L 96-311),
the reporting or recordkeeping
provisions that are included in this
regulation will be submitted for
approval to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). They are not
effective until OMB approval has been
obtained and the public notified to that
effect through a technical amendment to
this regulation.
Dated: November 7. 1982.
Anna M. Gorsuch,
Administrator.
XIX. Appendices
Appendix A.—Abbreviations, Acronyms and
Other Terms Used in This Notice
AGENCY—The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
BAT—The best available technology
economically achievable, under secnon
301(b)(2)(A) of the Act.
BCT—The best conventional pollutant
control technology, under section 301(bX2RE)
of the Act.
BMPs—Best management pracnce*. under
section 304(e) of the Act
BPT—The best practicable control
technology currently available, under section
301(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Clean Water Act—The Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(33 U.S.C 1251 et S3q.]. as amended by the
Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public 95-217").
Direct discharger—A facility wfiere
wastewaters are discharged or may b«
discharged into waters of the United Slates.
Indirect discharger—A facility where
wastewaters are discharged or may be
discharged into a publicly owned treatment
works.
NPDES PQUvQT—A National Pollutant
Discharge Fiimmninn System permit issued
under section 402 of the Act.
NSPS—New source performance standards
under section 306 of the Act.
POTW (POTWs)—Pabiidy owned
treatment works.
PSES—Pretrestaent standards for enesting
sources of indirect discharges, under section
307(b) of the AcL
PSNS—Pretreatment standards for new
sources of indirect discharges, under section
307tc) of the AcL
RCRA—Resoorc* Coraerva&oa and
Recovery Act of 1S7S (Pvb. L 94-580).
Amendments to Solid Waste Disposal Act.
The Act—The Clean Water Act of 1977.
Appendix B—Toxic Pollutants Excluded
(1) Toxic pollutants not detectable with the
use of analytical methods approved pursuant
to section 304(h) of the Act:
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrila
1.2,4-Trchiorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
1.1-Dichloroethane
Chloroethane
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether
2-ChloronaphthaIene
Parachlorometa Cresol
2-Chlorophenol
1.3-Dichlorobenzene
1.2-Dichloropropane
1.3-Dichloropropylene
2.4-Dlnitrotoluene
2.6-Dinitrotoluene
Fluoranthene
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether
4-Bromophenyi Phenyl Ether
BisC-Chloroisopropyl) Ether
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) Methane
Methyl Chloride
Methyl Bromide
Bromoform
Dibromochloromethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2.4-Dinitrophenol
4.5-Dimtro-O-Cresol
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine
Butytbenzyl Phthaiate
Di-N-Octyl Phthaiate
Dimethyl Phthaiate
I.2-Benzanthracene
3,4-Beruopyrene
3.4-Benzofluoranthene
II.12-Benzofluoranthene
Acenaphthylene
1.12-Benzoperylene
1.2.5.5-Dibenzanthracene
Indeno (1.2.3-CD) Pyrene
Pyrene
Vinyl Chloride
Aldrin
Dieldnn
Chlordane
4.4'-DDT
4.4-DDE (P.P--DDX)
4.4'-DDD (P,P"-TDE)
Alpha-Endosulfan
Beta-Endosulfan
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endnn
Endrin Aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Delta-BHC
PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
PCB-1243 (Arochlor 124fl)
PCB-12S0 (Arochlor 1260)
PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1018)
Toxaphene
2.3.7.8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-Dioxin
-------
32870 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
(21 Toxic pollutants detected at onJy a
5-nail number of sources within a
subcategory and uniquely related to the
source:
Ser.zer.e
Eenzidene
1 l.l-Tnchloroethane
2.4-Dichlorophenol
2.4-Dimethyiphenol
Naphthalene
Toluene
(3)	Toxic pollutants detected in treated
effluents in trace amounts and neither cause
r.or a.-e likely to cause toxic effects:
Tetrachloromethane
Chlorobenzene
Hsxachlorobenzene
1.2-Dichloroethane
1 1.2-Trichloroethane
l.l. 2.2-Tetrachloroe thane
Chloroform
I 4-Dichlorobenzene
3.3-Dichlorobenzidene
1.1-Dichloroethylene
1 2-Trans-Dichloroethy!ene
1.2-Diphenylhydrazine
Dicnlorobromomethane
(sophorone
Nitrobenzene
2\'it.-ophenol
N'-Nfitrosodipher.ylamine
Oi-N-Butvl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Chr>sene
Anthracene/Pher.anthrene
Fluorene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethyiene
Ar.ti.-nony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Beryllium '
Cadmium
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Thail.um
(4)	Toxic pollutants in treated effluents
present in amounts too small to be effectively
reduced by technologies known to the
Administrator
Ccpper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
1.2-Dichlorobenzene
2.4.6-Tnchlorophenol
Ethyibenzene
Methylene Chloride
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
(51 Toxic pollutants excluded from
regulation because there is no available
pretreatment technology which is
economically achievable that will remove
these pollutants prior to discharge to POTWs:
Benzene
Benzidene
Tetrachlororaethane
Chlorobenzene
Hexachloro benzene
1.2-Dichloroethane
1.1.1-Trichloroethane
l.l.J-Tnchloroethane
1.1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane
Chloroform
2.4-Oichlorophenol
2.4-Dirnethylphenol
l.i-Dichlorobenzene
3.3-Dichlorobenzidene
1.1-Dichloroethylene
1.2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
1.2-Diphenylhydrazine
Dicnlorobromomethane
Isophorone
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Di-N'-Butyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Naphthalene
Toluene
Chrysene
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethyiene
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Beryllium
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyarude
1.2-Dichlorobenzene
2.4.6-Trichlorophenol
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Part 42S of Title 40 Is revised to read
as follows:
PART 425—LEATHER TANNING AND
FINISHING POINT SOURCE
CATEGORY
General Provisions
Sec.
425.01	Applicability.
425.02	General definitions.
425.03	Sulfide analytical method
425.04	Applicability of sulfide pretreatment
standards.
425.05	Compliance data for pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES).
425-06 Monitoring requirements.
Subpart A—Hair Pulp, Chrome Tan, Retarv
Wet Finish Subcategory
425.10	Applicability: description of the hair
pulp, chrome tan. retan-wet finish
subcategory.
425.11	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
Stc
425 12 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application cf the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
425 13 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainSble by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT).
425.14 New source performance standards
(NSPS).
425 15 Pretreatment standards for existing
source (FSES).
425.16 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Subpart B—Hair Save, Chrome Tan, Retan>
Wet Finish Subcategory
425 20 Applicability: description of the hair
save chrome tan. retan-wet finish
subcategory.
425 21 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
425.22	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
425.23	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT).
425.24	New source performance standards
(NSPS).
425.25	Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES).
425.28 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Subpart C—Hair Save or Pulp, Non-Chrome
Tan, Retan-Wet Finish Subcategory
425 30 Applicability; description of the hair
save or pulp, non-chrome tan. retan-wet
finish subcategory.
425 31 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
425 32 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
425.33 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT).
425 34 New source performance standards
(NSPS).
425 35 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES).
425 38 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Subpart D—Retan-Wet Finith-Sldes
Subcategory
425.40	Applicability, description of the
retan-wet finish-sides subcategory.
425.41	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 220 / Tuesday. November 23. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52871
Sec
control technology currently available
(BPT).
425.42	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
425.43	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT).
425.44	New source performance standards
(NSPS).
425.45	Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES).
425.46	Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Subpart E—No Beamhouae Subcategory
425.50	Applicability: description of the no
beamhouse subcategory.
425.51	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
425.52	Effluent limitation! representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
425.53	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT).
425.54	New source performance standards
(NSPS).
425.55	Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES).
425.56	Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Subpart F—Througlvtfte-Blue Subcategory
425.60	Applicability; description of the
through-the-blue subcategory.
425.61	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
425.52 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
425 83 Effluent lirmtations~representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable
(3AT).
425.64	New aource performance standards
(NSPS).
425.65	Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES).
425.66	Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Subpart 0—Shearling Subcategory
425.70 Applicability: description of the
shearling subcategory.
425.n Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
425.72 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
Sec.
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
425.73	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT).
425.74	New source performance standards
(NSPS).
425.75	Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES).
425.78 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Subpart H—Pigskin Subcategory
425.80 Applicability: description of the
pigskin subcategory.
425.31 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
425.82	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
425.83	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable'
(BAT).
425.84	New source performance standards
(NSPS).
425.85	Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES).
425.86	Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
.Subpart 1—RetarvWet Finish-Splits
Subcategory
425.90	Applicability; description of the
retan-wet finish-splits subcategory.
425.91	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
425.92	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
<25.93 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT).
425.94	New source performance standards
(NSPS).
425.95	Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES).
425.96	Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Authority: Sections 301. 304 (b). (c), (e), and
(g), 300 (b) and (c). 307 (b) and (c), and 501 of
the Clean Water Act (the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977)
(Jie "Act"); 33 U.S.C 1311. 1314 (b).
(c), (e), and (g), 1318 (b) and (c). 1337 (b) and
(c), and 1381: 88 Stat 818 et seq„ Pub. L 92-
500: 91 Stat 1587. Pub. L 95-217.
General Provisions
§ 425.01 Applicability.
This part applies to any leather
tanning and finishing facility which
discharges or may discharge process
wastewater pollutants to the watere of
the United States, or which introduces
or may introduce process wastewater
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works.	__ S.
§425.02 General definitions.
In addition to the definitions set forth \
in 40 CFR Part 401. the following	1
definitions apply to this part:	I
(a)	"Sulfide" shall mean total sulfide J
as measured by the Society of Leather—
Trades' Chemists method SLM 4/2 as
described in § 425.03.
(b)	"Hide" means any animal pelt or
skin as received by a tannery as raw
material to be processed.
(c)	"Retan-wet finish" means the final
processing steps performed on a tanned
hide including, but not limited to. the
following wet processes: retaru bleach,
color, and fatliquor.
(d)	"Hair pulp" means the removal of
hair by chemical dissolution.
(e)	"Hair save" means the physical or
mechanical removal of hair which has
not been chemically dissolved, and
either selling the hair as a by-product or
disposing of it as a solid waste.
(f)	"Chrome tan" means the process of
converting hide into leather using a form
of chromium.
(g)	"Vegetable tan" means the process
of converting hides into leather using
chemicals either derived from vegetable
matter or synthesized to produce effects
similar to those chemicals.
(h)	"Raw material" means the hides
received by the tannery except for
facilities covered by Subpart D and
Subpart I where "raw material" means
the hide or split in the condition in
which it is first placed into a wet
process.
(i)	"Monthly average" means the
arithmetic average of eight (8) individual
data points from effluent sampling and
analysis during any calendar month.
(j) "Interference" means the discharge
of sulfides in quantities which can result
in human health hazards and/or risks to
human life, and an inhibition or
disrupuon of POTW as defined in 40
CFR 403.3(i).
$ 42S.03 Sulfide analytical method.
The following method is to be used for
the determination of sulfide in alkaline
wastewaters.
(a) Outline of Method. The sulfide
solution is titrated with standard
potassium ferricyanide solution in the
presence of a ferrous dimethylglyoxime
ammonia complex. The sulfide is
oxidized to sulfur. Sulfite interferes and
must be precipitated with barium
chloride. Thiosulfate is not titrated
-------
52872 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
under the conditions of the
determination. (Chariot. Ann. chim.
anal.. 1945. 27.153; Booth. J. Soc. Leather,-
Trades' Chemists, 1956, 40, 238).	1
(b)	Reagents. (1) O.lN potassium
ferr cyanide—32.925 g. per liter—this
solution must be kept in the dark.
(2)	Buffer. 200 g. NH«C1 200 mL
ammonia (Sp. g. 0.830) per liter
(3)	Banum Chloride Solution—12.5 g.
per Liter 10 mi. of this solution will
precipitate the equivalent of about 0.3 g.
sodium sulfite.
(4)	Indicator—10 ml. 0.6% FeSo4 50 mL
1% dimethylglyoxime in ethanol &5 mL
conc. HiSQ».
(c)	Procedure. (1) The liquor it filtered
rapidly through glass wool or a coarse
filter paper to remove .suspended matter.
(2)	20 mL buffer. 1 mL indicator and
excess barium chloride solution up to a
maximum of 25 mL are placed in a 250
mL stoppered flask.
(3)	A suitable sample of the sulfide
solution containing, if possible between
0.04 and OAS g. sodium sulfide is added.
The Qask is stoppered and left for one
minute to precipitate the sulfite.
(4)	The solution is then titrated with
the standard ferricyanida solution until
the pink color is destroyed. During
titration the solution sometimes goes a
dirty color but near completion the pink
color becomes more definite and
disappears momentarily before the final
end point is reached. The solution is
titrated until there is no reappearance of
the pink color after 30 seconds.
1 ml. O.lN ferricyanida=0.00390 g. NatS.
(i)	In order to reduce loss of sulfide
the determination should be carried out
as rapidly as possible and the solution
titrated with the minimum of agitation. It
is recommended that a rough titration be
made and then in further titraUons the
ferricyanide added rapidly to within 1
ml. of the expected value.
(ii)	If it is suspected that the	^
concentration of sulfite is high, and rr
approaches that of the sulfide, the ^
waiting nme after the addition of barium
chloride should be extended to ten \
minutes, to allow for complete
precipitation of the barium sulfite.
Source: Official Methods of Analysis.
Society of Leather Trades' Chemists. Fourth
Revised Edition. Redbourn. Herts.. England, -
1S6S.
§ 425.04 Applicability of sulfide
pretreatment standard*.
(a) A POTW receiving wastewater
from a facility subject to this part may
require more stringent pretreatment
standards for sulfide than those	^
established by this part without EPA
approvaL
c:
,—fb)-The pretreatment standards for
' sulfide established by this Partjwill not' r
apply if the POTW receivings	
wastewater from a facility subject to
this Part certif.es in writing with—^
explanation of relevant factors
considered, in accordance with the
provisions of-paragraph (c) of this
section, that the discharge of sulfide- ]
r^from the facility does not interfere with
\ the operation of the POTW.jln making
this determination.~th~e~POTW shall
consider all relevant factors including
but not limited to the following:
ll)fThe presence and characteristics,
of.other industrial wastewaters which
can increase or decrease sulfide
.-concentrations, pH. or both.
S (2)The characteristics of the sewer/
interceptor collection system which
either minimize or enhance
opportunities for release of hydrogen
sulfide gas.
(3),The characteristics of the receiving
POTWs headworks, preliminary and
primary treatment systems, and sludge
holding and dewatering facilities which
either minimize or enhance
opportunities for release of hydrogen
sulfide gas.
| (4) The occurrence of any prior sulfide
related interference as defined in
r - . ¦ . >
this secioivEPA shall publish a notice-in
the Federal Register identifying those
facilities to which the sulfide .	7
pretreatment standards of this part shall
not apply.		i	
—(S) A POTW may certifylthat the
sulfide pretreatment standardsof-this
partjshould not apply to a new source
planning Jo discharge ihtblthVPOTW.
This certification must be submitted'
{ 425:02(j).—		^
(c](l)On March 7,1983, a POTW {
^which intends to certify that the sulfide
pretreatment standard should not apply
[must publish, in a local newspaper with
thelargest circulation, a notice that ;
presents the findings supporting this 1	
determination consistent with paragraph
(a)j>f this section. Allowance for publics-
hearing of these findings also must be
provided. The POTW shall identify all
existing facilities to which the sulfide
pretreatment standard otherwise
established by this part would not
,apply.		.
LJ2) On June 5,1983, a POTW which
intends to certify that the sulfide
-pretreatmentjtandardshouldnot.appl^
must file a written certification with the
Regional Water Management Division-"5
Director, Environmental Protection^
Agencyrin the appropriate Regional
'OfficerThis certification shall include
the findings supporting this
determination and the results of public
_comments._andpublic-hearing(s) if held.
(3)	On July 5,1983, EPA shall £
acknowledge to the POTW receipt of
"any certification-submitted under"
paragraphs, (c)(1). and (c)(2). of this	
_sectioiC and shall indicate to the POTWv—
~"rthe adequacy of the submission based 4"~
(upon a review of the factors set forth inj
paragraph (b) of this section. ("_ C
(4)'Within	30 days of the date of
receipt of adequate submissions" under
"paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of
prior to the commencement of.discharge;
Snd'must conform at a minimum with
criteria in paragraph (b) of this section
and the general procedures and
intervals of time contained in
paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4)
of this section.
} 425.05 Compliance date for
pretreatment standards for existing
source* (PSES).
Existing sources subject to PSES shall
comply by November 25,1985. The
Consent Decree in NRDC v. Train. 12
ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979) specifies a
Compliance date for PSES of no later
than June 30,1984. EPA will be moving
for a modification of that provision of
the Decree. Should the Court deny that
motion. EPA will be required to modify
this compliance date accordingly.
§ 425.06 Monitoring requirements.
Compliance with monthly average
discharge limitations is required
regardless of the number of samples
analyzed and averaged.
' Subpart A—Hair Pulp. Chrome Tan,
Retan-Wet Finish Subcategory
§425.10 Applicability; description of the
hair pulp, chrome tan, retan-wet finishing
¦ subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to process wastewater
discharges resulting from any tannery
which, either exclusively or in addition
to other unhairing and tanning
operation, processes raw or cured cattle
or cattle-like hides into finished leather
by chemically dissolving the hide hair,
chrome tanning, and retan-wet finishing.
$ 425.11 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32. any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 23. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52873

3PT kwimont
PoSuunt or poftutaffl property
Mtnmurn for
•W t day
Maxvnum tor
montruy
ivsrftga
(or pouno par
1000 fe) o* nw matanaf
grm , ... 		
9.1
. 4.1

1X2
10

3.8
1 7

0.23
009

(l)
(')


1 Wrtran tfw ftngt &-0 to 9.0
$425.12 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the beet 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
of the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT): The effluent
limitations are those for BOD5, TSS, Oil
and Grease, and pH contained in
§ 425.11.
§ 425.13 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
followuig effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT): The
effluent limitations are those for Total
Chromium contained in § 425.11.
§ 425.14 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS):
NSPS
Pofe/tam or poflutsnt property
Usomun (or
Wftarum tor

•ny 1 oay
MTSQI

Kg/kXq (or pounds per

1000 fe) of
raw maienat
a nn«
5.3
2.4
TCC
7.7
xs

12
1 0

0 14
0.06
pH	
n
H
1 WrWt WW*n M ring* 7.0 Is 10.0.
(b) Any existing source subject to this
subpart which processes less than 275
hides/day shall comply with 5 425.15(a),
except that the Total Chromium
limitations contained in $ 425.15(a) do
not apply.
5 425.16 Pretreatment standard* for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 425.04, any new source subject to
this subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR Part 403, and achieve the
pretreatment standards contained in
§ 425.15.
Subpart B—Hair Save, Chrome Tan,
Retan-Wet Finish Subcategory
§ 425.20 Applicability; description of the
hair save, chrome tan, retarvwet finish
subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to process wastewater
discharges resulting from any :annery
which processes raw or cured cattle or
cattle-like hides into finished leather by
hair save unhairing, chrome tanning,
and re tan-wet finishing.
§ 425J1 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32. any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
Pollutant or potoum property
BPT *wwaoone
Mawnum (or
•ny 1 oav
Mannxm tor
Tcnrvy

Kg/kkg (or zm VOOO

lb) 01 T*


8.2
3 7
TSS 		 ...
tU
54
Od and ywt
3.4
t 5

0.21
(')
0 08
PH	 		1
n
1 wttftn the rvtge 4.0 to 9.0.
J 425-22 Effluent (Imitation* representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of 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
of the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT): The effluent
limitations are those for BOD5, TSS, Oil
and Crease, and pH contained in
§ 425.21.
} 425.23 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT): The
effluent limitations are those for Total
Chromium contained in $ 425.21.
§ 425.24 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS):

USPS
Pofluwn or poQuant property
Uumun tor
PYUxxngm tor

Wf 1 dffy
MTi^c
Kg/kfcf (or port par VOOO
fct of riw mctonai
BOW-
TSS —
04 and gruM—
Total enromwn.
PH	
6.9
3.1
99
4.5
2.9
1 3
0 18
0 06
(*)
n
'Witnei T4 6.0 to 9.0
$ 425-25 Pretreatment standards for
existing source* (PSES).
Except as provided in § 425.04 and 40
CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing
source subject to this subpart that
-------
52874 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
ir-.'.roduces process wastewater
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
CFR Part 403, and achieve the following
pretreainent standards:

PS€S
ar poiK/ant proo*rty

fcUamun

lor any 1
for momrvy

flay
ivarvga

Uihqrvr* par nar (mg/l)

24
12
V)


8
n


1 Wftmn ran?* 7 0® tO.O
§ J2&2S Pretreatment standards (or new
sources (PSNS)
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 425.04. any new source subject to
this subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR Part 403, and achieve the
pretreatment standards contained in
§ 423.25.
Subpart C—Hair Save or Pulp, Hon-
Chrome Tan, Retan-Wet Finish
Subcategory
§ 425JO Applicability, description of the
hair save or pulp, non-chrome tan, retarf
wet finish subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to process wastewater
discharges resulting from any tannery
which processes raw or cured cattle or
cattle-like hides into finished leather by
hair save or pulp unhairing, vegetable
tanning or alum, syntans. oils and other
agents for tanning, and retan-wet
finishing.
§425.31 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of affluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best practicable
central technology currently available
(EPTV
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32. any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currendy available (BPT):

BPT hiraoora
PotUAAnt or pofcnan! prooarry
Maxmjm for
any 1 <»y
vtaanxm tor
montfvy
IMTIQI
K9/I&4 (or ocuxj par 1,000
B) of raw maianat

6.9
i1

9 9
i5
Oi arm ffioe
2.9
1 3

0.16
006
(')
P*		—.


94 1

12
(l)
6
V)
pM

1 WTtfwi fta ranpa 7 0 to 10 0.
fb) Any existing source subject to this
subpart which processes less than 350
hides/day shall comply with § 425.35(a),
except that the Total Chromium
limitations contained in § 425.35(a) do
not apply.
{ 425.38 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 425.04, any new source subject to
this subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR Part 403, and achieve the
pretreatment standards contained in
S 425.35.
Subpart D—Retan-Wet Finish-Sides
Subcategory
J <25.40 Applicability; description of the
retan-wet finish-sides subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to process wastewater
discharges resulting from any tannery
which processes previously tanned
hides and skins (grain side only] into
finished leather by retan-wet finishing.
NSPS
PoJh/ort or poamant proparty
Maaamum (or
any 1 day
Ucomsn Kf
morrtfwy
avaraga

Kg/Utg (or pound par 1.000
to) or r*w mcianat
arn*
5.9
13
2.4
019
V)
2.7
19
1.1
O.OQ
V)





' Wfcrw> tha rwrq» *0 id fl A
S 425.41 Effluent limitation* representing
tfje degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the control technology currently
available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
J425JS Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES).
(a] Except as provided in 5 425.04 and
40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing
sources subject to this subpart that
introduces process wastewater
pollutants into a publicly ovraed
treatment works must comply with 40
CFR Part 403, and achieve the following
pretreatment standards:
Pofettnt or poAA&nt prooarty
BPT *n*t>Pona
•or any 1
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52875
§ 425.42 Effluent limitations representing
the deqre« of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCTV
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT]: The effluent
limitations are those for BOD& TSS,
Oil and Grease, and pH contained in
§ 425.41.
§ 410.43 Effluent limitation* representing
tne degree ot effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the beet available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
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 th« application
of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT): The
effluent limitations are those for Total
Chromium contained in S 425.41.
5 425.44 New source performance
standard* (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS]:

USPS
Potkjtartf or potfutaA property
fcUarrun | Majomum

tor any i i *Of momroy

oar average
Kg/iikg (or pounds per
1,000 o* raw mstentl
5 005	
TSS	
Off 4 &«8M	
*riai Chrofrwum	—	
j 63
Zft
1 9,1
*2
1 2-7
1 2
0 16
0.09
I
C>
W
14
15
1 0
OOS
O



PH . ....
'	I Mumm lor
t Maximum for
I an, 1 «y !
1 Wjtfvt tfw range 6.0 to 9.0.
§ 425.55 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR Part 403, and achieve the
following pretreatment standards:
37
54
' s
oca
i')

°S£S
Poiiuuni or pofrjunt property
UaavnufTi
Maii/Tvn

tor any ^
tor nsntrty

«y
average

UAgrame per iter (mg/f)

19
o
12
(')
		
Wrtftn fit range 6.0 to 10.0.
§ 425.56 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,
any new source subject to this subpart
that introduces process wastewater
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
CFR 403. and achieve the pretreatment
standards contained in § 425.55.
-------
32876 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart F—Through-the-Blue
Subcategory
5 <25.60 Applicability, description of the
through-the-blue subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to process wastewater
discharges resulting from any tannery
which processes raw or cured cattle or
cattle-like hides through the blue tanned
state by hair pulp unhairing and chrome
tanning: no re tan-wet finishing is
performed.
§ 42S.S 1 Effluent limitations representing
trie degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32. any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available [BPT]:
B°T lirmtatOrtJ
Pottu*.am or pollutant prooerty
Maxrmum for
any 1 cay
Maximum for
monrnty
average

Kg/iUg (or pounds per
1.000 lb) of nw matenal
BCDf 		
30
43
U
008
(')
1 3
1.9
06
003
(')




of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT): The
effluent limitations are those for Total
Chromium contained in § 425.61.
$ 425.64 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS):
1 Witlwi tna rang* 6 0 to 9.0.
§ 425.62 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of 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
of the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT): The effluent
limitations are those for BOD5. TSS. Oil
and Crease, and pH contained in
§ 425.61.
§ 425.63 Effluent limitations representing
me degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
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
NSPS
Pofcitant or paButirt property
Maximum for
Masmum for

any 1 day
tverege

Kg/TtXg (or pounds per

1.000 to) of
f*w matenal
BOO*
2.0
0-M
TSS
2.5
1 3
CM
08
04
Tntjl cfvomv*!	
005
002
pw
o
O

' Wirnm IT* rings 6 0 to 9 0.
$ 425.65 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in § 425.04 and 40
CFR 4C3.7 and 403.13, any existing
source subject to this subpart that
introduces process wastewater
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
CFR Part 403, and achieve the following
pretreatment standards:
Pollutant or pollutant property
Majumum for
any 1 day
Milligrams per War (mg/1)
'Wrtr*n tne inge 7 0 to 10.0.
§ 425.66 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 425.04. any new source subject to
this subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment must comply with 40
CFR Part 403, and must achieve the
pretreatment standards contained in
5 425.65.
Subpart G—Shearling Subcategory
§ 425.70 Applicability; description of the
shearling subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to process wastewater
discharges resulting from any tannery
which processes raw or cured sheep or
sheep-like skins with the wool or hair
retained into finished leather by chrome
tanning, and retan-wet finishing.
§ 425.71 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
BPT Umuoona
Pollutant or petkitant property I
Maemum for
any 1 day
Max*nurn for
frcntntY
average
Kg/kkg (or pound per i COO
Iti) of raw material
8005 . . ..
132
59
TSS ....	
19 1
8.7
Cii and grease .. -	
56
2 5
Total 	
0 34
0 12

O
n


Maximum tor
montwy
average
'Wtrun ine range 6 0 to 9.0
§ 425.72 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of 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
of the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT): The effluent
limitations are those for BOD5, TSS. Oil
and Grease, and pH contained in
§ 425.71.
§ 425.73 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32. any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT). The
effluent limitations are those for Total
Chromium contained in 5 425.71.
§ 425.74 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS):
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52877
USPS
Peiiutant or poftjtvn prooa
*** ! MaumuM tor
Waarmum tr

! any 1 Mf
average

Kg/hkg (or pound oar ',000

S) Of raw
maianaJ
aooj , -
I 13.2
5.9
TSS
19 1
87
Ctf tneS
5 6
2-5
Total cflrjTMjn —
0 34
0.12
pH	
_ (')
(')
1 Witun M ring# 6.0 ) *
raw maunal
&005 . . ,
7.0
3-2
TSS
10.1
4ft
Q! and gnmae 				_.	
10
1 3

0.18
0 07
PH
(')
(')
8 0 to 6J.
$ 425.32 Effloent Imitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of 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
of the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT): The effluent
limitations are those for BOD5, TSS. Oil
and Crease and pH contained in
5 425.81.
§ 425.83 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effiuent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT): The
effluent limitations are those far Total
Chromium contained in $ 425.31.
§ 425.84 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS):
NSPS
Poftutant or p&tutam property
Majnmum (or j
any 1 oay
Kg/kftg (or pounda per
1,000 lb) ol raw metenal
aoc 5	
TSS	
04 and gr*AM_
Total cftrommru
OH	
58
63
2.4
0 15
(')
§ 425J5 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in § 425.04 and 40
CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing
source subject to this subpart that
introduces process wastewater
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
CFR Part 403, and achieve the following
pretreatment standards;

PSES
Potfutam or poSutsnt property
tor r* 1
day
Mcrrmom
fgr morttftfy
iverage
WWqrama per ttar

24


12
f
pH. .
*')
O
Maximum for
mommy
MT«0«
' WrffWi me rang* 7 0 to 10 0
$ 425.86 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 425.04, any new source subject to
this subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR Part 403. and achieve the
pretreatment standards contained in
$ 425.85.
Subpart I—Retan-Wet Finish-Splits
Subcategory
§ 425.90 Applicability; description of the
retan-wet finish-splits subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to process wastewater
discharges resulting from any taw"/
which processes previously "^haired
and tanned spii^ into finished leather
by retan-wet finishing.
$ 425.91 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
BPT Umrtaoons
26
38
l 1
00$
(')
Pouuam or ootiuiam property
Mayvnum for
any 1 day
i Maximum for
I mornnry
[ average
KQ/kkg (or pounds per
1 000 fe) of few
'Witnm me range 6.0 to 9.0.
8005
TSS	
42
6.1
1 9
29
-------
52878 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
Pof'junt or poplar! prootrty
0PT bfTutatoon*
Watimu/n for
any 1 day
Maximum tor
moniNy
avr>9a
0>i A Gr*a»« -	— ... .
Total 	
i 8
0 11
(1
o n
004
(')

1 WitTim tft* r»n9« 6 0 to 9 0
5 425.32 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of 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
of the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT): The effluent
limitations are those for BOD5. TSS, Oil
and Crease, and pH contained in
§ 425.91.
5 425.93 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BATV
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-
125.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT): The
effluent limitations are those for Total
Chromium contained in § 425.91.
§ 425.94 New source performance
standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS):
Pollutant or pottuia^t oroperty
NSPS
Uajumum tor
any 1 cay
Kg/kkg (or sounds par
l.GOO to) ol raw matanal
B005 	
3.5
1 6
TSS ...
5-1
Z3
OJ & Gr»a»		
1 5
066
Total Cvommm	 		
009
003
PH 		
(')
n
' Witn.n Irw ranga 6 0 to 9 0.
§ 425.95 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR Part 403:-and must achieve
the following pretreatment standards:

PSES
Poiiutan or poMuum property
Maxtoum
Maximum

tor any t
to month*v

say
avera^

Milligram per litar (mg/i|
Total Chromium 		
19
12
pH 	 	
(')
( 1
Maximum (or
monmty
•wiga
' Witflin me rang# 6 0 to 10 0
(b) Any existing source subject to this
subpart which processes less than 3.600
splits/day shall comply with § 425.95(a).
except that the Total Chromium
limitations contained in § 425.95(a) do
not apply.
§ 425.56 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,
any new source subject to this subpart
that introduces process wastewater
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40
CFR Part 403, and achieve the
pretreatment standards contained in
§ 425.95.
|FR Doc. &I-311M Filed ll-r-at t «3 tm|
BILLING COOt SJ4O-S0-M
-------
J
<	W
The Environmental Protectiorr^Agency ("EPA") entered into a settlement
agreement on December 11, 1984 (effective December 26, 1984) with the
Tanners' Council of America (TCA) which resolved all challenges of TCA
to the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the leather
tanning and finishing industry point source category (40 CFR Part
425), 47 FR 52848, November 23, 1982) ("leather tanning regulations").
A copy of the settlement agreement is attached.	I
/
In this settlement agreement, EPA has agreed to propose several-^
amendments to the leather tanning regulations in Part 425 (paragraph 2
of the settlanent agreement). First, the Agency agreed to propose To ~~
amend the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for several
subcategories in order to reflect revised flow ratios (Exhibit
(A) (III) of the settlement agreement). Second, EPA agreed to propose
to amend the sulfide analytical method to require vegetable tanners to
use the modified Monier-Williams method instead of the SLM 4/2 method
and to allow other tanners to use the modified Monier-Williams method
as an alternative to the SLM 4/2 method, where practicable (Exhibit
(A)(1) of the settlement agreement). Third, the Agency agreed to.
propose to amend the deadlines for requesting and proces^tng' a waiver
frcm the surfide~pretreatment~st'afrdards (ExFTibit A(II) of the
"settlement agreement). Fourth, the Agency agreed to propose to
eliminate the alkaline pH pretreatment standards for vegetable tanners
(Exhibit A(III) of the settlement agreement). The Agency also agreed
to issue clarification concerning the implementation of portions of
the regulations (Exhibit B of the settlement agreement).
TCA and EPA agree to treat each of the provisions to the agreement as
a duly promulgated rule or interpretation after December 26, 1984, the
effective date of the agreement, pending final Agency action on each
proposed revision (paragraph 6 of the settlement agreement). TCA and
EPA agree -to seek a stay frcm the court of the portions of the leather
-------
tanning regulations that EPA has agreed to propose to amend until the
Agency completes final action on the amendments and preamble language
(paragraph 7 of the settlement agreement). We will inform you when a
stay is granted by the court.
If you have any questions on this matter, please contact one of us
(Rebecca Hanmer - (202) 475-8488; Ed Johnson - (202) 382-5400), or
have your staff contact either Tim Dwyer, Environmental Engineer,
Permits Division ((202) 426-4793) or Don Anderson, Senior
Environmental Engineer, Industrial Technology Division ((202) 382-
7189).
Attachment
-------
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
TANNERS' COUNCIL OF AMERICA, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
No. 83-1191
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Petitioner Tanners' Council of America, Inc. ("TCA") and respondent U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA" or "the Agency"), intending to be bound by this
agreement, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1.	The parties agree that, except as provided herein, this agreement
resolves all challenges which were or could have been raised with respect to the Clean
Water Act regulations establishing effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the
leather tanning and finishing industry point source category ("leather tanning
regulations"), published at 47 Fed. Reg. 52,848 (November 23, 1982).
2.	EPA agrees to propose and take final action on the amendments to
the leather tanning regulations set forth in Exhibit A to this agreement and the
accompanying preamble language set forth in Exhibit B to this agreement in accordance
with the following schedule:
*
(a) Immediately after the execution of this Settlement
Agreement, EPA shall notify the state directors of
approved permitting agencies and the EPA Regional
Administrators of this agreement and provide them with
copies.
-------
(b)	As expeditiously as possible, EPA shall submit the
proposed amendments and preamble language (Exhibits
A and B) to the Office of Management and Budget
("OMB") in accordance with the terms of Executive
Order 12291. EPA shall request that OMB expeditiously
review the proposed amendments and preamble
language.
(c)	As expeditiously as possible after the completion of
OMB review, EPA shall submit the proposed amend-
ments and preamble language to the Federal Register
for immediate publication.
(d)	The public comment period on the proposed amendments
and preamble language shall be no longer than 30 days.
EPA may extend this period for a maximum of 30 days
if it receives a request for an extension based upon
compelling circumstances not apparent at the time of
execution of this agreement. If EPA extends the com-
ment period, it shall immediately notify TCA of the
cause or causes for the extension and the additional
time allowed for comment. No extension shall exceed
the time required by its cause.
(e)	As expeditiously as possible after the close of the public
comment period on the proposed amendments and pre-
amble language, EPA shall submit any final amendments
and preamble language to OMB in accordance with the
terms of Executive Order 12291. EPA shall request that
OMB expeditiously review these amendments and pre-
amble language.
(f)	As expeditiously as possible after the completion of
OMB review, EPA shall submit any final amendments
and preamble language to the Federal Register for
immediate publication. Unless compelling circum-
stances arise not apparent on the date of execution of
this agreement, EPA shall set the effective date of the
final regulations no later than 44 days after publication
in the Federal Register.
3. The parties agree that if, after EPA has taken final action under this
agreement, any individual provision of the final leather tanning regulations or any
preamble section is not substantially the same as or alters the meaning of the language
i
set forth in Exhibits A and B, TCA reserves the right to proceed further with this
litigation or file a new petition for judicial review with respect to: (a) any issue related
-------
to that individual provision, and (b) all issues in the TCA Petition for Reconsideration
filed before the Administrator on May 9, 1983, entitled "In Re Leather Tanning and
Finishing Industry Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards and New
Source Performance Standards" that are not addressed in Exhibits A and B, including
issues numbered 6 (pretreatment pH lower limit), 7 (alkalinity pH pretreatment
standard), 11 (pretreatment for chromium), 13 (variability factors) and 14 (PSES mass
limitations), except that TCA may only challenge issues numbered 6 and 7 if EPA fails to
amend the pH limitation in 40 C.F.R. § 425.35(a) as set forth in Exhibit A. EPA reserves
the right to oppose such litigation on any grounds other than petitioner's execution of this
agreement. TCA reserves the right to pursue such litigation on any grounds.
4.	The parties agree that within 15 days after final EPA action under
this agreement, with respect to each amendment and each preamble section which is
substantially the same as and does not alter the meaning of the language set forth in
Exhibits A and B to the agreement, TCA will voluntarily move to dismiss its petition for
review and voluntarily withdraw the Petition for Reconsideration. EPA will support this
TCA motion and neither party will seek to recover any litigation costs or fees from the
other.
5.	TCA will not seek judicial review of any amendment to the leather
tanning and finishing regulations or preamble which is substantially the same as and does
not alter the meaning of the language set forth in Exhibits A and B of this agreement.
6.	The parties agree that, after the effective date of this Settlement
Agreement, they will treat each amendment and preamble provision contained in Exhibits
A and B as a duly promulgated rule or interpretation until the Agency takes final action
on each proposed revision.
t
7.	The parties agree to seek a stay of the portions of the leather tanning
regulations that EPA has agreed to propose to amend. The parties will request that this
-------
-4 -
stay remain in effect until the Agency completes final action on the amendments and
preamble language.
8.	If for any reason the provisions of paragraphs 6 cr 7 are not
implemented by any federal or state regulating authority, TCA may seek relief in any
appropriate forum.
9.	TCA agrees to submit comments in support of all amendments and
preamble language proposed in accordance with Exhibits A and B.
10.	EPA agrees not to attempt to invoke this agreement as a bar in
subsequent EPA administrative proceedings (other than the proceeding contemplated by
this agreement) to revise or supplement limitations and standards addressed by the
leather tanning regulations.
11.	• Although EPA commits itself to take the necessary implementing
steps described in paragraph 2(a) immediately, this agreement shall not become effective
until 14 days after it has been signed by both parties.
12.	TCA is a national trade association representing the leather tanning
and finishing industry. The undersigned attorney for TCA hereby certifies that he is
authorized to enter into this agreement on behalf of TCA. TCA has notified all its
members subject to the leather tanning regulations (those entities listed in Exhibit C to
this agreement) of the terms of this agreement, and has requested that any member
objecting to the terms of the agreement notify TCA immediately. None of these
members has notified TCA of any objection to the terms of this agreement. Moreover,
TCA has notified these members that EPA would not enter into this agreement unless
TCA assured the Agency that the regulated members of TCA: (a) would treat the
amendments and preamble provisions contained in Exhibits A and B as duly promulgated
rules or interpretations after the execution of this Settlement Agreement; (b) would not
petition for review of any amendment or preamble provision of the leather tanning
-------
-5 -
regulations promulgated consistent with Exhibits A and B; and (c) would not submit
adverse comments on any proposed amendment or preamble provision to the leather
tanning regulations substantially the same as or not altering the meaning of the language
in Exhibits A and B. Based upon the responses, TCA has given EPA its reasonable
assurance that its members will act in accordance with items (a) through (c) of this
paragraph. EPA has entered into this agreement in reliance upon TCA's action and
assurances.
13.	Upon execution of this agreement, the parties agree to move
promptly for a stay of this litigation pending final action by the Agency under this
agreement.
14.	Nothing in this agreement shall operate to waive any legal right of
either party unless such a waiver is expressly provided.
15.	The pending applications for variances based on "fundamentally
different factors" submitted by Ocean Leather Corporation, Richard Leather Company,
Carr Leather Company, Badger State Tanning Corp., and Blackhawk Tanning Company,
shall be unaffected by this Settlement Agreement.
V\
J
Co
-------
- 6 -
16. This Settlement Agreement, including Exhibits A, B and C, represents
the entire agreement between the Agency and TCA with respect to the leather tanning
regulations published at 47 Fed. Reg. 52,848.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated:
Richard E. Scittfartz
Donald J. Patterson, Jr.
COLLIER, SHANNON, RILL <5c SCOTT
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007
202-342-8400
Attorneys for the
Tanners' Council of America, Inc.
Dated:
_L_5_l
S±
J
ijuaCiY) )Y1

Susan M. Schmedes, Esq.
Office of General Counsel
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
401 M Street, S.W.
Room 541, West Tower
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dated; /zh/hH
/ /
^
Lee R. Tynerf Esq.
Environmental Defense Section
Land and Natural Resources Division
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Room 4436, New Post Office Building
12th 3c Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Attorneys for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENTS TO 40 C.F.R. PART 425
L SULFIDE ANALYTICAL METHODS.
Amend 40 C.F.R. S 425.02(a) to read:
"Sulfide" shall mean total sulfide as measured by the potassium ferricyanide
titration method or the modified Monier-Williams method described in § 425.03.
Amend 40 C.F.R. § 425.03 to read:
§ 425.03 Sulfide analytical methods.
(a)	Applicability.
The potassium ferricyanide titration method described in § 425.03(b) shall be
used whenever practicable for the determination of sulfide in wastewaters discharged by
plants operating in all subcategories except the hair save or pulp, non-chrome tan, retan-
wet finish subcategory (Subpart C, see § 425.30). In all other cases, the modified Monier-
Williams method as described in § 425.03(c) shall be used as an alternative to the
potassium ferricyanide titration method for the determination of sulfide in wastewaters
discharged by plants operating in all subcategories except Subpart C.
The modified Monier-Williams method as described in § 425.03(c) shall be
used for the determination of sulfide in wastewaters discharged by plants operating in
the hair save or pulp, non-chrome tan, retan-wet finish subcategory (Subpart C, see §
425.30).
(b)	Potassium Ferricyanide Titration Method.
The potassium ferricyanide titration method is based on method SLM 4/2
described in Official Method of Analysis, Society of Leather Trades' Chemists, Fourth
Revised Edition, Redbourn, Herts., England, 1965.
-------
- 2 -
(1)	Outline of Method. The buffered sulfide solution is titrated with standard
potassium ferricyanide solution in the presence of a ferrous dimethylglyoxime ammonia
complex. The sulfide is oxidized to sulfur. Sulfite interferes and must be precipitated
with barium chloride. Thiosulfate is not titrated under the conditions of the
determination. (Chariot, Ann, chim, anal., 1945, 27, 153; Booth, J. Soc. Leather Trades'
Chemists, 1956, 40, 238).
(2)	Apparatus. Burrette, 10 mL
(3)	Reagents.
(A)	Preparation of 0.02N potassium ferricyanide: Weigh to the nearest
tenth of a gram 6.6 g of analytical reagent grade potassium
ferricyanide and dissolve in 1 liter distilled water. Store in an'
• amber bottle in the dark. Prepare fresh each week.
(B)	Standardization of ferricyanide solution: Transfer 50 ml of solution
to a 250 ml Erlenmeyer flask. Add several crystals of potassium
iodide (about 1 g), mix gently to dissolve, add 1 ml of 6N
hydrochloric acid, stopper the flask, and swirl gently. Let stand for
two minutes, add 10 ml of a 30 percent zinc sulfate solution, and
titrate the mixture containing the gelatinous precipitate with
standardized sodium thiosulfate or phenylarsine oxide titrant in the
range of 0.025-0.050N. Add 1 ml of starch indicator solution after
the color has faded to a pale yellow, and continue the titration to
the disappearance of the blue color. Calculate the normality of the
ferricyanide solution using the equation:
Normality of Potassium Ferricyanide (K^FeCCNjg) =
(ml of thiosulfate added) (normality of thiosulfate)
ml of K3Fe(CN)6
-------
-3-
(C)	Preparation of 6M ammonium chloride buffer, pH 9.3: Dissolve 200
g ammonium chloride in approximately 500 ml distilled water, add
200 ml 14M reagent grade ammonium hydroxide and make up to 1
liter with distilled water. The buffer should be prepared in a hood.
Store in a tightly stoppered container.
(D)	Preparation of 0.05 M barium chloride solution: Dissolve 12-13 g
barium chloride dihydrate in 1 liter of distilled water.
(E)	Preparation of ferrous dimethylglyoxime indicator solution: Mix 10
ml 0.6 percent ferrous sulfate, 50 ml 1 percent dimethylglyoxime in
ethanol, and 0.5 ml concentrated sulfuric acid.
(F)	Preparation of stock sulfide standard, 1000 ppm: Dissolve 2.4 g
reagent grade sodium sulfide in 1 liter of distilled water. Store in a
tightly stoppered container. Diluted working standards must be
prepared fresh daily and their concentrations determined by EPA
376.1 immediately prior to use.
(G)	Preparation of 10N NaOH: Dissolve 400 g of analytical reagent
grade NaOH in 1 liter distilled water.
(4) Sample Preservation and Storage.
Samples are to be field filtered (gravity or pressure) with coarse filter paper
(Whatman 4 or equivalent) immediately after collection. Filtered samples must be
preserved by adjustment to pH^ 12 with 10N NaOH. Sampl° containers must be covered
tightly and stored at 4°C until analysis. Samples must be analyzed within 48 hours of
collection. If these procedures cannot be achieved, it is the laboratory's responsibility to
Ustitute quality control procedures that will provide documentation of sample integrity.
-------
- 4 -
Procedure.
(A)	Transfer 100 ml of sample to be analyzed, or a suitable portion
containing not more than 15 mg sulfide supplemented to 100 ml with
distilled water, to a 250 ml Erlenmeyer flask.
(B)	Adjust the sample to pH 8.5-9.5 with 6N HC1.
(C)	Add 20 ml of 6M ammonium chloride buffer (pH 9.3), 1 ml of ferrous
dimethylglyoxime indicator, and 25 ml of 0.05 M barium chloride.
Mix gently, stopper, and let stand for 10 minutes.
(D)	After 10 minutes titrate with standardized potassium ferricyanide to
disappearance of pink color. The endpoint is reached when there is
no reappearance of the pink color after 30 seconds.
Calculation and Reporting of Results.
(A)	mg/1 Sulfide = A x B x 16,000	
voL in ml of sample titrated
where A = volume in ml of potassium ferricyanide solution used
and B = normality of potassium ferricyanide solution.
(B)	Report results to two significant figures.
(7) Quality Control.
(A) Each laboratory that uses this method is required to operate a
formal quality control program. The minimum requirements of this
program consist of an initial demonstration of laboratory capability
and the analysis of replicate and spiked samples as a continuing
check on performance. The laboratory is required to maintain
performance records to define the quality of data that is
generated. Ongoing performance checks must be compared with
established performance criteria to determine if the results of
(5)
(6)
-------
- b -
analyses are within precision and accuracy limits expected of the
method.
(B)	Before performing any analyses, the analyst must demonstrate the
ability to generate acceptable precision and accuracy with this
method by performing the following operations.
(i)	Perform four replicate analyses of a 20 mg/1 sulfide standard
prepared in distilled water (see (3)(F)).
(ii)	Calculate clean water precision and accuracy in accordance
with standard statistical procedures. Clean water acceptance
limits are presented below. These criteria must be met or
exceeded before sample analyses can be initiated. A clean
water standard must be analyzed with each sample set and
the established criteria met for the analysis to be considered
under controL
Clean water precision and accuracy acceptance limits:
For distilled water samples containing from 5 mg/1 to 50
mg/1 sulfide, the mean concentration from four replicate
analyses must be within the range of 50 to 110 percent of the
true value.
(C)	The Minimum Reportable Concentration (MRC) should be
determined periodically by each participating laboratory in
accordance with the procedures specified in Methods for Organic
Chemical Analysis of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater - EPA-
600/4-82-057, July 1982, EMSL, Cincinnati, OH 45268.
(D)	A minimum of one spiked and one duplicate sample must be
performed for each analytical event, or five percent spikes and five
-------
- 6 -
percent duplicates when the number of samples per event exceeds
twenty. Spike levels are to be at the MRC (see (7)(C)) for MRC
samples, and at x where x is the concentration found if in excess of
the MRC. Spike recovery must be 40 to 120 percent for the analysis
of a particular matrix type to be considered valid. If a sample or
matrix type provides performance outside these acceptance limits,
the analyses must be repeated using the modified Monier-Williams
procedure described in § 425.03(c).
(E) Report results in mg/liter. When duplicate and spiked samples are
analyzed, report all data with the sample results.
(c) Modified Monier-Williams Method.
(1)	Outline of Method.
Hydrogen sulfide is liberated from an acidified sample by distillation and
purging with nitrogen gas (N2). Sulfur dioxide interference is removed by scrubbing the
nitrogen gas stream in a pH 7 buffer solution. The sulfide gas is collected by passage
through an alkaline hydrogen peroxide scrubbing solution in which it is oxidized to
sulfate. Sulfate concentration in the scrubbing solution is determined by either
gravimetric (EPA 375.3) or turbidirnetric (EPA 375.4) procedures.
(2)	Apparatus*. (See Figure 1) *Catalogue numbers are given only to
provide a more complete description of the equipment necessary, and do not constitute a
manufacturer or vendor endorsement.
(A)	Heating mantle and control (VWR Cat. No. 33752-464)
(B)	1000 ml distilling flask with three 24/40 joints (VWR Cat. No.
29280-215)
(C)	Friedricks condenser with two 24/40 joints (VWR Cat. No.
23161-009)
-------
(D)	125 ml separatory funnel with 24/40 joint (VWR Cat. No.
30357-102)
(E)	Inlet tube with 24/40 joint (VWR Cat. No. 33057-105)
(F)	Adapter joint 24/40 to 19/38 (VWR Cat No. 62905-26)
(G)	Adsorber head (2 required) (Thomas Cat. No. 9849-R29)
(H)	Absorber body (2 required) (Thomas Cat. No. 9849-R32)
(I)	Laboratory vacuum pump or water aspirator
Reagents.
(A)	Potassium hydroxide, 6N: Dissolve 340 g of analytical
reagent grade KOH in 1 liter distilled water.
(B)	Sodium hydroxide, 6N: Dissolve 240 g of analytical reagent
grade NaOH in 1 liter distilled water.
(C)	Sodium hydroxide, 0.03N: Dilute 5.0 ml of 6N NaOH to 1
liter with distilled water.
(D)	Hydrochloric acid, 6N: Dilute 500 ml of concentrated HC1 to
1 liter with distilled water.
(E)	Potassium phosphate stock buffer, 0.5M: Dissolve 70 g
monobasic potassium phosphate in approximately 800 ml
distilled water. Adjust pH to 7.0 +_ 0.1 with 6N potassium
hydroxide and dilute to 1 liter with distilled water. Stock
solution is stable for several months at 4°C.
(F)	Potassium phosphate buffer, 0.05M: Dilute 1 volume of 0.5M
potassium phosphate stock buffer with 9 volumes of distilled
water. Solution is stable for 1 month at 4°C.
-------
(G)	Alkaline 3 percent hydrogen peroxide: Dilute 1 volume of 30
percent hydrogen peroxide with 9 volumes of 0.03N NaOH.
Prepare this solution fresh each day of use.
(H)	Preparation of stock sulfide standard, 1000 ppm: Dissolve 2.4
g reagent grade sodium sulfide in 1 liter of .distilled water.
Store in a tightly stoppered container. Diluted working
standards must be prepared fresh daily and their
concentrations determined by EPA 376.1 immediately prior to
use.
(4)	Sample Preservation and Storage.
Preserve unfiltered wastewater samples immediately after
collection by adjustment to pHs»9 with 6N NaOH and addition of 2 ml of 2N zinc acetate
per liter. This amount of zinc acetate is adequate to preserve 64 mg/1 sulfide under
ideal conditions. Sample containers must be covered tightly and stored at 4°C until
analysis. Samples must be analyzed within seven days of collection. If these procedures
cannot be achieved, it is the laboratory's responsibility to institute quality control
procedures that will provide documentation of sample integrity.
(5)	Procedure. (See Figure 1 for apparatus layout)
(A)	Place 50 ml of 0.05M pH 7.0 potassium phosphate buffer in
Trap No. 1.
(B)	Place 50 ml of alkaline 3 percent hydrogen peroxide in Trap
No. 2.
(C)	Sample introduction and N2 prepurge: Gently mix sample to
be analyzed to resuspend settled material, taking care not to
aerate the sample. Transfer 400 ml of sample, or a suitable
portion containing not more than 20 mg sulfide diluted to 400
-------
-9-
ml with distilled water, to the distillation flask. Adjust the
N2 flow so that the impingers are frothing vigorously but not
overflowing. Vacuum may be applied at the outlet of Trap
No. 2 to assist in smooth purging. The N2 inlet tube of the
distillation flask must be submerged deeply in the sample to
ensure efficient agitation. Purge the sample for 30 minutes
without applying heat. Test the apparatus for leaks during
the prepurge cycle (Snoop or soap water solution).
(D)	Volatilization of H2S: Interrupt the N2 flow (and vacuum)
and introduce 100 ml of 6N HC1 to the sample using the
separatory funneL Immediately resume the gas flow (and
vacuum). Apply maximum heat with the heating mantle until
the sample begins to boil, then reduce heat and maintain
gentle boiling and N2 flow for 30 minutes. Terminate the
distillation cycle by turning off the heating mantle and
maintaining N2 flow through the system for 5 to 10 minutes.
Then turn off the N2 flow (and release vacuum) and
cautiously vent the system by placing 50 to 100 ml of distilled
water in the separatory funnel and opening the stopcock
carefully. When the bubbling stops and system is equalized to
atmospheric pressure, remove the separatory funneL
Extreme care must be exercised in terminating the
distillation cycle to avoid flash-over, draw-back, or violent
steam release.
(E)	Analysis: Analyze the contents of Trap No. 2 for sulfate
according to EPA Method 375.3 (Gravimetric) or EPA Method
-------
375.4 (Turbidimetric) and use result to calculate mg/1 of
sulfide in wastewater sample.
(6)	Calculations and Reporting of Results.
(A)	Gravimetric procedure:
(mg BaSO^ collected in Trap No. 2) x (137) = mg Sulfide/1
Volume in ml of waste sample distilled
(B)	Turbidimetric procedure:
(mg/1 Sulfate in Trap No. 2) x (liquid volume in 1 in Trap No. 2) x (333)
Volume in ml of waste sample distilled = mg Sulfide/1
(C)	Report results to two significant figures.
(7)	Quality Control.
(A)	Each laboratory that uses this method is required to operate a
formal quality control program. The minimum requirements
of this program consist of an initial demonstration of
laboratory capability and the analysis of replicate and spiked
samples as a continuing check on performance. The
laboratory is required to maintain performance records to
define the quality of data that is generated. Ongoing
performance checks must be compared with established
performance criteria to determine if the results of analyses
are within precision accuracy and limits expected of the
method.
(B)	Before performing any analyses, the analyst must
demonstrate the ability to generate acceptable accuracy and
precision by performing the following operations.
(i) Perform four replicate analyses of a 20 mg/1 sulfide
standard prepared in distilled water (see (3)(H)).
-------
- 11 -
(ii) Calculate clean water precision and accuracy in
accordance with standard statistical procedures.
Clean water acceptance limits are presented below.
These criteria must be met or exceeded before sample
analyses can be initiated. A clean water standard
must be analyzed with each sample set and the
established criteria met for the analysis to be
considered under control.
Clean water precision and accuracy acceptance limits:
For distilled water samples containing from 5 to 50
mg/1 sulfide, the mean concentration from four
replicate analyses must be within the range of 72 to
114 percent of the true value.
(C)	The Minimum Reportable Concentration (MRC) should be
determined periodically by each participating laboratory in
accordance with the procedures specified in Methods for
Organic Chemical Analysis of Municipal and Industrial
Wastewater - EPA-600/4-82-057 July 1982, EMSL, Cincinnati,
OH 45268.
(D)	A minimum of one spiked and one duplicate sample must be
run with each analytical event, or five percent spikes and five
percent duplicates when the number of samples per event
exceeds twenty. Spike levels are to be at the MRC (See
Section (7)(C)) for MRC samples, and at x when x is the
concentration found if in excess of the MRC. Spike recovery
-------
must be 60 to 120 percent for the analysis of a particular
matrix type to be considered valid.
Report all results in mg/liter. When duplicate and spike
samples are analyzed, report all data with the sample results.
-------
FIGURE 1
EQUIPMENT ASSEMBLY
-------
- 14 -
IL APPLICABILITY OF THE SULFIDE PRETREATMENT STANDARDS.
Amend 40 C.F.R. § 425.04 by adding a new section 425.04(d)(1):
If, after EPA and the POTW have determined in accordance with this section
that the sulfide pretreatment standards of this Part are not applicable to specified
facilities, a POTW then determines that there have been changed circumstances
(including but not limited to changes in the factors specified in paragraph (b) of this
section) which justify application of the sulfide pretreatment standards, the POTW shall
revoke the certification submitted under paragraph (c) of this section. The POTW and
EPA shall then adhere to the general procedures and time intervals contained in
paragraph (c) in order to determine whether the sulfide pretreatment standards contained
in this Part are applicable.
Amend 40 C.F.R. § 425.04 by adding a new section 425.04(d)(2)):
If pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the sulfide pretreatment
standards of this Part are applicable to a specified facility, the indirect discharger shall
comply with the sulfide pretreatment standards no later than 18 months from the date of
publication of the Federal Register notice identifying the facility.
Amend 40 C.F.R. § 425.04 by adding a new section 425.04(e):
At any time after October 13, 1983, if a POTW determines that there have
been changed circumstances (including but not limited to changes in the factors specified
in paragraph (b) of this section) it may initiate the proceedings contained in paragraph (c)
of this section to determine that the sulfide pretreatment standards of this Part shall not
be applicable. The POTW and EPA shall follow the procedures and time intervals
contained in paragraph (c) of this section to make this determination. A final
determination that the sulfide pretreatment standards are not applicable must be made
prior to the discharge of sulfide not in accordance with the standards set forth in this
Part.
-------
EL SUBCATEGORY WATER USE RATIOS.
Amend 40 C.F.R. § 425.11 by substituting:
BPT Limi tat ions
Maximum for
Any One Day
Ma x i mum for
Monthly Average
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Kg/KKg (or Pounds per
1,000 lb.) of Raw Ma t e r i a 1
BOOc
TSS
Oi 1 
-------
PSES Limitations
Maximum for Maximum for
Any One Day	Monthly Average
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property	Milligrams Per Liter (mg/1)
Sulfide	24
Total Chromium	12	8
pH	(1)	(1)
(1) Not less than 7.0
Amend 40 C.F.R. § 425.35(b) by substituting:
Any existing source subject to this subpart which processes less than 350
hides/day shall comply with section 425.35(a), except that the Total Chromium
limitations contained in section 425.35(a) do not apply.
Amend 40 C.F.R. § 425.41 by substituting:
BPT Limi tat i ons
Maximum for Maximum for
A/iy One Day	Monthly Average
Pollutant or Kg/KKg (or Pounds per
Pollutant Property	1 , 000 lb.) of Raw Material
BOD 5
8.9
4.0
TSS
12.8
5.8
Oi 1 6c Grease
3.7
1 . 7
Total Chromium
0.23
0. 08
pH
(1)
(1)
(1) Within the range 6.0 to 9.0
Amend 40 C.F.R. § 425.44 by substituting:
-------
NSPS Limi tat i ons
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Kg/KKg (or Pounds per
1,000 lb.) of Raw Ma t e r i a 1
bod5
TSS
Oi 1 £c Grease
Total Chromium
PH
6.5
9.3
2.7
0. 17
(1)
2.9
4.3
1.2
0.06
(1)
(1) Within the range 6.0 to 9.0
Amend 40 C.F.R. § 425.51 by substituting:
BPT Limi tat ions
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Kg/KKg (or Pounds per
1,000 lb.) of Raw Ma t e r i a 1
BOD-
TSS
Oil dc Grease
Total Ch r om i um
PH
(1) Within the range 6.0 to 9.0
8.0
11.6
3.4
0.21
(1)
3.6
5.3
1. 5
0.08
(1)
Amend 40 C.F.R. § 425.61 by substituting:
BPT Limi tat ions
Ma x i mum for
Any One Day
Ma x i mum for
Monthly Average
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Kg/KKg (or Pounds per
1,000 lb.) of Raw Ma t e r i a 1
BODc
TSS
Oi1 & Grease
Total Chromium
PH
3.2
4.7
1.4
0. 08
(1)
1.	5
2.	1
0.61
0.03
(1)
(1) Within the range 6.0 to 9.0
-------
Amend 40 C.F.R. § 425.64 by substituting:
NSPS Limi tat i ons
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Kg/KKg (or Pounds per
1,000 lb.) of Raw Material
boe>5
TSS
Oil & Grease
Total Chromium
PH
3.0
4.3
1.2
0.08
(1)
1.3
1.9
0.55
0. 03
(1)
(1) Within the range 6.0 to 9.0
Amend 40 C.F.R. § 425.71 by substituting:
BPT Limitations
Maximum for
Any One Day
Ma x i mum for
Monthly Average
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Kg/KKg (or Pounds per
1,000 lb.) of Raw Material
bod5
TSS
Oil & Gr ease
Total Chromium
pH
15.0
21.7
6.3
0.39
(1)
6.8
9.9
2.8
0.14
(1)
(1) Within the range 6.0 to 9.0
Amend 40 C.F.R. § 425.91 by substituting:
BPT Limitations
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Kg/KKg (or Pounds per
1,000 lb.) of Raw Ma t e r i a 1
BOD 5
TSS
Oil & Grease
Total Chromium
PH
5.8
8.3
2.4
0. 15
(1)
2.6
3.8
1.1
0.05
(1)
(1) Within the range 6.0 to 9.0
-------
- 19 -
Amend 40 C.F.R. S 425.95(b) by substituting:
Any existing source subject to this subpart which processes less than 3,600
splits/day shall comply with section 425.95(a), except that the Total Chromium
limitations contained in section 425.95(a) do not apply.
-------
EXHIBIT B
PREAMBLE LANGUAGE TO 40 C.F.R. PART 425
L SUBCATEGORY WATER USE RATIOS.
Add the following preamble language:
After reviewing the revised data base for the subcategory median and new
source water use ratios, EPA determined that changes should be made in the median
water use ratios for a number of subcategories. Table 1 reflects the revisions in median
water use ratios as well as changes in the number of plants in the subcategory data bases
and the number of plants achieving the median water use ratios. Table 2 reflects the
revisions in the new source water use ratios and in the number of plants achieving these
water use ratios.
TABLE 1
Number of plants
Number of plants in data base
in subcategory Median water use ratio achieving water
Subcategory	data base	(gallons per pound)	use ratio
1
34
6.6
17
2
4
5.8
3
3
11
GO
•
6
4
7
6.3
4
5
10
5.7
5
6
3
2.3
2
7
2
10.7
1
8
2
5.0
1
9
6
4. 1
3
t
-------
- 2 -
TABLE 2
New source water use ratio Number of plants in data
Subcategory (gallons per pound)	base achieving water use ratio
1
4.3
6
2
4.9
1
3
4.2
4
4
4.6
2
5
3.8
3
6
2.1
1
7
9.4
1
8
4.1
1
9
2.5
2
IL SMALL TANNERY EXEMPTION.
Add the following preamble language:
In a correction notice dated June 30, 1983, the Agency specified the annual
weight basis as well as the number of working days per year underlying the specified hide
and split limits. 48 Fed. Reg. 30,115. Subsequent to discussing this matter with TCA,
the Agency has reconsidered this issue. The Agency plans to delete all references to the
annual weight basis and the number of working days per year underlying the specified
hide and split limits. Accordingly, tanneries with a seven-day work week could qualify
for the exemption.
Add the following preamble language:
The pretreatment standards for chromium are not applicable to plants with
mixed subcategory operations if the greatest part of the plant's production is in either
subcategory 1, 3 or 9 and if the total plant production is less than the specified number
of hides or splits per day for the particular subcategory. The intent of this exemption is
to exclude small plants from the chromium pretreatment standards, not to exclude
processing operations at medium or large plants.
-------
EL CHANGES IN SUBCATEGORIZATION.
Add the following preamble languages
Under 40 C.F.R. S 403.6(a) of the general pretreatment regulations, an
existing industrial user or a POTW may seek written certification from the Agency as to
whether the industrial user falls within a particular subcategory of a promulgated
categorical pretreatment standard. Existing users must make the request within 60 days
after the effective date of a pretreatment standard for a subcategory under which the
user may be included or within 60 days after the Federal Register notice announcing the
availability of the technical document for the subcategory. New sources must request
this certification prior to commencing discharge.
Persons have inquired as to the procedures that existing leather tanning
facilities should use to seek an Agency determination if the facility decides to change its
subcategorization subsequent to the expiration of the 60-day deadline under 40 C.F.R. §
403.6(a). In fact, 40 C.F.R. S 403.6(a) does not preclude leather tanning and finishing
facilities from changing operations which would in turn automatically change their
subcategorization status. Facilities that are planning to change their subcategorization
status and are unsure which subcategory they will fall into, should request written
certification from the Agency as to whether the facility falls within a particular
subcategory prior to commencing discharges which would fall within that subcategory.
IV. MULTIPLE OUTFALLS.
Add the following preamble language:
Most indirect discharging plants combine their process wastewaters and
t
discharge them all through one outfalL The Agency has costed this approach by including
-------
costs for internal plant piping for wastewater collection as well as contingency costs to
account for any unforeseen site specific costs.
If, however, an indirect discharging plant does not choose to combine its
process wastewaters for treatment and to discharge them through one outfall, a
composite sampling of the multiple outfalls could be acceptable. A single composite
sample for multiple outfalls must be comprised of representative process wastewaters
from each outfalL A composite sample must be combined in proportions determined by
the ratio of the process wastewater flow in each outfall to the total flow of process
wastewaters discharged through all outfalls. —^ Flow measurements for each outfall
must be representative of the plant's operation. An analysis of the total sample would
then be compared to the applicable categorical standard to determine compliance.
—i	¦—
— If non-process wastewater is combined with process wastewater or if a plant has
operations in more than one subcategory, the plant would have to use the "combined
wastestream formula" (40 C.F.R. § 403.6(e)) to make this calculation.
-------
EXHIBIT C
TCA MEMBERS
Acme Sponge £c Chamois Co.
Allied Leather Co. (Feuer)
Amdur Braude Riley, Inc.
American Leather Mfg. Co.
Armira Company
Badger State Tanning Corp.
Beatrice, Leather Div.
Beggs & Cobb Corp.
Berkshire Tanning Corp.
Blackhawk Tanning Co., Ltd.
The Blueside Companies, Inc.
Caldwell Lace Leather Co.
Calnap Tanning Company
Camden Tanning Corp.
Carr Leather Company
Cayadutta Tanning Company
Classic Leather Corporation
Coey Tanning Company, Inc.
Coilins-Johnsen, Inc.
Conneaut Leather, Inc.
Cromwell Leather Co., Inc.
Del-Tan Corporation
Jelta Tanning Corporation
Dreher Leather Mfg. Corp.
Eagle Ottawa Leather Company
Ellithorp Tanning Company
Fashion Tanning Company, Inc.
Fermon Leather Company
Feuer Leather Group
Paul Flagg, Inc.
John Flynn & Sons, Inc.
S.B. Foot Tanning Co.
The Fouke Company
Fox Valley Leathers, Inc.
Frontier Leather Co., Inc.
A.F. Gallun 5c Sons Corp.
Garden State Tanning
Garlin & Company, Inc.
A.L. Gebhardt Company
General Split Corporation
Genesco, Inc.
Gordon-Gruenstein, Inc.
Granite State Leathers, Inc.
Gunnison Brothers, Inc.
Hermann Oak Leather Company
Horizon Leather Company
Horween Leather Company
Howes Leather Company, Inc.
Hoyt & Worthen Tanning Corp.
Huch Leather Company
Irving Tanning Company
JBF Industries, Inc.
JEC Tanning Company, Inc.
Kroy Tanning Company, Inc.
Lackawanna Leather Company
Lannom Tannery
A.C. Lawrence Leather Co., Inc.
Leather's Best, Inc.
Liberty Leather Corp.
Hermann Loewenstein, Inc.
Los Angeles Tanning Company
MTE Corporation
Manasse-Block Tanning Company
Mason Tanning Company, Inc.
Master Inc.
Middlesboro Tanning Co. of DeL
Middlesboro Tanning Company
Midwest Tanning Company
Moench Tanning Company
Moran Leather Company
George Moser Leather Co., Inc.
New Jersey Tanning Co., Inc.
Norwich Leather Company
Ocean Leather Corp.
Pfister & Vogel Tanning Co.
W.B. Place 3c Company
Poetsch 3c Peterson
Pollet Leather Co.
Prime Tanning Company, Inc.
Radel Leather Manufacturing Co.
Re mis Industries
W.C. Reynolds Company, Inc.
Richard Leather Co., Inc.
John J. Riley Company
A.H. Ross & Sons Co.
Fred Rueping Leather Co.
F. Rulison and Sons, Inc.
Salz Leather, Inc.
Sawyer Tanning Company
Scholze Tannery
Schwarz Leather Corp.
Seidel Tanning Corp.
Seton Leather Corp.
Shrut Be Asch Leather Co., Inc.
Stock Kojima
The Sidney Tanning Company
Sierra Pine Tanning Company
Sigma Leather, Inc.
Sirois Leather,Inc.
Slip-Not Belting Corporation
John Smidt Co. Inc.
Steinberg Bros., Inc.
Suncook Tanning Corporation
Tanners' Council Laboratory
Tennessee Tanning Company
Texas Tanning
Thiele Tanning Company
Travel Leather Company, Inc.
Twin City Leather Company, Ir
Vernon Leather Company
Victory Tanning Corporation
Volunteer Leather Company
Western Leather Products Corf
Whitehall Leather Company
Wolverine Leather Division
Wood and Hyde Leather Compa
-------
PFRA/iir t,
EPA- Region .
-------
TELEPHONE MEMORANDUM
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
date: February 14, 1983
subject EPA1s Sulfide Waiver for Leather Tanners
from: Valerie Jones, JRB Contractee
Regional Pretreatment Staff
T0: Becky Comstrock (612) 340-2987
Background Information
On November 23, 1982, EPA published final pretreatment standards for the
Leather Tanning Industries in the Federal Register. One major change
included in the regulations dealt with the establishment of a "waiver
provision" for industrial compliance with the maximum daily pretreatment
standards for sulfides (24 mg/1). This new provision is procedurally
structured as a spin-off to the removal credit provisions (403.7) except
that prior approval from regulatory agencies is not required before a
POTW commences public noticing procedures. It is an optional provision
whereby the subject POTW must certify no related sulfide interference
problems in order for the waiver to be formally granted by EPA. At a
minimum, the following factors must be considered during the certification
process:
•	Other industrial wastewater characteristics which can alter
sulfide concentration, pH, or both.
•	Characteristics of sewer intercepter collection system which
either minimize or enhance opportunities for release of H2S gases.
•	Characteristrics of the treatment system including sludge management
facilities which either minimize or enhance opportunities for release
of H2S gases.
•	Five year historical review of any sulfide related interference
problems.
It is noteworthy that these regulations carry a "risk assessment" definition
for "interference" [425.02(j)] to mean "the discharge of sulfides in
quantities which can result in human health hazards and/or risks to human
life in addition to the general interference definition in 403.3(i)".
In order to obtain a waiver, a POTW must first advertise in the largest
local newspaper on March 7, 1983, its notice to waive sulfide requirements
on local tanneries. If a public hearing is needed, then the POTW must
provide for one. On June 5, 1983, the subject POTW must file a written
certification with the Regional Water Division Director including the
findings supporting the waiver as well as any public comments. On July 5,
1983, EPA must acknowledge receipt of the certification and must indicate

EPA FORM 1320-6 (REV 3-76)
-------
2
to the POTW the adequacy of the submittal in satisfying the procedural
requirements. Within 30 days of the receipt date of an adequate submission
from the POTW, the EPA must publish in the Federal Register those facilities
to which the sulfide pretreatment standard will not apply. Similar provisions
are also provided for the POTW to waive sulfide requirements on new source
di scharges.
Synopsis of Phone Conversation
Since Bob Robichaud was travelling, I was asked by Glenn Pratt to return
Ms. Comstock's call. She identified herself as an attorney for several
tanneries in the Metro area. She stated that she was in the process of
drafting suitable language pertaining to the sulfide waiver for advertisement
in the largest local newspaper. The draft language would be presented to
the MWCC during a public hearing on 2/15/83, which would be the last hearing
prior to the 3/7/83, deadline for advertising in the newspaper. She indicated
that this was just a formality since MWCC has tentatively agreed in principle
to granting the waiver. She basically had two questions:
How detail does the notice have to be (i.e. must supportive documenta-
tion be advertised also)?
Has Region V defined and established its criteria for an adequate
submittal? If so, she would like a copy.
In response to her first question, I told Ms. Comstrock that this was the
first inquiry which has been received in the Region regarding the sulfide
waiver. She stated that Metro was in contact with Milwaukee and that Milwaukee
will be applying also. I informed Ms. Comstock that the public noticing does
not include publication of the entire supportive documentation but rather a
brief summary and reference to its availability to interested parties as
well as opportunity to public comments and/or a hearing, if necessary.
In response to her second question, I told Ms. Comstock that the Region has
not developed criteria outside of what is required in the Federal Register.
She wanted to know if the Region will be developing specific criteria and
guidance to satisfy the four requirements for obtaining the waiver. I told
her at this point and time, I did not know but would be able to answer her
better after the Regional Pretreatment Coordinator had returned and we had
conferred with EPA in Washington. However, I did indicate to her that the
Region has been very active in requiring specific information as opposed to
general discussions as may be interpreted from reading the Register. She
acknowledged" that fact but was interested in knowing what was the intent of
the Federal provisions, general or specific? I stated that EPA in Washington
historically allows flexible interpretation of the regulations so that the
Regional Offices can define the scope and levels of effort necessary to
satisfy the requirement to the Region's satisfaction. She wanted to contact
someone in Washington so I gave her the name of the Project Officer for the
Tanning Regs, Donald Anderson. I also informed her that I would attempt to
contact Washington also for further clarification on the waiver provision.
She agreed and stated that her only concern was that the formal submittal to
the Region would not fall short in satisfying the requirement and that the
-------
3
POTW's and industries are anticipating formal approval of their	waiver without
complications. On that note, I suggested that a draft document	be sent to
the Region for review prior to a formal submittal in June. She	indicated
that she was not at liberty to do that at this time. I asked her what was
MWCC proposing in lieu of the Federal Standards. She stated no	restrictions
at all. I asked her if she knew what Milwaukee was proposing.	She said she
didn't know.
Conclusion
It appears as if EPA has found an alternative to modifying Section 307(b) and
(c) of the CWA in providing waivers from categorical pretreatment standards
without congressional action. I tried to contact experts on the subject in
Washington; however, due to bad weather conditions, many did not come in. I
was able to talk to Jim Gallup who indicated he was not too fami 1 i an> with the
subject but suggested I contact an attorney in the Office of	Counsel.
He agreed with me that this was an unorthodox provision which he will
discuss with us when he comes to the Region on 2/16/83. In the interim, he
told me to find out what I could on the subject and he would do likewise. I
agreed and tried to contact Susan Liepal (382-7706) of the Wfc. She was not
i n.	oG-L
In sum, the Region needs to define the scope and levels of effort needed in
satisfying the waiver provisions prior to July,1983, when formal acknowledge-
ment to the requesting POTWs must occur. I have concern that no local
preventative limit for sulfides is being proposed by the POTWs in lieu of the
Federal standards.
NOTE: On 2/14/83, I also called Randy Dunnette of PCA's pretreatment
staff who stated that he had been in constant contact with Don
Madore of MWCC regarding the waiver provision. He stated that he
and Madore were under the assumption that PCA could approve or deny
the waiver application. I pointed out to Randy that this provision
by-pass State input since "EPA" is specifically cited as opposed
to "Approval Authority". Randy said he knows that now and will
be in contact with us on any future conversations on the subject.
I said O.K.
cc: Sutfin
Bryson/Manzardo
Fenner	.
Robichaud/Jones1'
Pratt
Dzikowski/Newman
-------
TELEPHONE MEMORANDUM
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
date- February 16, 1983
subject epa's Sulfide Waiver for Leather Tanners
from: Becky Comstock
(612) 340-2987
T0' Valerie Jones, JRB Contractee, \|1
Regional Pretreatment Staff
Ms. Becky Comstock, an attorney for the leather tanneries in the Metro
area, called me this morning to inform me that Metro had passed a resolu-
tion last night at their regular meeting to go with the public noticing
of the sulfide waiver provision in the March 7, 1983 local newspaper.
She also wanted to know if I had contacted Washington regarding what
should be included in the Notice as well as how detail the support
documentation must be. I told her that I had a conversation yesterday
with Donald Anderson and he stated that the newspaper notice should
reference the applicable regulations and laws as well as cite the four
factors which the POTW had to consider as part of the certification
process. A general summary of the findings with reference to the availa-
bility of a more detail discussion of each should also be included.
This was essentially what I had told Ms. Comstock on 2/14/83.
Ms. Comstock also asked me if the Regional Office would be formulating
internal guidance regarding the detail discussion of the support documen-
tation. I replied that the Regional Pretreatment Coordinator, Bob Robichaud
had just returned to the office from travelling and that we had just briefly
discusssed the matter, but further discussion would occur. She then asked
if Mr. Anderson indicated how detail the submittal should be. I replied
that Mr. Anderson stated all four factors should be thoroughly covered
and the Region had the option of requesting more detail information, if
necessary, in order to indicate adequacy of the submittal. I informed
Ms. Comstock that the Region would be conferring further with Washington
on this issue. She stated she was trying to contact Washington also and
had left word for Mr. Anderson to contact her.
I asked Ms. Comstock how many tanneries in the Metro area were being
affected by the regulations. She said only two which constitutes about
1% of the total flow to the Pigs Eye Plant. However, she stated that
Milwaukee, with more affected tanneries, was also considering the sulfide
waiver. She also wanted to know if Metro could hold a public hearing on
the matter even if none is requested from the public during the noticing
process. I told her that Metro could do whatever they prefered except
the Federal regulations mandate a public hearing if one is requested.
EPA FORM 1320-6 (REV 3-76)
-------
2
In closing, Ms. Comstock still expressed concern that the submittal may
fall short in satisfying Regional review for adequacy. I told her the
regulations do not require preliminary submission of the document before
July, 1983, but Metro could submit one before commencing any formal actions
for Regional review, if they so desired. Depending on other Regional
priorities, we would attempt to give a response to them. She stated that
she thought that was a good idea but she was uncertain whether Metro
would go along with it, but would ask them anyway. I told her she should
contact Bob Robichaud if she had any further questions since he will be
responsible for acknowledging receipt of the document and indicating
adequacy. She concurred.
cc: Sutfin
Bryson/Manzardo
Fenner
Robichaud/Jones
Pratt
Dzikowski/Newman
-------
CATE
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
TELEPHONE MEMORANDUM
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
June 8, 1983
EPA's Sulfide Waiver for Leather Tanners
Valerie Jones, JRB Contractee
Regional Pretreatment Staff
Susan Schmedes (FTS 382-7709)
Office of General Counsel
I spoke with Susan Schmedes, an attorney working on the sulfide waiver
regulations, after attempts to contact Don Anderson, Project Officer for
the Leather Tanning regulations, were futile. My purpose in phoning Sue
was to ascertain the status of 0MB's review of the information collection
requirements contained in Sections 425.04(b) and (c) of the tanning
regulations. These regulations were promulgated on November 23, 1982,
but the above sections were deferred pending OMB's review.
In the interim, four communities have already complied with the 11/23/8-2,
procedural requirements and regulatory deadlines for requesting the waiver
(i.e. MWCC, Milwaukee, Hartford, Wisconsin and Owatonna, Minnesota) since
the intent of the regulations was not in question. According to the
deferred sections of the regulations, the Regional Water Division Director
must acknowledge receipt of the requests as well as indicating the adequacy
of the submittal to the communities by July 5, 1983.
Sue informed me that 0MB signed-off on the regulations on May 18, 1983,
and approved them "as is". She is currently working on a notice for the
Federal Register which will be coming out very soon. The deadline dates
will be changed so they will be effective from the issuance date of the
Federal Register notice as follows:
•	90 days for the P0TW to advertise in the local newspaper its
intent to waive the sulfide requirements;
120 days for the P0TW to file a written certification to the'
Regional Water Division Director, and
•	180 days for the Regional Office's response to the request.
She also stated that OMB's decision has allowed the Regional Office's
unlimited authority in requiring additional information from the P0TW in
satisfying the four certification requirements. Therefore, she advised
the Region to immediately develop specific criteria for the needed data
and information.
ffA FORM t32W > REV 3-76)
-------
2
I also asked Sue if she concurred with Don Anderson's decision that "EPA
cannot approve or deny a request". I explained to her that Don and I had
dicussed this issue in February 1983, and he stated that "only the POTW is
liable in the event future damages occur to the treatment works or risk to
human life subsequent to waiving the sulfide requirement". I indicated to
Don that it appeared as if "EPA would be liable as a second party to the
action if a lawsuit was filed". Don disagreed and told me he had already
met with tanneries from Milwaukee and essentially told them that the "Region
could not deny or approve the POTW's sulfide waiver - only acknowledge
receipt and indicate adequacy". Sue became very upset that Don had made
comments like that without conferring with legal counsel. She stated that I
was correct in my analysis and that "EPA could be sued as a second party
since the process of evaluating adequacy constitutes approving or denying a
request". She stated that she would talk with Don immediately since the use
of semantics in the regulations (i.e. "adequacy" versue "approve or deny")
may not have been completely clear to him. I asked her if she intended to
clarify this in the notice she was drafting for the Federal Register. She
stated that she must discuss it further with Don and her superiors first.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Region should develop specific criteria for required information and data
from POTW's seeking the sulfide waiver. Since only four requests have been
received, it is highly unlikely that additional ones will be submitted once
the upcoming Federal Register notice is published. In developing this
criteria, the legal ramification which may ensue should be fully evaluated
if a community is able to comply with the Regional requirements. A phone
call from the Region advising the requesting POTW of the status of the tanning
regulations as well as the fact that the Region's specific criteria is still
being developed is suggested by July 5, 1983, since it will place the POTW
and tanners on notice that categorical standards are still in force. It is
also suggested, as one of the specific criteria to be developed, that the
POTW's attorney also sign-off on the certification. The reason being that
many POTW's are not aware that they are assuming liability for damages cause
by tanners in requesting the sulfide waiver. In addition, it is suggested
that Sue Schmedes be contacted by the Office of Regional Counsel encouraging
detail clarification in the Federal Register notice regarding the liability
issue and the fact that Regional offices must approve or deny a request.
cc: Sutfin
Bryson
Fenner
Manzardo
Pratt
Dzikowski
Jones ^
Diks
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TELEPHONE MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 6, 1983
SUBJECT: EPA's Sulfide Waiver for Leather Tanners
FROM: Valerie Jones, JRB Contractee
Regional Pretreatment Staff
TO: Donald Anderson, Project Office
(FTS-382-7189)
Today we received the June 30, 1983, Federal Register which contained corrected
dates for the sulfide waiver section (see attached). Since the corrected
dates are earlier than the original dates, I called Sue Schmedes to find out
why. She had told me on June 8, 1983, that the dates would move forward as
opposed to going backwards. Sue was on vacation so I spoke to Don Anderson
instead. I asked Don if he had seen the new dates. He said he had not and
asked me what they were. I told him and he screamed. He said those dates
are not the ones they gave for publishing and would correct them immediately.
He thanked me for bringing it to his attention. I told him the Region (Diane
Diks) was working with Pete Eagen in HQ on specific criteria for the needed
data and information from communities to satisfy the four pre-certification
requirements. I told him it would be a while before this task is completed.
He apologized and stated that he would do all he could to correct the error
immedi ately.
Status of In-House Waiver Requests
Date
Rec'd.
POTW
Affected Tanneries
6/7/83
Metro Waste Control
Thru-Blue, Inc., South St. Paul
St. Paul, MN
5/31/83 Milwaukee Metro
Cudahy Tanning Co., Inc., Cudahy
Flagg Tanning Corp., Milwaukee
A. F. Gallun & Sons Corp., Milwaukee
Gebhardt-Vogel Tanning Co., Milwaukee
Pfister & Vogel Tanning Co., Milwaukee
Seidel Tanning Corp., Milwaukee
Thiele Tanning Co., Milwaukee
Zeigler Tanning Corp., Milwaukee
4//5/83 Hartford, WI
W. B. Place & Co., Hartford
6/3/83
Owatonna, MN
Uber Glove & Tanning Co., Owatonna
cc: Sutfin
Bryson
Fenner
Manzardo
Pratt
Dzikowski
Jones
Di ks
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
. *UB 5 883
Telephone Conversation Memorandum
Date:
To: A1 Herndon. Pretreatment Coordinator
Region IV
Returning
previous
call /7
From:	Diane Diks
Region V, Pretreatment
Area/Access Code: 404 Telephone No.: 881-2211	 X:
FTS /y
FTS Operator:	
Subject: Granting of the Sulfide Waiver by Region IV for Two Industries in
Summary: On August 5, 1983, a notice was issued in the Federal Register stating
that Region IV had waived the sulfide pretreatment standard for two leather
tanning facilities in Tullahoma, TN. The Region IV Pretreatment Coordinator
was contacted to discuss the review process implemented in arriving at this
decision.
Mr. Herndon said that the Region did not develop any particular criteria
in addition to that in the 425 Regs for the review process, but rather
relied on the evaluation made by the state of Tennessee and the material
presented at the public hearing. The state reviewed O&M records on the
City and concluded that the Tullahoma POTW had been operating effectively
for approximately ten years, and the granting of the waiver would not
cause significant problems at the treatment works.
The waiver request submission documented that there was no deterioration of
the sewerage lines or significant odor problems due to discharged sulfides.
A study of the treatment system did not reveal other contributors whose
discharge could synergistically cause sulfide problems. When questioned
about the matter of the liability factor involved in granting the waiver,
Mr. Herndon stated that Region IV had not considered this possibility.
Region IV also did not specifically investigate health problems due to
sulfide exposure. It was assumed that there would be no problems.
A public hearing on this issue was held by the Tullahoma Utilities Board.
Several environmental groups had raised objections to the granting of the
waiver, but these objections were determined to be insignificant by the
affected industries and the municipality. The hearing resulted in the
Board unanimously approving the waiver.
cc: Sutfin	Jones
Bryson	Diks
Fenner	P. Eagen (EN-336)
Tullahoma, TN.
Manzardo
Pratt
Dzi kowski
Original to: ~-FILE
Copy to:
Type fj
-------
2
I then told him that Bob Robichaud was out of the office and would be
back tomorrow. He probably would want to talk to him further on the
subject. Don stated that he expected he would. Don also stated that he
had already met with tanneries from Milwaukee and had essentially told
them that the Region cannot deny or approve a POTW's waiver.
cc: Sutfin
Bryson/Manzardo
Fenner
Robichaud/Jones
Pratt
Dzikowski/Newman
-------
TELEPHONE MEMORANDUM
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
date: February 15, 1983
subject epa 1s Sulfide Waiver for Leather Tanners
fr°M: Valerie Jones, JRB Contractee
Regional Pretreatment Staff
T0' Donald Anderson (FTS - 382-7189)
As a follow-up to a phone conversation yesterday with Ms. Becky Comstock
regarding the sulfide waiver for leather tanners (see 2/14/83 phone memo),
I phoned Don Anderson, Project Office for the Tanning Regulations to seek
further clarification on the waiver provision as well as the intent of EPA
in creating it. Don stated that Ms. Comstock had also tried to contact him.
To summarize, Don stated that EPA's intent was to let the control of sul-
fides be a local decision since sulfides are non-conventional pollutants
not subject to Section 307 (b) and (c) of the Act. I asked him what role
did the Regional Office's play in this process. He stated that since
this is not a formal EPA procedure, then the Region is only responsible
for acknowledging receipt of the POTW's certification. I asked him about
the Region's responsiblity in indicating to the POTW the adequacy of the
submittal in satisfying the four pre-certification factors. Don stated
that the Region only has to make sure the four factors have been addressed
as stated in the Register and if additional information is needed beyond
what the Register requires, then the Region can require this. However,
the Region cannot approve or deny a POTW's waiver, only acknowledge receipt
and make sure the four pre-certification factors have been addressed. He
stated that the POTW's public noticing of the waiver provision and written
certification to the Region constitutes primary liability on the POTW
and not EPA in the event damages occur after the POTW certifies no inter-
ference to the treatment works or risk to human life will result by
granting the sulfide waiver to local tanneries. I then told Don that I
really don't see how this would reduce EPA's liability since finalization
of the process resides with EPA. He stated that due to the nature of
the political climate in Washington as well as opposition from tanneries
to the sulfide standard, this was the best that EPA could do. I asked
him why sulfides were not subject to the 403.5 prohibition requirement.
He responded by saying that due to special interference problems caused
by high concentrations of sulfides from tanneries, the Agency decided to
establish a categorical pretreatment standards for sulfides. I then
asked him how the Agency was able to establish a waiver provision without
taking into concept the idea of prevention as required by the Pretreatment
Regulations. He said the Agency did take that into consideration and de-
cided it was a local site-specific decision. However, he stated that
the Administrator was a little apprehensive about signing the regulations
for the obvious questions I had raised. I told him these provisions are
rather unorthodox and could have far-reaching implications. He agreed.
EPA FORM 1320-6 (REV 3-76)
-------
(Revised 6/5/84)
LEATHER TANNING AND FINISHING
CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
This summary provides industries in the Leather Tanning and Finishing
category and Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) with the information
necessary to determine compliance with pretreatment standards for this cate-
gory. The Leather Tanning and Finishing standards were established by the
Environmental Protection Agency in Part 425 of Title AO of the Code of Federal
Regulations (40 CFR 425). This summary is not intended to substitute for the
regulations published in the Code of Federal Regulations or the Federal
Register. For specific information, refer to the Federal Register citations
given below.
Important Dates	Federal Register Citation
Vol.
44,
p. 38746,
July 2, 1979
Vol.
47,
p. 52848,
November 23, 1982
Vol.
48,
p. 30115,
June 30, 1983
Vol.
48,
p. 32346,
July 15, 1983
Vol.
48,
p. 35649,
August 5, 1983
Vol.
48,
p. 41409,
September 15, 1983
Proposed Rule: July 2, 1979
Final Rule: November 23, 1982
Amendment: June 30, 1983
Amendment: July 15, 1983
Correction: August 5, 1983
Correction: September 15, 1983
Effective Date: January 6, 1983
Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR)
Due Date: July 5, 1983
Compliance Dates:
-	Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES): November 25, 1985
-	Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS): From commencement of
discharge
SUBCATEGORIES AND SIC CODES AFFECTED
The Leather Tanning and Finishing category is broken down into nine
subcategories based on the raw materials (hide or skin type) and the three
major groups of subprocesses used:
•	Beamhouse - hair removal
•	Tanyard - tanning
•	Retan - Wet Finish - further tanning, coloring, oil replenishment,
surface coating.
Each of the nine subcategories is described below.
-------
LEATHER TANNING (cont.)
Hair Pulp, Chrome Tan, Retan-Wet Finish subcategory (Subpart A) applies
to process wastewater discharges from any tannery operation that, either
exclusively or in addition to other unhairing and tanning operations,
processes raw or cured cattle or cattle-like hides into finished leather
by chemically dissolving the hide hair, chrome tanning, and retan-wet
finishing.
Hair Save, Chrome Tan, Retan-Wet Finish subcategory (Subpart B) applies
to process wastewater -discharges from any tannery operation that
processes raw or cured cattle or cattle-like hides into finished leather
by hair save unhairing, chrome tanning, and retan-wet finishing.
Hair Save or Pulp, Nonchrome Tan, Retan-Wet Finish subcategory (Subpart
C) applies to process wastewater discharges from any tannery operation
that processes raw or cured cattle or cattle-like hides into finished
leather by hair save or pulp unhairing, vegetable tanning, or alum,
syntans, oils ant! other agents for tanning and retan-wet finishing.
R.e tan-Wet Finish-Sides subcategory (Subpart D) applies to process waste-
water discharged from any tannery operation that processes previously
tanned hides and skins (grain side only) into finished leather by
retan-wet finishing.
The No Beamhouse subcategory (Subpart E) applies to process wastewater
discharges from any tannery that processes cattle hides, sheepskins, or
splits (hair previously removed and pickled) into finished leather by
chrome or non-chrome tanning, and retan-wet finishing.
Through-the-Blue subcategory (Subpart F) applies to process wastewater
discharged from any tannery that processes raw or cured cattle or cattle-
like hides through the blue-tanned state by hair pulp unhairing and
chrome tanning. No retan-wet finishing is performed.
The Shearling subcategory (Subpart G) applies to process wastewater
discharges from any tannery that processes raw or cured sheep or sheep-
like skins with the wool or hair retaned into finished leather by chrome
tanning or fetan-wet finishing.
The Pigskin subcategory (Subpart H) applies to process wastewater dis-
charges from any tannery that processes raw or cured pigskins into
finished leather by chemically dissolving or pulping the hair and tanning
with chrome, then retan-wet finishing.
The Retan-Wet Finish-Splits subcategory (Subpart I) applies to process
wastewater discharges from any tannery that processes previously unhaired
and tanned splits into finished leather by retan-wet finishing.
Industries in the Leather Tanning and Finishing category are included
within the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 3111.
-------
LEATHER TANNING (cont.)
REGULATED POLLUTANTS
The pollutants regulated by both the PSES and PSNS for all nine subcate-
gories of the Leather Tanning and Finishing category are total chromium and
pH. Sulfide is also -regulated, but only for Subcategories A, B, C, F and H.
(It-should be noted that a special analytical method is specified in the
Leather Tanning and Finishing Regulations (40 FR 425.03) for determination of
sulfide in alkaline wastewaters.) The sulfide standard will not apply if the
receiving POTW certifies, after consideration of all relevant factors, that
the sulfide discharged by a particular facility does not interfere with the
treatment works. This certification must have been written and filed with EPA
by January 11, 1984 for existing facilities. If this certification was made
and EPA determined that it was - accurate, EPA would have published a notice in
the Federal Register by February 10, 1984 identifying those facilities to
which the sulfide pretreatment standard does not apply. For new facilities,
this certification must be submitted prior to discharge by the industrial
facility. For further information concerning the sulfide waiver, consult the
Federal P.eeister (Vol. 47, page 52848, November 23, 1982).
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES AND NEW SOURCES
The PSES and PSNS for all nine subcategories of the Leather Tanning and
Finishing category are summarized in the following table. The PSES and PSNS
for each subcategory are identical, except that the total chromium limitation
does not apply to existing sources in Subcategories A, C, and I under certain
circumstances (see footnotes to the table). All standards are concentration
based and are in units of milligrams per liter (mg/1).
-------
I i-.niL-., t..	-	_ y
PRETKRATMKNT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SuilRCKS AND NI'.W SOUUCF.S
Su 1 f tde^	Totnl Chromium		
Mnx. for Any Mnx. for Monthly Mnx. for Any Mnx. for Monthly	Max. for	Mnx. for

Subcategory
One Day (mg/1)
Average (m/^/l)
One Day (mg/l)
Average (inf. /1 )
Any One Day
Monthly Average
A.
Itnlr Pulp, Chrome Tan,
Retan-Wet Finish"
21
~
12
8
7.0-10.0
7.0-10.0
D.
llnlr Save, Chrome Tan,
Retan-Wct Finish
24
Of
12
8
7.0-10.0
7.0-10.0
C.
llolr Snve or Pulp,
Nonchrome Tnn, Rotnn-
Wet Finish
2'.
	
12
n
7.0-10.0
7.0-10.0
D.
Rctsn-Wet Finish Sides
--
—
19
12
6.0-10.0
6.0-10.0
E.
No Dcnmhouse
—
—
19
12
6.0-10.0
6.0-10.0
F.
Througli-The-Blue
2'.
—
12
8
7.0-10.0
7.0-10.0
C.
Slienrl Ing
—
—
19
1 2
6.0-10.0
6.0-10.0
II.
Pigskin
2',
—
12
n
7.0-10.0
7.0-10.0
1.
Retnn-Wet Finish-
Splits0
—
—
19
12
6.0-10.0
6.0-10.0
"Any existing source In Subcategory A thnt processes lesn than 275 hides/day (3.9 million lh.i/ycar, .it 2(>0 working days/year) In not
required to comply with the total chromium limit.
''Any existing source In Subcategory C thnt processes Icon tlinn 350 hldes/dny (5.'i million lbs/yrnr, nt 200 working days/year) Is not
required to comply with the totnl chromium limit.
CAny existing source In Subcategory 1 thnt processes less tlinn 3,000 nplltn/dny (3.7 million lbn/ycnr, nt 200 working clnyo/yenr) is not
required to comply with the totnl chromium limit.
^Some POTWs may choose to certify to F.PA thnt the sulfide prctrentment standard should he waived for none lentlier tanning and finishing
fAcllltlcs. The cert 1flent Ion will be bnned on nIte-npecIfIc factors relnted to nulfldo interference with n POTW's operation.
-------

<
'2
¦?
c
1
-------
32462
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 413 and 433
[OW-FRL-2383-7]
Electroplating and Metal Finishing
Point Source Categories; Effluent
Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment
Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This regulation limits the
pollutants that electroplating/metal
finishing facilities may discharge to
waters of the United States or to
publicly owned treatment works
ttHDTW^The Metal Finishing
Regulations provide effluent limitations
based on "best practicable technology"
and "best available technology" and
establish new source performance
standards and pretreatment standards
under the Clean Water Act. In addition,
(this rule amends the pretreatment
standards for existing sources for the
glectroplating Point Source Category.
The preamble summarizes the legal
authority, background, technical and
economic bases, and other aspects of
the regulation as well as a summary of
comments on the proposed regulation
and on the record supporting the
proposed regulation. The abbreviations,
acronyms, and other terms used in the
preamble are defined in Appendix A.
(See "Supplementary Information"
below for complete table of contents).
The final rule is supported by EPA'«
technical conclusions detailed in the
Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines, and Standards
for the Metal Finishing Point Source
Category, June, 1983. The Agency's
economic analysis is found in Economic
Analysis of Effluent Standards and
Limitations for the Metal Finishing
Industry, June 1983. Further supporting
materials are filed in the record
supporting this rulemaking.
OATES: In accordance with 40 CFR
100.01 (45 FR 26048) this regulation shall
be considered issued for the purposes of
judical review at 1:00 p.m. Eastern time
fon July 29,1983. These regulations shall
become effective August 29,1983.
The compliance date for the BAT
regulations is as soon as possible, but no
later than July 1,1984.
1 The compliance date for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
Pretreatment Standardsifor New
Sources (PSNS) is the date the new
source begins operations. The
compliance date for Metal Finishing
Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources (PSES) is February 15,1986 for
metals and cyanide. Metal Finishing
PSES establishes two levels of toxic
organic control; the less stringent must
be met by June 30,1984 for most plants
and by July 10,1985 at plants also
subject to Part 420 (Iron and Steel); the
more stringent must be met by February
15,1986. In addition. Electroplating PSES
requires toxic organic control by July 15.
1986.
Under Section 509(b)(1) of the Clean
Water Act judicial review of this
_ regulation can be obtained only by filing
a petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals within 90 days after
these regulations are considered issued
for the purposes of judicial review.
Under Section 509(b)(2) of the Clean
Water Act. the requirements of the
regulations may not be challenged in
later civil or criminal proceedings
brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
Reporting provisions in 40 CFR 413.03
and 433.12 will be reviewed by OMB
under the paperwork reduction act and
are not effective until approved.
ADDRESS: Technical information may be
obtained by writing to Mr. Richard
Kinch, Effluent Guidelines Division
(WH-552), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20460, Attention; Metal Finishing
Rules. Approximately two weeks from
publication, the record for this
rulemaking will be available for
inspection and copying at the EPA
Public Information Reference Unit
Room 2404 (Rear) PM-213 (EPA Library).
The EPA public information regulation
(40 CFR Part 2) provides that a
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying. Copies of the technical and
economic documents may be obtained
from the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (703/
487-4650). Copies of both documents
will be available for review in the public
record at EPA headquarters and
regional libraries.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Richard Kinch, Effluent Guidelines
Division (WH-552), EPA, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, or by
calling (202) 382-7159. Economic
information may be obtained by writing
Ms. Kathleen Ehrensberger, Economics
Branch (WH-586), Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St. S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460, or by calling
(202) 382-5397.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A.	The Clean Water Act
B.	Prior EPA Regulations
C.	Overview of the Industry
III.	Scope ';f this Rulemaking
IV.	Data Gathering Efforts
V.	Sampling and Analytical Program
VI.	Industry Subcategorization
VII.	Available Wastewater Control and
Treatment Technology
A.	Status of In-Place Technology
B.	Control Treatment Options
VIII.	General Criteria for Limitations
A.	BPT Effluent Limitations
B.	BAT Effluent Limitations
C.	BCT Effluent Limitations
C.	BCT Effluent Limitations
D.	New Source Performance Standards
E.	Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources
F.	Rretreatment Standards for New Sources
IX.	Summary of Final Regulations
A.	Part 433
B.	Part 413
X.	Derivation of the Limitations
XI.	Changes from the Proposed Limits
XII.	Pollutants and Subcategories Not
Regulated
A.	Exclusion of Toxic Pollutants
B.	Exclusion of Subcategories
XIII.	Costs, Effluent Reduction Benefits, and
Economic Impacts
A.	Costs and Economic Impacts
B.	Executive Order 12291
C.	Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
D.	SBA Loans
xrv. Non-Water-Quality Environmental
Impacts
A.	Air Pollution
B.	Noise
C.	Radiation
D.	Solid Waste
E.	Energy
XV.	Best Management Practices (BMPs)
XVI.	Upset and Bypass Provisions
XVII.	Variances and Modifications
XVIII.	Implementation of Limitations and
Standards
A.	Relation to NPDES Permits
B.	Indirect Dischargers
C.	Applicability and Compliance Dates
D.	Enforcement
XIX.	Summary of Public Participation
XX.	Availability of Technical Information
XXI.	OMB Review
XXII.	List of Subjects
XXIII.	Appendices
A.	Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Other
Terms Used in This Notice
B.	Pollutants Excluded From Regulation
C.	Unit Operations in the Metal Finishing
Industry
Organization of This Notice
I.	Legal Authority
II.	Background
L Legal Authority
This regulation is being promulgated
under the authority of Sections 301, 304,
306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean Water
Act (the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251
etseq., as amended by the Clean Water
Act of 1977, Pub. L 95-217) (the "Act")
and as further amended. This regulation
is also being promulgated in response to
the Settlement Agreement in Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc. v.
-------
Federai Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
32463
Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), as
modified, 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979],
modified by Order dated October 26,
1982.
II. Background
A. The Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 established a
comprehensive program to "restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's
waters," Section 101(a).
•	Section 301(b)(1)(A) set a deadline
of July 1,1977, for existing industrial
direct dischargers to achieve "effluent
limitations requiring the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available" ("BPT"),
•	Section 301(b)(2)(A) set a deadline
of July l, 1983, for those dischargers to
achieve "effluent limitations requiring
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable .,.
which will result in reasonable further
progress toward the national goal of
eliminating the discharge of all
pollutants" ("BAT").
•	Section 308 required that new
industrial direct dischargers comply
with new source performance standards
("NSPS"), based on best available
demonstrated technology,
•	Sections 307 (b) and (c) required
pretreatment standards for new and
existing dischargers to publicly owned
treatment works ("POTW"). The Act
made pretreatment standards
enforceable directly against dischargers
to POTW's (indirect dischargers), unlike
the requirements for direct dischargers
which were to be incorporated into
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits
issued under Section 402.
•	Section 402(a)(1) allows
requirements for direct dischargers to be
set case-by-case. However, Congress
intended control requirements to be
based for the most part on regulations
promulgated by the Administrator of
EPA.
•	Section 304(b) required regulations
that establish effluent limitations
reflecting the ability of BPT and BAT to
reduce effluent discharge.
•	Sections 304(c) and 306 of the Act
required regulations for NSPS.
•	Sections 304(g), 307(b), and 307(c)
required regulations for pretreatment
standards.
•	In addition to these regulations for
designated industry categories, Section
307(a) required the Administrator to
promulgate effluent standards '
applicable to all dischargers of toxic
pollutants.
•	Section 308 gave the Administrator
authority to collect information
necessary to develop and enforce
regulations,
•	Finally, Section 501(a) 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 deadlines
contained in the Act, and as a result—in
1976, EPA was sued by several
environmental groups. In settling this
lawsuit, EPA and the plaintiffs executed
a "Settlement Agreement" which was
approved by the Court. This agreement
required EPA to develop a program and
meet a schedule for controlling 65
"priority" pollutants and classes of
pollutants. In carrying out this program
EPA must promulgate BAT effluent
limitations guidelines, pretreatment
standards, and new source performance
standards for 21 major industries. See
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
v. Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976),
modified. 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979),
modified by Order dated October 26,
1982.
Several of the basic elements of the
Settlement Agreement program were
incorporated into the Clean Water Act
of 1977. This law also makes several
other important changes in the Federal
water pollution control program.
•	Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and
301(b)(2)(C) of the Act now set July 1.
1984 as the deadline for industries to
achieve effluent limitations requiring
application of BAT for "toxic"
pollutants. "Toxic" pollutants here
includes the 65 "priority" pollutants and
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 controlling toxic
pollutants.
•	To strengthen the toxics control
program. Section 304(e). of the Act ,
authorizes the Administrator to
prescribe certain "best management
practices" ("BMPs"). These BMPs are to
prevent the release of toxic and
hazardous pollutants from: (l) Plant site
runoff, (2) spillage or leaks. (3) sludge or
waste disposal, and (4) drainage from
raw material storage if any of those
events are associated with, or ancillary
to, the manufacturing or treatment
process.
In keeping with its emphasis on toxic
pollutants, the Clean Water Act of 1977
also revises the control program for non-
toxic pollutants.
•	For "conventional" pollutants
identified under Section 304(a)(4)
(including biochemical oxygen demand,
suspended solids, fecal coliform and
pH). the new Section 301(b)(2)(E)
requires "effluent limitations requiring
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology" ("BCT")—
instead of BAT—to be achieved by July
1,1984. The factors considered in
assessing BCT for an industry are the
relationship between the cost of
attaining a reduction in effluents and the
effluent reduction benefits attained, and
a comparison of the cost and level of
reduction of such pollutants by
publically owned treatment works and
industrial sources. 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 by July 1,1904,
whichever is later, but not later than
July 1,1987.
The purpose of this regulation is to
establish BPT, BAT. NSPS, PSES, and
PSNS for the Part 433 Metal Finishing
Point Source Category, and to amend
the Part 413 Electroplating PSES.
B.	Prior EPA Regulations
On March 28,1974, EPA promulgated
BPT limitations for the electroplating
industry but suspended them on
December 3,1976. Interim final
pretreatment standards for the
electroplating industry were issued on
July 12,1977, and suspended on May 14,
1979. On September 7,1979, EPA
promulgated the Part 413 PSES for the
electroplating industry. Amended PSES
were promulgated on January 28,1981
(40 FR 9462).
Currently only those Electroplating
PSES are in effect. Nonintegrated
indirect discharging facilities must
comply with those standards by April
27.1984. See 47 FR 42698, September 28,
1982. A non-integrated facility is one
which does not discharge significant
process wastewater, other than from
electroplating operations, through a
treatment system (or proposed
treatment system).
Integrated indirect discharging
facilities are also currently covered by
the electroplating PSES. These facilities,
which prior to treatment combine
electroplating waste streams with
significant process waste streams not
covered by the Electroplating Category,
must comply with its provisions by June
30,1984 (see 48 FR 2774, January 21,
1983).
C.	Overview of the Industry
There are 13,500 plants in the
electroplating/metal finishing industry.
Many discharge wastewaters from
-------
32464
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
several metal finishing operations other
than, and in addition to, electroplating.
Part 413 (electroplating) currently
applies only to flows from the six
specified electroplating processes.
These Part 433 (metal finishing
regulations) will apply to those
electroplating streams and also to
wastestreams from most other metal
finishing operations within the same
plants. The Part 433 PSES will apply
only to plants already covered by Part
413; however Part 433 will often cover
additional wastewater within the same
plants. Thus the Part 433 limits on
discharge of toxic metals, toxic organics,
and cyanide will apply to most facilities
in the electroplating/metal finishing
industry.
The industry can be divided into the
sectors indicated on Table I. Facilities
are either "captives" [those which in a
calendar year own more than 50% (area
basis) of the materials undergoing metal
finishing]; or "job shops" (those which
in a calendar year do not own more than
50% (area basis) of material undergoing
metal finishing).
Captives can be further divided by
two definitions: "integrated" plants are
those which, prior to treatment, combine
electroplating waste streams with
significant process waste streams not
covered by the electroplating category;
"non-integrated" facilities are those
which have significant wastewater
discharges only from operations
addressed by the electroplating
category. Many captives (50%) are
"integrated" facilities. Whereas captives
often have a complex range of
operations, job shops usually perform
fewer operations. In theory job shops
can be divided like captives; in
actuality, however, approximately 97%
of all job shops in this industry are
"non-integrated".
Finally, the entire industry can be
divided into "direct" and "indirect"
dischargers. "Directs" discharge
wastewaters to waters of the United
States and are subject to NPDES permits
incorporating BPT, BAT, and BCT
limitations or NSPS. "Indirects"
discharge to POTWs and are subject to
PSES or PSNS.
As discussed above, the
electroplating/metal finishing industry is
currently covered by Part 413 PSES for
the Electroplating Category promulgated
on September 7,1979, and amended on
January 28,1981. The effect of today's
amendments is to create a new
category—Metal Finishing (Part 433)—
and to shift most electroplaters to it,
replacing their current PSES with new
limits which apply uniformly to
discharges from their electroplating and
other metal finishing operations. This
meets industry's requests for equivalent
limits for process lines often found
together and greatly reduces ihe need to
rely on the Combined Waste Stream
Formula for integrated metal finishing
facilities. Direct discharger and new
source requirements are also being
issued as part of the metal finishing
regulations.
Indirect discharging job shop
electroplaters and independent printed
circuit board manufacturers, however,
would be left under the existing Part 413
PSES for Electroplating and are
exempted from Part 433. This is
consistent with a 1980 Settlement
Agreement in which the National
Association of Metal Finishers (NAMF),
and the Institute for Interconnecting and
Packaging Electronic Circuits (IIPEC)
agreed not to challenge the Part 413
PSES in return for the 1981 amendments
and EPA's commitment that the Agency
did not intend to develop significantly
more stringent standards for those
plants for the next several years.
Table I.—Breakdown of the
Electroplating/Metal Finishing Industry
[Number of plants per sector 13.470J

JOb 8tK)p8
and PC8M 1
(3.470)
Captfce tacSties (10,000)
Noolntegrn-
ed
Integrated
Indirect
discharg-
er*
(10,561).
Direct
diacharg*
on (2.909).
3.061 |ot 4
tPCBM
indirect
409 job A
IPC8M
- -
otrecw.
3,750
nontote-
greted
captive.
(*)„	
3.750
integrated
captive
(»).

1 Independent printed drcu* board manufacturer*.
* 2,500 ctptivi dfcects.
The Metal Finishing Category covers
plants which perform one or more of the
following six operations: electroplating,
electroless plating, anodizing, coating
(phosphating, chromating, and coloring),
chemical etching and milling, or printed
circuit board manufacture. If a plant
performs any of those six operations
then discharges from the 46 operations
listed in Appendix C are covered by
these standards.
In some cases another industrial
category may cover wastewater
discharges from a metal finishing
operation. In such cases the more
specific standards of the other Part(s)
will apply to those wastewater streams
which appear to be covered by both
regulations. For example, if a plant
performs coating operations in
preparation for painting and also
performs electroless plating as part of a
porcelain enameling process, then these
Part 433 standards would apply to
discharges from the coating operation;
while Part 466 (porcelain enameling)
would apply to discharges from the
second operation.
The following regulations will take
precedence over metal finishing (Part
433) and electroplating (Part 413) when
such an overlap occurs:
Nonferrous metal smelting and refining
(40 CFR Part 421)
Coil coating (40 CFR Part 465)
Porcelain enameling (40 CFR Part 466)
Battery manufacturing (40 CFR Part 461)
Iron and steel (40 CFR Part 420)
Metal casting foundries (40 CFR Part
464)
Aluminum forming (40 CFR Part 467)
Copper forming (40 CFR Part 468)
Plastic molding and forming (40 CFR
Part 463)
In addition, EPA is excluding from the
metal finishing (Part 433) regulation: (1)
Metallic platemaking and gravure
cylinder preparation conducted within
printing and publishing facilities; and (2).
existing source job shops and
independent printed circuit board
manufacturers which introduce
pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works. As noted above, the
standards do not apply to facilities
unless they perform at least one of the
following: electroplating, electroless
plating, anodizing, coating, chemical
etching and milling, or printed circuit
board manufacture.
The most important pollutants of
concern found in metal finishing
industry wastewaters are: (1) toxic
metals (cadmium, copper, chromium,
nickel, lead, and zinc); (2) cyanide; (3)
toxic organics (lumped together as total
toxic organics); and (4) conventional
pollutants (TSS and oil and grease).
These and other chemical constituents
degrade water quality, endanger aquatic
life and human health, and in addition
corrode equipment, generate hazardous
gas. and cause treatment plant
malfunctions and problems in disposing
of sludges containing toxic metals.
These plants manufacture a variety of
products that are constructed primarily
of metals. The operations, which involve
meterials that begin as raw stock (rods,
bars, sheet, castings, forgings, etc.), can
include the most sophisticated surface
finishing technologies. These facilities
include both captives and job shops.
They vary greatly in size, age, number of
employees, and number and type of
operations performed. They range from
very small job shops with less than 10
employees to large facilities employing
thousands of production workers.
Because of differences in size and
processes, production facilities are
custom tailored to the individual plant.
Some complex products may require the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
use of nearly all of the 46 unit operations
metioned above; a simple product may
require only one.
Many different raw materials are used
by these plants. Basis materials (or
"workpieces") are mostly metals; from
common copper and steel to extremely
expensive high-grade alloys and
precious metals. They can also include
plastics. Solutions used in unit
operations can contain acids, bases,
cyanide, metals, complexing agents,
organic additives, oils, and detergents.
All these materials may enter waste
streams during production.
Water use within the metal finishing
industry is discussed fully in Section V
of the development document (see
summary above). Plating and cleaning
operations are typically the biggest
water users. While most metal finishing
operations use water, some may use
none at all. Water use depends heavily
on the type—and the flow rate—of the
rinsing used. Product quality
requirements often dictate the amount of
rinsing needed for specific parts. Parts
involving extensive surface preparation
will generally require larger amounts of
water in rinsing.
III. Scope of this Rulemaking
This regulation establishes Part 433
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS for
the Metal Finishing Point Source
Category and amends Part 413 PSES for
the Electroplating Point Source
Category. The BAT goal is to achieve, by
July 1,1984, the best available
technology economically achievable
that will result in reasonable further
progress toward the national goal of
eliminating the discharge of all
pollutants. This regulation does not alter
the existing metal and cyanide
standards for job shop electroplaters
and printed circuit board manufacturers
discharging to POTWs.
EPA first studied the electroplating/
metal finishing industry to determine
whether differences in raw materials,
final products, manufacturing processes,
equipment, age and size of plants, water
use, wastewater constituents, or other
factors required separate effluent
limitations and standards for different
industry subcategories. This study
involved a detailed analysis of
wastewater discharge and treated
effluent characteristics, including, (a)
the sources and volume of water, the
processes, and the sources of pollutants
and wastewater in the plant and (b) the
constituents of wastewaters, including
toxic pollutants. This analysis enabled
the Agency to determine the presence
and concentrations of toxic pollutants
on the major wastewater discharges.
EPA also identified several distinct
control and treatment technologies (both
in-plant and end-of-pipe), including
those with potential use in the
electroplating/metal finishing industry.
The Agency analyzed both historical
and newly generated data on the
performance of these technologies,
including their non-water quality
environmental impacts on air quality,
solid waste generation, water scarcity,
and energy requirements.
Cost curves were used to estimate the
cost of each control and treatment
technology. These cost curves were
developed by applying standard
engineering analyses to metal finishing
wastewater characteristics. Unit process
costs were than derived by applying
model plant characteristics (production
and flow) to the unit cost curve of each
treatment process. These unit process
costs were added together to yield the
total cost at each treatment level.
By considering these factors, EPA was
able to characterize the various control
and treatment technologies used as the
bases for effluent limitations, new
source and pretreatment standards.
However, the regulations do not require
any particular technology. Rather, they
require plants to achieve effluent
limitations (mg/l) which reflect the
proper operation of these technologies
or equivalent technologies. Some
facilities are already successfully using
technologies other than those relied on
by the Agency, such as dragout control,
recycle, and recovery, to achieve these
values.
(V. Data Gathering Efforts
To develop the regulation, EPA began
with a review of previous work on the
electroplating/metal finishing industry.
The major source of information on this
is the Draft Development Document for
Effluent Limitations and Standards for
the Metal Finishing Point Source
Category (June 1980). Several studies
completed before this development
document was published also
contributed technical information to the
metal finishing data base for the
following segments of the industry:
•	Machinery and Mechanical
Products Manufacturing.
•	Electroplating.
•	Electroless Plating and Printed
Circuit Board Manufacturing (Segments
of the Electroplating Category).
•	Mechanical and Electrical Products.
We also gathered data on the metal
finishing industry from literature
surveys, inquiries to professional
contacts, seminars and meetings, and
the survey and evaluation of
manufacturing facilities.
We contacted all Federal EPA regions,
several State environmental agencies,
and numerous suppliers and
manufacturers for the metal finishing
industry to collect information on: (1)
Permits and monitoring data, (2) the use
and properties of materials, (3) process
chemical constituents, (4) waste
treatment equipment, (5) waste
transport, (6) and various process
modifications to minimize pollutant
generation.
Under the authority of Section 308 of
the Clean Water Act, the Agency sent
three different data collection portfolios
(DCPs) to various industries within the
Metal Finishing Point Source Category.
The first DCP obtained data from 339 of
1,422 plants originally contacted from
the machinery and mechanical products
industry. The data included general
plant information on raw materials
consumed, specific processes used,
composition of effluent streams, and
wastewater treatment. The second DCP
obtained data from 365 of the 900 plants
originally contacted in the mechanical
and electrical products industries. These
data covered general plant
characteristics, unit operations
performed, plating type operations,
wastewater treatment facilities, and
waste transport. We sent the third DCP
to 1,883 companies involved in
electroplating. Approximately 1190
plants sent back economic analysis data
and information on general plant
characteristics, production history,
manufacturing processes, process and
waste treatment, wastewater
characteristics, and treatment costs.
EPA and its contractors also visited
210 manufacturing facilities to collect
wastewater samples and pertinent
technical information on manufacturing
processes and various treatment
techniques.
V. Sampling and Analytical Program
EPA focused its sampling and analysis
on the toxic pollutants designated in the
Clean Water Act Howevef, we also
sampled and analyzed conventional and
nonconventional pollutants. Prior to
undertaking sampling programs in
support of rulemaking actions, EPA had
to identify specific toxic pollutants that
would be appropriate subjects for
investigation. The list of 65 pollutants
and classes of pollutants potentially
includes thousands of specific
compounds, the analyses of which could
overwhelm private and government
laboratory resources. To make the task
more manageable, therefore, EPA
selected 129 specific toxic pollutants for
study in this rulemaking and other
industry rulemakings. The criteria for
-------
32466	Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 19#3 / Rules and Regulations
choosing these pollutants included the
frequency of their occurrence in water,
their chemical stability and structure,
the amount of the chemical produced,
and the availability of chemical
standards for measurement. '
In addition to the original 129 toxic
pollutants (of which three are now
considered nonconventional pollutants),
EPA checked for the presence,
frequency, and concentration of xylenes,
alkyl epoxides, gold, fluoride,
phosphorus, oil and grease, TSS, pH,
aluminum, barium, iridium, magnesium,
molybdenum, osmium, palladium,
platinum, rhodium, ruthenium, sodium,
tin, titanium, vanadium, yttrium, and
total phenols".
The criteria used to select plants for-
sampling visits were: (1) A large
percentage of the plant's effluent
discharge should result from the
manufacturing processes listed in
Appendix C: (2) the physical layout of
plant plumbing should facilitate
sampling of the wastewater type under
study; (3) the plant must have waste
treatment in place; (4) the mix of plants
visited should contain discharges to
both surface waters and publicaly
owned treatment works; and (5) the
selected plants should provide a
representative geographical distribution
to avoid a data base that concentrate#
on a unique geographical condition. EPA
sampled 210 facilities to identify
pollutants in plant wastewaters. Before
visiting a plant, EPA reviewed all
available data on manufacturing
processes and waste treatment We
selected representative points at which
to sample the raw wastewater entering
the treatment systems and the final
treated effluents. Finally; we prepared,
reviewed, and approved a detailed
sampling plan showing the selected
sample points and the overall sampling
procedure.
Based on this sampling plan, we then
took samples at each sample point for 1,
2 or 3 consecutive days. The samples
were divided into two analytical groups.
Within each group the samples were
subjected to various analyses,
depending on the stability of the
pollutants to be analyzed. The various
levels of analysis were conducted at: (1)
Local laboratories, (2) EPA's Chicago
laboratory, (3) contracted gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS) laboratories, and (4) the
sampling contractor's central laboratory.
The sampling and analysis methods are
outlined in the Development Document.
The acquisition, preservation, and
analysis of the water samples followed
the relevant methods set forth in 40 CFR
136. Although the Agency has not
promulgated analytical methods for
many organic toxic pollutants under
Section 304(h) of the Act, a number of
these methods have beer, proposed for
40 CFR 136 (44 FR 69464, December 3,
1979; 44 FR 75028, December 18,1979).
VI. Industry Subcategorization
In developing this regulation, the
Agency considered whether different
effluent limitations and standards are
appropriate for different segments of the
metal finishing industry. The Act
requires EPA to consider a number of
factors to determine if subcategorization
is needed. These factors include raw
materials, final products, manufacturing
processes, geographical location, plant
size and age, wastewater
characteristics, non-water-quality
environmental impacts, treatment costs,
energy costs, and solid waste
generation.
The metal finishing industry
comprises 45 unit operations. These
processes generate wastewater that falls
into five waste groups, each requiring
different treatment to reduce the
discharge of pollutants. The five groups
are metals, cyanide, hexavalent
chromium, oils, and solvents, with
significant toxic organics pollutants
potentially present in the last two.
These wastes occur in a wide variety
of combinations. Throughout the
industry, however the wastestreamB are
alike in one critical sense; they all
respond similarly to the treatment
system which is already most widely
used in the industry. That system was
selected as EPA's model technology. Its
major components, i.e., precipitation and
clarification, are used for all waste
'streams. After isolated treatment of
hexavalent chromium, cyanide, and oil
and grease, pollutants in these waste
streams are further reduced by passage
through the precipitation-clarification
system which is also used for metal-
bearing wastes.
The Agency has determihed that the
Metal Finishing Point Source Category
need not be subcategorized for
regulation. A set of concentration based
limitations, based on the performance
capabilities of the model technology,
can be applied to all metal finishing
process effluents.
EPA has, however decided to exempt
indirect discharging job shops and
independent printed circuit board
manufacturers from the Part 433 PSES.
This has an effect similar to placing
them m a separate subcategory. As
noted above, this is consistent with the
1980 Settlement Agreement in which the
National Association of Metal Finishers
promised to withdraw its legal challenge
to those Part 413 PSES if EPA did not,
for the next several years, make them
significantly more stringent.
The Agency considered, but decided
against production based standard.
With the wide range of operations,
product quality requirements, existing
process configurations, and difficulties
in measuring production, no consistent
production normalizing relationship
could be found. Concentration based
limits, however, can be consistently
attained throughout the industry.
VII.	Available Wastewater Control and
Treatment Technology
A.	Status ofln-Place Technology
Installed control and treatment
technologies in the metal finishing
industry generally consist of some form
of alkaline precipitation and
clarification installed at "end-of-pipe" to
remove metals. When cyanide or
hexavalent chromium wastes are
present, these wastewaters are
generally segregated and treated
upstream,
B.	Control Treatment Options
We examined the following control
treatment options:
Option 1: Precipitation and
clarification. Stream segregation for
cyanide, hexavalent chromium and
concentrated oily wastes followed by
cyanide destruction, chromium
reduction and emulsion breaking
skimming as necessary. Solvent waste
segregation and removal by hauling.
Option 2: Option 1 plus filtration.
Option 3: Option 1 plus in-plant
control for cadmium.
VIII.	General Criteria for Effluent
Limitations
A. BPT Effluent Limitations
The factors considered in defining
best practicable control technolgy
currently available (BPT) include: (1)
The total cost of applying the technology
relative to the effluent reductions that
result, (2) the age of equipment and
facilities involved, (3) the processes
used, (4) engineering aspects of the
control technology. (5) process changes,
(6)	non-water-quality environmental
impacts (including energy requirements),
(7)	and other factors, as the
Administrator considers appropriate. In
general, the BPT level represents the
average of the best existing
performances of plants within the
industry of various ages, sizes,
processes, or other common
characteristics. When existing
performance is uniformly inadequate,
BPT may be transferred from a different
subcategory or category. BPT focuses on
-------
Federal Roister / Vol. 4H. No. 137 / ItkIhv. July l.ri. inn:i / Rules and Emulations	32467
end-of-pipe treatment rather thiin
process changes or internal controls,
except when these technologies (ire
common industry pren tice.
The cost/benefit inquiry for HIT is a
limited balancing of costs versus
benefits, committed lo FPA's discretion,
which does not require the Agency to
quantify benefits in monetary terms. See
e.g., American Iron and Steel Institute v.
EPA, 520 F. 2d 1027 (3rd Cir. 1973). In
balancing cysts against the benefits of
effluent reduction, El'A considers the
volume and nature of existing
discharges, the volume and nature of
discharges expected after application of
DPT, the general environmental effects
of the pollutants, and the cost and
economic impacts of the required level
of pollution control. The Act does not
require or permit consideration of water
quality problems attributable to
particular point sources, or water
quality improvements in particular
bodies of water. Therefore, EPA has not
considered these factors. See
Weyerhaeuser Company v. Costle, 590
F. 2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
B. BAT Effluent Limitations
The factors considered in defining
best available technology economically
achievable (BAT) include the age of the
equipment and facilities involved, the
processes used, engineering aspects of
the control technology, process changes,
non-water-quality environmental
impacts (including energy requirements),
and the costs of applying such
technology (Section 304(b)(2)(B)). The
BAT level represents the best
economically achievable performance of
plants of various ages, sizes, processes,
or other shared characteristics. As with
BPT, uniformly inadequate performance
within a category or subcategory may
require transfer of BAT from a different
subcategory or category. Unlike BPT,
however. BAT may include process
changes or internal controls, even when
these technologies are not common
industry practice.
The statutory assessment of BAT
"considers" costs, but does not require a
balancing of costs against effluent
reduction benefits (see Weyerhaeuser v.
Costle, supra). In developing BAT,
however, EPA has given substantial
weight to the reasonableness of costs.
The Agency has considered the volume
and nature of discharges, the volume
and nature of discharges expected after
application of BAT, the general
environmental effects of the pollutants,
and the costs and economic impacts of
the required pollution control levels.
Despite this expanded consideration
of costs, the primary factor for
determining BAT is the effluent
reduction capability of the control
technology, i'he Clean Water Act of
1977. establishes the achievement of
UA'I' as the principal national menus of
controlling toxic water pollution from
direct discharging plants.
C.	BCT Effluent Limitations
The 1977 amendments added Section
:t()I(b)(2)(E) to the Act. establishing
"best conventional pollutant control
technology" (BCT) for discharges of
conventional pollutants from existing
industrial point sources. Section
304(B)(4) specified the following as
conventional pollutants: BOD, TSS. fecal
eoliform. and pH. The Administrator
designated oil and grease as
"conventional" 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 factors specified in section
304(b)(4)(B), the Act requires that BCT
limitations be assessed in light of a two
part "cost-reasonableness" test.
American Paper Institute v. EPA, 660 F.
2d 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-	i
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
stringent 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
ordered 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).
BCT limitations for this industry were
proposed on October 29,1982 (47 FR
49176). They were accompanied by a
proposed methodology for the general
development of BCT limitations. BCT
limits for this industry will be
promulgated with, or soon after, the
promulgation of the final methodology
for BCT development. At that time EPA
will respond to relevant comments filed
in either that rulemaking or in this one.
D.	New Source Performance Standards
The basis for new source performance
standards (NSPS) under Section 306 of
the Act is the best available
demonstrated technology. New plants
have the opportunity to design the best
and most efficient metal finishing
processes and wastewater treatment
technologies. Therefore. Congress
directed F-TA to consider the best
demonstrated process changes, m-plant
controls, and end of-pipe treatment
technologies that reduce pollution to ihe
maximum extent feasible.
E Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources
Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPA
to promulgate pretreatment standards
for existing sources (PSFS). which
industry must achieve within three years
of promulgation. PSES are designed to
prevent Ihe discharge of pollutants
which pass through, interfere with, or
are otherwise incompatible with Ihe
operation of POTW's.
The legislative history of the 1977 Act
indicates that pretreatment standards
are to be technology-bused, analogous
to the best available technology for
removal of toxic pollutants. The Ceneral
Pretreatment Regulations which serve as
the framework for the final metal
finishing pretreatment standards are in
40 CFR Part 403, 46 FR 9404 (January 28.
1981).
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
removal by the BAT model treatment
system. A study of 40 well-operated
POTW's with biological treatment and
meeting secondary treatment criteria
showed that regulated metals are
typically removed at rates varying from
20 to 70%. POTWs with only primary
treatment have even lower rates of
removal. In contrast. BAT level
treatment by metal finishing industrial
facilities can achieve removals of
approximately 97% or more. Thus it is
evident that metals from this industry do
pass through POTW's. As for toxic
organics, data from the same POTWs
illustrate a wide range of removal, from
0 to greater than 99%. Overall POTW's
have removal rates of toxic organics
which are less effective than the metal
finishing TTO technology basis of no
dumping of toxic organic wastes. The
POTW's effluent discharge of specific
toxic pollutants ranged from 0 to 4.3
milligrams/liter. Many of the pollutants
present in metal finishing wastes, at
sufficiently high concentrations, can
inhibit biodegradation in POTW
operations. In addition, a high
concentration of toxic pollutants in the
sludge can limit POTW use of sludge
management alternatives, including the
beneficial use of sludges on agricultural
lands.
-------
32468
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
Section 307 of the Clean Water Act
provides that POTWs may grant credit
to indirect dischargers, based on the
degree of removal actually achieved at
the POTW. EPA has General
Pretreatment Regulations regulating
POTWs- authority to grant such credits.
A Federal Register notice of
September 28,1982 explained EPA's
latest data and proposed national
removal credits for well operated
POTW's achieving the national
secondary treatment limits. See 47 FR
42698. That proposal is not being relied
on in this rulemaking; however if such
credits are available the costs of today's
standards could be sustantially reduced.
F. Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources
Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA
to promulgate pretreatment standards
for new sources (PSNS) at the same time
that it promulgates NSPS. These
standards are intended to prevent the
discharge of pollutants which pass
through, interfere with, or are otherwise
incompatible with a POTW. New
indirect dischargers, like new direct
dischargers, have the opportunity to
incorporate the best available
demonstrated technologies—including
process changes, in-plant controls, and
end-of-pipe treatment technologies—and
to select plant sites that ensure the
treatment system can be adequately
installed. Therefore, the Agency sets
PSNS after considering the same criteria
considered for NSPS. PSNS will have
effluent reduction benefits similar to
NSPS.
IX. Summary of Final Regulations
In the electroplating/metal finishing
industry, the pollutants of concern are
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
nickel, silver, zinc, cyanide, toxic
organics, TSS. oil and grease, and pH?
The treatment option selected for each .
effluent limitation, pretreatment
standard and new source performance
standard is based on the criteria
specified in the Clean Water Act. The
technologies are discussed in more
detail in the Development Document for
this rulemaking.
A. Part 433
The pollutants being regulated under
BPT limitations are cadmium, copper,
chromium, nickel, lead, silver, zinc, total
cyanide, TSS, oil and grease and pH.
Total toxic organics (TTO) is also being
regulated. Compliance with the TTO
limit basically involvcs-not dumping
concentrated toxic organic wastes, e.g..
solvent degreasers and paint strippers.
Other sources are generally small,
infrequent, and of low concentrations.
For BPT. EPA is setting limits
achievable by technology based on
precipitation and clarification for all
metal finishing effluents, in addition, for
cyanide or hexavalent chromium the
technology basis incorporates
techniques to destroy cyanide and
reduce hexavalent chromium, to its
trivalent state. These effluent limitations
reflect the average of the best existing
control technologies widely used in the
industry and remove approximately 97.6
percent of the raw waste of toxic metals
and cyanide, and 99 percent of the toxic
organics discharged. The technology is
consistent with that used as a basis for
PSES for the electroplating industry
(January 28, 1981, 40 FR 9462) and the
March 28,1974, suspended, BPT
limitations. The limitations are derived
in the manner discussed in the following
section. They are generally more
stringent than those found in currently
effective electroplating pretreatment
regulations, because EPA is now using a
revised and updated data base.
For BAT, EPA is establishing
limitations for the toxic pollutants and
at a level equivalent to BPT. The Agency
seriously considered setting BAT and
BAT-level PSES limitations based on
BPT level technology plus filtration.
Filtration would have led to an
additional capital cost of almost $1.2
billion. In light of the statutory mandate
to consider cost in setting BAT, EPA
decided to reject the filtration option,
because of its very high aggregate cost
on a nationwide basis. We.did not select
in-plant cadmium control because it can
require significant re-engineering of
process water flow and of product and
equipment handling, on a plant-by-plant
basis. The changes vary widely and in
many cases could be difficult for
existing plants to apply. The compliance
date for BAT is no later than July 1,
1984, the maximum time allowed by the
Act.
For NSPS, EPA is establishing
limitations based on BPT/BAT
technology plus in-plant control of
cadmium. This additional control takes
advantage of a new plant's ability to
achieve effluent reductions of 69%
beyond BAT cadmium levels. The
pollutants regulated under NSPS are the
same as those regulated under BPT
limitations.
For PSES in the Metal Finishing
Category, limitations are based on
technology equivalent to BAT and BPT.
The pollutants regulated under this
PSES are the same as the toxic
pollutants regulated under BPT (BAT)
limitations. A study of 40 well-operated
POTWs with biological treatment and
meeting secondary treatmeot criteria
showed that regulated metals and
cyanide are typically removed at rates
varying From 20 to 70%. POTWs with
fvini.try treatment hove even lower
rates cf removal. In contrast, metal
finishing PSES-level treatment can
achieve removals of approximately 97%.
Thus it is evident that metals and
cyanide from this industry do pass
through POTWs. As for toxic organics.
data from the same POTWs illustrates a
wide range of removal, from 0% to
greater than 99%. Overall POTWs have
removal rates of toxic organics which
are less effective than the metal
finishing TrO technology basis of no
dumping of toxic organic wastes. The
POTWs effluent discharge of specific
toxic pollutants ranged from 0 to 4.3 mg/
1. Many of the pollutants present in
metal finishing wastes at sufficiently
high concentrations can inhibit
biodegradation in POTW operations. In
addition, a high concentration of toxic
pollutants in the sludge can limit POTW
use of sludge management alternatives,
including the beneficial use of sludges
on agricultural lands.
The compliance date for the metal
finishing PSES is
February 15.1986 for metals, cyanide,
and TTO. Agency analysis indicates
that facilities can plan, design, and
install the necessary equipment in 31
months, which will be allowed by the
specified compliance date. There is also
a June 30, 1984 compliance date for an
interim toxic organic limit, which can be
met by in-house management and
handling controls.
For PSNS, limitations are based on
technology equivalent to NSPS. The
pollutants regulated under PSNS are the
same as the toxics regulated under
NSPS. As with PSES. these pollutants
are necessary for control in PSNS to
prevent pass through, interference, and
sludge contamination.
B. Part 413
Indirect discharging job shops and
independent printed circuit board
manufacturers will continue to be
regulated under the existing PSES for
Electroplating. This is consistent with a
1980 Settlement Agreement in which the
National Association of Metal Finishers
and the Institute for Interconnecting and
Packaging Electronic Circuits agreed not
to challenge the Part 413 pretreatment
standards for existing source
electroplaters, in return for the 1981
amendments and an EPA commitment
that, in light of their economic
vulnerability, EPA did not plan to
develop significantly more stringent
standards for those plants for the next
several years.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
32469
Control of toxic organics is being
added to the requirements for facilities
under the Electroplating PSES.
Examination of the technology
requirements, costs, economic impact,
and timing indicates that requiring
control of toxic organics is consistent
with the Settlement Agreement.
First, it will not increase the economic
vulnerability of job shops or
independent printed circ uit board
manufacturers. Compliance with the
toxic organic standards can be achieved
by good management practices (i.e., not
dumping waste solvents into the
wastewaters). No additional end-of-pipe
technology (beyond that already
required by Part 413) is necessary.
Economic analyses reveal that control of
toxic organics does not impose
significant additional costs or impacts.
Second, these facilities are being
allowed 3 years to comply with the toxic
organic standard. Thus, even if control
of TTO were considered "more
stringent", the time allowed for
compliance will amount to 6 years from
the date of the Settlement Agreement.
That fulfills the Agency's obligation not
to develop more stringent standards for
these facilities in the next several years.
X. Derivation of the Limitations
EPA began development of these
standards by building on the
information obtained in developing the
Electroplating Pretreatment Standards.
For Metal Finishing, 2783 companies
were contacted as part of two surveys
(one of 1190 plants and the other of 365
plants) and 1555 useable questionaire
responses were obtained, The Agency
also selected 322 plants for visits and/or
obtained long term self-monitoring data
on them.
The data gathering effort was the
basis for the Agency's first two critical
determinations. First, pursuant to
Section 307(b) of the Act, EPA identified
those pollutants that would pass through
or interfere with a POTW, or its sludge.
Second, EPA discovered that a basic
and "classic" pollution control
technology was widely practiced in the
industry. The system is designed to
remove toxic metals from raw
wastestreams and it has two principal
components—precipitation and,
clarification. Of 1190 surveyed plants,
689 reported treatment present, of these,
426 facilities practiced the precipitation
of metals through pH adjustment of
wastewater,
EPA then analyzed the data to
discover what those classic and
commonly used treatment devices could
achieve. For each regulated pollutant
EPA looked for two key figures: The
average concentration that properly
operated technology would achieve over
time, and the variability from that
average that would be inevitable even
at well-operated plants.
To find long-term concentration
averages, EPA examined its file of 322
plants which had been visited and/or
had sent long-term self-monitoring data
to EPA. Of these plants EPA had
sampled 72 with precipitation and
clarification. After deletions for
improper treatment, dilution, and low
raw waste concentrations, 30 plants
(sampled by EPA from 1 to 6 days) were
used for developing the long-term
concentration averages. For these
plants, EPA had obtained detailed
information on treated and untreated
(raw) wastewater characteristics.
For most pollutants the average of this
data was used for the long term average.
EPA sampled data for cadmium and
lead appeared too low to represent the
range of raw wastes in the industry. For
these parameters EPA used available
self-monitoring data to calculate the
long-term average. Although the Agency
has less information on which to judge
the adequacy of treatment in the self-
monitoring data, these higher values
were used by the Agency to compensate
for the relatively low raw waste
cadmium and lead at EPA sampled
plants. The average of the self-
monitoring data for lead and cadmium
was used for the long-term average.
The regulations specify daily and
monthly average maximums. Thus, the
limits are developed from the Agency
assessment of long term concentration
averages multiplied by variability
factors. If a plant intends to consistently
comply with the regulatory limit it
should use the long term concentration
average as the basis for design and
operation. The following long-term
concentration averages were found to be
attainable by the technology EPA
assessed, and were costed in this
rulemaking. They are presented here as
guidance to dischargers and control
authorities:
Long Term Concentration Averages
Long Term Concentration Averages-
Continued
Pollutant erf pollutant property

Long term

concen-

tration
Pollutant of pollutant property
average

milligrams

per liter

(mg/1)
Cadmium (T)					
0.13
0.572
0.815
0.20
0 942
0096
0.549
0.18
0.06
Chromium (T)			
Copper, (T)		 . .
Lead (T)	
Nickel (T)		
Silver (T)	
ZiflC (T)	
Cyanide (T)	
Cyanide, A					
Oil A Grease	
TSS	
TTO {raw waste)
TTO (eMtoent). ...
Long term
concen-
tration
average
milligrams
per liter
11.8
11 16.8
1.08
0 434
Variability factors were determined
by looking at variations that have
occurred in the past. This requires
multiple observations at single
treatment systems. The self-monitoring
data collected by EPA provided
approximately 12,000 self-reporting
observations which were used to derive
variability factors. The variability
factors were derived by estimating 99th
percentiles based on a lognormal
distribution, and then dividing those
numbers by the average. These Part 433
metal finishing standards are based on
the variability expected for one-day and
one-month time periods. The monthly
variability factors were derived
assuming the monthly average was
comprised of ten daily observations.
Finally, the Agency multiplied the
resulting variability factor by the
expected long-term concentration
averages. The results were effluent
concentration limits based on actual
observations of well-operated plants
which allowed for the variability
observed at all types of reporting
facilities. EPA has assessed the cost of
this regulation on the assumption that
plants design and operate to meet these
long term concentration averages. The
final limits represent limits which a
well-designed and operated plant should
meet approximately 89% of the time. If a
plant designs and operates its treatment
system to achieve the long-term
concentration average and reasonable
control fluctuations, then it should have
very little expectation of exceeding the
promulgated limit for each sampling of
the discharge.
XI. Changes From the Proposed Limits
As previously stated the limitations
are derived using long-term averages
and variability factors. Both of these
items underwent some changes between
proposal and promulgation.
With regard to long-term
concentration averages only slight "
changes were made. Additional data
were added to the data base for lead
and zinc, and one plant's data for
cadmium were excluded due to
complexing problems. The long-term
concentration average for lead changed
-------
32470
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
from 0.17 to 0.20 mg/l, zinc changed
from 0.582 to 0.549 mg/l, and cadmium
changed from 0.19 to 0.13 mg/l.
The derivation of the proposed TTO
limit did not distinguish differences
between plants. Comments suggested
that plants with certain processes
should be allowed a higher limit. EPA in
response, examined grouping of plants
by sources of TTO; e.g. those that
perform solvent degreasing, and/or
painting. Plants which performed both
solvent degreasing and painting had
higher raw waste TTO than any other
process group. The final TTO limit is
based on that process grouping, which is
a conservative assumption since it had
the highest background concentration.
Furthermore, EPA is now promulgating
two TTO limits for plants covered by
Part 433. The first is based solely on
background levels found prior to end-of-
pipe treatment. It must be met by June
30,1984, except that plants covered by
Part 420 (iron and steel) need not meet it
until July 10,1985. The second TTO limit
is based on effluent data and takes into
account the additional removals
achieved by end-of-pipe treatment. This
second limit must be met by February
15,1986. Most facilities should be able
to meet this limit after installing end-of-
pipe treatment to meet the electroplating
PSES of Part 413. However Part 433
allows the period until February 15,1986
in case additional process streams
present special compliance problems.
For PSES, job shops and independent
printed circuit board manufacturers are
regulated only under Part 413. They will
have until (uly 15,1986 to comply with
TTO. Thus "several years" will have
followed the Settlement Agreement of
1980.
In calculating variability factors,
changes were made to both the daily
maximum variability and thirty day
variability. First, the daily maximum
variability was calculated in the
proposal by using lognormal statistics
for plants with less than 100 sampling
days and a nonparametric procedure for
plants reporting 100 or more
observations. For the final regulation the
Agency found that the larger data sets •
had a good fit to the lognormal
distribution. Thus the Agency is using
the lognormal procedure for all data
aets. Second, 30 day limits based on the
^verage of 30 samples have been
replaced with a monthly average based
on 10 samples per reporting period. This
is consistent with other recent Effluent
Guidelines for similar industrial
categories.
In addition, the Agency responded to
comments that the statistical
methodology used in proposal did not
predict percent exceedances of the 30
day limits consistently with the 99%
criterion used to derive the limits. The
main reason for this was that day to day
dependence in the data was not
accounted for in deriving the proposed
limits. In deriving the 10 sample monthly
limits, the Agency examined data
dependence in three ways. First, by
fitting the data to a statistical time
series model; second, by incorporating
direct computations of auto-correlations
into derivations of the limits; and third,
by fitting observed sequences of 10 day
averages to a lognormal distribution.
The final monthly limits were
determined by fitting observed
sequences of 10 day averages to a
lognormal distribution because this
provided the most satisfactory fit to the
data. The general effect of these
statistical changes was to raise some
limits.
Another change is that an alternative
amenable cyanide limit is made
available to facilities with significant
forms of cyanide (i.e., iron cyanides) not
controllable by the technology basis.
XII. Pollutants and Subcategories not
Regulated
Paragraph 8 of the Settlement
Agreement contains provisions
authorizing EPA to exclude toxic
pollutants and industry categories and
subcategories from regulation under
certain circumstances.
A.	Exclusion of Toxic Pollutants
Paragraph 8 (a) (iii) of the Settlement
Agreement authorizes the Administrator
to exclude from regulation toxic
pollutants:
•	Not detectable by Section 304(h)
analytical methods or other state-of-the-
art methods; or
•	Present in amounts too small to be
effectively reduced by available
technologies: or
•	Present only in trace amounts and
neither causing nor likely to cause toxic
effects: or
•	Detected in the effluent from only a
small number of sources within a
subcategory and uniquely related to
those sources; or
•	That will be effectively controlled
by technologies on which other effluent
limitations and standards are based.
Appendix B to this notice indicates
the reason for the exclusion of each
toxic pollutant excluded from regulation
on the basis of the paragraph 8 criteria.
B.	Exclusion of Subcategories
In selecting effluent limitations for the
Metal Finishing category as a whole,
EPA has not established subcategories"
and, therefore, has not excluded any
subcategories from toxic pollutant
regulation. However, as discussed
above, job shops and IPCBMs which are
existing indirect dischargers remain
subject to the less stringent Part 413
requirements.
XIII. Costs, Effluent Reduction Benefits,
and Economic Impact
A. Cost and Economic Impacts
The economic impact assessment of
this regulation is presented in Economic
Impact Analysis of Effluent Standards
and Limitations for the Metal Finishing
Industry. The analysis details the
investment and annual costs that the
industry will incur as a result of this
regulation. The report assesses the
impact of effluent control costs in terms
of plant closures, unemployment effects,
and increases in the costs of production.
Since proposal, the economic impact
analysis has been revised to reflect
changes warranted on the basis of
comments received and as a result of
continued EPA review. Monitoring and
compliance costs associated with the
control of the regulated pollutants have
been estimated for each industry sector
and are presented below. Also, the
economic analysis has been revised to
reflect a current nominal cost of capital
of 13 percent versus the 10 percent
originally used. In addition, the
Economic Analysis was revised to more
clearly present supporting data from
elsewhere in the record. Finally, the
indirect discharging captive facilities
with flows less than 10,000 gallons per
day have been included in the analysis.
Costs and impacts for this group are
presented separately below. This
industry group was inadvertently
omitted from the earlier economic
impact analysis.
In order to measure the potential
economic impact, EPA reviewed its
incremental effect on each of the sectors
of the industry (described above in the
"Overview of the Industry," and Table
1). These impacts are presented
separately below for direct and indirect
discharging facilities by job shop,
independent printed circuit board shop
and captive shop facilities. The
incremental combined investment and
annual costsi, which include interest and
depreciation, for all metal finishing
facilities incurring costs are $351 million
and $118 million respectively. These
costs are in 1982 dollars, as are those
presented below. No plant closures or
employment effects are projected.
Increases in the cost of production
average 0.02 percent. If all 10,409
facilities using end-of-pipe treatment
technologies are required by the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations	32471
municipalities and permit writers to
monitor 10 days per month, the total
annual costs increase by $61 million
from $118 million to $179 million. No
closures or employments effects are
projected to result from this level of
monitoring; the average increase in cost
of production would be 0.03 percent
versus the 0.02 percent presented above.
The Agency has determined that this
regulation would be economically
achievable even if all facilities are
required to monitor 10 days a month. No
measureable balance of trade effect is
expected from this regulation due to the
estimated small change in the price of
metal finishing products.
BPT
Direct discharging facilities are not
expected to incur costs to comply with
the metals and cyanide limitations
because these facilities are already
covered by NPDES permits which set
BPT limits on case-by-case best
engineering judgments. A 1981 survey of
randomly selected permits indicates that
nearly all existing permits specify limits
equivalent to, or more stringent than,
those contained in this regulation.
Direct discharging facilities may incur
costs to comply with the limitation on
total toxic organics. EPA assessed TTO
compliance costs on the assumption that
all plants would incur baseline
monitoring costs of $1,904 on a one time
basis. EPA believes that almost all
plants will then comply through the
certification process. Nevertheless, EPA
assumed that those facilities which
currently dump would not be able to use
the certification process and would
incur annual compliance costs. (This
same procedure was used for TTO
compliance under PSES.) EPA has
assumed that the annual BPT
compliance costs could be $29,000 for
job shops, $34,700 for independent
printed circuit board manufacturers and
$468,000 for captive shop facilities.
These costs apply to 10 out of 365 direct
discharging job shops, 12 out of 44 direct
discharging independent printed circuit
board manufacturers, and 162 out of
2,500 direct discharging captive shop
facilities. Increases in the cost of
production resulting from the control of
TTO are not expected to exceed 0.9
percent. No closure or employment
effects are projected for these sectors.
BAT
Since the BAT limitations are the
same as the BPT limitations, there is no
incremental cost or impact associated
with compliance with the BAT
limitationc.
PSES
Indirect discharging job shop and
independent printed circuit board
facilities are expected to incur costs
only to comply with the TTO limitation
which is being added to the
electroplating pretreatment standards in
Part 413. This TTO limitation is included
in the regulation because compliance
will significantly reduce toxic organic
pollution and will cause negligible
economic impacts on these industry
sectors. EPA is not imposing metals and
cyanide limitations more stringent than
those specified in the existing applicable
pretreatment standards despite
evidence that such limits can be reliably
achieved by the technology that forms
the basis of the current standards. This
is consistent with a March 1980
Settlement Agreement in which the
relevant trade associations agreed not to
challenge the Part 413 pretreatment
standards for existing source
electroplaters.
Approximately 77 of an estimated
2.734 indirect discharging job shops and
88 of the 327 indirect independent
printed circuit board manufacturers are
assumed to incur costs to comply with
the TTO standard. Annual costs of
$222,500 and $254,300 respectively are
projected for the two sectors. The
average annual cost per facility to
comply with the TTO limitations is
approximately $2900, primarily for
sampling and analysis. No closures or
employment effects are projected for
these sectors. Production cost increases
are expected not to exceed 0.03 percent
for the two sectors.
Non-integrated indirect discharging
captive facilities with effluent flows
greater then 10,000 gallons per day are
assumed to incur additional costs to
comply with the TTO standard. Control
of metals and cyanide can be achieved
through capital investment already
required by currently effective
electroplating regulations. Although the
metals and cyanide standards
promulgated today are more stringent
than those in the currently effective
electroplating regulations, they can be
met through use of the same pollution
control equipment relied on to meet the
electroplating pretreatment standards.
The $167,600 of annual costs associated
with control of TTO applies to 58 of the
900 nonintegrated captive indirect
dischargers with flow greater than
10,000 gpd. No closure or divestitures
are expected to occur.
Non-integrated indirect discharging
captive facilities with flows less than
10,000 gallons per day will incur costs
from both the metals and cyanide
standards and the TTO standards.
Unlike the prior group with flows greater
than 10.000 gpd, this group was
generally exempt from Part 413's
precipitation/clarification based
pretreatment standards. Thsir inclusion
in the metal finishing standard could
necessitate investments in both end-of-
pipe and in-plant treatment
technologies. The cost for these facilities
to comply with the metals and cyanide
standards totals $11.8 million annually.
These costs apply to 912 out of an
estimated 2850 nonintegrated indirect
discharging captive facilities with flows
less than 10,000 gpd. Data indicate that
the remainder of these plants already
have adequate treatment in place. The
annual cost to comply with the TTO
standard is $534,600; this applies to 185
facilities. The average increase in the
cost of production is approximately one
percent. No closure or employment
impacts are projected.
Of the 3,750 facilities in the last
industry sector, integrated indirect
discharging captives, 1,200 may incur
aggregate costs of $104 million annually
to comply with the metals and cyanide
standards and 243 of these facilities may
incur costs of approximately $705,000
annually to comply with the TTO
standard. Integrated shops perform
metal finishing operations in addition to
electroplating processes. Thus, they are
affected by the existing electroplating
standards as well as by today's
regulation. EPA anticipates that the
integrated facilities will comply with the
metal finishing standards by treating
their total process discharge through a
single treatment system that would be
more costly than the one required solely
to treat electroplating wastewaters.
The costs indicated above reflect the
additional costs of complying with the
metal finishing standard; the
electroplating costs were reviewed in an
earlier regulation 40 CFR Part 413, 44 FR
52590, September 7,1979 and they serve
as the baseline for determining the
impacts of the metal finishing regulation.
To determine the baseline costs required
to comply with the electroplating
pretreatment standards, EPA first
revised its earlier estimates, based on
updated surveys of treatment in place,
improved estimates of the population of
affected captive shops, and calculated
costs attributed to the electroplating
flow of integrated captive indirect
dischargers. The revised estimate (in
1982 dollars) indicates that this sector's
costs for compliance with the
electroplating pretreatment standards
are $512 million in capital costs and $169
million in annual costs, including
interest and depreciation. EPA now
estimates that the major economic
-------
32472	Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
effects of that regulation would be 24
plant closures and six electroplating
divestitures which could result in 896
job losses and 84 job transfers.
In estimating the economic impact of
today's metal finishing regulation, EPA
assessed the costs of treating the
additional flows covered by today's
regulation at the model plants used in
the electroplating analysis. The costs
used in conducting the economic impact
analysis reflect the cost of treating all
process flows, expect for the six
electroplating process streams specified
in Part 413. To the extent these flows
include processes not regulated under
metal finishing, the costs and resulting
impacts overstate the effect of the metal
finishing regulation.
EPA's estimates of the effects of these
regulations are based on a sample of
approximately 1,100 plants. The results
have been extrapolated to the full
population of 3,750 plants in this sector.
For each model plant the analysis
determines the incremental increase in
the costs of production to comply with
the metal finishing standards. If a
plant's compliance costs relative to
sales are high, the analysis projects
metal finishing process line divestitures
or plant closures. Additional impacts,
thus, are those due to today's metal
finishing regulation only. Investment
costs are expected to total
approximately $351 million, while
annual costs are projected to be
approximately $118 million, including
interest and depreciation. The annual
costs represent approximately 0.20
percent of the $60 billion annual value of
shipments from integrated indirect
captive plants. EPA's analysis projects
that this would lead to no plant closures
or process line divestitures, and that no
employment disruption would result
The TTO portion of these total annual
c06ts shown above is approximately
$705,000. TTO costs apply to 243 of the
3750 integrated indirect discharging
captive facilities.
Finally. EPA assessed the combined
impact of today's regulation and the
electroplating pretreatment regulation
on the captive integrated indirect
discharging sector of the industry. This
analysis, like those for electroplating
and metal finishing alone, was based on
costs for the treatment technology used
for the development of the limitations.
Some plants may receive removal
credits or install less expensive
technology. In addition. EPA has
deferred the compliance date for
integrated facilities, thereby allowing
plants additional time to plan for
compliance and not be subject to
treatment costs. This analysis indicated
that the combined investment for the
captive integrated indirect discharging
sector for both regulations was $827
million, with annual costs of $274
million, including interest and
depreciation. Thirty plants (out of 3.750)
might divest their electroplating lines or
close, and 980 jobs (out of 450.000) could
be lost or displaced. These impacts are
the same as those due to the
electroplating pretreatment standards
alone. No additional closures,
divestitures, or unemployment effects
are expected from the more stringent
standards promulgated today.
NSPS and PSNS
Finally, the requirements for new
sources are the same as those for
existing sources, except that cadmium
must be controlled more stringently. The
incremental cost of compliance with the
cadmium control ranges from $14,000 to
$24,000 per facility depending on the
water flow. These costs represent
between 0.02 and 2.0 percent of
projected value of sales for these
facilities. Since cadmium plating occurs
at only about 15% of the facilities and in-
plant controls can be designed into new
facilities, there is expected to be no
competitive disadvantage for new
sources seeking to enter the industry.
Total Toxic Organics
EPA's economic analysis of the TTO
limit had its own costing methodolgy. Its
results were incorporated into the
impact analyses for the other specified
limits. EPA believes, however, that a
certification procedure will make these
costs unnecessary in almost all cases.
The Agency is offering the
certification procedure as an alternative
to self-monitoring because frequent
monitoring for toxic organics could be
expensive. Under the certification
procedures facilities can identify the
toxic organics used and certify that the
resultant wastes are being properly
disposed, i.e.. recovered or contract
hauled. The Agency expects that almost
all plants will certify.
Some plants may still be required to
monitor. However, estimating the
number of facilities that may still be
required to monitor TTO must be
accomplished indirectly, because there
is no history to indicate how control
authorities will apply toxic organic
requirements and certification
alternatives to monitoring. The Agency
examined two indicators of the need to
require monitoring. The first was the
percentage of plants that currently dump
waste solvent degreasers. This
percentage may approximate the
population size that control authorities
need to check. Only 24% of the captives
use solvent decreasing, which is the
primary source of potential toxic organic
violations in these wastewaters.
Comparable figures are 10.3% for job
shops and 100% for printed circuit board
manufacturers.
These wastes can profitably be
recovered by the plant and some waste
haulers, who pay for waste solvents,
have been identified, and are cited in
the public record. Approximately 73% of
the facilities which utilize solvent
degreasers, already properly dispose of
this waste. However even the 27% of the
population who now dump their
solvents will probably stop that practice
and be eligible for certification. In
addition some of the solvent degreasers
that these plants use do not contain any
toxic organics. Other sources of toxic
organics present at metal finishing
plants may compensate for the Agency's
conservative assessment on degreasing
but this should not be significant since
dumped solvent degreasers are clearly
the single most significant source of
TTO in wastewaters. Thus this
approach leads to a conservative
overestimation by the Agency.
The second approach was to examine
the percentage of EPA sampled data
which exceeded the TTO limit and to
consider this as a measure of the
fraction of facilities needing monitoring.
This was 2.6 percent of the data (i.e.,
97.4% of sampled data already complies
with the TTO limit). The 2.6 percent
exceedance rate of the TTO limit during
EPA's sampling supports the need for
certification and for control authorities
to establish reasoned plant specific
monitoring frequencies.
For purposes of economic analyses
the number of facilities costed for TTO
monitoring was estimatedto be
equivalent to the number of facilities
currently dumping solvents. The
economic impact analysis also
performed two sensitivity analyses. The
first was with a greater number of plants
monitoring for TTO. The second
assumed that plants monitored for TTO
monthly instead of quarterly. Both
changes led to only slightly different
impacts. All scenarios were found to be
acceptable and economically
achievable.
Summary
The Agency concludes that the final
regulation is economically achievable,
and the impacts are justified in light of
the effluent reductions achieved. The
metal finishing regulation will remove
an additional 20 million pounds per year
of metals and cyanide and 10 million
pounds per year of toxic organics.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No, 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
32473
B.	Executive Order 12291
Under Executive Order 12291 the
Agency must determine whether a
regulation is "Major" and therefore
subject to the requirements of a
Regulatory Impact Analysis. Major rules
impose an annual cost to the economy
of $100 million or more or meet other
economic impact criteria. Based on the
Agency's estimates this regulation could
have an annual effect on the economy of
more than $100 million, making it a
major regulation.
Executive Order 12291 does not
require a Regulatory Impact Analysis
where its consideration would conflict
with the development of regulations
pursuant to a court order, as with this
metal finishihg regulation. EPA has
prepared, however, an analysis that
contains many of the elements of a
Regulatory Impact Analysis- A copy of
the analysis can be obtained from Alec
McBride, Monitoring and Data Support
Division, WH-553, U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
C.	Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pub. L. 96-354 requires that a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis be
prepared for regulations that have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The analysis
may be done in conjunction with, or as
part of. any other analysis conducted by
the Agency.
A small business analysis is included
in the economic impact analysis. This
analysis shows that there will not foe a
significant impact on any segment of the
industry, large or small. Therefore a
formal Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
was not required.
D.	SBA Loans
The agency is continuing to encourage
small plants—including circuit board
manufacturers—-to use Small Easiness
Administration [SBA] financing as
needed for pollution control equipment.
The three basic programs are: (1J The
Guaranteed Pollution Control Bond
Program, 12] the Section 503 Program,
and (3) the Regular Guarantee Program.
All the SBA loan programs are only
open to businesses that have: (a] net
assets less than $6 million, and fb) an
average annual after-tax income of less
than $2 million, and [c] fewer than 250
employees.
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.
The Section 503 Program, as amended
in July 1980, allows long-term loans to
small and medium sized businesses.
These loans are made by SBA approved
local development companies. These
companies are authorized to issue
Government-backed debentures that are
brought 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 Desselle
who may be reached at (202) 382-5373.
XIV. Non-Water-Quality Environmental
Impacts
The elimination or reduction of one
form of pollution may aggravate other
environmental problems. Sections 304(b)
and 306 of the Act require EPA to
consider the non-water-quality
environmental impacts (including energy
requirements) of certain regulations. To
comply, EPA considered the effect of
this regulation on air, noise, radiation,
and solid waste generation. While
balancing pollution problems against
each other and against energy use is
difficult, EPA believes that the final
regulation best serves overall national
goals.
The following are the non-water-
quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements)
associated with today's regulation.
A.	Air Pollution
Compliance with the BPT, BAT, NSPS,
PSES, and PSNS will not create any
substantial air pollution problems.
Alkaline chlormation for cyanide
destruction and chromium reduction
using sulfur dioxide may produce some
emissions to the atmosphere.
Precipitatksjaand clarification, the major
portion -of the technology basis, should
not result in any air pollution problems.
In addition, control of total toxic
organics at the source will result in a
decrease hi the volatilization of solvents
from streams and PQTWs.
B.	Noise
None of the wastewater treatment
processes cause significant
objectionable noise.
C.	Radiation
None of the treatment processes pose
any radiation hazards.
D. Solid Waste
EPA has considered the effect these
regulations would have on the
accumulation of hazardous waste, as
defined under Section 3001 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). EPA estimates that the BPI"
and BAT limitations will not contribute
to additional solid or hazardous wastes.
However, PSES will increase the solid
wastes from these plants by
approximately 165,000 metric tons per
year. This sludge can be hazardous
because it will necessarily contain
additional quantities (and
concentrations) of toxic metal
pollutants. Disposal of these wastes was
costed as though they were hazardous.
EPA's Office of Solid Waste has
analyzed the solid waste management
and disposal costs required by the
industry's compliance with RCRA
requirements. Some results were
published in 45 FR 33066 (May m I960).
In addition, RCRA costs have been
included in the costs and economic
impact analysis during the development
of this regulation. However, since
November 1980, EPA has received 196
petitions to delist wastes from metal
finishing facilities. Seventy-seven have
been granted, 104 are pending and 15
have been rejected. Thus it appears that
the decision to cost all solid waste
disposal as hazardous probably
overstated likely costs. Furthermore, the
Agency has not assessed the savings
likely to occur because of reduced
contamination of POTW sludges. These
savings are likely te be considerable.
E. Energy Requirements
EPA estimates that achieving the BPT
and BAT effluent limitations will not
increase electrical energy consumption.
The Agency estimates that PSES will
increase electrical energy consumption
by approximately 142 million kilowatt-
hours per year. For a typical existing
indirect discharger, this will increase
energy consumption less than one
percent of the total eneigy consumed for
production.
The energy requirements for NSPS
and PSNS are estimated to be similar to
energy requirement for BAT, However,
this can only be quantified in kwh/year
after projections are made for new plant
construction.
XV. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Section 304(e) of the Clean Water Act
authorizes the Administrator to
prescribe "best management practices"
("BMPs"). EPA may develop BMPs that
apply to all industrial sites or to a
designated industrial category, and may
offer guidance to permit authorities in
-------
32474	Federal Register / Vol
48, No. 137 I Friday. July 15. 1983 /
Rules and Regulations
establishing management practices
required by unique circumstances at a
given plant.
Although EPA is not prescribing them
at this time, future BMPs could require
dikes, curbs, or other measures to
contain leaks and spills, and could
require the treatment of toxic pollutants
in these wastes.
XVI. Upset and Bypass Provisions
A recurring issue is whether industry
limitations and standards should include
provisions that authorize noncompliance
during "upset" or "bypasses." An upset,
sometimes called an "excursion," is
unintentional noncompliance beyond
the reasonable control of the permittee.
EPA believes that upset provisions are
necessary, because upsets will
inevitably occur, even if the control
equipment is properly operated. Because
technology-based limitations can require
only what technology can achieve, many
claim that liability for upsets is
improper. When confronted with this
issue, courts have been divided on the
questions of whether an explicit upaet or
excursion exemption is necessary or ,
whether upset or excursion incidents
may be handled through EPA's
enforcement discretion. Compare
Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA. 564 F. 2d 1253
(9th Cir. 1977) with Weyerhaeuser v.
Costle, supra and Corn Refiners
Association, et al. v. Costle, No. 78-1069
(oih Cir. April Z, 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).
Unlike an upset—which is an
unintentional episode—a bypass is an
intentional noncompliance to
circumvent waste treatment facilities
during an emergency.
EPA has both upset and bypass
provisions in NPDES permits, and the
NPDES regulations include upset and
bypass permit provisions. See 40 CFR
Part 122.41, 48 FR 14151,14168 (April 1,
1983). 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. Since
permittees in the metal finishing
industry are entitled to the upset and
bypass provisions in NPDES permits,
this regulation need not repeat these
provisions. Upset provisions are alao
contained in the general pretreatmeot
regulation.
XVII. Variances and Modifications
F'ederai and Siate NPDES permits to
direct dischargers must enforce these
effluent standards. The pretreatment
limitations apply directly to indirect
dischargers.
The only exception to the BPT effluent
limitations is EPA's "fundamentally
different factors" variance. See E. I.
duPont de Nemours and Co. v. Train,
supra; Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle,
supra. This variance recognizes
characteristics of a particular discharger
in the category regulated that are
fundamentally different from the
characteristics considered in this
rulemaking. Although this variance
clause was set forth in EPA's 1973-1976
industry regulations, it need not be
included in this regulation. See 40 CFR
Part 125.30.
Dischargers subject to the BAT
limitations are also eligible for EPA's
"fundamentally different factors"
variance. BAT limitations for
nonconventional pollutants may be
modified 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 and standards. See
43 FR 40859 (Sept. 13,1978). These Part
413 and Part 433 regulations do not
regulate any non-conventional, non-
toxic, pollutants. If any of the regulated
pollutants are declared non-toxic, and
non-conventional in the future, then
dischargers may seek 301(c) or 301(g)
modifications.
Indirect dischargers subject to PSES
are eligible for the "fundamentally
different factors" variance and for
credits for toxic pollutants removed by
POTW. See 40 CFR 403.7; 403.13; 46 FR
9404 (January 28,1981). Indirect
dischargers subject to PSNS are only
eligible for the credits provided for in 40
CFR 403.7. New sources subject to NSPS
are not eligible for EPA's
"fundamentally different factors"
variance or any statutory or regulatory
modifications. See E. I. duPont de •
Nemours v. Train, supra.
XVIII. Implementation of LimkatioM
and Standards
A. Relation to NPDES Permits.
The BPT, BAT, and NSPS in this '
regulation will be applied to Individual
metal finishing plants through NPDES
permits issued by EPA or approved
State agencies under Section 402 of the
Act. The preceding section of this
preamble discussed the binding effect of
this regulation on NPDES permits.
except when variances and
modifications are expressly authorized.
This section adds mote detail on the
relation between this regulation and
NPDES permits.
EPA has developed the limitations
and standards in this regulation to cover
the typical facility for this point source
category. In specific cases, the NPDES
permitting authority may have to
establish permit limits on toxic
pollutants that are not covered by this
regulation. This regulation does not
restrict the power of any permit-issuing
authority to comply with law or any
EPA regulation, guideline, or policy. For
example, if this regulation does not
control a particular pojlutant, the permit
issuer may still limit the pollutant on a
case-by-case basis, when such action
conforms with the purposes of the Act.
In addition, if State water quality
standards or other provisions of State or
Federal law require limits on pollutants
not covered by this regulation (or
require more stringent limits on covered
pollutants), the permit-issuing authority
must apply those limitations.
B. Indirect Dischargers
For indirect dischargers. PSES and
PSNS are implemented und6? National
Pretreatment Program procedures
outlined in 40 CFR Part 403. The table
below may be of assistance in resolving
questions about the operation of that
program. A brief explanation of some of
the submissions indicated on the table
follows:
A "request for category determination
request" is a written request, submitted
by an indirect discharger or its POTW.
for a certification on whether the
Indirect discharger falls within a
particular subcategory listed in a
categorical pretreatment standard. This
assists the indirect discharger in
knowing just which PSES or PSNS limits
it will be required to meet. See 40 CFR
403.6(a).
A "request for fundamentally different
factors variance" is a mechanism by
which a categorical pretreatment
standard may be adjusted, making it
more or less stringent, on a case-by-case
basis. If an indirect^ischarger, a POTW,
or any interested person believes that
factors relating to specific indirect
discharger are fundamentally different
from those factors considered during
development of the relevant categorical
pretreatment standard and that the
existence of those factors justifies a
different discharge limit froni that
specified in the categorical standard,
then they may submit a request to EPA
for such a variance. See 40 CFR 403.13.
-------
^9B3 / Rules and Regulations
32475
A "baseline monitoring report" is the
first report an indirect discharger must
file following promulgation of a
standard applicable to it. The baseline
report includes: an indentification of the
indirect discharger; a description of its
operations; a report on the flows of
regulated streams and the results of
sampling analyses to determine levels of
regulated pollutants in those streams: a
statement of the discharger's
compliance or noncompliance with the
standard; and a description of any
additional steps required to achieve
compliance. See 40 CFR 403.12(b)
A "report on compliance" is required
of each indirect discharger within 90
days following the date for compliance
with an applicable categorical
pretreatment standard. The report must
indicate the nature and concentration of
all regulated pollutants in the facility's
regulated process wastestreams; the
average and maximum daily flows of the
regulated streams; and a statement of
whether compliance is consistently
being achieved, and if not, what
additional operation and maintenance
and/or pretreatment is necessary to
achieve compliance. See 40 CFR
403.12(d)
A ^jjgxiadic compliance report" is a
report on continuing compliance with all
applicable categorical pretreatment
standards. It is submitted twice per year
(June and December) by indirect
dischargers subject to the standards.
The report shall indicate the precise
nature and concentrations of the
regulated pollutants in its discharge to
the POTW; the average and maximum
daily flow rates of the facility; the
methods used by the indirect discharger
to sample and analyze the data, and a
certification that these methods
conformed to those methods outlined in
the regulations. See 40 CFR 403.12(e)
Table 2.—Indirect Dischargers Schedule for Submittal and Compliance
Item/everrt
Applicable
sources
Request for category deter- ; Existing .
mination.	«
i New
Request for fundamentally > AH
different factors variance. '
Baseline monitoring report	 1 Aft
I
Report on compliance	i Existing..
; New	
^Periodic Compliance Reports..! All	
Date or time
period
; 60 days	
; or 60 days
i
; Prior to
• commencement
of discharge to
; POTW
i 180 days	
or 30 days .
i
. 180 days	
j
' 90 days	
¦ 90 days.
i June and
j December
Measured from
Item submitted to
; From effective date of stand- Director 1
ard.	J
• From Federal Register De- j
veiopment Document j
Availability.	j
i
, From effective dale of stand- j Director 1
ard.
I
. From final decision on cate- I
gory determination.
; From effective date of stand- Control authority *
ard or final decision on 1
j category determination. (
From date for final compli- j Control authority *
ance.
From commencement of dis-
charge to POTW.
J Control authority -
or h?FPA°n^,^i5'2?,,A(1l?'r"slra"^s O^108' 01 » s'«le water pollution conlrol agency with «n approved pretreatment program
' Cont/rJ*S££La1er,	Prec,or' " Sla,e d°®s not have an approved pretreatment program.
^ POTW 11 Its pretreaiment program nas been approved or b) Director of State water pollution control
pfetreatmerit pr^gtam0" pretreatment progiam or c) EPA Regional Admrustrator, if Stale does not have an approved
C. Applicability and Compliance Dates
In the electroplating/metal finishing
industry some facilities are subject to
the Electroplating Category (Part 413)
and/or the Metal Finishing Category
(Part 433). Table 3 below illustrates
which of the regulations are applicable
to the various types of facilities.
Facilities are subject only to Part 433
(metal finishing) for BPT, BAT. NSPS.
and PSNS, For PSES, facilities generally
fall within the applicability of both
Parts, although, for each pollutant, only-
one Part will apply at a given time.
There are two exceptions: (1) Existing
indirect discharging job shops and
IPCBMs have been exempted from the
Part 433 Metal Finishing PSES, and (2)
metal finishing wastewaters at iron and
steel mills are exempted from the Part
413 Electroplating PSES.
Table 3.—applicability
Job shops
IPCBM
Captives
hfwshing at
iror and
steei mills'
PSES:
Electroplating (Part 413)
Metal Finishing (Part 433)
BPT, BAT. NSPS, PSNS:
Metal Finishing	
C(	process wastewater at if on and steel mitts was excluded from the Electroplating PSES by 40 CFR 413 01
ows from the metal finishing processes at those plants are covered by 40 CFR 433.
-------
32476	Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 137 / Friday. July 15, 19(13 / Rules and Reputations
The compliance date9 for the two
categories are presented in Table 4. BPT,
BAT, PSNS, and NSPS compliance elates
are specified by the Clean Water Act.
The compliance dates for Electroplating
PSES were set in the Federal Register on
September 28,1982. See 47 FR 42698.
Today's regulation allows facilities 3
years to comply with the Electroplating
PSES for toxic organics consistent with
the Settlement Agreement with NAMF.
Formetal finishing, the Agency is
allowing 31 months for compliance with
all parameters. In addition an interim
TTO limit has been established for
compliance by June 30,1984; except for
metal finishing wastewaters from plants
which are also subject to Part 420 {iron
and steel), which must comply by July
10,1985. This last exception is pursuant
to a settlement agreement with the steel
industry in which EPA agreed that
pretreatment requirements would apply
to steel discharges in July 1985. It is
possible that control of TTO in metal
finishing waste streams could, in some
cases, lead steel facilities to install
treatment technology on the discharge
from their steel processes. Therefore,
EPA has decided to allow plants
covered by Part 420 until June, 1985 to
comply with the TTO limit.
Table 4.—Compliance Dates
Regulation
Electroplating PSES tor..
Metate and Cyanide (Part
413).
Electroplating PSES (Part
413) for TTO *.
Metal Finishing BPT (Part
433).
Metal Finishing BAT		
Metal Finishing PSES for
TTO.'.
Metal Finishing PSES for
Metals, Cyanide and TTO.*.
Metal Finishing NSPS and
PSNS.
Compliance date
Apr# 27, 1984 (for nonmte-
grated plants)
June 30, 1964 (for integrated
niants).
July 16, 1988
As soon as possible.
July 1, 1984.
June 30. 1984 (except for
plants covered by Part
420); July 10. 1985 (for
plants covered by Part
420).
February 15. 1986.
From commencement of t*s-
charge.
•	For these facifities the first TTO limit is based on
management practices only.
*	This TTO limit is based on management practices fol-
lowed by percipitation/ctahfication
D. Enforcement
A "final topic of concern is the
operation of EPA's enforcement
program. This was an important
consideration in developing this
regulation. EPA deliberately sought to
avoid standards which would be
exceeded by routine fluctuations of
well-designed and operated treatment
systems. These standards were
developed so as to represent limits
which such a plant would meet
approximately 99% of the time.
The Clean Water Act is a strict
liability statute. EPA emphasizes,
however, that it can exercise discretion
in deciding to initiate enforcement
proceedings [Sierra Club v. Train, 557 F.
2d 485, 5th Cir., 1977). EPA has
exercised, and intends to exercise, that
discretion in a manner that recognizes
and promotes good-faith compliance.
XIX. Summary of Public Participation
At the time of publication of the
proposed metal finishing regulation
(August 31.1982), EPA solicited
comments on the.proposed rules and, in
particular, on six specific issues. Ninety-
one commenters responded to these and
other issues relating to the electroplating
and metal finishing standards. The
following parties submitted comments:
•• "¦
Air Transport Association of America
Alpha Industries Inc.
The Aluminum Association Incorporated
American' Airlines
American Foundrymen's Society
American Hot Dip Galvanizers
American Metal Stamping Association
Anerock Corporation
Anaconda Aluminum Company
Ansul Fire Protection
Apollo Metals, Inc.
American Telephone and TelegTaph
Company
Atwood
Babcock and Wilcox
Bausch and Lomb
California Metal Enameling Co.
Caterpillar Tractor Company
Charles A. Frawley
Chrysler Corp.
Control Data Corporation
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
County
Cumberland Corporation
D.A.B.	Industries. Inc.
Deere and Company
Delta Airlines. Inc.
Department of the Air Force
Eaton Corporation
E.	I. DuPont de Nemours and Co.
Eltech Systems Corp.
EMP Laboratories. Incorporated
Ir.i'A Region V
FRC-I.uncy
! "
-------
^e8'8^fir / Vol- 48, No. 137 / Friday, juiv :.r», '1H83 / Rules and Regulations	32477
^——www———iwi i imh ». .i«jii.i. —¦% MMnnMUMKniiMManMnaMMMMiflHnMMnMMMiiMMB^MM
Whirlpool Corpornlion
York Metul Finishing Co.
The majoi issues raised by
jsommenters are addressed in this
section. A summary oi" all comments
received and of our responses is
included in the public record for this
regulation.
1. Comment: Many commenters
objected to the certification language
EPA proposed as an alternative to TTO
Monitoring. One commenter pointed out
that EPA had recently proposed new
certification language for signatories to
permit applications and reports (40 CFR
122.6} as part of a settlement agreement
in the consolidated permits litigation,
[NRDCv, EPA, and consolidated cases.
No. 80-1607, D.C. Cir.) and suggested
that EPA adopt that language here.
Response: EPA agrees that changes in
the certification language are warranted.
First, we believe it is appropriate to
modify the proposed language to accord
more closely with the certification
language agreed to in the consolidated
permits settlement agreement
concerning 40 CFR § 122.22, formerly
§ 122.6. 47 FR 25548, 25553 (June 14,
1982). We do not see a significant
enough difference between this
regulation and § 122.22 to justify
substantially different language. Thus,
we have adapted the proposed
settlement language with minor
differences reflecting the particular
nature of the TTO certification
requirement. This language is
substantially similar to that now
available for the electrical and
electronics industry (Phase I). See 48 FR
15382, April 8,1983.
Second, we have amended the
language to allow the discharger to
certify that "no dumping of concentrated
toxic organics into the wastewater has
occurred since filing the last discharge
monitoring report." The proposed
language appeared to require the
discharger to certify that he is in
compliance with the limit; we recognize
that it may be difficult to certify to this
language in the absence of monitoring.
Now, the discharger will be allowed to
certify as to his toxic organic
management practices. However,
because the ne w wording is less precise
(i.e., no "dumping of concentrated toxic
organics") and because some
commenters pointed to the need for
more specificity about certification
procedures, we are adding more explicit
language requiring the discharger to
describe his toxic organic management
plan. The proposed language would
have required the discharger to specify
the toxic organic compounds used and
the procedure used to prevent excessive
wastewater discharge of toxic orp^nics.
whereas the final language r»:qi;u«s the
discharger to submit a to>.ic organic
management plan thai specifies to the
permitting or control authority's
satisfaction the toxic organic
compounds used: the method of disposal
used instead of dumping, such as resale,
reclamation, contract hauling, or
incineration; and procedures for
assuring that toxic organics do not
routinely spii' or leak into the
wastewater. The discharger must also
certify that the facility is implementing
the toxic organic management plan.
Finally, for direct dischargers, the
solvent management plan will be
incorporated as a condition of their
NPDES permits. A similar requirement
does not exist for indirect dischargers
because under the Clean Water Act
permits are not issued for them by the
control authority. However, the
pretreatment standard does require
indirect dischargers to implement the
plan which they submit to the control
authority. Both these requirements
reinforce the discharger's responsibility
to implement his certification statement.
Addition of certification language is
intended to reduce monitoring burdens.
It does not in any way dimish the
discharger's liability for noncompliance
with the TTO limitation.
2. Comment: Several commenters
questioned EPA's estimate of minimal
costs for TTO control stating that
signficant costs would be incurred from
solvent disposal and from compliance
monitoring. A number of commenters
questioned the statement that costs for
solvent disposal could be offset by
reclamation of these wastes.
Response: The Agency recognizes that
costs can be associated with proper
solvent management and compliance
monitoring. However, the Agency does
not believe these costs will be
significant for the majority of the
facilities in the industry. 24% of the
captives, 10.3% of the job shops and
100% of the printed circuit board
facilities perform solvent degreasing. An
estimated 73 percent of the facilities
using solvent degreasing are already
practicing proper disposal of these
wastes and would, therefore, not be
expected to incur additional costs to
comply with the electroplating or metal
finishing TTO limits. Facilities not
presently practicing proper solvent
management would need to implement
practices such as contractor removal
and/or reclamation.
Costs of proper solvent disposal can
be offset by solvent reclamation. In
response to comments, the Agency
contacted representatives of national
solvent reclamation associations. These
representatives indicated that solvent
reclamation is a widespread, readily
available, and growing practice. In
addition to the numerous plants with on-
site reclamation facilities, it is estimated
that more than 100 independent
reclaimers are in operation throughout
the country and that reclaimers will pay
for spent solvents especially if the
solvents are segregated and there is a
market demand for the particular
solvents.
The Agency recognizes that frequent
monitoring for TTO can be expensive.
The Agency has attempted to reduce the
cost by establishing the certification
alternative and by allowing monitoring,
when necessary, to be limited to those
toxic organics likely to be present in the
wastewater of a plant. The Agency
believes that almost all facilities will be
able to certify in lieu of monitoring.
However, in fesponse to comments on
the cost of compliance monitoring, the
Agency has re-assessed its cost estimate
to consider quarterly monitoring for
TTO. This frequency is reflective of a
common monitoring frequency required
by control authorities. For the reasons
explained in section IX, above, EPA
believes that its economic analyses of
the impacts of the TTO limit are
conservative and fully state or overstate
the likely actual economic impacts.
,3. Comment: Some commenters
pointed out that the new source limits
for cadmium were not supported by
historical performance data. However,
no commenters submitted data on
performance capabilities of new source
technology.
Response: New source standards for
cadmium are based on control
technology which is designed to reduce
cadmium in wastewater discharge from
cadmium sources, e.g. cadmium plating,
chromating of cadmium plated parts,
and acid cleaning of cadmium plated
parts. The new source standards for
cadmium are based on the amounts of
cadmium expected as a background
level to be found in wastewaters from
plants not involved with cadmium
plating. The standards were determined
from data on concentrations observed in
untreated wastewater from metal
finishing plants that do not plate
cadmium. It represents the amount of
cadmium present from incidental
sources, when the principal cadmium
sources are full controlled. The data
consist of 61 observations from 27
plants. The data were divided into
statistically homogeneous groups by
plant. The average upon which the
standards were based was taken from
the group with the highest average
cadmium concentration. Estimates of
-------
32478	Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
variability used in determining the limits
were obtained from the two highest
groups. This was somewhat
conservative, because precipitation/
clarification systems should achieve
significant further removals from these
raw waste streams.
The Agency also checked the
consistency of the limit with data from
EPA sampled precipitation/clarification
systems. These data indicated that the
new source limit could be achieved
alternatively by using precipitation/
clarification, rather than total control of
the principal cadmium source. This
review included plants with cadmium
raw wastes of from 0.012 to 1.88 mg/1.
The Agency also reviewed the data base
used to develop the cadmium limit to
verify that it included all available data
from non-cadmium plating plants. Prior
to promulgation costs were also re-
examined to include expenses for
control of chromating and acid cleaning
of cadmium plated parts, in addition to
controlling cadmium plating which was
assessed in the proposal.
4. Comment: Commenters suggested
various averaging times as the basis for
monthly limitations, including 4-day, 30-
day, and "N" day averages.
Response: The Agency has evaluated
the merits of the suggested alternatives
and decided that an average of ten
samples (obtained within a one-month
period} would provide a reasonable
basis for monthly limitations,
minimizing the number of samples
necessary.
Although it is not'anticipated that a
monitoring frequency of 10 times per *
month will always be required, the cost
of this frequency of monitoring is
presented in the economic impact
analysis to the metal finishing
regulation. That frequency was selected
because if facilities sample 10 times per
month they can expect a compliance
rate of approximately 99 percent, if they
are operating at the expected mean and
variability. Plant personnel, in v
agreement with the control authority,
may choose to take fewer samples if
their treatment system achieves better
long term concentrations or lower
variability than the basis for the limits,
or if plant personnel are willing to
accept a statistical possibility of
increased violations. The 10 sample
monthly limit is consistent with other
regulations and recent proposals for
other metals industries, e.g., porcelain
enameling, coil coating, batteries,
copper, and aluminum forming.
The 4-day average is an inadequate
measure of treatment system
performance over extended periods.
This basis was used for the
electroplating rules only under the
special circumstances of a Settlement
Agreement.
The N-day average suggested by two
commenters was considered by the
Agency but was rejected as
unnecessarily complex and likely to
create confusion for both dischargers
and control authorities.
5.	Comment: Commenters disagreed
on the desirability or need to rescind the
electroplating regulations for captive
eiectroplaters upon the compliance date
of the metal finishing PSES,
Response: The Part 413 Electroplating
PSES will no longer be applicable to
captive electroplating when they must
comply with the Metal Finishing PSES
for metals and cyanide is reached.
Captive electroplaters will then be
regulated under the Part 433 Metal
Finishing PSES. There is no need to
maintain two sets of requirements for
the same pollutants at the same plants,
if, for same reason. Part 433 should
become inapplicable, then Part 413 will
apply to them.
6.	Comment: The majority of
commenters responding to the question
of the PSES compliance date stated that
March 30,1984 would not provide
sufficient time for compliance.
Response: To allow facilities
sufficient time to install or upgrade the
necessary treatment systems, the
Agency is establishing the compliance
date of the metal finishing PSES for
metals and cyanide to be 31 months
from the date of promulgation. This
extension is based on an Agency study
which showed that 31 months is
required to plan, design, and install the
recommended treatment technology.
This extension does not apply to
compliance with the toxic organics limit,
however. For Metal Finishing PSES, an
interim TTQ level must be achieved by
June 30,1984, based on no end-of-pipe
treatment, and the final TTQ limit based
on end-of-pipe treatment must be
achieved 31 months from the date of
promulgation. For Electroplating PSES,
the TTQ compliance date is 3 years from
promulgation of this rulemaking. That
allows the job shop and IPCBM sectors
the maximum allowable time for
compliance under the Clean Water Act
(CWA).
7. Comment: Commenters stated that
the proposed lead limit was not
achievable based on the technology
recommended. Some argued that plants
with high raw waste lead values were
not adequately represented in the data
baae. One commenter submitted
additional data.
Response: The Agency reviewed the
lead data base to assure that all usable
data from plants having a lead source
were included, EPA did consider some
additional self-monitoring data that
were found to be applicable and
excluded data from an originally-
considered plant which was not
adequately controlling wastewaters. The
revised EPA data base was used to
derive a final lead limit. The daily
maximum for lead has been changed
slightly from 0.67 mg/l to 0.69 mg/1. The
Agency also examined data submitted
during the comment period. These data
were not included because of
inadequate treatment design and/or
operation. For example, TSS values as
high as 119 mg/1 were submitted, oil and
grease was as high as 1395 mg/1 and
hexavalent chromium was as high as
1.21 mg/1. An examination of the
possible effect of including the
commenter's data for lead revealed that
only a slight change in the limit would
ha ve occurred.
8. Comment: Some commenters
suggested a small plant exemption from
the Metal Finishing regulations, arguing
that an exemption should be granted
similar to that provided by Part 413 for
plants discharging less than 10,000
gallons per day.
Response: Small indirect discharging
facilities (<10,000 GPD discharge) were
given less stringent requirements in the
Electroplating Pretreatment Standards. .
Many of these facilities are job shops
and for the reasons stated above will
not be covered by the Part 433
requirements.
The Agency re-examined the effect of
the Part 433 metal finishing regulations
on small facilities, and, has determined
that because job shops and IPCBMs are
exempted from the metal finishing PSES
there would be no significant economic
impacts if the remainder were covered
by the metal finishing standards. For
indirect captives discharging less than
10,000 GPD, the investment cost would
amount to $36 million with annual costs
of $12 million. There are no estimated
plant closure or divestitures. A small
facility exemption is not warranted for
the Metal Finishing regulation.
9. Comment: Some commenters stated
that the addition of a TTO limit to the
Electroplating PSES is a violation of the
NAMF Settlement Agreement.
Response: Under the March 1980
Settlement Agreement the Agency
agreed that:
any further BAT analog standards will be
based on treatment technology compatible
with the model technology upon which these
standards were based .... In developing
BAT analog standards for the industry, EPA
will take into account the cumulative impact
of these '"BPT" regulations in determining
what is "economically achievable." * * * As 1
to this segment of the metal finishing industry
-------
Federal Register / Vol, 48, No, 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
32479
that is economically vulnerable, EPA does
not believe that more stringent regulations
are now economically achievable. Therefore,
EPA does not plan to develop more stringent
new pretreament standards for the job shop
metal finishing segment in the next several
years. Nor does EPA plan to develop in the
next several years more stringent standards
for the independent printed circuit board
segment where significant economic
vulnerability also exists.
EPA is not imposing metals and
cyanide limitations more stringent than
those specified in the Part 413 existing
applicable pretreatment standards,
despite evidence that such limits can be
reliably achieved by the technology that
forms the basis of the current standards.
Indirect discharging job shop and
independent printed circuit board
facilities are expected to incur costs
only to comply with the TTO limitation
which is being added to the
electroplating pretreatment standards in
Part 413. This TTO limitation is included
in the regulation because it will
substantially reduce a significant toxic
problem, while compliance will cause
negligible economic impacts on these
industry sectors. Compliance with the
toxic organic standard can be achieved
by good management practices (i.e., not
dumping waste solvents into the
wastewaters). No additional end-of-pipe
technology (beyond that required for
metals removed) is necessary.
Even under very conservative
estimates only 77 of an estimated 2734
indirect discharging job shops and 88 of
the 327 indirect independent printed
circuit board manufacturers may incur
costs to comply with the TTO standard.
Total annual costs for all plants of
$222,500 and $254,300 respectively are
projected for the two sectors. The
average annual cost per facility to
comply with the TTO limitations is
approximately $2900, primarily for
sampling and analysis, No closures or
employment effects are projected for
these sectors. Production cost increases
are expected not to exceed 0.03 percent
for the two sectors.
The economic impact analysis also
performed two sensitivity analyses: the
first with a greater number of plants
monitoring and, the second, with plants
monitoring monthly instead of quarterly.
Both changes led to only slightly
different impacts. At most only one
plant would be affected. All scenarios
were found to be acceptable and
economically achievable, Thus the TTO
limits are not "more stringent
standards" in the sense of the
Settlement Agreement, which expressly
tied "stringency" to "economic
vulnerability".
Finally, the TTO limits need not be
complied with before 1986. Thus, even if
control of TTO were considered
significantly more stringent the time
allowed for compliance will amount to 8
years from the date of the Settlement
Agreement. That fulfills the Agency's
1980 obligation not to develop
significantly more stringent standards
for those facilities for the next several
years.
10.	Comment: Some commenters
stated that the proposed TTO limit could
not be met using a combination of
solvent management and common
metals treatment. Several commenters
also pointed out that plants previously
in compliance with the metals
limitations under Electroplating PSES
may now require installation of common
metals treatment to meet the TTO limit.
Response: The Agency has reviewed
the TTO data base, reevaluated the
mean and variability factor, and revised
the effluent limit for TTO. The major
factor contributing to the change was
the examination of the TTO levels at
certain groupings of plants. The most
notable discovery was that plants that
performed both solvent degreasing and
painting tended to have the highest
background concentrations of any
process grouping. The limit has been
based on these plants. Where plants are
otherwise subject to a regulation whose
technology basis includes precipitation/
clarification for removal of metals, the
TTO limit has been based on effluent
data from precipitation/clarification
treatment systems. We have also
established a TTO limit of 4.57 mg/i
based on only management practices.
This limit is being used as an interim
requirement prior to installation of
pollution/equivalent to precipitation/
clarification, and for plants discharging
less then 10.000 gpd and now covered by
the Part 413 Electroplating PSES. Thus *
today s regulation specifies an interim
TTO limit for small plants (<10,000
gallons per day) because these plants
may not already have common metals
treatment in place. Furthermore, the
Agency notes that most facilities should
be capable of achieving compliance with
the ultimate TTO standard even without
end-of-pipe treatment, simply through
strict management control of toxic
organics, 89% of the TTO data prior to
end-of-pipe treatment would comply
with the final TTO limit based on the
inclusion of precipitation/clarification.
11.	Comment: Several commenters
recommended an amenable cyanide
limit as an alternative to a total cyanide
limit because amenable cyanide more
accurately reflects the performance of
alkaline chlorination treatment.
Response: Most facilities should be
able to meet the total cyanide limit.
However, sufficient information has
been presented on cyanide formulations
and formation of complexes to support
the possibility that a significant
population could fail to meet the
limitations. The technology basis is
alkaline chlorination which destroys
amenable cyanides. Thus, the final rules
include an alternative cyanide limit for
plants generating significant quantities
of complexed cyanide. The data and
basic calculations for the alternative
cyanide limit were presented in the
proposed development document. The
Agency rejected specifying a limit only
for amenable cyanide. While complexed
cyanide are substantially less toxic, a
review of literature indicates that
significant transformation of complexed
cyanides into amenable cyanides will
occur in the aquatic environment due to
the presence of sunlight. If any water
quality problems occur due to the use of
this alternative,.the control authority
should examine alternative
technologies, i.e., precipitation with
ferrous sulfate.
12. Comment: Several commenters
suggested that fluoride, iron, and
hexavalent chromium be regulated.
Response: The Agency did not
establish limitations for fluorides, iron,
or hexavalent chromium because it was
determined that these parameters were
(1) not present in sufficiently high
quantities to warrant regulation or (2)
would be removed by controlling a
regulated parameter.
The historical performance data for
flouride in effluent from plants with
Option 1 treatment systems shows that
the mean concentration was 6.58 mg/1:
well below levels required by
categorical regulations ior other
industries, i.e., inorganic chemicals, and
electrical and electronic components
(phase I).
Iron was not selected for regulation
because it would be substantially
reduced during proper precipitation/
clarification treatment. Thus control of
regulated pollutants will also effect
control of iron.
A limit was not established for
hexavalent chromium because it will be
controlled by regulating total chromium.
The technology basis does include the
cost for hexavalent chromium stream
segregation and reduction. As stated in
the development document, chemical
hexavalent chromium reduction can
readily achieve final hexavalent
chromium concentrations of 0.16 mg/1
for a daily maximum and 0.10 mg/1 for a
maximum monthly average.
Additionally, monitoring for total
-------
chromium has a distinct cost advantage
over monitoring for hexavalent and
subsequently trivalent chromium. If any
of these or other parameters cause
problems with achieving local water
quality requirements, then the control
authority must specify further
requirements on a plant-by-plant basis.
13. Comment: Several commenters
stated that EPA's method for
distributing costs for indirect
dischargers between the Part 413
electroplating and the Part 433 metal
finishing regulations is misleading and
unrealistic. Electroplating compliance
costs for captive indirect dischargers
have not yet been incurred. When these
plants do comply, it will be with both
regulations in a one-time investment.
Therefore, no costs should be attributed
to Electroplating; rather, all costs should
be considered as Metal Finishing
compliance costs.
Response: The fact that a company
may make a one time investment doesn't
necessarily mean that all the costs
should be attributed to the Part 433
Metal Finishing Standard. The (
compliance date for Part 433 is now
generally two years after compliance is
required by Part 413.
When EPA conducts its economic
analysis of a guideline, it identifies the
incremental costs and impacts, as well
as the incremental pollutant removals,
of that particular guideline. If other
previously promulgated regulations
pertain to the same industry, the costs
and associated pollutant removals
would have been identified in previous
economic and environmental analyses.
With the metal finishing regulation, the
electroplating costs are baseline costs;
the will occur even if metal finishing is
not promulgated. Costs and impacts of
metal finishing are incremental to
electroplating; the effect of
electroplating isn't negated or obviated
because it may be more efficient for
plants to make a one time investment.
For non-integrated captive indirect
dischargers (mpre than 10,000 gallons
per day), this incremental investment
cost is zero. Non-integrated facilities
discharge process wastewaters from
electroplating operations only. Although
these wastewaters are covered by metal
finishing standards which are more
stringent than electroplating standards,
the treatment system installed to meet
the electroplating standards will be
sufficient to meet the metal finishing
limits. This treatment system will be the
same whether or not metal finishing is
promulgated. The costs associated with
installation of this treatment system
have already been included in the
electroplating analysis and there is no
need to include them in the metal
finishing regulatory costs.
For integrated captive indirect
dischargers, the incremental investment
cost is not zero. Integrated facilities
discharge wastewaters from other types
of processes in addition to
electroplating. Although the facility may
segregate its electroplating effluent
stream for treatment, it is usually more
economical to combine waste streams
and build a single treatment facility.
This treatment facility will be larger
than the facility which would have been
constructed to treat a segregated
electroplating effluent stream alone. The
costs assigned to metal finishing are
those incremental costs over and above
the amount that would have been spent
for treatment of the segregated
electroplating effluent stream.
Finally, as noted above. EPA did
assess the combined inpact of today's
regulation and the electroplating
pretreatment regulations on the captive
integrated indirect discharging sector of
the industry, assuming both costs would
be borne at the same time. The impacts
are the same as those due to the
electroplating pretreatment standards
alone. No additional closures,
divestitures, or unemployment effects
are expected from the more stringent
standards promulgated today.
14.	Comment: Several commenters
stated that the Agency should do a
Regulatory Impact Analysis as required
by ExecutiveJ3rder 12291.
Response: Executive Order 12291 does
not require a Regulatory Impact
Analysis where its consideration would
conflict with the development of
regulations pursuant to a court order, as
with this metal finishing regulation. EPA
has prepared, however, an analysis that
contains many of the elements of a
Regulatory Impact Analysis. This report
is included in the public record for this
regulation.
15.	Comment: Several commenters
stated that the Metal Finishing
Guidelines are not economically
achievable.
Response: EPA's Economic Analysis
of Proposed Effluent Standards and
Limitations for the Metal Finishing
Industry provides an in-depth analysis
of the economic impacts of the proposed
guidelines. This analysis considers the
compliance costs (both capital and
annual) for two regulatory options. The
economic impacts in terms of plant
closures, process divestitures,
employment losses, and cost increases
are also presented for both options.
Analysis results are presented for each
segment of the industry that is being
regulated: direct discharging job shops
and captives, indirect discharging job
shops and captives, and integrated
printed circuit board manufactures.
Results for Option I. the selected
option, are summarized on Exhibit 1-4
and 1-5-of the referenced report. The
direct discharging segment (both job
shops and captives) will incur costs to
comply with the TTO limitation only.
Indirect discharging job shops and
independent printed circuit boards also
will incur costs to comply with the TTO
standard only. Annual compliance costs
at these facilities are less than $2,900.
No closures or employment effects are
projected. Indirect discharging captives
will incur a total of $116 million in
annual compliance costs. The analysis
indicates that this segment is composed
primarily of large plants, many of which
are members of diversified industrial
corporations. As a result, there are no
projected impacts among captive plants.
The costs of production for indirect
discharging captives are projected to
increase from 0.2 to 1.0 percent.
The absence of closure or employment
effects combined with a small increase
in the cost of production ranging from
0.2 to 1.0 percent for all plants covered
by the metal finishing regulation
indicate that the guidelines are
economically achievable.
16.	Comment: Commenters questioned
the assumption that captive operations
have no capital availability problem.
They say that the economic conditions
have changed and capital availability
couid indeed be a problem.
Response: Changes in the availability
of capital are reflected in the cost of
capital. To reflect the increase in the
cost of capital. EPA adjusted its nominal
cost of capital assumption in the
Economic Impact Analysis to 13-percent
from the 10 percent cost of capital used
in the proposed regulation. To the extent
that an increase in the cost of capital is
a problem today for metal finishers, it
would show up in the impact analysis
conducted under the higher cost of
capital. No changes in closures or
divestitures resulted from the increased
cost of capital assumption.
17.	Comment: Several commenters
stated that EPA did not properly
consider the impact on small businesses,
specifically the costs of compliance and
resultant economit impacts for captive
indirect dischargers whose
electroplating process flow is less than
10,000 gpd. EPA implicitly assumed that
all of these plants are in compliance
with the Electroplating Pretreatment
Standards, but in fact these Standards
exempted plants from compliance
whose flow were less than 10,000 gpd.
Therefore, they will incur costs and
-------
32481
pcoHvar't: i.apacts1 5*5 QUmply with Metal
Finishing Guidelines.
RKSiKHr..-: The commenters hi'-".
»,t>rr
-------
32482	Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 137 / Friday. July 1 r>. 1983 / Rules anil Regulations
to that effect through a technical
amendment to this regulation.
XXII.	List of subjects
40 CFR Part 413
Electroplating. Metals. Water
pollution control. Waste treatment and
disposal.
40 CFR Part 433
Electroplating. Metals. Water
pollution control. Waste treatment and
disposal.
Dated: July 5.1983.
William D. Ruckelshaus,
Administrator.
Authority: Sees. 301. 304. 3015. 307. 308. and
501 of the Clean Water Act (the Federal
Water Pollution Control Art Amendments of
1972. 33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.. as amended by
the Clean Water Act of 1977. Pub. L. 95-217).
[Note.—These appendices will not appear
in the CFR.)
XXIII.	Appendices
Appendix A—Abbreviations, Acronyms,
and Other Terms Used in This Notice
Act—The Clean Water Act.
Agency—The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
BAT—The best available technology
economically achievable under Section
304(b)(2)(B) of the Act.
BCT—The best conventional pollutant
control technology, under Section
304(b)(4) of the Act.
BMPS—Best management practices
under Section 304(e) of the Act.
BPT—The best practicable control
technology currently available under
Section 304(b)(1) of the Act.
Captive—A facility which owns more
than 50% (annual area basis) of the
materials undergoing metal finishing.
Clean Water Act (also "the Act")—
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.), as amended by the Clean Water
Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-217).
Development Document—
Development Document for Effluent
Limitations. Guidelines, and Standards
for the Metal Finishing Point Source
Category, EPA 440-1-80-091-A, June
1980.
Direct discharger—A facility that
discharges or may discharge pollutants
into waters of the United States.
Indirect discharger—A facility that
discharges or may discharge pollutants
into a publicly owned treatment works.
Job Shop—A facility which owns not
more than 50% (annual area basis) of the
materials undergoing metal finishing.
Integrated facility—One that performs
electroplating operations (including
electroplating, electroless plating,
chemical etching and milling, anodizing,
coating, and printed circuit board
manufacturing) as only one of several
operations necessary for manufacture of
a product at a single physical location,
and has signifu an! quantities ot proi r^s
wastewater from non-electroplating
operations. In addition, to qualify as
"integrated," a facility must combine
one or more plant electroplating process
wastewater lines before or at the point
of treatment (or proposed treatment)
with one or more plant sewers carrying
process wastewater from non-
electroplating manufacturing operations.
NPDES Permit—A National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit
issued under Section 402 of the Act.
NSPS—New source performance
standards promulgated under Section
306 of the Act.
POTW—Publicly owned treatment
works.
PSES—Pretreatrnent standards for
existing sources of indirect discharges
promulgated under Section 307(b) of the
Act.
PSNS—Pretreatrnent standards for
new sources of direct discharges,
promulgated 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, as amended.
TTO—TotalToxic Organics is the
summation of all values greater than .01
milligrams per liter for each of the
specified toxic organics.
Appendix B—Pollutants Excluded From
Regulation
(1)	Toxic Pollutants—found in only a
small number of sources and effectively
controlled by the technologies on which
the limits are based:
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Beryllium
Mercury
Selenium
Thallium
(2)	Conventional Pollutants:
BOB
Fecal Coliform
Appendix C—Unit Operations in the
Metal Finishing Industry
1.	©Electroplating
2.	Electroless Plating
3.	Anodizing
4.	Coating (Chromating, Phosphating,
and Coloring)
5.	Chemical Etching and Milling
6.	Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing
7.	Cleaning
8.	Machining
9.	Grinding
10.	Polishing
11.	Tumbling
Burnishing
13. Imparl Dt'lonv.alion
14 Pressure Deformation
15. She.ii ,ng
Hi. ! leal Treating
17.	Thermal Cutting
18.	Welding
19.	Brazing
20.	Soldering
21.	Flame Spraying
22.	Sand Blasting
23.	Other Abrasive Jet Machining
24.	Electric Discharge Machining
25.	Electrochemical Machining
26.	Electron Beam Machining
27.	Laser Beam Machining
28.	Plasma Arc Machining
29.	Ultrasonic Machining
30.	Sintering
31.	Laminating
32.	Hot Dip Coating
33.	Sputtering
34.	Vapor Plating
35.	Thermal Infusion
36.	Salt Bath Descaling
37.	Solvent Degreasing
38.	Paint Stripping
39.	Painting
40.	Electrostatic Painting
41.	Electropainting
42.	Vacuum Metalizing
43.	Assembly
44.	Calibration
45.	Testing
46.	Mechanical Plating
PART 413—ELECTROPLATING POINT
SOURCE CATEGORY
For the reasons stated above, EPA is
amending Part 413 of 40 CFR, Chapter I
as follows:
1. Section 413.01 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
§ 413.01 Applicability and compliance
dates.
(a) This part shall apply to
electroplating operations in which metal
is electroplated on any basis material
and to related metal finishing operations
as set forth in the various subparts,
whether such operations are conducted
in conjunction with electroplating,
independently, or as part of some other
operation. The compliance deadline for
metals and cyanide at integrated
facilities shall be June 30,1984. The
compliance date for metals and cyanide
at non-integrated facilities shall be April
27,1984. Compliance with TTO for all
facilities shall be July 15,1986.' These
1 The Consent Decree in NRDC v. Train, 12 ERG
1833 (D.D.C, 1979) specifies a compliance date for
PSES of no later than june 30,1984. EPA has moved
for a modification of that provision of the Decree.
Should the Court deny that motion. EPA will he
required to modify this compliance date
accordingly.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations	32483
Part 413 standards shall not apply to a
facility which must comply with all the
pollutant limitations listed in § 4.K1.15
(metal finishing PSES).
2. Section 413.02 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (i), as follows:
$413.02 General definitions.
(i) the term "TTO" shall mean total
toxic organics, which is the summation
of all quantifiable values greater than
0.01 milligrams per liter for the following
toxic organics:
Ac^naphthene
Acrolein
Acryionitrile
Benzene
Benzidine
Carbon tetrachloride
(tetrachloromethane)
Chloro benzene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroe thane
1.1.1-trichloroe	thane
Hexachloroethane
t.l-dichloroethane
1.1.2-trichloroe	thane
1.1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Chloroethane
Bis (2-chloroethylJ ether
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
(mixed)
2-chloronaphthalene
2,4,0-trictilorophenol
Parachlorometa cresol
Chloroform (trichloromethane)
2-chlorophenol
1.2-dichlorobenzene
1.3-dichlorobenzene
1.4-dichlorobenzene
3.3-dichlorobenzidine
t ,1 -dichloroethy lene
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
2'.4-dichlorophenol
1,2-dichloropropane
(1.3-dichlorapropene)
2.4-dimethylphenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2.0-dinilrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropylj ether
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Methylene chloride
(dichloromethane)
Methyl chloride
(chloromethane}
Methyl bromide (bromomethane)
Bromoform (tribromomethane)
Dichlorobromomethane
Chlorodibromomethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-nitrophraol
4-nitrophenol
-.4-chnrtij^t'nol
4,fi-dinitro-o-c.resol
N-nitrosodimethyiamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Nnitrosodi-n-propylamine
I'entachlorophenoi
Phenol
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-oclyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
I.2-beni:aiithracene
(benzo(a)anthracene)
Benzofajpyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)
3,4-Benzofluoranthene
{benzofbjnuoranthene)
II,12-benzofluoranthene
(benzolkjfluoranthene)
Chrysene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
1.12-benzoperylene
(benzo(ghi)perylene)
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
1,2.5,6-dibenzanthracene
jdibenzo(a.h)anthracene)
Indeno (1.2,3-cd) pyrene)
(2.3-o-phenylene pyrene)
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Chlordane (technical mixture and
metabojites)
4,4-DDT
4.4 ODE (p,p-DDX)
4.4-DDD (p,p-TDE)
Aipha-endosulfan
Beta-endosulfan
Endosulfan sulfate
Kndrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
(BHC-hexachlorocyclohexane)
Alpha BHC
Beta-BHC
Gamma-BHC
Delta-BHC
(PCB-polychlorinated biphenyls)
PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 12S4)
PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1200)
PCB-1016 {Arochlor 1016)
Toxaphene
2,3.7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin (TCDDJ
3, Section 413.03 is amended by .
adding the following:
§ 413.03 Monitoring requirements.
(a) In lieu of monitoring for TTO, the
control authority may allow industrial
users of POTWs to make the following
certification as a comment to the
periodic reports required by § 403.12(e):
"Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons directly responsible for
managing compliance with the
pretreatment standard for total toxic
organics (TTO), I certify that, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, no.dumping
of concentrated toxic organics into the
wastewaters has occurred since filing
the last discharge monitoring report. I
further certify that this facility is
implementing the solvent management
plan submitted to the control authority."
(b)	In requesting that no monitoring be
required industrial users of POTWs
shall submit a solvent management plan
that specifies to the control authority's
satisfaction the toxic organic
compounds used; the method of disposal
used instead of dumping, such as
reclamation, contract hauling, or
incineration; and procedures for
assuring that toxic organics do not
routinely spill or leak into the
wastewater.
(c)	If monitoring is necessary to
measure compliance with the TTO
standard the industrial user need
analyze only for those pollutants which
would reasonably be expected to be
present.
4, Section 413.14 is amended by
adding paragraphs (fj. (g), and (h), as
follows;
§413.14 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
* * * * ~
(f) In addition to paragraphs (a) and
(b) the following limitation shall apply
for plants discharging less than 38,0001
(10,000 gal) per calendar day of
electroplating process wastewater:
Pollutant or pollutant property
TTO-
mom tor
any 1
day
4.57
(g) In addition to paragraphs (a), (c),
(dj, and (e) the following limitation shall
apply for plants discharging 38,000 Y
(10,000 gal) or more per calendar day of
electroplating process wastewater:
PoSutant or pofcsarx property
TTO,,
Maxi-
mum for
any 1
day
2.13
(h) In addition to paragraphs (a), (b),
(c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) the following
shall apply: An existing source
-------
32484	Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
submitting a certification in lieu of
monitoring pursuant to § 413.03 of this
regulation must implement the toxic
organic management plan approved by
the control authority.
5. Secton 413.24 is amended by adding
paragraph (f), (g) and (h), as follows;
§ 413.24 Pr® treatment standards for
existing sources.
*****
(f) In addition to paragraphs (a) and
(b) the following limitation shall apply
for plants discharging less than 38,0001
(10,000 gal) per calendar day of
electroplating process wastewater:
Pollutant or pollutant property
Mam-
mum for
any 1
day
no	;	
4.57

(g) In addition to paragraphs (a), (c),
(d), and (e) the following limitation shall
apply for plants discharging 33,0001
(10,000 gal) or more per calendar day of
electroplating process wastewater:
PoNutant or pollutant property
Maxi-
mum for
any 1
day
TTO		
, 2.13

(h) In addition to paragraphs (a), (b),
(c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) the following
shall apply; An existing source
submitting a certification in lieu of
monitoring pursuant to § 413.03 of this
regulation must implement the toxic
organic management plan approved by
the control authority.
@< Section 413.44 is amended by
adding paragraph (f), (g), and (h), as
follows:
f 413.44 Pretreatment standards for
sxisting sources.
* * * * *
(f) In addition to paragraphs (a) and
(b) the following limitation shall apply
for plants discharging less than 38,0001
(10,000 gal) per calendar day of
electroplating process wastewater:
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maxi-
mum tor
any 1
day
TTO				
4.57

(g) In addition to paragraphs (a), (c),
(d), and (e) the following limitation shall
apply for plants discharging 38,0001
(10,000 gal) or more per calendar day of
electroplating process wastewater:
Pollutant Of poNutant property
Maxi-
mum for
any 1
day
TTO	
2.13

(h) In addition to paragraphs (a), (b),
(c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) the following
shall apply: An existing source
submitting a certification in lieu of
monitoring pursuant to § 413.03 of this
regulation must implement the toxic
organic management plan approved by
the control authority.
7. Section 413.54 is amended by
adding paragraph (f). (g), and (h), as
follows:
§ 413.54 Pretreatment standards for
axis tins sources.
* * * * *
(f) In addition to paragraphs (a) and
(b) the following limitation shall apply
for plants discharging less than 38,0001
(10,000 gal) per calendar day of
electroplating process wastewater
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maxi-
mum for
any t
day
TTO			 . . 	
4.57

(g) In addition to paragraphs (a), (c),
(d), and (e) the following limitation shall
apply for plants discharging 38,0001
(10,000 gal) or more per calendar day of
electroplating process waterwaten
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maxi-
mum for
any 1
day
TTO	
2.13

(h) In addition to paragraphs (a), (b),
(c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) the following
shall apply: An existing source
submitting a certification in lieu of
monitoring pursuant to § 413.03 of this
regulation must implement the toxic
organic management plan approved by
the control authority.
8. Section 413.64 is amended by
adding paragraphs (f), (g), and (h), as
follows;	¦
§ 413.84 Pretreatment standards lor
existing sources.
*****
(f) In addition to paragraphs (a) end
(b) the following limitation shall apply
for plants discharging less than 38.000 1
(10,000 gal) per calendar day of
electroplating process wastewater:
Pollutant or poitutant property
Maxt-
mum lor
any 1
day
TTO
4.57

(g) In addition to paragraphs (a), (c),
(d), and (e) the following limitation shall
apply for plants discharging 38,0001
(10,000 gal) or more per calendar day of
electroplating process wastewater:
PoHutant or poWutant property
Maxi-
mum tor
any 1
day
TTO	
2.13

(h) In addition to paragraphs (a), (b),
(c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) the following
shall apply: An existing source
submitting a certification in lieu of
monitoring pursuant to § 413.03 of this
regulation must implement the toxic
organic management plan approved by
the control authority.
9. Section 413.74 is amended by
adding paragraphs (f), (g) and (h), as
follows:
§ 413.74 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
*****
(f) In addition to paragraphs (a) and
(b) the following limitation shall apply
for plants discharging less than 38,0001
(10,000 gal) per calendar day of
electroplating process wastewater:
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maxi-
mum for
any 1
day




(g) In addition to paragraphs (a), (c),
(d), and (e) the following limitation shall
apply for plants discharging 38,0001
(10,(XX) gal) or more per calendar day of
electroplating process wastewater:
PolKitant or pollutant property
Maxi-
mum for
any 1
day
TTO			 •
2.13

(h| In addition to paragraphs (a), (b).
(c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) the following
shall apply: An existing source
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15. 1903 / Rules and Regulations
32485
submitting a certification in lieu of
monitoring pursuant to § 413.03 of this
regulation must implement the toxic
organic management plan approved by
the control authority.
10. Section 413.84 is amended by
adding paragraphs (f). (g) and (h), as
follows:
§413.64 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
• * * * *
(f) In addition to paragraphs (a) and
(b) the following limitation shall apply
for plants discharging less than 38,iJ00 1
(10,000 gal) per calendar day of
electroplating process wastewater:

Pollutant or pollutant property
Maxi-
mum for
any t
day
rrn

4.57

(g) In addition to paragraphs (a), (c).
(d). and (e) the following limitation shall
apply fqr plants discharging 38,0001
(10,000 gal) or more per calendar day of
electroplating process wastewater:
Poflutant of pollutant property
TTO..
Maxi-
mum for
any 1
day
2 13
• (h) In addition to paragraphs (a), (b).
(c), (d), (ej, (f), and (g) the following
shall apply: An existing source
submitting a certification in lieu of
monitoring pursuant to § 413.03 of this
regulation must implement the toxic
organic management plan approved by
the control authority.
In addition, for the reasons stated
above, EPA is establishing a new Part
433 to Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations to read as follows:
PART 433—METAL FINISHING POINT
SOURCE CATEGORY
Subpart A—Metal Finishing Subcategory
Sec.
433.10	Applicability; description of the metal
finishing point source category.
433.11	Specialized definitions.
433.12	Monitoring requirements.
433.13	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
applying the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
433.14	Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
applying the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
433.15	Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES).
433.16 New source performance sn. miauls
(NSI'S).
4:i3.17 Prclrealmenl standards for new
source® (PSNS).
433.18 (Reserved)
Authority: Sec. 301. 304{b). (c). (e). and (g),
300(b) snd (c), 307(b) and (c). 308 and 501 of
the Clean Water Act (the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1971,
as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977)
(the "Act"); 33 U.S.C. 1311,1314(b) (c), (e).
and (g), 1316(b) and (c). 1317(b) and (c), 1318
and 1361; 86 Stat. 816. Pub. L. 92-500; 91 Stat.
1567. Pub. L. 95-217.
Subpart A—Metal Finishing
Subcategory
§ 433.10 Applicability; description of the
metal finishing point source category.
(a) Except as noted in paragraphs (b)
and (c), of this section, the provisions of
this subpart apply to plants which
perform any of the following six metal
finishing operations on amy basis
material: Electroplating, Electroless
Plating. Anodizing. Coating (chromating.
phosphating, and coloring), Chemical
Etching and Milling, and Printed Circuit
Board Manufacture. If any of those six
operations are present, then this part
applies to discharges from those
operations and also to discharges from
any of the following 40 process
operations: Cleaning, Machining,
Grinding, Polishing, Tumbling,
Burnishing, Impact Deformation.
Pressure Deformation, Shearing, Heat
Treating, Thermal Cutting. Welding,
Brazing, Soldering, Flame Spraying,
Sand Blasting, Other Abrasive Jet
Machining, Electric Discharge
Machining, Electrochemical Machining,
Electron Beam Machining, Laser Beam
Machining, Plasma Arc Machining,
Ultrasonic Machining, Sintering,
Laminating, Hot Dip Coating, Sputtering,
Vapor Plating, Thermal Infusion, Salt
Bath Descaling, Solvent Degreasing,
Paint Stripping. Painting, Electrostatic
Painting, Electropainting, Vacuum
Metalizing, Assembly, Calibration,
Testing, and Mechanical Plating.
(b) In some cases effluent limitations
and standards for the following
industrial categories may be effective
and applicable to wastewater
discharges from the metal finishing
operations listed above. In such cases
these Part 433 limits shall not apply and
the following regulations shall apply:
Nonferrous metal smelting and refining (40
CFR Part 421)
Coil coating (40 CFR Part 465)
Porcelain enameling (40 CFR Part 466)
Battery manufacturing (40 CFR Part 461)
Iron and steel (40 CER Part 420)
Metal casting foundries (40 CFR Part 464)
Aluminum forming (40 CFR Part 467)
Copper forming (40 CFR Part 468)
Plastic molding and forming (40 CFR Part 463)
(c) This Part does not apply to: (1)
Metallic platemaking and gravure
cylinder preparation conducted within
printing ;ind publishing facilities; and (2)
existing indirect discharging job shops
and independent printed circuit board
manufacturers which are covered by 40
CFR Part 413.)
§ 433.11 Specialized definitions.
The definitions set forth in 40 CFR and
the chemical analysis methods set forth
in 40 CFR 136 are both incorporated here
by reference. In addition, the following
definitions apply to this part:
(a)	The term "T", as in "Cyanide. T',
shall mean total.
(b)	The term "A", as in "Cyanide A",
shall mean amenable to alkaline
Chlorination.
(c)	The term "job shop" shall mean a
facility which owns not more than 50%
(annual area basis) of the materials
undergoing metal finishing.
(d)	The term "independent" printed
circuit board manufacturer shall mean a
facility which manufacturers printed
circuit boards principally for sale to
other companies.	«
(e)	The term "TTO" shall mean total
toxic organics, which is the summation
of all quantifiable values greater than
.01 milligrams per liter for the following
toxic organics:
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzidine
Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)
Chloro benzene
1.2,4-trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro benzene
1,2,-dichloroethane
1.1.1-trichloroethane
Hexachloroethane
1.1-dichloroethane
1.1.2-trichloroe	thane
1.1,2.2-tetrachloroethane
Chloroethane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
2-chloronaphthalene
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Parachlorometa cresol
Chloroform (trichloromethane)
2-chlorophenol
1.2-dichlorobenzene
1.3-dichlorobenzene
1.4-dichlorobenzene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
1,2-benzanthracene
(benzo(a)anthracene)
-------
32486
Federal Register
/ Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
		- I^mi—n—«¦—TTTI———
Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)
3,4-Benzofluoranthene (benzo(b)fluoranthene)
11.12-benzofluoranthene
{benzo(k)fluoranthene)
Chrysene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
1.12-benzoperylene (benzo(ghi)peryiene)
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
1.2.5,6-dibenzanthracene
(dibenzo(a.h)anthracene
Indeno(1.2,3-cd) pyrene (2.3-o-phenlene
pyrene)
Pyrene
T etrachloroethyiene
Toluene
Trichloroetbylene
Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
3.3-dichlorobenzidine
1.1-d	(chloroethylene
1.2-	tra ns-d iohloroethyl ene
2.4-dichlorophenol
1,2-dichloropropane (1,3-dichloropropene)
2,4-dimethylphenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Ethyibenzene
Flaoranthene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Methylene chloride [dichloromethane)
Methyl chloride (chloromethane)
Methyl bromide (bromomethane)
Bromoform (tribromomethane)
Dichlorobromome thane
Chloredibromomethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Chlordane (technical mixture and
metabolites)
4,4-DDT
4,4-DDE (p,p-DDX)
4,4-DDD (p.p-TDE)
Alpha-endosulfan
Beta-endosulfan
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide (BHC-
hexachiorocyclohexane)
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Gamma-BHC
Delta-BHC
(PCB-polychlorinated biphenyls)
PCB-1242 (ArochiOr 1242)
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
Toxaphene
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDU)
§433.12 Monitoring requirement*.
(a)	In lieu of requiring monitoring for
TTO, the permitting authority (or, in the
case of indirect dischargers, the control
authority) may allow dischargers to
make the following certification
statement: "Based on my inquiry of the
person or persons directly responsible
for managing compliance with the
permit limitation (or pre treatment
standard) for total toxic organics (TTO),
I certify that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, no dumping of
concentrated toxic organics into the
wastewaters has occurred since filing of
the last discharge monitoring report I
further certify that this facility is
implementing the solvent management
plan submitted to the permitting [or
control] authority." For direct
dischargers, this statement is to be
included as a "comment" on the
Discharge Monitoring Report required
by 40 CFR 122.44(i), formerly 40 CFR
122.62(i). For indirect dischargers, the
statement is to be included as a
comment to the periodic reports
required by 40 CFR 403.12(e). If
monitoring is necessary to measure
compliance with the TTO standard, the
industrial discharger need analyse for
only those pollutants which would
reasonably be expected to be present.
(b)	In requesting the certification
alternative, a discharger shall submit a
solvent management plan that specifies
to the satisfaction of the permitting
authority (or, in the case of indirect
dischargers, the control authority] the
toxic organic compounds used; the
method of disposal used instead of
dumping, such as reclamation, contract
hauling, or incineration; and procedures
for ensuring that toxic organics do not
routinely spill or leak into the
wastewater. For direct dischargers, the
permitting authority shall incorporate
the plan as a provision of the permit.
(c)	Self-monitoring for cyanide must
be conducted after cyanide treatment
and befor dilution with other streams.
Alternatively, samples may be taken of
the final effluent, if the plant limitations
are adjusted based on the dilution ratio
of the cyanide waste stream flow to the
effluent flow.
§ 433.13 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by applying the best precMcWe 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 applying the
best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT):
BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant Of pollutant property
Maximum for
an/ i day
Monthly
average
shall not
exceed
Milligrams per liter (mg/l)
Cadmtum (T)...
Chromium (T)..
Copper (T)	
Lead (T)	
Nickel (T)	
SHver (T)	
Zinc (T)	
Cyanide (T)	
no	
OH & Grease.
TSS	
PH	-	
069
0.26
2.77
1.71
338
207
069
0.43
^3.98
238
' 0.43
0.24
261
1.48
1.20
065
2.13

52
26
60
31
(')
(')
• Within 6.0 to 9.0.
(b) Alternatively, for industrial
facilities with cyanide treatment, ard
upon agreement between a source
subject to those limits and the pollution
control authority, the following
amenable cyanide limit may apply in
place of the total cyanide limit specified
in paragraph (a) of this section:
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum foe
any 1 day
Monthly
average
shall not
exceed
Milligrams per liter 
-------
Federal Register / Vol 48, No. 137 / Friday, )uly 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
32487
BAT Effluent Limitations—Continued paragraph (a) of this section;
PoWjtant or pollutant propety
Nickel (T)	
Sdver (T)	
Zinc 
-------
32488
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, )uly 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
(c)	No user subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall augment the use of
process wastewater or otherwise dilute
the wastewater as a partial or total
substitute for adequate treatment to
achieve compliance with this limitation.
(d)	An existing source submitting a
certification in lieu of monitoring
pursuant to § 433.12 (a) and (b) of this
regulation must implement the solvent
management plan approved by the
control authority.
§433.18 (Reserved)
(FR Doc. 83->8H:i9 Fried 7-14-JM: *45 ami
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
-------
SUMMARY REPORT
For Metal Finishing Industry Permit Writers' Workshop
held at the Palmer House in Chicago, IL, December 14, 1983
OVERVIEW
This workshop provided a single briefing on the final regulations for the metal
finishing industry by Richard Kinch and Ed Stigall. Both speakers are based in
Washington, D.C. and are members of the EPA Effluent Guidelines Division (EGD).
In addition, a panel discussion was held to promote an open exchange of ideas in
developing permits at the Local, State and Regional levels for this industry.
The overall program was moderated by Linda Wilbur frcm EGD. The panel on program
implementation held in the afternoon was moderated by Glenn Pratt frcm Region V.
Members of this panel included: Pete Eagen, EPA Heaclquarters/NPDES Program Branch/
Permits Division; Tan McSwiggin, State of Illinois; Richard Eick, City of Rockford,
Illinois; Bob April, EPA Headquarters/Technical Support Branch/Permits Division;
James Weber, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District; and Randy Case, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources.
Introduction
The introductory remarks and welcome were delivered by Charles Sutfin, Water
Division Director, EPA Region V. He called attention to seme remarks made recently
by EPA Administrator Bill Ruckelshaus in oversight testimony before Congress:
(1)	Enough regulations now exist,
(2)	Present regulations are workable,
(3)	The Agency will implement regulations now on the books, and
(4)	No changes to the Clean Water Act are needed to get a viable pretreatment
program rolling.
Chuck Sutfin then directed his statements to the pretreatment program in Region V.
He noted that four states have been delegated the pretreatment program in their
respective states and that a close relationship between Region V and the two
other states exists for the national pretreatment program. And finally he expects
pretreatment to receive one of the highest priorities in his region as well as
within the Agency itself.
Linda Wilbur, spokesperson for EGD and Chief of the Quality Review Section, added
her welcome and addressed the EGD permit support program briefly. She noted that
EGD will supply assistance to control authorities at all levels and suggested
that problems with, or clarification of, categorical standards and guidelines
should be directed to the responsible EGD project officer. Linda identified
Denise Beverly, EGD distribution officer as the appropriate contact for EGD
Documents. Denise's phone number (202) 382-7115 was provided for future reference.
Before she introduced the main program, Linda indicated that Joe Vitalis (202)
382-7172 will provide back-up when EGD project officers are unavailable.
-1-
-------
Briefing-Metal Finishing
Format used for the metal finishing briefing consisted of: (l)a slide presenta-
tion by Rich Kinch, the EGD project officer for this industry; (2) an expanded
discussion of major points (such as the impact of sampling frequencies on poten-
tial permit violations) by Ed Stigall, Branch Chief; and (3) an cpen-ended dis-
cussion of field applications for NPDES permits (direct dischargers) and for
baseline reports (indirect dischargers) as well as permits to industrial firms
discharging into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).
The metal finishing briefing slides that show the relationships between metal
finishing and electroplating coverage and that present the main features of the
final regulation are listed under "key points discussed" below. At the conclu-
sion of Kinch's slide presentation Ed Stigall explained the impact of strategies
for various monitoring frequencies and the underlying statistical basis of the
metal finishing regulations. Then Ed opened the workshop to emerging issues and
current issues which are covered in this report under comments, concerns and issues.
Reference materials in the workshop packet that were identified by the briefing
team included: a reprint of the final rule (48 FR 32462, 7/15/83), a four page
booklet titled "Final Effluent Guidelines - Rulemaking for the Metal Finishing
Point Source Category - Fall 1983", and an order sheet for EPA reports which in-
cluded the Development Document (EPA 440/1-83/091).
Following Are the Key Points Discussed:
.Concentration based limits are used instead of production based limits
because a consistent relationship between flow and production could not
be developed for this industry.
.Plant coverage was expanded from six unit operations in the electroplating
category to 46 for the metal finishing category. When plants in the metal
finishing category perform one or more of the following six operations:
(1) electroplating, (2) electroless plating, (3) anodizing, (4) coating
(phosphating, chranating, and coloring), (5) chemical etching and milling,
and (6) printed circuit board manufacture; then these regulations apply
to wastewater frati any of the 46 listed metal finsihing operations. See
Appendix C on p. 32482 in 40 FR 32462.
.These final regulations establish Part 433 Metal Finishing BAT and BAT-
equivalent PSES to limit the discharge of toxic metals, toxic organics,
and cyanide, which will apply to most of the facilities known to exist in
the electrcplating/metal finishing categories.
.Existing indirect discharging job shop electroplaters and independent printed
circuit board manufacturers (IPCBM), however, remain subject only to the
existing Part 413 PSES for electroplating.
.If a job shop or IPCBM facility is characterized as a direct or new source
then it is covered under this final metal finishing regulation (40 FR 32462).
.BCT (best conventional pollutant control technology) for this category is
deferred until a final methodology for BCT is promulgated.
-2-
-------
Metal Finishing Slide II
METAL FINISHING - TCKJC POLLUTANTS
tollutant
CKtaiun
OiraiLium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Cyanide (T)
Cyanide (A) Alternate
Total Toxic Organics
Interim
Final
Ebily Haxinun
(bp/1 )
0.69
2.77
3.38
0.69
3.98
0.43
2.61
1.20
0.86
4.57
2.13
Monthly Average
(mq/1)
0.26
1.71
2.07
0.43
2.38
0.24
1.48
0.65
0.32
Metal Finishing Slide 12
PCTAL FINISHING - CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pollutant
TSS
Oil i Grease
PH
Daily Maximun
(mq/1)
60
52
(1)
Note: 11} equals pH within 6.0 to 9.0 in standard units.
Metal Finishing Slide <3
METAL FINISHING - COMPLIANCE DATES
Maximum
Monthly Average
(mq/1)
31
26
(1)
Metal Finishing
(Part 433)
New Sources
On Carre ncement
of Discharge
Direct Dischargers
July 1, 1984
Electroplating
(Part 413)
Metals and Cyanide
Metal Finishing
(Part 433)
Interim TID
Metal Finishing
(Part 433)
Metals. Cyanide,
and Final TTO
Electroplating
(Part 413)
Final TIO
Metal Finishing Slide «4
tCTAL FINISHING - COMPLIANCE DATES
Existing Indirect Dischargers
Hon-Integrated
Job Shops fc
IPCBMs
4/27/84
Integrated
Job Shops fc
IPCBMs
6/30/84
Non-Integrated
Captives
4/27/84
6/30/84
2/15/86
Integrated
Captives
6/30/B4
6/30/84
2/15/86
7/15/86
7/15/86
-3-
-------
SUMMARY OF PANEL DISCUSSIONS
Introduction
Glenn Pratt, EPA Region V, began the afternoon session by identifying various con-
tingents frcm the states of Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio and Wis-
consin. Glenn initiated the subject of pretreatment by pointing out the need for
data frcrn the waste generators that are situated upstream from the influent to the
POTWs. Then he introduced the first panel speaker, Pete Eagen, frart EPA Headquarters
(Water Permits Division).
National Pretreatment Program/Pete Eagen
Pete Eagen stated that his primary function at this workshop is to update the
attendees on the status of the national program. Using slides he presented the
following information:
.The total number of local pretreatment programs required in FY 82 & FY 83
is 1675.
.Using 10/1/82 as a bench mark Pete noted that only sixty-five programs
(4% of the total required) had been approved.
.By 10/1/83 the number of approved programs reached 371 (22% of the total
needed).
.By 10/1/84 Pete forecasted a total of 1150 would be approved. This is
68% of the final target.
.Eagen indicated that nineteen states now have the approved state pretreat-
ment program and several more will have the program soon.
.Regarding the September, 1982, proposed changes in the "removal credits"
portion of the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403.7), Eagen
stated that current plans are to pranulgate a final rule in the first
quarter of calendar year 1984. He noted that the proposal would stream-
line the process of modifying categorical pretreatment standards to reflect
POTW removal of pollutants by eliminating the requirement to account for
pollutants discharged through combined sewer overflows and by other changes
simplifying the procedures for certifying POTW pollutant removal performance.
He did state, however, that the proposed use of "national removal rates,"
based on an EPA study of the priority pollutant removal capability of 40
POTWs, has been contested in comments submitted to the Agency following
publication of the proposed regulatory modifications. There is doubt whe-
ther the Clean Water Act authorizes the modification of categorical pre-
treatment standards without demonstration of removal performance at the
specific POTW.
.In his closing remarks Pete noted that the Administrator is forming a
Pretreatment Impleme nt at ion Task Force. He expects that its members
will ccme fran POTWs, State Water offices, Regional EPA offices, Hdqtrs
EPA offices, and industry.
-4-
-------
Using Eagen's presentation as a starting point Glenn Pratt addressed the status of
the pretreatment program in Region V. He stressed the belief that pretreatment
should have a strong municipal bias. He also felt that pretreatnent should be
justified on local need and stressed quality as opposed to quantity in the early
phases of the program. Pratt indicated that a number of local problems had been
encountered and that other speakers on the panel would address these later. He
then introduced Bob April, frcm the EPA Washington Permits Division staff.
NPDES Program/Bob April
Bob April said that his most important point was that the changes in the anti-
backsliding provision (Section 122.44(1)) were only proposed and are not effective.
Therefore, he said, it is illegal to backslide present permits.
Bob April, who described himself as responsible for metal finishing within the Per-
mits Division, discussed the use of total metals as opposed to total recoverable
metals for permit limits. He emphasized the point that total metals are required
in the existing permit regulation (Section 122.45(c)) for all metal limits. Total
recoverable netals have been proposed for best professional judgment (BPJ) limits
and water quality limits. Hence, the thrust of his message was to use total metals
for metal finishing limits. He further indicated that the general guidance is:
(1)	You must use total metals when specified in the EGD guidelines for
categorical limits, and
(2)	You must use total metals limits for BPJ limits and water quality limits
in the absence of promulgation of the total recoverable proposal.
Bob stated that there is a significant backlog of permit work, but EPA has developed
a plan to eliminate the backlog at the EPA regional level. In connection with this
plan he highlighted several mechanisms available to permit writers to expedite the
permit process. In this regard, April recommended that permit writers use whatever
sources of assistance that work best for them. Help is available at EPA headquarters
within the Permits Division as well as frcm Effluent Guidelines Division. In addi-
tion, contractor support is available for permit assistance (for water permits)
through JRB. EPA Headquarters contact for this assistance is Hap Thron who can be
reached on (202) 426-7010.
April stated that JRB's assistance is in the form of recommendations and should
not necessarily be viewed as the final word on a given permit. The recipient has
full latitude on whether or not to use the JRB recommendations.
To further assist permit writers, April pointed out that a file of 170 permit abstracts
have been compiled under the supervision of Hap Thron. This publication is titled
Abstracts of Industrial NPDES Permits. In order to provide a current body of reference
permits, it is anticipated that 100 permit abstracts per year would be added to this
publication. An order sheet for this publication was included in the workshop packet.
All of these forms of assistance are available to states as well as to Regional permit
writers.
-5-
-------
State's Role in Implementation/Tcm McSwigqin
Tan McSwiggin described the Illinois program as the management of delegation of the
pretreatment program to the lowest effective control authority possible. He immediate-
ly noted that municipalities have varying abilities and capabilities for the pretreat-
ment program at their disposal. In short, all cities are not equal. Important
pieces in this program at state level are:
(1)	To provide technical assistance and to act as a ccnmunications
link for municipalities with POTWs, and
(2)	To directly administer the program to sore indirect dischargers
where the local governmental entity can not or does not have
adequate technical expertise or financial capability.
In the direct administration piece the state has the responsibility to obtain a base-
line report, to gain right of entry, to develop limits and to do sampling. McSwiggin
felt that, in his state (Illinois), the environmental data base maintenance would be
a rather massive effort and that the state vrould be in the best position to handle
this activity. McSwiggin indicated that the state computer at Springfield Illinois
will be utilized to manage the data base consisting of 4,000 to 5,000 manufacturing
companies in the 21 BAT industries going to POTWs. He estimated that 800 of these
would require direct state attention.
McSwiggin also emphasized the need to coordinate the water program with the air pro-
gram, solid waste program, and toxics program. He pointed out that frequently a
pollution control solution in one program can be imccmpatible with one of the other
environmental programs. In order to arrive at reasonable courses of action across
the overall environmental situation at a given plant site, Illinois has set up a
coordinated review process. Whenever a permit request for a new source is received
by a project rranager in one area (say state construction grants), then all other
program managers responsible for other areas (incineration-air, solid waste and etc.)
are alerted. In addition, the submitting plant is encouraged to submit all appli-
cations simultaneously along with a narrative description of the proposed total
environmental scheme for the facility being permitted. In this way a total picture
is provided up front at the beginning of the pollution control process. According
to McSwiggin, this seems to be working for new sources and efforts are being taken
to extend this approach to existing permits.
Responsibilities of a POTW Control Authority/Richard Eick
Richard Eick, Plant Operations Manager for the Sanitary District of Rockford, opened
his presentation by defining three broad areas of activity that define a local control
authority's main responsibilities - legal authority, compliance and funding. He then
proceeded to expand these into the outline shown below.
(1) Legal Authority
.Ordinance 361 (City of Rockford, ID/Control Industrial Wastes
.Permit System/Local Pollutant Limits
.Inspection, Surveillance and Monitoring
-6-
-------
(2)	Ensure Compliance
.Identify users (IU)
.Sample IU
.Investigate Non-Canpliance
.Report Annually Significant Violators
(3)	Adequate Funding
.Continuity of Funds
.Cost Recovery/Sampling & Analytical Costs
Next Eick briefly described seme problems that the Sanitary District of Rockford
(SDR) had encountered with self monitoring. He stated it was difficult to deter-
mine if there was uniformity in sampling and if flows were determined accurately.
Also there were uncertainties regarding the use of standard methods. Finally,
SDR decided to use their own personnel to pull samples and leave a duplicate pulled
at the same sampling site for the regulated plant so that the plant could run its
cwn check samples. SDR directly bills the indirect dischargers for sampling & ana-
lytical expenses. To discourage tampering with sampling equipment manhole locations,
an ordinance was developed and passed to enable SDR to put locking devices on sam-
pling manholes.
Eick displayed sane total toxic organics (TIO) data obtained during the sunnier of
1983 frcm plants in the metal finishing and electroplating industrial categories.
The predominant organic solvents based on frequency and the concentration ranges
found were:
Eick commented that SCR had applied to Region V for removal credits in draft form
in August 1983 and had followed this preliminary effort with a formal submission
in final format in September 1983. In order to give the audience a frame of
reference for this presentation, he presented the following outline using the over-
head projector.
Removal Credits
Industry Responsibilities:
(1)	Submit baseline report (Supplemental Permit)
(2)	Ccrply with conditions in baseline report
District Responsibilities:
(1)	Compile removal efficiency data,
(2)	Apply for pretreatment program approval,
(3)	Make an annual list of industries,
(4)	Comply with sludge regulations,
(5)	Adjust removal credits downward for diversion, and
(6)	Can submit only once/year.
trichloroethylene
methylene chloride
chloroform
1,1,1,-trichloroethane
0 to 4 mg/1
0 to 83 mg/1
0 to 12,000 mg/1
0-3400 mg/1
-7-
-------
U.S. EPA Region Responsibilities:
(1)	Issue public notice application for removal credits,
(2)	Can ask for removal data,
(3)	Grant revised categorical limits, and
(4)	Require industry to meet categorical limits if:
(a)	District fails to meet its responsibilities
(b)	Industry fails to meet its responsibilities
Responsibilities of Regional Sewer District/James Weber
Jim Weber, Manager of the Industrial Waste Section at NEORSD, explained that the
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) had its origin in a court-mandated
order. Today it serves over one and a half million people, has four treatment
plants and has recently expended two-thirds of a billion dollars in capital improve-
ments. The major city within its jurisdiction is Cleveland. By conducting a street
by street inventory of industrial indirect dischargers in Cleveland he found 1,100.
Within this number Weber determined that 80 are job shop electroplaters and 40 are
metal finishers. He noted that these 1100 indirect dischargers account for less
than 1% of the flow found in the raw waste load going into NEORSD.
In discussing external responsibilities Weber noted that NEORSD had 300 square miles
within its boundaries and provided sewer service to 38 municipalities. He pointed
out that this means a substantial amount of tine is spent explaining the NEORSD pre-
sence to mayors and updating the entities in the system. Weber added that, unlike
municipalities, regional sewer districts do not have police powers. Hence, enforce-
ment is more difficult. On the other hand NEORSD doesn't have the usual mayor/council-
man problems that tend to exist at local level. Most of the responses at NEORSD are
to react to federal actions and directives.
On the subject of internal and external responsibilities for a regional control
authority, Weber provided an outline which utilized the following major headings:
(1) Safety, (2) Training, (3) Federal Register and (4) Removal Credits.
Key points mentioned were:
.Prior to 1981 75% of the POTWs didn't monitor industrial wastes.
.Inspectors need to be taught how to use flow meters, they need to
understand industrial processes and they must properly classify
permittees.
.Field sampling teams must preserve samples and be aware of chain of
custody protocols or enforcement cases will be thrown out of court.
.Managers and key personnel must stay updated on regulations appear-
ing in the Federal Register.
.Industry within in the regional sewer district should be alerted to
changes in regulations that could potentially inpact their operations.
.Sere in upper management at POTWs look at removal credits as an admini-
strative burden that we do not need.
-8-
-------
.Industry views removal credits as additional buffer to protect against
violating permits numbers.
Notification of Industrial Users/Randy Case
Randy indicated to the group that the subject of "notification" was very current
for him. In fact, he was still working on a baseline notification package to be
issued throughout the State of Wisconsin. He circulated a hand-out which shewed
how the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) offices were located
geographical within the state. He then described administratively how the
recipients of the WDNR notification package would be handled. He identified
Milwaukee as the largest industrial ccmnunity. Case stated that 150 firms would
probably be directly regulated by the Wisconsin DNR.
Wrap-up/Linda Wilbur
After Glenn Pratt thanked the EPA Headquarters for bringing Region V (municipal,
county, state & regional) people together, he closed his remarks by stating that he
felt the all day pretreatment workshop was very useful. Linda Wilbur added sane
sunmary cements and asked all attendees to submit evaluation sheets so that
future workshops could benefit fran this one.
COMMENTS, CONCERNS S. ISSUES
General
This section has been assembled to draw attention to discussions that occurred
during the industry briefings, the panel discussion and the "wrap-up" session.
Within these discussions there were points that could emerge eventually as
fundamental points in future workshop sessions. In addition, this space is
directed towards those subjects or items of interest that need to be highlighted
for those participants that attended this particular workshop.
Important functions of the EGD workshops are (a) to provide a forum for questions
and answers of well-defined problems and (2) to bring partially defined problems
into full focus so that they may be properly answered by experts on the panels.
If an inmediate answer can not be developed at the workshop, EGD will seek the
best advice internally (within EPA) and externally (from EPA contractors) and
dispense this information in the workshop sunmary reports or in special memoranda.
Variations in pH Ranges Between Regulations
IXiring the metal finishing presentation seme attendees questioned the use of the
6 to 9 pH range in metal finishing as opposed to the 7 to 10 pH range promulgated
for other "metal industry" regulations. For example the copper forming final
regulation specifies a range of 7.5 to 10. The reason given for shifting the pH
range in the copper forming regulations is that the optimum pH range is 8 to 9 for
adequate metals removal through precipitation. For economic reasons and the
reduction of dissolved salts that would be formed, acid is not generally added to
lower the pH to the traditional range of 6 to 9. If enough comments are received
from regulators and the regulated ccmnunity, consideration will be given to
formally adjusting the pH range for the metal finishing regulation. It was
_9_
-------
further noted that same receiving water bodies that are acidic may benefit from
discharges more alkaline than the upper pH limit of 9 in the metal finishing
regulation. Rich Kinch felt that this issue was less a data-gathering matter
than one of policy; hence, concerned individuals should bring this issue,
in writing, to the attention of Steve Schatzow, Director of the Office of Water
Regulations and Standards or Jack Ravan, Assistant Acbninistrator for Water.
Permit Writing Process/Applicable Limits
Several questions again were asked about the appropriateness of setting limits in
the permit for all the parameters that are published in the Federal Register
for a given point source category even though some of the pollutants specified in
the categorical standard had not been used, had not been detected and are not
expected to be detected at the plant site being permitted. A clarifying policy
memo is expected to be issued by the Effluent Guidelines Division and the Permit
Division on this. Current situation is that once you have a national standard
the permit writer is legally obligated to specify a number. In short, the pollutant
must appear in the permit and a required sampling and analysis frequency must be
specified. A minimum sampling analysis frequency of once per year is recommended.
In response to questions, Rich Kinch, Bob April, Ed Stigall and Pete Eagen made
statements that supported this position. Reference for this subject is 40 CFR
122.44{i)(2).
Assignment of Limits/Centralized Waste Treatment
A number of questions were directed at the situation where wastewater haulers
picked up wastes from an industrial point source, treated these wastes at a
centralized waste treatment (CWT) facility and, subsequently, discharged the
treated wastes to the sewer where the wastes became part of the influent stream
to a POIW. There seemed to be same initial confusion on two points. First, in
what category (or categories) does the wastehauler/centralized waste treatment
(CWT) facility belong and, secondly, how are the limits applied to the treated
wastewaters entering the nunicipal sewer.
The answers provided by Rich Kinch, EGD, and Mike Dworkin, OGC, can be described
as follows:
(1)	If the waste generating plant is covered by the metal finishing pretreatment
standards, then the wastehauler/CWT inherits these same limits,
(2)	If the waste generating plant has mixed operations and falls under several
different categorical pretreatment standards, then the combined waste
stream formula (40 CFR Section 403.6 (e)) is used to determine
the applicable limits for the CWT used by the wastehauler, and
(3)	If a CWT facility treats wastes frcm more than one categorical industry,
or mixes regulated process waste water from a categorical industry with
unregulated and/or dilution streams, again applicable limits are derived
by the application of the combined waste stream formula.
-10-
-------
A post workshop discussion of this issue with Craig Jakubcwics, EPA Headquarters
Permits Division, confirmed that the above response was appropriate. Support for
this position is contained in a memorandum fran Martha Prothro, Director of the
Water Permits Division to Frank Covington, Water Management Division, Region IX
dated 22 September 1983 under the subject "Category Determination Request of Philips
A. Hunt Chemical Corporation. In addition, Craig advised that an awareness
of this issue exists at EPA Headquarters and a memorandum outlining general
guidance on this issue will be circulated soon.
Upstream Sampling Authority
Sane participants indicated concern about their ability (authority) to confirm
pollutant sources, measure flews and obtain samples all within the plant boundries
of the waste generating plant. As a result, sane reasoned that the combined waste
stream formula was a good tool but not very useful if they were not able to
obtain the data themselves and were forced to rely on company supplied data.
Mike Dworkin, OGC, responded to this concern by saying that the decision issued
by the 7th Circuit Court in Mobil Oil versus EPA on inplant waste sampling
clearly supported EPA's authority to obtain such data and related information.
The EPA Headquaters contact in OGC on this subject is Karen Wardzinski at (202)
382-7713.
Enforcement Discretion at Local Level
Sane individuals at the workshop voiced a feeling of disappointment that a policy
statement on enforcement discretion at local level had not been issued to date.
The consensus seemed to be that, indeed, enforcement discretion existed at EPA
on a federal level, but this had not filtered down to state and local control
authority levels. This could be a "hot issue" with numerous deadlines for
compliance with categorical pretreatment standards just a few months away.
According to Mike Dworkin this issue has two elements: (1) a violation exists
when a compliance date is missed and (2) an appropriate penalty and/or compliance
schedule needs to be assessed. There is no discretion for the first part — — a
locality cannot state that a violation has not occurred; the discretion comes
into action after an adnission of a compliance violation. It is at this point
that an appropriate penalty and/or new compliance schedule must be established.
-11-
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
rut APR 30 884
|1C-CT Applicability of Metal Finishing and Steel Industry Effluent
Limitations Guidelines
from Steven Schatzow, Director
Office of Water Regulations & Standards (WH-551)
to Greene A. Jones, Director
Water Program Division (3WM00), Region III
This memorandum is to clarify the applicability provision of the metal
finishing effluent limitations guidelines where they overlap with certain
other promulgated guidelines. As I understand it, the issue at hand is
whether the metal finishing (Part 433) or the iron and steel industry
(Part 420) guidelines should apply to preparatory operations at an
electroplating line located at a steel mill. These preparatory operations
include acid pickling and alkaline cleaning of steel in a continuous
sequence with an electroplating operation. There is no dispute about the
coverage of acid pickling or alkaline cleaning operations which are
conducted separately from an electroplating operation. However, sane
industrial sources have argued that these operations are covered by the
metal finishing guidelines at 40 CFR Part 433 Subpart A (in lieu of the
steel guidelines), when they are conducted in a continuous sequence with
an electroplating operation. All of these operations i.e., acid pickling
and alkaline cleaning, are specifically covered by the steel guidelines
at 40 CFR Part 420 Subparts I and K, respectively.
The applicability provision at 40 CFR 433.10(b) provides that the metal
finishing guidelines do not apply where their coverage overlaps with
effluent limitations guidelines for certain other industrial categories.
Among those identified are the effluent limitations guidelines for the
iron and steel industry. Further, the preamble states that "the more
specific standards of the other Part(s) [meaning effluent limitations
guidelines for other industrial categories] will apply to those wastewater
streams which appear to be covered by both regulations." This regulation
was written such that, under any circumstances, the more specific effluent
limitations guidelines will always supercede the metal finishing guidelines
where overlapping coverage occurs. This is consistent with the interpretation
this office has given in other situations.
The iron and steel guidelines were developed after considering acid pickling
and alkaline cleaning operations at steel plants, regardless of the presence
of electroplating operations. Thus, in this particular situation, the
iron and steel guidelines must be applied to the acid pickling and alkaline
cleaning operations, regardless of whether those operations are conducted
separately or in a continuous sequence with the electroplating operation.
If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
cc: William Eichbaum
i_- Charles Sutfin
Paul Traina
Gary Amendola
Terry Oda
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
(Revised 4/6/84)
METAL FINISHING
CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
This summary provides industries in the Metal Finishing category and
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) with the information necessary to
determine compliance with standards for this industrial category. The Metal
Finishing standards were established by the Environmental Protection Agency in
Part 433 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 433). This
summary is not intended to substitute for the regulations published in the
Code of Federal Regulations or the Federal Register. For specific informa-
tion, refer to the Federal Register citations given below.
Important Dates	Federal Register Citation
Proposed Rule: August 31, 1982	Vol. 47, p. 38462, August 31, 1982
Final Rule: July 15, 1983	Vol. 48, p. 32462, July 15, 1983
Effective Date: August 29, 1983
Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR) ¦
Due Date: February 25, 1984
Compliance Dates:
-	Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) for the interim
level of Total Toxic Organics (TTO): June 30, 1984 (July 10, 1985, for
plants also subject to the Iron and Steel categorical standards in 40
CFR 420)*
-	Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) for all Pollutants,
including Metals, Cyanide, and the more stringent level of TTO:
February 15, 1986
-	Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS): From commencement of
discharge
SUBCATEGORIES
There are no subcategories. Limits are concentration-based and can be
applied to all metal finishing process discharges.
REGULATED ..PROCESSES
The Metal Finishing standards apply to firms that are engaged in electro-
plating, electroless plating, anodizing, coating, chemical etching, or printed
circuit board manufacturing. If a firm performs any of these operations, then
its discharges from the following 40 unit processes are also regulated by the
Metal Finishing standards.
*This interim limit on TTO of 4.57 mg/1 has been established based on manage-
ment practices only, prior to the installation of pretreatment equipment or
changes in pretreatment facilities.
-1-
-------
METAL FINISHING (cont.)
1.	Cleaning
2.	Machining
3.	Grinding
4.	Polishing
5.	Tumbling
6.	Burnishing
7.	Impact Deformation
8.	Pressure Deformation
9.	Shearing
10.	Heat Treating
11.	Thermal Cutting
12.	Welding
13.	Brazing
14.	Soldering
15.	Flame Spraying
16.	Sand Blasting
17.	Other Abrasive Jet Machining
18.	Electric Discharge Machining
19.	Electrochemical Machining
20.	Electron Beam Machining •
21.	-Laser Beam Machining
22.	Plasma Arc Machining
23.	Ultrasonic Machining
24.	Sintering
25.	Laminating
26.	Hot Dip Coating
27.	Sputtering
28.	Vapor Plating
29.	Thermal Infusion
30.	Salt Bath Descaling
31.	Solvent Degreasing
32.	Paint Stripping
33.	Painting
34.	Electrostatic Painting
35.	Electropainting
36.	Vacuum Metalizing
37.	Assembly
38.	Calibration
39.	Testing
40.	Mechanical Plating
The Metal Finishing PSES apply in addition to the standards for firms
regulated under the Electroplating category, except for job shop electro-
platers and independent printed circuit board manufacturers. These two sub-
categories will continue to be regulated by existing PSES for Electroplating
but are exempt from Metal Finishing PSES. Also exempt from the Metal
Finishing standards are metallic platemaking and gravure cylinder preparation
conducted at printing and publishing facilities. The Metal Finishing PSNS
apply to all new sources regulated under the Metal Finishing and Electro-
plating categories.
In some cases, another categorical standard may cover discharges from a
metal finishing operation. If so, the more specific standard will apply to
the wastestream. For example, if a firm performs two operations, coating in
preparation for painting and electroless plating In preparation for porcelain
enameling, the Metal Finishing standards would apply to discharges from the
coating process, while the porcelain enameling standard would apply to dis-
charges from the second operation. When such overlaps occur, the following
standards will supersede the Metal Finishing standards:
o	Nonferrous Metal Smelting and Refining (40 CFR Part 421)
o	Cqil Coating (40 CFR Part 465)
o	Porcelain Enameling (40 CFR Part 466)
o	Battery Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 461)
o	Iron and Steel (40 CFR Part 420)
o	Metal Molding and Casting (Foundries) (40 CFR Part 464)*
o	Aluminum Forming (40 CFR Part 467)
o	Copper Forming (40 CFR Part 468)
o	Plastic Molding and Forming (40 CFR Part 463)*
*Not yet promulgated
-2-
-------
METAL FINISHING (cont.)
REGULATED POLLUTANTS
The pollutants regulated under the Metal Finishing standards are cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, zinc, cyanide, and total toxic
organics (TTO). For this category, TTO is defined in 40 CFR 433.11(e) as "the
summation of all quantifiable values greater than 0.01 milligrams per liter
for the following toxic organics":
acenaphthene
acrolein
acrylonitrile
benzene
benzidine
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1.1.1-trichloroethane
hexachloroethane
1.1-dichloroethane
1.1.2-trichloroethane
1,	1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
chloroethane
bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
2-chloronaphthalene
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
parachlorometa cresol
chloroform (trichloromethane)
2-chlorophenol
1.2-dichlorobenzene
1.3-dichlorobenzene
1.4-dichlorobenzene
3.3-dichlorobenzidine
1.1-di	chloroethylene
1.2-trans-dichloroethylene
2.4-dichlorophenol
1,2-dichloropropane
1,2-di chloropropylene
(1,3-dichloropropene)
2,4-dimethylphenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,	6-din'itrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
bis (2-chlorisopropyl) ether
bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
methylene chloride
(dichloromethane)methyl chloride
(chloromethane)
methyl bromide (bromomethane)
bromoform (tribromomethane)
dichlorobromomethane
chlorodibromomethane
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
isophorone
naphthalene
nitrobenzene
nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-ni trosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
pentachlorophenol
phenol
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
benzo (a) anthracene
(1,2-benzanthracene)
benzo (a) pyrene
(3,4-benzopyrene)3,4-benzofluor-
anthene
benzo (k) fluoranthane
(11, 12-benzofluoranthene)
chrysene
acenaphthylene
-3-
-------
METAL FINISHING (cont.)
anthracene
benzo (ghi) perylene
(1, 12-benzoperylene)
fluorene
phenanthrene
dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
(2,3-o-phenylenepyrene)
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane (technical mixture &
(1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene)
indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
metabolites)
4, 4'-DDT
4, 4'-DDE (p, p'-DDX)
4, 4'-DDD (p, p'-TDE)
Alpha-endosulf an
Beta-endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Gamma-BHC (lindane)
Delta-BHC
PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
toxaphene
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (TCDD)
NOTE: Under certain conditions, some firms may be exempted from monitoring
for TTO. Refer to 40 CFR 433.12(a) for details and applicability.
If monitoring is necessary to measure compliance with the TTO standard,
the industrial discharger be allowed to analyze only for those pollutants that
would reasonably be expected to be present in the discharge.
Cyanide monitoring must take place after cyanide treatment and before
dilution with other wastestreams unless an adjustment is made to account for
the dilution ratio of the cyanide wastestream flow to the effluent flow.
Also, if an agreement is made between the discharger and the Control Author-
ity, the amenable cyanide (Cyanide A) limit may apply instead of the total
cyanide (Cyanide T) limit.
SIC CODES AFFECTED
EPA has not yet identified specific SIC codes that will be affected by
the Metal Finishing standards. However, if a plant discharges wastewater from
one of the processes listed above, the standards apply except as indicated on
page 2 of"this summary. If there are any questions, contact EPA or the
Control Authority.
-4-
-------
METAL FINISHING (cont.)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
Pollutant or	Maximum for Any Monthly Average
Pollutant Property One Day (mg/1) Shall Not Exceed
Cadmium
0.69
0.26
Chromium
2.77
1.71
Copper
3.38
2.07
Lead
0.69
0.43
Ni ckel
3.98
2.38
Silver
0.43
0.24
Zinc
2.61
1.48
Cyanide, T
1.20
0.65
Cyanide, A
0.86
0.32
TTO*
2.13
—
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
Pollutant or	Maximum for Any Monthly Average
Pollutant Property One Day (mg/1) Shall Not Exceed
Cadmium
0.11
0.07
Chromium
2.77
1.71
Copper
3.38
2.07
Lead
0.69
0.43
Ni ckel
3.98
2.38
Silver
0.43
0.24
Zinc
2.61
1.48
Cyanide, T
1.20
0.65
Cyanide, A
0.86
0.32
TTO
2.13
—
*The interim TTO limit for existing sources is 4.57 mg/1, which is in effect
from June 30, 1984, until February 14, 1986. On February 15, 1986, the final
TTO limit of 2.13 mg/1 becomes effective.
-5-
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY 2 A 1985
OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Addressees
FROM:	Colburn T. Cherney/
Associate Gene-ral CouWsel
Water Division (LE^32W)
SUBJECT: Third Circuit Decision Upholding Metal Finishing
Pretreatment Standards
On May 17, 1985, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously
upheld the pretreatment standards applicable to the metal finishing
industry that the Agency had promulgated under the Clean Water
Act in July 1983, Modine Manufacturing Co, v. Ruckelshaus,
No. 84-3382. Modine had argued (1) that EPA should have
written a separate subcategory for Modine's facilities; (2) that
the Third Circuit's remand of the Fundamentally Different Factors
(FDF) Variance had invalidated the metal finishing rulemaking;
and (3) that EPA's interpretative notice clarifying the interre-
lationship of the electroplating and metal finishing standards
which was published on September 26, 1983 (48 Fed. Reg. 43680)
violated the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative
Procedures Act. The Court summarily rejected all of petitioners
arguments in the attached Judgment Order. The Court did not
issue an opinion. If you have any questions, please call
Susan Lepow or Lee Schroer at 382-7706.
Attachment
-------
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 84-3382
MODINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Petit ioner
v.
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, Administrator,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
and UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY
On Petition for Review of Final Rule of
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Argued May 14, 1985
Before: HUNTER and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges,
and COHEN, District Judge*
JUDGMENT ORDER
After consideration of all contentions raised by both
parties, it is
ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the Petition for Review of
Final Rule of the United States Environmental Protection Agency
be and is hereby denied.
* Hon. Mitchell H. Cohen, United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
1
-------
Costs taxed against petitioner.
By the Court,
Circuit Judge
Attest:
/d-ts&q ft.
Deputy Clerk
Dated: ^ 17» 1985
2
-------
Background
The Clean Water Act
Under the Clean Water Act (the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, as amended by the Clean Water
Act of 1977, "the Act"), the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) is charged
with the responsibility to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters
EPA was unable to promulgate many of
the regulations by the dates contained in
the 1972 Act, and in 1976 EPA was sued
by several environmental groups. In
settlement of this lawsuit, EPA and the
plaintiffs executed a Settlement Agree-
ment, which was approved by the Court
This agreement required EPA to develop
a program and adhere to a schedule for
promulgating effluent limitations guide-
lines and new source performance Stan-
's covering toxic pollutants for 21
r industries
i ne Clean Water Act of 1977 makes
several important changes in the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act of 1972,
including the incorporation of the basic
elements of the Settlement Agreement
program for toxic pollution control.
Direct Dischargers
The Act requires all industries discharg-
ing wastes into navigable waters to
achieve by July 1, 1977, the "best prac-
ticable control technology currently
available" (BPT). This control technology
represents the best existing waste treat-
ment performance within each industry
category or subcategory
By July 1, 1984, the Act requires the
application of effluent limitation tech-
nology based on the best control and
treatment measures that have been
developed or that are capable of being
developed within the industrial category
or subcategory These effluent limitations
for existing sources require for
•	Toxic and Nonconventional
Pollutants—Application of the "best
mailable technology economically
chievable" (BAT)
•	Conventional Pollutants—Application
of the best conventional pollutant
control technology" (BCT)
The Act also requires that new source
performance standards (NSPS) be estab-
lished for new industrial direct dis-
chargers NSPS, which go into effect at
the commencement of facility operation,
are described as the "best available
demonstrated control technology, pro-
cesses, operating methods, or other
alternatives including, where practicable,
a standard permitting no discharge of
pollutants."
Indirect Dischargers
Indirect dischargers are industrial facili-
ties that discharge pollutants to publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs) The
Clean Water Act directs EPA to establish
national pretreatment standards for pollu-
tants that pass through, interfere with, or
are otherwise incompatible with munici-
pal treatment plants. The Act requires
•	Achievement, within 3 years of pro-
mulgation, of pretreatment standards
for existing sources (PSES)
•	Achievement, upon commencement
of operation, of pretreatment stan-
dards for new sources (PSNS)
Purpose of Final
Regulations
The purposes of these final regulations
are to establish BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES,
and PSNS for the Part 433 Metal Finish-
ing Point Source Category, and to amend
the Part 413 Electroplating PSES.
The regulations do not require the
installation of any particular treatment
technology. Rather, they require achieve-
ment of effluent limitations representa-
tive of the proper operation of
demonstrated technologies or equivalent
technologies
While the requirements for direct dis-
chargers are to be incorporated into
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits issued under
Section 402 of the Act by EPA and par-
ticipating States, the Act made pretreat-
ment standards enforceable directly
against indirect dischargers.
The Industry
An overview of the Electroplating/Metal
Finishing Industry and its major unit
operations can be found in the final
regulations (48 FR 32462) There are
13,500 plants within the Electroplating/
Metal Finishing Categories; three-fourths
of these plants are indirect dischargers,
now subject to the BPT analog Part 413
Electroplating PSES. One-fourth are
direct dischargers, now subject to BPT-
level criteria determined on a permit-by-
permit basis.
These regulations establish Part 433
Metal Finishing BAT and BAT-equivalent
PSES to limit the discharge of toxic
metals, toxic organics, and cyanide,
which will apply to most of the facilities
known to exist in these categories
Existing indirect discharging job shop
electroplaters and independent printed
circuit board manufacturers (IPCBM),
however, remain subject only to the
existing Part 413 PSES for electroplating.
The Metal Finishing Category covers
plants that perform one or more of the
following operations:
1. Electroplating
2 Electroless Plating
3. Anodizing
4 Coating (phosphating.chromating,
and coloring)
5. Chemical Etching and Milling
6	Printed Circuit Board Manufacture
7	Cleaning
8.	Machining
9.	Grinding
10.	Polishing
11.	Tumbling (Barrel Finishing)
12	Burnishing
13	Impact Deformation
14. Pressure Deformation
15 Shearing
16. Heat Treating
1 7. Thermal Cutting
18.	Welding
19.	Brazing
20 Soldering
21. Flame Spraying
22	Sand Blasting
23	Other Abrasive Jet Machining
24	Electric Discharge Machining
25.	Electrochemical Machining
26.	Electron Beam Machining
27 Laser Beam Machining
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water and
Waste Management
Washington, D.C. 20460
Fall 1983
&EPA Final Effluent
Guidelines
Rulemaking for the
Metal Finishing Point
Source Category
-------
BAT
Technology Basis—Limitations for toxic
pollutants are equivalent to BPT, as is the
technology basis BAT limitations do not
impose any incremental costs or impacts
beyond those incurred by BPT
NSPS
Technology Basis —Equivalent to BPT/
BAT plus in-plant cadmium control
Pollutants Regulated—Same as the
toxics regulated under BPT/BAT
Compliance Costs —Between $14,000
and $24,000 annually per facility beyond
BPT/BAT depending on the water flow.
PSES
Technology Basis—Equivalent to BPT/
BAT.
Pollutants Regulated—Same as the
toxics regulated under BPT/BAT.
f ipliance Costs—$22,500 a year for
;ct discharging job shops to monitor
, $254,300 a year for IPCBMs to
monitor TTO Average annual cost per
facility is $2,900 per year
Non-integrated indirect discharging
captive facilities with effluent flows
greater than 10,000 gallons per day (gpd)
will incur annual costs of $167,600 to
control TTO. Those facilities with flows
less than 10,000 gpd, which were
generally exempt from the previous Part
413 standards, could incur annual costs
of $11.8 million to control metals,
cyanide, and TTO
The final industry sector considered,
integrated indirect discharging captives,
may incur aggregate annual costs of
$104 million to control metals and
cyanide A portion of these facilities may
spend an additional $705,000 annually to
control TTO.
PSNS
Technology Basis—Equivalent to NSPS.
Pollutants Regulated —Same as the
toxics under NSPS
Compliance Costs—Equivalent to NSPS
Summary of
Changes from
Proposed
Limitations
•	The long-term concentration average
for lead changed from 0.17 to 0.20
mg/liter; for. zinc from 0.582 to 0 459
mg/liter; and for cadmium from 0 19
to 0.13 mg/liter.
•	Plants subject to Part 433 PSES have
a two-phase TTO limit, the first based
solely on background levels found
before end-of-pipe treatment, and the
second taking into account the addi-
tional removal achieved by end-of-
pipe treatment
•	The TTO limits are based on raw
waste levels and precipitation/clarifi-
cation effluents occurring at plants
that perform both solvent degreasing
and painting.
® For PSES, job shops and IPCBM are
exempt from the Part 433 BAT analog
metal finishing PSES
•	Daily maximum variability statistics
were calculated using log-normal
distribution. Thirty-day limits were
based on a monthly average from 10
samples, versus 30 samples, per
reporting period
•	An alternative amenable cyanide
limit is made available to facilities
with significant forms of complexed
cyanide (i e., iron cyanides) not con-
trollable by the technology basis
Economic Impact
Analysis
The incremental investment and annual
costs, which include interest and depre-
ciation, for all metal finishing facilities
incurring costs are $351 million and $118
million, respectively (expressed in 1982
dollars) No plant closures or
employment effects are projected In-
creases in the cost of production average
0.2 percent
The economic impacts of these regula-
tions are assessed in detail in Economic
Impact Analysis of Effluent Standards
and Limitations for the Metal Finishing
Industry {June 1983), available through
the National Technical Information
Service
Impact Summary
These final regulations will remove an
additional 20 million pounds per year of
metals and cyanide, and 10 million
pounds per year of TTO In light of these
reductions, the regulations are economi-
cally achievable and the impacts justified
Non-Water-Quality
Environmental Impacts
Air Pollution—No substantial air pollution
problems are anticipated.
Solid Waste—Although BPT and BAT will
not generate additional solid or hazard-
ous wastes, PSES will add approximately
165,000 metric tons of hazardous sludge
per year
Energy Requirements—Achieving the
promulgated BPT and BAT effluent
limitations is not expected to increase
electrical energy consumption PSES will
increase consumption by approximately
142 million kilowatt-hours per year,
which amounts to an average of less than
one percent of the total energy
consumed for production
-------
Glossary
For Further Information:
Act
Agency
BAT
BCT
BOD
BPT
NPDES
Permit
NSPS
POTW
SIC
TSS
TTO
The Clean Water Act
The U S Environmental
Protection Agency
"Best available technology
economically achievable," to
be accomplished by July 1,
1984
"Best conventional pollutant
control technology," to be
accomplished by July 1, 1984
Biochemical oxygen demand
"Best practicable control tech-
nology currently available
A National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit
issued under Section 402 of
the Act
New source performance stan-
dards, to be achieved upon
commencement of operation of
a new plant
Further technical information may be
obtained from.
Mr Richard Kinch
Effluent Guidelines Division (WH-552)
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202)382-7124
Economic information may be obtained
from
Ms. Kathleen Ehrensberger
Economics Branch (WH-586)
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202)382-5397
Copies of the Development Document
and the Economic Analysis may be
obtained from-
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, Virginia 22161
(703)487-4650
Publicly owned treatment works
Standard Industrial Classifica-
tion (US Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the
Census)
Total suspended solids
Total toxic organics
-------
28. Plasma Arc Machining
29 Ultrasonic Machining
30. Sintering
31 Laminating
32.	Hot Dip Coating
33.	Sputtering
34 Vapor Plating
35.	Thermal Infusion
36.	Salt Bath Descaling
37	Solvent Degreasing
38	Paint Stripping
39	Painting
40.	Electrostatic Painting
41.	Electropainting
42	Vacuum Metaling
43	Assembling
44.	Calibrating
45.	Testing
46.	Mechanical Plating
One of the first six of these operations
must be conducted by the metal finishing
facility in order for the regulations to
affect the facility's other operations. If
a- 'f these six operations is present,
lese regulations apply to waste-
Vv from any of the 46 listed metal
finishing operations.
Prior EPA Regulations
•	Electroplating BPTjjrmtations prom-
ulgated on March 28.J.9.84/EPA
suspended them on December 3,
1976.
•	Interim final electroplating pretreat-
ment standards issued on July 12,
1977; EPA suspended them on May
4, 1979
•	Part 413 Electroplating PSES prom-
ulgated on September 7, 1979, which
were amended January 28, 1981 and
are amended by these final
regulations.
Pollutants
The most important pollutants of concern
found in metal finishing wastewaters are:
•	toxic metals—cadmium, copper,
chromium, nickel, lead, and zinc
•	cyanide
xic organics (cumulatively called
,tal toxic organics or TTO)
•	conventional pollutants—total sus-
pended solids (TSS), oil and grease,
and pH
Pollutants Excluded
The Agency is excluding from regulation
7 of the 126 toxic pollutants authorized
for regulatory consideration under Para-
graph 8 of the modified Settlement
Agreement. These pollutants are found in
only a small number of sources and are
effectively controlled by the technologies
on which the limits are based.
•	toxic pollutants—antimony, arsenic,
asbestos, beryllium, mercury,
selenium, thallium
•	conventional pollutants—BOD, fecal
coliform
Technical Data Gathering
As described in the preamble to the final
regulations (48 FR 32462), EPA con-
ducted an extensive data collection
program to develop the base for its
technical analysis of this category. The
major summary of information on this is
the Development Document for Effluent
Limitations and Standards for the Metal
Finishing Point Source Category, June
1983, available in EPA's Public Informa-
tion Reference Unit and through the
National Technical Information Service
Subcategories
Although the pollutants discharged by
the Metal Finishing Point Source Cate-
gory are diverse and must be grouped
and treated with several independent
techniques, the combined treatment
system does have components that are
used for all waste types (except solvents,
which are contract hauled or reclaimed,
and complexed metals). Because of the
interconnecting nature of this combined
waste treatment system, setting one set
of limits based on the concentration-
limited capabilities of the technology is
appropriate. For these reasons EPA has
determined that the Metal Finishing Point
Source Category did not have to be
subcategorized for regulation. Limitations
are applicable to all process effluents
Summary of Control
Technologies Considered
The following pollution control technolo-
gies and techniques were considered by
EPA in developing effluent limitations
and standards for the Metal Finishing
Category:
•	Precipitation and clarification for
common metals treatment, precious
metals recovery, and complexed
metals treatment; for the latter, may
include
—	high pH precipitation/clarification
—	chemical reduction, then precipita-
tion/clarification
—	membrane filtration
—	ferrous sulfate precipitation/
clarification
—	ion exchange
•	Filtration
•	Toxic organics control
•	Cyanide destruction
•	Oily wastes separation
•	Hexavalent chromium reduction
•	In-plant cadmium control
The Final
Regulations
BPT
Technology Basis—Precipitation and
clarification plus cyanide destruction,
reduction of hexavalent chromium to its
trivalent state, oily wastes separation,
precious metals recovery, and TTO
control
Pollutants Regulated—Cadmium, copper,
chromium, nickel, lead, silver, zinc, total
cyanide, TSS, TTO, oil and grease, and
PH
Compliance Costs—$29,000 per year for
job shops to monitor TTO; $34,700 per
year for IPCBM to monitor TTO;
$468,000 per year for captive shops to
monitor TTO
-------
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
PROPOSED AND FINAL RULES - PRIMARY CATEGORIES
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATIONS
(1979 - Present)
5/1/86
40 tth F>ArT TyPE ftULE sHMTurE* KbthAL hfefil&TER tlTATtON
Industry"
0 ALUMINUM FORMING
467 PROPOSED	11/05/82
PROMULGATION 09/30/83
Correction
Notice
(Approval)
Prop. Amendment
47	FR 52626
48	FR 49126
49	FR 11629
50	FR 4513
11/22/82
10/24/83
03/27/84
01/31/85
51 FR 9618 03/19/86
BATTERY MANUFACTURING
COAL MINING
° COIL COATING
Phase I .
Phase II (Canroaklng).
COPPER FORMING
ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS
Phase I 	
461 PROPOSED	10/29/82
PROMULGATION 02/27/84
Correction
Correction
Notice
(Records)
Prop. Amendment
434 PROPOSED	12/30/80
PROMULGATION	09/30/82
Correction ~
Notice ~
(Approval)
Final Amend.
465 PROPOSED	12/30/80
PROMULGATION 11/05/82
Final Amend.
Final Amend.
Correction
465 PROPOSED	01/31/83
PROMULGATION 11/09/83
Correction
Notice
(Approval)
468	PROPOSED	10/29/82
PROMULGATION 08/04/83
Final	Amendment
Prop. Amendment
Prop. Amendment
Final	Amendment
Final Amendment
469	PROPOSED	08/11/82
PROMULGATION 03/31/83
Interim Final/
Prop. Amend.
Final Amendment
Notice
(Approval)
Notice
(Approval)
Phase II
47 FR 51052
49 FR 9108
49 FR 13879
49 FR 27946
49	FR 47925
51 FR 3477
46	FR 3136
47	FR 45382
48	FR 58321
50	FR 4513
46	FR 2934
47	FR 54232
48	FR 31403
48	FR 41409
49	FR 33648
48 FR 6268
48	FR 52380
49	FR 14104
50	FR 4513
47	FR 51278
48	FR 36942
48 FR 41409
50 FR 4872
50 FR 26128
50	FR 34242
51	FR 7568
47	FR 37048
48	FR 15382
48	FR 45249
49	FR 5922
49 FR 34823
11/10/82
03/09/84
04/09/84
07/09/84
12/07/84
01/28/86
01/13/81
10/13/82
11/01/83
01/31/85
50 FR 41296 10/09/85
01/12/81
12/01/82
07/08/83
09/15/83
08/24/84
02/10/83
11/17/83
04/10/84
01/31/85
11/12/82
08/15/83
09/15/83
02/04/85
06/27/85
08/23/85
03/05/86
08/24/82
04/08/83
10/04/83
02/16/84
09/04/84
50 FR 4513 01/31/85
469 PROPOSED	02/28/83	48 FR 10012 03/09/83
PROMULGATION 11/30/83	48 FR 55690 12/14/83
Correction	—	49 FR 1056 01/09/84
* Administrator's signature; ( ) 1s the projected schedule approved by the Court.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5 Library
77 W. Jackson Blvd. (PL-16J)
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
-------
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
PROPOSED AND FINAL RULES - PRIMARY CATEGORIES	5/1/86
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATIONS
(1979 - Present)
-contl rtued-
Industry	40 CFR PART TYPE RULE SIGNATURE* FEDERAL REGISTER CITKTTOfr
ELECTROPLATING 	

PROPOSED
01/24/78
43
FR
6560
02/14/78
[Pretreatment - PSES only]

PROMULGATION
08/09/79
44
FR
52590
09/07/79


Correction
—
44
FR
56330
10/01/79


Correction
—
45
FR
19245
03/25/80


Final Amend.
—
48
FR
32462
07/15/83


Correction
—
48
FR
43680
09/26/83


Final Amend.
—
48
FR
41409
09/15/83


Notice
—
49
FR
34823
09/04/84


(Approval)





FERTILIZER (Phosphate) 	

PROPOSED AMENDMENT
49
FR
29977
07/25/84


Notice







(Add. Data/

51
FR
8520
03/12/86


Public Hearing)






Correction (Hearing)
51
FR
10889
03/31/86
INORGANIC CHEMICALS







Phase I 	

PROPOSED
07/10/80
45
FR
49450
07/24/80


PROMULGATION
06/16/82
47
FR
28260
06/29/82


Correction
—
47
FR
55226
12/08/82
Phase II 	

PROPOSED
09/30/83
48
FR
49408
10/25/83


PROMULGATION
07/26/84
49
FR
33402
08/22/84


Correction

49
FR
37594
09/25/84
IRON ft STEEL MANUFACTURING	

PROPOSED
12/24/80
46
FR
1858
01/07/81


PROMULGATION
05/18/82
47
FR
23258
05/27/82


Correction
—
47
FR
24554
06/07/82


Correction
—
47
FR
41738
09/22/82


Final Amend.







Correction
—
48
FR
51773
11/14/83


Prop. Amend.
—
48
FR
46944
10/14/83


Correction
—
48
FR
51647
11/10/83


Final Amend.
—
49
FR
21024
05/17/84


Correction
—
49
FR
24726
06/15/84


Correction
—
49
FR
25634
06/22/84
LEATHER TANNING « FINISHING 	

PROPOSED
06/13/79
44
FR
38746
07/02/79


PROMULGATION
11/07/82
47
FR
52848
11/23/82


Correction/







Notice







(Add. Data)







Final Amend.
—
48
FR
30115
06/30/83


Final Ammed.
—
48
FR
31404
07/08/83


Correction
—
48
FR
32346
07/15/83


Correction
—
48
FR
35649
08/05/83


Correction/







Final. Amend.
—
48
FR
41409
09/15/83


(PSES)






Notice
—
49
FR
17090
04/23/84


(Add. Data)






Notice
—
49
FR
42794
10/24/84


(Waiver, Reg.
II)






Notice
—
49
FR
44143
11/02/84


(Waiver, Reg.
II)






Notice

51
FR
13092
04/17/86
(Waiver, Reg. V) -
* Administrator's signature; ( ) is the projected schedule approved by the Court.
-------
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
PROPOSED AND FINAL RULES - PRIMARY CATEGORIES
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATIONS
(1979 - Present)
5/1/86
continued
40 CFft PART—TVPE RULE	¦ SlfiMTufcE* FEDEftAL KfilSTEfc CITATI0R"
Industry"
° METAL FINISHING
433
S 413
PROPOSED
PROMULGATION
Final Amend.
Correction
08/11/82
07/05/83
47	FR 38462
48	FR 32462
48 FR 41409
48 FR 43680
08/31/82
07/15/83
09/15/83
09/26/83
° METAL MOLDING AND CASTING (Foundries) 464
PROPOSED
PROMULGATION
10/29/82
10/08/85
47 FR 51512
50 FR 45212
11/15/82
10/30/85
NONFERROUS KTALS
Phase I 	
Phase II.
NONFERROUS I&TALS FORMING
421
421
471
0 OIL « GAS (OFFSHORE).
ORE MINING
° ORE MINING (PLACER MINING).
440
440
° ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS « .... 414
SYNTHETIC FIBERS	4 416
PROPOSED
PROMULGATION
Correction
Correction
Correction
PROPOSED
PROMULGATION
Correction
Correction
PROPOSED
PROMULGATION
Correction
01/31/83
02/23/84
05/15/84
08/27/85
02/03/84
07/19/85
08/02/85
PROPOSED
Notice
(Comment Period)
Notice
(Comment Period)
PROMULGATION (1987)
PROPOSED
PROMULGATION
05/25/82
11/05/82
PROPOSED
Notice
(Add. Data)
Notice
(Comment Period)
PROMULGATION (Pending)
PROPOSED	02/28/83
Notice
(Records)
Notice
(Records)
Notice
(Add. Data)
Correction/
Notice
(Comment Period)
PROMULGATION (12/86)
48	FR
49	FR
49 FR
7032
8742
26738
49	FR 29792
50	FR 12252
49	FR 26352
50	FR 38276
50	FR 41144
51	FR 52775
49	FR 8112
50	FR 34242
51	FR 2884
50 FR 34592
50 FR 46784
50 FR 53348
47 FR 25682
47 FR 54598
50	FR 47982
51	FR 5563
51 FR 12344
48	FR 11828
49	FR 34295
50	FR 20290
50 FR 29068
50 FR 41528
02/17/83
03/08/84
06/29/84
07/24/84
03/28/85
06/27/84
09/20/85
10/09/85
12/26/85
03/05/84
08/23/85
01/22/86
08/26/85
11/13/85
12/31/85
06/14/82
12/03/82
11/20/85
02/14/86
04/10/86
03/21/83
08/29/84
05/15/85
07/17/85
10/11/85
* Administrator's signature; ( ) 1s the projected schedule approved by the Court.
-------
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
PROPOSED AND FINAL RULES - PRIMARY CATEGORIES
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATIONS
(1979 - Present)
5/1/86
- continued
40 CTR mi—TVPE RULE
SIGNATURE*
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION
Industry
° PESTICIDES.
455
PETROLEUM REFINING.
° PHARMACEUTICALS.
419
439
° PLASTICS MOLDING & FORMING
0 PORCELAIN ENAMELING.
463
466
PROPOSED
11/05/82
47 FR
53994
11/30/82
Proposed




(Analytical




Methods)
—
48 FR
6250
02/10/83
Notice
—
49 FR
24492
06/13/34
(Add. Data)




Notice
—
49 FR
30752
08/01/84
(Comment Period)



Notice
—
50 FR
3366
01/24/85
(Add Data)




Notice
—
50 FR
20290
05/15/85
(Records)




PROMULGATION
09/11/85
50 FR
40622
10/04/85
PROPOSED
11/27/79
44 FR
75926
12/21/79
PROMULGATION
09/30/82
47 FR
46434
10/18/82
Final Amend.
—
50 FR
28516
07/12/85
Correction
""
50 FR
32414
08/12/85
PROPOSED
11/07/82
47 FR
53584
11/26/82
PROMULGATION
09/30/83
48 FR
49808
10/27/83
Correction
--
48 FR
50322
11/01/83
Notice
--
50 FR
4513
01/31/85
(Approval)




Notice
—
50 FR
18486
05/01/85
(Approval)




PROPOSED -




NSPS
—
48 FR
49832
10/27/83
Correction
—
49 FR
1190
01/10/84
BCT Cost
—
49 FR
8967
03/09/84
Extension
—
49 FR
17978
04/26/84
Notice
—
49 FR
27145
07/02/84
(Add. Data)




Notice
—
50 FR
36638
09/09/85
(Add. Data -




Toxic Volatlles)



PROPOSED
02/03/84
49 FR
5862
02/15/84
PROMULGATION
12/04/84
49 FR
49026
12/17/84
Correction
—
50 FR
18248
04/30/85
PROPOSED
01/19/81
46 FR
8860
01/27/81
PROMULGATION
11/05/82
47 FR
53172
11/24/82
Final Amend.
—
48 FR
31403
07/08/83
Final Amend.
--
48 FR
41409
09/15/83
Final Amend.
—
50 FR
36540
09/06/85
* Administrator's signature; ( ) is the projected schedule approved by the Court.
-------
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
PROPOSED AND FINAL RULES - PRIMARY CATEGORIES
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATIONS
(1979 - Present)
5/1/86
- continued -
Industry'
40 CFR PART—TVPE RULE
SIGNATURE'
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION
PULP S PAPER.
430
431
PROPOSED 12/11/80
46
FR
1430
01/06/81
PROMULGATION 10/29/82
47
FR
52006
11/18/82
Correction
48
FR
13176
03/30/83
Final Amend.
48
FR
31414
07/08/83
Notice —
48
FR
43682
09/16/83
(FDF)




Correction
48
FR
45105
10/06/83
Public Hearing
48
FR
45841
10/07/83
(NPDES Decision)




Notice
49
FR
40546
10/16/84
(Petition Denied)




Notice
49
FR
40549
10/16/84
(Variance Oenled)




PROPOSED (PCB)
47
FR
52066
11/18/82
Notice
48
FR
2804
01/21/83
(Comment Period)




PROPOSED
45
FR
15952
03/12/80
(BOD5 - Acetate)




Notice
50
FR
36444
09/06/85
(Add. Data)
• STEAM-ELECTRIC.
423
PROPOSED
PROMULGATION
Final Amend.
10/03/80
11/07/82
45 FR 68328
47	FR 52290
48	FR 31404
10/14/80
11/19/82
07/08/83
° TEXTILE MILLS.
410
PROPOSED
PROMULGATION
Notice
(Add. Data)
Correction
10/16/79
08/27/82
44
FR
62204
47
FR
38810
48
FR
1722
48
FR
39624
10/29/79
09/02/82
01/14/83
09/01/83
TIM3ER.
429
PROPOSED
PROMULGATION
Final Amend.
10/16/79
01/07/81
44 FR 62810
46 FR 8260
46 FR 57287
10/31/79
01/26/81
11/23/81
* Administrator's signature; ( ) 1s the projected schedule approved by the Court.
-------