DEQ-CFW_00065120

11828 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 55 / Monday, March 21, 1983 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 414 and 416
[WH-FRL 2305-71
Organic Chemicals and Plastics and
Synethic Fibers Category Effluent
Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment
Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed regulation.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), is proposing effluent
limitations guidelines for "best
practicable technology", "best
conventional technology" and "best
available technology", new source
performance standards and
pretreatment standards for the Organic
Chemicals and Plastics and Synthetic
Fibers (OCPSF) Category as required
under Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, and 501
of the Clean Water Act. These proposed
regulations will limit the discharge of
effluents into waters of the United
States or into publicly owned treatment
works from facilities that produce
organic chemicals, plastics and
synthetic fibers. After considering
comments received in response to this
proposal, EPA will promulgate a final
rule.
DATE: Comments on this proposal must
be received by June 19, 1983. However,
the Agency solicits earlier comments on
the additional data collection activities
(Section XV of the preamble) for
immediate use in program planning.
ADDRESSES: Send comm
technical information from E. H. Forsht
uent-Guidelines Division
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460,
Attention EGD Docket Clerk, grgawc
Chemicals, Plastic and Synthetic Fibers
I -I
Industry (W-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
(EPA Library Rear) PM-213. Copies of
technical documents may be obtained
from Denise Beverly, Distribution
Officer at the above address or by
calling [phone]: A copy of the
economic analysis may be obtained
from Harold Lester, Economic Analysis
Staff (WH=586), Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460, or by calling
[phone]. A copy of the
preliminary regulatory impact analysis
may be obtained from Alec McBride,
Monitoring and Data Support Division
(WH-553) Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
D.C. 20460, or by calling [phone].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E. H. Forsht, Senior Project Officer,
Organic Chemicals Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency by
calling [phone].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Overview: This preamble describes the
scope, purpose, legal authority and
background of this proposal, the
technical and economic bases and the
methodology used by the Agency to
develop proposed effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the Organic
Chemicals and Plastics and Synthetic
Fibers (OCPSF) industrial category, and
the procedures which will be utilized to
implement the regulations upon
promulgation. It also presents a
summary of public comments on the
draft contractor's engineering reports
which were circulated in December,
1981 and April, 1982 to the industry and
other interested parties, and solicits
comments on specific areas of interest.
These proposed regulations are
supported by EPA's technical
conclusions which are detailed in the
Development Document for Best
Practicable Technology, Best
Conventional Technology and New
Source Performance Technology in the
Organic Chemicals and Plastics and
Synthetic Fibers Industry, and in the
Development Document for Best
Available Technology, Pretreatment
Technology, and New Source
Performance Technology in the Organic
Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers
Industry. (These documents are referred
to in this preamble as the BPT
Development Document and BAT
Development Document, respectively).
The Agency's econ�Tis analysis is
presented in the Economic Impact
Analysis of Effluent Limitations and
Standards for the OCPSF Industry.
Abbreviations, acronyms, and other
terms used in the Supplementary
Information section are defined in
Appendix A to this notice.
Organization of Supplementary
Information
1 Legal Authority
11.Background
A. The Clean Water Act
B. Prior EPA Regulations
C. Scope:of this Rulemaking
III. Overviety of the Industry
IV. Available Wastewater Control and
Treatment Technology
V. Best Practicable Technology Effluent
Limitations
A. Legal Criteria for Developing BPT
B. Technical Data Gathering Efforts for BPT
C. BPT Technology Selection Criteria
D. Subcategorization and Calculation of
BPT Limitations
E. Concentration -Based Limitations
F. BPT Pollutant Reductions, Cost and
Economic Impacts
VL Best Conventional Technology Effluent
Limitations
VII. Best Available Technology Effluent
Limitations
A Legal Criteria for Developing BAT
B. Technical Data Gathering Efforts for
BAT
G. Need for BAT Regulation
D. BAT Technology Selection
E. Calculation of BAT Limitations
F. Applicability of BAT Limitations
G. BAT Removals of Priority Pollutants,
Costs and Economic Impacts
VIIL New Source Performance Standards
IX Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources
A. Legal Criteria in Developing
Pretreatment Standards
B. Need for Pretreatment Standards
C. Technology Selection and Establishment
Of Limits
D. Removal Credits
E. Compliance Date
F. PSES Priority Pollutant Removals Cost
and Economic Impacts
X. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
XL Monitoring Requirements
XlL Best Management Practices
XM. Regulatory Status of Pollutants
A Priority Pollutants Regulated
B. Priority Pollutants Not Regulated
C. Nonconventional and Non -Priority
Pollutants Excluded
D. Conventional Pollutants Excluded
XIV. Costs, Economic Impacts, Cost
Effectiveness, Regulatory Flexibility,
Executive Order 12291, and Science
Advisory Board
A. Cost and Economic Impacts
B. Cost Effectiveness
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
D. Executive Order12291
E. Science Advisory Board
XV. Collection of Additional Data
XVI. Non -Water Quality Environmental
Impacts
XVII. Regulatory Implementation
A. Upset and Bypass Provisions
B. Variances and Modifications
C. Relationship to NPDES Permits
D. Relationship of the Proposed
Technology -Based Regulations to the
Water Quality and Hazardous Waste
Enforcement Actions
XVIII. Summary of Public Participation
XIX. Solicitation of Technical and Economic
Data and Comments on Other Aspects of
This Regulation
Appendices:
A —Abbreviations. Acronyms. and Other
Terms Used in this Notice
B—Toxic Pollutants Regulated
C—Toxic Pollutants Excluded Under
Paragraph a
D--Pollutants Not Regulated by PSES or
PSNS
E—Toxic Pollutants Not Regulated
F--Public Comment Summary and
Responses to Comments
DEQ-CFW 00065120

Federal Register ./ VoL 48, No. 55 / Monday. March 21, 1983 / Proposed Rules 11829
LLegal wudwrity
reflecting the ability of BPT and BAT to
The regulations described in this
reduce effiuent discharges.
noticeaft proposed under authority of
Sections 304(c) and 306 of the Act
required regulations for NSPS.
Sections 301, 304.306, 307, and 501 of the
Clean Water Act (the Federal Water
Sections 304(g), 307(b), and 307(c)
Pollution Control Act Amendments of
required regulations for pretreatment
1972. 3E U S.C.1251 et seq., as amended
by the Clean Water Act of 1977, Pub. L.
standards.
In addition to these regulations for
95-217 (the "Act")). These regulations
designated industry categories, Section
are also proposed in response to the
307(a) required the Administrator to
Sottlement Agreement in Naturol
promulgate effluent standards
Resourves,Vefense Council, Inc. V.
applicable to all dischargers of toxic
Trim 8 ERG 2120 (D.D.C.1976),
modified 12 SRC 1833 (D.D.C. 19791, and
pollutants.
Finally; Section 5M(a) authorized the
modifiedAgain by order of the Court
Administra3tor to prescribe any
'regulations
dated October 2t3,19Oy _
addit1-6iii "necessary to
EL Bea
A. 71ze Clears 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 I. INS, for these dischargers to
achieve "effluent limitations requiring
the application. of the best available
technology economically achievable
which will result in reasonable further
progress toward the national goal of
eliminating the discharge of all
pollutants" ("BAT").
Section 306 required that new
industrial direct dischargers comply
with new source performance standards
("NSPS"), based on best available
demonstrated technology.
Sections 307 (b) and (c) required the
Administrator to set pretreatment
standards for new and existing
dischargers to publicly owned treatment
works ("POTWs"). While the
requirements fair direct dischargers were
to be incorporated into National
Pollat�t#�s�targel�imination System
(IMPDB$) pmmitoie�l under Section
402. the-Ackmade pretreatment.
standards-�e>directly against
t POTWs-(indirect
Sections 40ga)(1) of the 1972 Act does
allow,requhmnents:for direct
discharge - o be:set :on a case -;by -case
basis..However. Congress intended
limitations
carry out has functions" under the Act.
The SPA was unable to promulgate
many of these regulations by the
deadlines contained in the Act, and, as a
result, EPA was sued in 1976 by several
environmental groups. Iii 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 21 major industries. See
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
v. Train, supra.
Several of the basic elements of the
Settlement_ Agreement program were
incorporated into the Clean Water Act
of 1977. This law also made several
important changes in the Federal water
pollution control program. -
Sections Xn(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 the
application of BAT for "toxic"
pollutants. "Toxic" pollutants here
includes the 65 pollutants and classes of
pollutants which Congress declared
"toxic" under Section 307(a) of .the Act.
Likewise, EPA's programs f'or new
source performance standards and
pretreatment standards are,trow aimed
principally at controlling toxic
pollutants,
.. To L the toxics control
progrWn 304(e) of. the Act
autho�e-Administrator to
prescribe "best management
pradf 'Jj- These BMPa are to
prey release of toxie and
-hazirdous;pollutants from: (1) Plant site
runoff.:(2)"spillage or leaks, (3) sludge or
waste dfsposaL-and (4) drainage from
raw material storage if any of -those
events as associated with, or ancillary
to, the manufacturing or treatment
procesSR ;
In ke ikag ith its e>iipitasts-un toxic
o `�eiihi�eda�lApr'agrat�dbr�-�
non -toxic pollutants:
For "conventional" pollutants
identified under Section 304(a)(4)
(including biochemical oxygen demand,
suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal
coliform and pM, 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 I. 1984. The factors
considered in assessing BCT for an
industry include 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 publicly
owned treatment works and industrial
sources. For nontoxic, 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,
1984, whichever is later, but not later
than July 1, 1987.
B. Prior EPA Regulations
EPA promulgated effluent limitation
guidelines and standards for the Organic
Chemicals Manufacturing Industry in
two phases in 40 CFR Part 414. Phase 1,
covering 40 product/processes (a
product that is manufactured by the use
of a particular process —some products
may be produced by any of several
processes), was promulgated on April
25, 1974 (39 FR 12076). Phase II, covering
27 additional product/processes, was
promulgated on'January 5,1976 (41 FR
902).
EPA also promulgated effluent
limitation guidelines and standards for
the Pastics and Synthetics Industry in
two phases in 40 CFR Part 416. Phase 1,
covering 31 product/processes, was
promulgated on April 5,1974 (39 FR
12502). Phase IL covering 8 additional
product/processes, was promulgated on
January 23, 1975 (40 FR 3718).
Several industry members challenged
the above regulations. On February 10,
1976, the Court in onion Carbide v.
Train, 541 F.2d 1171 (4th Cir. 1976).
granted the parties' motion to remand
the Phase I Organic Chemicals
regulations. The Court also directed EPA
to withdraw the ---Phase II Organic
Chemical regulations, which EPA did on
April 1. 1976 (41 FR 13936). Pursuant to
an agreement -with the industry
petitioners, however, the regulations for
butadiene manufacture were left in
place. The Court in FMC Corp. v. Train,
539-F.2da9M,(4th Cir.1976),-remanded
the.Phase=l Plastics and Synthetics
nse-9EA withdrew .1
botir tiia3'l� apse=I-and-Ph&w It regulations
on August 4.1976 (41 FR 32587) except
`tw
DEQ-CFW 00065121

11wo Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 55 / Monday, March 21, 19M / Proposed Rules
for the pH limitations, which had not
been addressed in the lawsuit
Today. there are no promulgated .
regulations for the Organic Chemicals
and Plastics and Synthetic Fibers
industries except for the butadiene and
pH regulations mentioned above.
C. Scope of This RulemokhW
EPA is today proposing effluent
limitations guidelines based on the
application of the best --practicable
technology (BPT), best conventional
technology (BCD, best available
technology (BAT), new source
performance standards (NSPS), and
pretreatment standards for existing and
new sources (PSES and PSNS).
These proposed regulations apply to
wastewater discharges resulting from
the manufacture of organic chemicals,
plastics and synthetic Fibers. The
organic chemicals industry is generally
included within the U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
Major Groups 2865 and 2809. The plastic
and snythetic fibers industry is
generally included in SIC Groups 2M1,
2823, 2824. Due to the interdependence
of these two industries, EPA studied
them in combination and is today
including both of them in a single set of
proposed regulations.
When finally promulgated, these
regulations will supersede the existing
regulations for butadiene manufacture
and the pH limitation for the
manufacture of plastics and synthetic
fibers.
Some plants have OCPSF operations
that are a minor portion of and ancillary
to their primary production. In some
such cases, effluent guidelines for the
primary production category (e.g., the
guidelines for the petroleum refining,
pesticides, and pharmaceuticals
industries) include subcategories for the
discharge of combined wastewaters
from the primary production and the
OCPSF presses. in such cases, to
avoid duplication and potential
incomes, these OClW discharges
are exluded from coverage by today's
proposed OCPSF regulations and remain
subject to the other applicable
regulations.
The proposed regulations also do not
apply to discharges from the extraction
of organic chemical compounds frown
natural materials. Natural materials
used to make organic chemical
compounds include a variety of parts of
plants (e g., trees and seaweed) and
animals. Todays proposal addresses the
manufacture of organic chemicals via
chemical synthesis. Readers should note
that extraction of chemical compounds
from natural materials is included in
many other industrial categories—e.g.,
Adhesives and Sealants,
Pharmaceuticals and Gum and Woad
Chemicals. Readers should also note
that discharges from the synthesis of
organic chemical compounds that have
been extracted from natural materials
are covered by today's proposed
regulation.
III. Overview of the Industry
The OCPSF industry is large and
diverse, and many plants in the industry
are highly complex. The industry
includes approximately 1,200 facilities
which manufacture their principal or
primary product or group of products
under the OCPSF SIC Groups. Some
plants are secondary producers, with
OCPSF products ancillary to their
primary manufacture. Various sources
studied by EPA indicate that the number
of secondary OCPSF plants is in the
range of 320 to approximately 900
plants. Thus the total number of plants
in the OCPSF industry may be as high as
2,100. This range is attributed to the
difficulties inherent in segregating the
OCPSF industry from other chemical
producing industries such as petroleum
refining, inorganic chemicals,
pharmaceuticals and pesticides as well
as chemical formulation industries such
as adhesives and sealants, paint and
ink, and plastics molding and
formulating. Even though over 25,000
different organic chemicals, plastics and
synthetic fibers are manufactured, only
1,200 products are produced in excess of
1,000 pounds per year. As mentioned
above, except for certain specified
exceptions, all discharges from OCPSF
operations at these plants are covered
by today's proposed regulations.
Some plants produce chemicals in
large volumes, while others produce
only small volumes of "specialty"
chemicals. Large -volume production
tends toward continuous processes,
while smallvolhnhe production tends
toward batch processes. Continuous
processes are generally more efficient
than batch processes in minimizing
water use and optimizing the
consumption of raw materials in the
process.
Different products are made by
varying the raw materials, chemical
reaction conditions, and the chemical
engineering unit processes. The products
tieing manufactured at a single large
chemical Pant can vary on a weekly or
even $ally basis. Thus, a single plant
may, simultaneously produce many
different products in a variety of
continuous and batch operations, and
the product mix may change frequently.
Total production of organic chemicals
in 1980 was 291 billion pounds with
sales of $54 billion. Production of
plastics and synthetic fibers in 19W was
60 billion pounds with sales of $28
billion.
For the 1.200 facilities whose_ principal
production relates to the OCPSF
industry, approximately 40 percent are
direct dischargers, approximately 36
percent are indirect dischargers (plants
that discharge to publicly owned
treatment works) and the remaining
facilities use zero or alternative
discharge method& The estimated
average daily flow per plant is 2.31
MGD (millions of gallons per day) for
direct dischargers and 0.80 MGD for
indirect dischargers. The remainder use
dry processes, reuse their wastewater,
or dispose of their wastewater by deep
well injection, incineration, contract
hauling, or evaporation or percolation
ponds.
As a result of the wide variety and
complexity of raw materials and
processes used and of products
manufactured in the OCPSF industry, an
exceptionally wide variety of pollutants
are found in the wastewaters of this
industry. This includes conventional
pollutants (pH, BOD, TSS and oil and
grease} toxic pollutants (both metals
and organic compounds); and a large
number of nonconventiosel pollutants
(including the organic compounds
produced by the industry for sale). EPA
focused its attention in today's
rulemakmg on the conventional
pollutants and on the 65 toxic pollutants
and classes of pollutants required to be
addressed in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement.
IV. Available Wastewater Control and
Treatment Technology
To control the wide variety of
pollutants discharged by the OCPSF
industry, OCPSF plants use a Broad
range of in -plant controls, process
modifications and end -of -tripe treatment
techniques. Most plants have
implemented programs that combine
elements of berth mplant control and
end -of -pipe wastewater treatment. The
configuration of controls and
technologies differs from plant to plant,
corresponding to the differing mixes of
products manufactured by different
facilities. In general, direct dischargers
treat their waste more extensively than
indirect d6wA rgers.
The predominant end -of -pipe control
technology for direct dischargers in the
OCPSF industry is biological treatment.
The chief faros of biological treatment
are activated shame and aerated
lagoons. Other systems, such as
extended aeration and trickfing filters,
are also used, but Isar extensively. All
DEQ-CFW 00065122

Federal -Register / Vol. 48, No. 55 / Monday, March 21, 1983 / Proposed Rules 11831
of these systems reduce BOD and TSS
;. loadings, and, in many instances,
incidentally remove toxic and
nonconventional pollutants..Biological
systems biodegrade someofthe organic
pollutants; remove-bio-refractory
organics and metals.by sorption into the
sludge; and strip some volatile organic
compounds into the air -
.Other end -of -pipe -treatment::. .
technologies used in the OCPW industry
include neutralizatiow equalization,
polislhingponds, filtration and carbon
adsorption. While most direct
dischargers use these physical/chemical
technologies in. conjunction. with end-of-
wbi cal treatment.y t leastza
sicW
chemical treatment
In -plant control measures employed at
OCPSF plants include water reduction
and reuse techniques. chemical
substitution and process changes.
Techniques to reduce water use include
the elimination of water use where
practicable and the reuse and recycling
of certain streams, such as reactor and
floor washwater, surface runoff,
scrubber effluent and vacuum seal
discharges. Chemical substitution is
utilized to replace process chemicals
possessing highly toxic or refractory
properties by others that are less toxic
or more amenable to treatment. Process
changes include various measures that
reduce water use, "te discharges,
and/or waste loadings while improving
process efficiency. Replacement of
barometric condensers with surface
condensers: replacement of steam jet
ejectors with vacuum pumps; recovery
of product or by-product by steam
stripping, distillation, solvent extraction
or recycle, oil water separation and
carbon adsorption; and the addition of
spill control systems are examples of
process changes that have been
successfully employed in the OCPSF
industryto reduce Mutant loadings
im dings
while improving process efficiencies.
Another type of control widely used in
the OCPSF industry is physical/
chemical is -plant control.- This-tret
tsrhaalogy is.generaIIy need se "
an certain s:wastewater#-to
remover products'.orproms s6bmnim to
reduce load'mgs:thatmay impair,:
operation.ofthe biological.systemi?to
remove :certain pollutants that:are:not =
removed sufficiently by the biological
system to -plant technologies widely
used in -the OCPSF industry include
sedimentation/clarification, coagulation,
flocculation, equalization; .
biological treatment. Such treatment is
used in the majority of situations to
reduce solids loadings that are
discharged from biological treatment
systems. The most common post -
biological treatment systems are
polishing ponds and multir iuflia
filtration. I .
At approximately 5 percent of the
direct discharging plants surveyed, no . .
treatment is provided. At another 20
percent, only physical/chemical '
treatment -is provided. The remaining 75
percentutilizebiological treatment.
Approximately 36 percent of biologically
treated eftluents.are further treated by
polislring.ponds, filtration or other forms
of physical/chemical control.
At approximately 52 percent of the
indirect discharging plants surveyed, no
treatment is provided. At another 39
percent, some physical/chemical
treatment is provided. Nine percent
have biological treatment.
V. Best Practicable Technology Effluent
Limitations
A. Legal Criteria for Developing BPT
The factors considered in defining the
best practicable control technology
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 EPA
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
end -of -process treatment rather than
anges or internal controls,
On thew -technologies are
comitronfndustr"ractice.
The cost/benv$t inquiry for BPT is a
limitnd balancing, committed to EPA's
d0cret10n, that d es.not require the -
Agency ta°quantify benefits in monetary
terms. See e.g., American Iron and Steel
Institute v. EPA,-526 F. 2d 1027 (3rd Cir,
1975). In balancing costs against the
benefits of effluent reduction, EPA
considers -the volume and nature of
Steam'sl diStillation�andr: nattIie Jf dlBchargaS expectecl`after
dissolved air $olntion.: �s� s 53 appiica on• of BF .the general
.O lams aiata tae r' _w brtimeat8hef€eciSYof"thtVbtlutatrts
physical/chemical treatment after 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 wafer, Therefore.
EPA has not considered these factors.
See Weyerhaeuser Company v. Costle,
59DF. 2d loll (D.C, Cir.1976).
B. Technical Data Gathering Efforts for.
BPT
The technical data gathering efforts
for BPT (described in detail in Section
III of the BPT Development Document)
were conducted by reviewing existing
literature relating to the OCPSF industry
and by procuring additional information
(through written surveys of theindustry
and contacts with representatives of
governmental agencies and private
research. facilities).
Under the authority of Section 3N of
the Act, EPA sent two sets of data
collection questionnaires to 556 reported
operating OCPSF plants seeking
information on the age and size of
facilities, raw material usage,
production processes employed,
wastewater characteristics and methods
of wastewater control treatment and
disposal. In particular, we requested
end -of -pipe data Covering periods of at
least 18 months. Followup letters with
computer transcriptions of the
questionnaires were sent to all plants to
validate and update their data.
In addition, EPA considered, where
relevant, the information collected as
part of the BAT technical data gathering
efforts (discused below in Section VII of
this preamble).
C. BPT Technology Selection Criteria
In selecting appropriate BPT
technologies, EPA focused on the
primary end -of -pipe technologies used in
the industry. These technologies are
widely used in the industry to control
conventional pollutants. To varying
extents, these technologies also remove
toxic and nonconventional pollutants.
However, it is not possible" to calculate
consistent removalsvf specific toxic and
nonconventional pollritarits across the
industry without carefully -considering a
variety of process controls and in -plant
treatment technologies that are more
appropriately considered to be BAT
controls and technologies. Therefore, the
selected BPT technologies are end -of -
pipe technologies that address the
conventional pollutants BOD and TSS,
supplemented by�those in -plant controls
and technologies that are commonly
used ta>assure the propevand efficient
operationnf`the end-bf-pipptr
technologies.
DEQ-CFW 00065123

4
A :2=2 F-.3teSlister :t-=VoL k ,No. 55 J Mond, , it it 1.9 i : �/Proposed Rules
.- ..
-The proposedBFT regulations do not
plants do notisavemW treatfleant.-in
derive :the long=#erm"av s-*,develop
require the installation -of any -particular
place stall;-many,ofthesainm. 4ow :.
effluent -limitations.
x '
tedhaologyil�atlrthey laata
BOD .andeir
'
_$PA'is
to schieve:eff'luent;iimitations that are
raw wastevvates. -
amending and using as a lisaisis far
based:upon=the.pmFer.gperstionofthe-
Of the 8p astsd tlrede =<.
final l� tt®ns,ea
`
recommended4ichaologies-or
have rm'treatment at.ail<and that #gave
technalogy1or-controlling sollda. -
s
equivalent technoiogies,.The proposed
submitted TSS data,11 alrea *,eomplp
-Approximately ens•third of,the ptsntsin
"
limitations are based on -the average of
with the proposed TSS limitations iOf °
the-zBPT data base use post-bidogical
the best performance:ofplants-that use
the-13 of theseLplantssttbrr&ti_*J=
treatment such as:polisbingpcmds4
the recommended technologies.
• '`EPA has based the proposed`BPT
, daa,� af�eaei y��
BOn-Of<'tbem. -
miltlm •fillt�atfo�to-ferSeeroe
al a maybes oprlete lo`
limitations on two technologies. The
only physicatjchaeitneatui
defm_e"'average-oi thet"�`5501
predominant technology" used in the
OOPSHWastry add-thus.the:pdmary
mat have-sabmitfed 1'SS -.WW 0,
cal treatment f bilowed by
i
technology usedze abadis-f or the
0ft1*A p11WtB t
Bus tedlinology"e`sSdUsk for
limitations: isbiologicai�treatment
achieved the proposedlBOD T9S
BnaITS.S=limita6crns, it would dosdby
'
p edby,lbenecessary-.conbwls to
limits, nompliance can b
from Sze BFf data bees. for TSS
-preteettlhe bwta andofluir0ise assure
the inatallsdonof theveodwAfti6OW
purposmeaebiological syshone fiket
that the biological system functions
end -of -pipe BPT tec bnoiogie&' d some
are not followed by adequate pWcal J
effectively and consistently. Activated
cases, especially where Daly TSS
chemical solids control systems. Based
sludge and aerated lagoons are the
noncompliance exists, solids control by
upon the present data base on the
primary examples of such biological
physical/chemical means may sir B
performance of such budogical/terhary
treatment. Other biological systems,
EPA has assumed`forp€rposes-of
solids control systems, this approach
such as aerobic lagoons, rotating
estimating BPT-costs that plants that
would result in the following TSS
biological contractors, and trickling
presentlydo not comply: with AeBOD
limitations.
filters, are also used effectively at a few
limits alone or with botli theJKM and
:l
plants and -data from such plants was
TSS limits would install (the generally
also used to develop BPT limitations.
more •expensive)biological treatment
SubcallomytnMsUba nowt
The second BP3'technology.usedin
For: plantathatVamplgvatk-BODlR&not
the OCPSF industry is a biological
followed by
with TSS, and yhaveno.
biological treatment inplace*-EPA
o,idaore
system a polishing pond or
filter -This bi cal .
OlOgi polrshmg
coated only additional, physical/
FRA!Rvites
:►,
w. VASW
tee
e2
combination.demo effective
chemical• solids cwntnoL
Tyne {
M.
_40
treatment of BOD and'TSS:1a-some
comment on the suitability -of its
veer
gas
ss
cases, plants,originally installed '
regulatory and costing approach.for
biological systems that had inadequate
these plants
A comparison of these values with the
retention:times or were otherwise not
After selecting the.BPT f ogles,
TSS limitations proposed todayshows
designed and operated to optimally treat
EPA developed a statistical criterion, to
that the requirement of" additional solids
conventional pollutants. When these
segregate the betterdesignedand -
control would reduce TSS discharges
plants were required in thelate mos to
operated plants from the poorer
substantially for the Oxidation
upgrade to meet BPT permit limits
performers. This was done to assure
subcategory and reduce them slightly for
(established by permit writers in the
that the plant data relied upon to
the other threeBPT subcategories,
absence of guidelines on a case -by -case
develop BPT limitations reflected the
(Subcategories are discussed
basis, using their best engineering
average of the best.existing performem
immediately below). EPA invites
judgment), some chose to add polishing
The criterion selected -was to includeln
comments on this approach and solicits
ponds or filters rather than to enlarge or
the data base any plant with a biological
data on the use and effectiveness of
otherwise improve their existing
treatment system that ort the average,
polishing ponds and filters ia.redoc ing
biological systems. Tlie biological/
(1) discharged 5o mg/l ar less-DW after
TSS,
' 4 .
polishing combination thus constitutes-
an alternative method to meet BPT.
treatment er¢2}removed or mcre-trf
the BOD that entered the end -of -pipe
, D. Subcotegor&affon and Calculation of
As indicated previously, some plants
treatment system. This criterion reflects
BPT Linutafions
rely exclusively upon -end -of -pipe
the performance level that generally
EPA determined whether different
physical/chemical treatment Some of
achieved by well -operated plantshi-the
effluent lubitations were"appmpnate for
these plants have low BOD and .thus
OCPSF industry that use the.
different segments of the OCPSF
find physical/chemical treatment more
recommended BPT technologies. A
industry. The factors considered
'
effective in reducing TSS loadings.
detailed explanation of the development
included. raw materials used, products
(Biological systems cannot function
of this statistical criterion is contained
manufactured, production processes
unless influent BOD is high enough to
an Section.Vll`of.the Development
employed wastewater characteristics
sustain their biota). Other plants have
sustain
Docent ---- -
and tmatabikty. plant location
determined, based on an analysis of the
Of the 139plants that -rise the
age; and treatment costs. Detailed
types and volumes of pollutants that
recommended technologies and
information on the basis for dzis
they discharge, that physical/chemical
submitted jPOD data to EPA -U4IS2 .
subcategoriaation scheme is prasented-
treatment is more economical, easier to
percent) achieve do mg/1 or less BOD
in Section IV of the BPT Development
.
operate, or otherwise more appropriate,
Many of these plants can central
aftertreatment or 95 Percent or more
BOD:removaL Thus, only .a-su rmip
Document
EPA has established four
conventional pollutants effectively
of the relatively worst performers, IS
re
"
without usingthe two -recommended
t of the.treatment weria
regulatiiosubcategoriessr subcategories
technologies iscussed above -Some
deleted from the data base used too
upon the types of rodu�Jprocesses
P
DEQ-CFW 00065124

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 55 / Monday, March 21, 1983 / Proposed Rules 11M
contributing to the discharge. The
subcategories apply to discharges (Le,
single outfalls)..Plants with more than
one outfall could have their separate
discharges assigned to different
subcategories.
To establish subcategories, EPA
examined the 41 major generic
processes used in the OCPSF industry
for their potential to generate BOD
loadings. For example, the oxidation
process generally produces a relatively
high BOD loading some plastics -
producing processes produce relatively
low BOD loadings. Since the BOD'of the
raw waste load influences the
practicably achievable effluent BOD
concentration, this factor was deemed
appropriate for subcategorization. MS
loadings could not be related in a
similar manner to particular processes.)
Information on the generic processes
and product/processes is contained in
Section III and Appendix A of the BPT
Development Document. The
subcategories are as follows:
1. Subcategory 1—Plastics Only.•
Discharge resulting from the
manufacture of plastics and synthetic
fibers only.
2. Subcategory 2-0xidation:
Discharges resulting from the
manufacture of organic chemicals only,
or both organic chemicals and plastics
and synthetic fibers, that include
wastewater from the oxidation process.
This subcategory is further divided
into two groups based upon the factor of
flow: a high -water -usage group )grmter
than or equal to 02 gallon per pound of
total daily production) and a low -water -
usage group.
3. Subcategory 3-7ype Z Discharges
resulting from the manufacture of
organic chemicals only or, both orgarac
chemicals and plastics and synthetic
fibers, that include wastewater from any
of the following generic processes
(referred to in the BPT Development
document as -'Type 1" processes) but not
from the oxidation process:
Feroxidation
Acid Cleavage
Condensation
lsanuerUAtion (e,g., m-xylene to o- or p-
xylene)
Esterification
Hydration
Alkoxylation
Hydrolysis
Carhonylation
Hydrogenationt {ego bu4TWdehyde to n-
butanol]
Neutralization
4. Subcategory 4—Other Discharges:
All 0CPSF discharges not included is
Sutegories lam.
a r $REl Agewere all
exammec' andfoun� not to be factors in
we bey' 'f " the"Qxid8-tioit
subcategory fond be subject to less
subcategorization. Flow was also stringent limitations) if it added an
considered and used to subdivide oxidation process effluent to its outfall.
Subcategory Z, as discussed above. If the same plant later closed its
For each subcategory, ,EPA calculated oxidation process, the discharge once
the long-term average concentrations for again would become subject to the
BOD and TSS, using the data from those lower and more stringent Type I
plants that had been selected under the limitations.
criteria discussed above and 1hat were Of course, if a plant adds or drops a
included in the -subcategory. Then, production line that substantially -
based on 12 months of daily data from changes the nature of its raw waste
17 plants, EPA developed variability load, a change in its subcategory
factors for all plants. The variability . ' designation and hence its effluent
factors were applied to the long-term limitations may well be appropriate.
averages io calculate-daiiymaximum However, it would be somewhat
concentrations and monthly maximum anomalous to substantially change a
values for BOD and TSS for each plant's subcategory and limitations as
subcategory, the result of the addition or deletion of a
The subcategorization scheme allows process that contributed only a small
discharges that axe somewhat different portion of the plant's total process flow.
from each other to be included in a EPA is uncertain whether, as a practical
single subcategory. This occurs because matter, such anomalies are likely to
the entire floc from an outfall will often occur. We solicit comments on this
be assigned to a subcategory based matter.
upon only part of the production EPA considered the option of
processes contributing to the dischargexidischarge that has both . designing each subcateory discretely to
For example, I. include only plastics, oxidation, Type Type I and oxidation process effluents and other operations, respectively. A
regardless
be in the Oxidation subcategory discharge more than one type of
gaributi of the relative wastewater process effluent could then have its flow
contributions of each process. As a
result, for example, the data base far the apportioned among the subcategories as
Oxidation subcategory includes appropriate. Since the end -of -pipe
discharges that have only oxidation effluent data for each plant reflects
effluents (which tend to have higher combined treatment of different process
BOD), discharges that have both waste streams fed to single outfalls, it is
oxidation and Type i effluents,and not practicable to separately determine
discharges that have both oxidation and the treatability of the various individual
non -Type 1 effluents (which tend to have processes or groups of processes
lower BOD). The long-term average entering the end -of -pipe treatment
calculated for the subcategory reflects system.
the effluent levels for all of these Another option, suggested by an
discharges in the subcategory, industry trade association, is to
For each subcategory, EPA has subcategorize based upon the TSS and/
grouped for analysis those plants or BOD levels in the influent to the end -
performing better than the subcategory of -pipe treatment system. It was further
medians and those performing worse. suggested that, for each subcategory,
For each subcategory, EPA has found EPA set percent -reduction limits (around
that both groups have similar mixes and the end -of -pipe system) rather than
numbers of generic processes,. similar concentration -based limitations. EPA
ranges in the number of specific product has rejected this approval because it '
processes, similar raw waste creates serious inequities and
concentration distributions, and similar discourages good treatment.
contributions from secondary Subcategorization based on a raw-
produsi n of non=OCPSF products, waste-load/percent-removal approach
Thus, it does not appear that different requires a determination of a sampling
types of plants wefe improperly point for raw waste load. Raw waste
combined in a single subcategory. EPA loads are created by individual product/
wel4mes .comments on this conclusion. processes and are affected by process
Another affect ,of the controls and in -plant treatment.
subcategorizafinn scheme -that is related The industry's suggested approach
to the one dism, sed.above is that the would give no credit plants practicing
subcategory assignment of an entire in -plant controls, on the contrary, it
plant's discharge can be shifted if a would actively discourage such highly
particular product/process contributing desirable wastewater control practices.
to the outfall is added,to or deleted -from For example, a plant that significantly
its operations. For example, a plane' reduces BOD and TSS loads prior to
end -of -pipe treatment would be required
Under the suggested approach to farther
reduce its BOD and TSS by the same
DEQ-CFW 00065125

1 11834 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 55 / Monday, March 21, 1983 / Proposed Rules
percentage as a plant not using such
controls: Indeed, no matter how
-effective-a plant's.internal controls or
how clean its initial product/process
discharges are, it would be required
under that approach to obtain
significant additional percent reduction.
- EPA believes its proposed approach is
more equitable than the suggested
approach. First, it bases the
subcategories on the product/processes
that contribute raw waste loads of TSS
and BOD, rather than looking at raw
wastes prior to end -of -pipe treatment. .
Second, by setting concentration
limitations at the end of the pipe, it gives
full credit for any treatment or control
taking place in the plant, regardless of
where that treatment or control occurs.
EPA welcomes comments on its adopted
approach and on the suggested
approach.
,EPA is also considering simplifying its
subcategorization scheme by combining
certain subcategories. For example, it
may be reasonable to combine
subcategories 3 and 4 based on the
similarities of treated effluents for
discharges.in these subcategories. EPA
invites comment on this and other
similar approaches.
Finally, in addition to continuing to
consider various options for final
subcategorization. EPA intends to
collect more data on the performance of
BPT technology. EPA believes that
several of the proposed BPT limitations
may be higher than warranted for the
types of influent waste loads entering
the BPT treatment systems. In particular,
the proposed daily maximum limitations
for TSS in the Oxidation subcategory
are quite high. EPA solicits additional
information on the performance of BPT
systems, especially those used in the
Oxidation subcategory, with respect to
TSS.
E. Concentration -Based Limitations
The proposed BPT limitations (as well
as other limitations and standards
proposed today for the OCPSF industry)
are expressed in terms of concentration
rather than mass. In general, EPA has in
the past preferred mass limitations,
where feasible, to encourage flow
reduction and to prevent the substitution
of dilution for treatment. However,
concentration -based limitations have
been used where production and
achievable wastewater flow could not
be correlated (e.g., for the various
mining industries). In the OCPSF
industry, such correlations do not exist,
as explained below,- and accordingly,
EPA is proposing concentration -based
limitations.
In the OCPSF industry, production
often varies from day to day or even
hour to hour. This is particularly true in
large integrated plants producing a large
variety of'products-aswell,.as plants
employing batch processing. The
treatment_ system,. in contrast, has a
retention time varying from
approximately eight hours to two weeks
or more. The average retention time in
OCPSF plants is approximately 3 days.
In fact, good waste treatment practice
generally requires the smoothing out of
variations in wastewater flow by the
use of equalization basins, because
biological treatment systems in
particular are sensitive to sharp changes
in influent flow or quality. Interception
and mixing of a plant's combined,�fiow
from all of its product/processes plus
the additional retention time in the
balance of the treatment system_ results
in a delay such that pollutants
discharged by a given product/process
often will not appear in a plant's final
effluent until several days later.
In most industrial categories, a lag of
several days between generation of
pollutants and appearance in the final
effluent does not prevent a correlation
between production and effluent flow,
because the production is consistent
from day to day. In the OCPSF industry,
the extensive variation of production
prevents correlation.
The problems described above could
only be mitigated if mass -based limits
are set on individual process lines prior
to biological treatment, with credit given
for Deecent reductions across the
biological system. However, such in -
plant mass limits are inconsistent with
the definition of BPT for this industry,
which is based on end -of -pipe treatment
and does not require inplant flow.
reduction or pollutant control.
Furthermore, such an approach would
require the development of separate
mass limitations for each of hundreds or
thousands of product/processes
discharged by OCPSF, a monumental
and infeasible task.
EPA believes that dilution of process
wastewaters by non -process
wastewaters can be minimized by
requiring the permit writer to establish
mass based limits in the permit.
Therefore, the proposed regulations
require that the permit writer set mass -
based limits by multiplying the plant's
.combined end -of -pipe process
wastewater flow by the concentration
limitation established by the guideline.
The other source of dilution,
commingling different process
wastewatei streams that contain
different pollutants, could not be
prevented even by end -of -pipe mass
limitations. It could only be prevented
by setting separate limitations for each
product/process stream prior to the
biological system. As noted above,
however, such an approach would be
incompatible -with the concept of end -of -
pipe BPT treatment
F. BPT Pollutant Reductions, Costs and
Economic Impacts
EPA estimates that the proposed BPT
Limitations would result in annual
incremental removals of 149 million
pounds of BOD and 102 million pounds
of TSS. The estimated costs of removal
�arrp�.�capital costs of 316.milhon and
afinual costs of 105 million. No closures
or employment losses are anticpated.
EPA has concluded that the proposed
regulations is justified and consistent
with the requirements of the Act
VI. Best Conventional Technology
Effluent Limitations
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. Section
304(a)(4) designated the following as
conventional pollutants: BOD, TSS, fecal
coliform, 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
300)(4)(b). the Act requires that BCT
limitations be assessed in light of a two
part "cost -reasonableness" test. EPA
published a methodology for
determining BCT on August 29,1979 (44
FR 50732). In American Paper Institute
v. EPA, 660 F. 2d 954 (4th Cir.1981), EPA
was ordered to revise the cost test.
The court held that EPA must apply a
two-part test. 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.
In response to the court order, EPA
has proposed a revised BCT cost -
reasonableness test at 47 FR 49176
(October 29,1982). The proposed test
provides that BCT is cost -reasonable if
(1) the incremental cost per pound of
conventional pollutant removed in going
from BPT to BCT is less than $.27 per
pound in 1976 dollars, and (2) this same
DEQ-CFW 00065126

VedoraU / :Ve1. 48,`I46. E5 / Monday, Much 21, 1983 / Proposed Rules 1=5
incremental cost per pound is fees than
143% of the incrementalmd flier poand
associated-srithmcilievaag i
EPA has cuwddemn aa_ l
level of convardanal pqMptaiRt conti+ai.
beyond BPT. The ft c hnWog�-inrla& is
already practiced to some degree -by
approxinudeiyoneMbiod the planisfn
the industry, is additionalsailWacentrai.
This inckxles such techaalgg;r.as
polishing pands..and Mteas . whit
reduce the TSS levels kamthose -
acWevecihy BPT- -- --
To analyze whether ibis technology, is
cost -reasonable, EPA calculated the
incremental jbeyond BPI) conventional
pollutant re winds and the incmm&tal
costs associated whh-thistecbnology.
Based on this information. cost per
pound -ratios were calculated for Each of
the #our Bpi' subcalegolies. The resuis
of this analysis resulted isthe following
incremental costs per pocmd in IM
dollars:
Subcategory L• SICO per pound
Subcategory 2:',1:13 per pound for high
water usage $177per pound fur low
water usage
S gory3:IM45perpound
Sabeatego:y #: $1.GZperpoand
Allof these were found -to fad the first
part of the coat -reasonableness test
MO33 per peoundin M9 dollars}
Therefore; EPA is the "CT be
set equal tarWr. A more coinpWe
discussion of *6 basis-fer-dec hgon is
contained is 5ed0on X of the EW
Development Doemnent.
ReademshoaM sale treat the bCTI
coat -wasp slAesessteat vesults"depend
heavily cis- Ike fisaftset for EM if the
BPT 11 H in the End z+epalalim are
modified based upon-com>eent and EPA
review of the pa<oposed EpThmitatitnts.
EPA will Mate the cost-
reasonabieaess test to dehmmine
whether BCT shvaldsqual BPT or be
mare shot than WT. EPA also
requesis canmaent an adder any other
technology. or set of technologies,
should be considered as a candidate
BCT technology. Furthermore. if the
general BCT cost -reasonableness telt-
proposeden-Oakiber 29.2982.4s
modified EPA willreevaluate She
appropriateness:ofBtr%rlhe OORSF.
industry accorouigly.
IM Best AvaiilaMs3 ologyBeat
Limitations _ '�� "
A. Legsrl Cii#erra fvrelvpeggl3'
The#actors
the bestavailable technology
ecosos��oii�tabis:�T�`i�of
equipm
engineering aspects of applying various
types of coned teckniques, the costs of questionnaire, were also used in the
applying *a caataaii techmc►logy, development of the BATaegmatten.
nonwatw impacts Fear quesb=nwres were mailed to
sachasasapo%MGR,-eoliigwaste OCPSFplants. First, asmentioned
generation and -emu gyaree}uftements, previously, two sets of genteel
and such 96eetictore as the questionnaires were stalled to WOAdministrate deems a i* te: OCPSF regu*information on
(Sect!= 3�) Inrgeileral, the product/processes, raw waste loads,
BAT tecknologyfevd nte� at a discharges, and vwst+ewater treatment.
mmmmum, Abe hest egg ecoaonvica4ly Two additional questionnaires were
acbiece°aniaugplaints mailed to selected plants for speck
with-sheredcberacterlsOcs. iHihele information on the performance of
eyes performance To UsHorudy carbon adsorption and steam stripping
inadequate, BAT technology may be systems.
transferred from a different subcategory Thousands of organic compdtmds are
or industrial category. BAT may also produced and poteritiafly discharged by
include process des er inter this industry. To specify technically
con tre%whic rArenotcommort it OUDhy supportable methods for accurately and
practice. _ precisely measuring each of these
The siata" assessment of BAT compounds in wastewater and to collect
considers costs IW'does nut require a data to define the treatability of each of
balancing of costs egaast client these compounds would have been an
reduction bean fits (see Weyw*aeuserv. unmanageable task within the available
Costle, SM F. 2d IM, tD.C. Cir. M"). time for developing 1hese rules.
In assessing the pmpesed BAT, Therefore, EPA focused its dam
however, the Agency has given gathering effort on the list of 65 toxic
substantial weight to the reasonableness pollutants and classes of pollutants
of costs. The Agency has considered the designated in the Clean Water Act.
volume and mature of discharges Even the list of 65 toxic pollutants and
expected after application of BAT, and classes of pollutants includes potentially
the costs and economic Impacts of the thousands of specific pollutants. To
required pollution control level& make the task -mace manageable,
Despite Ikis consideration of costs therefore, EPA has selected for study in
the primary determinant of1l" is the this rulemaking jas well as other
effluent neductieu capability, of the industry rulemaVmgs)126 specific
control technology_ As.a result of the compounds regired to as "priority"
Clean Water Act,of,2979, the pollutants. The criteria for choosing
achievement,oULAT has.Uxxme the these pollutants included the frequency
national mesas of controlling the of their occurrence in water, their
discharge of toxic poRulaats from direct chemical stability and structure, the
discharging plants. amount of .the chemical produced, and
B. Tedmied Daft Gn*ffMg Efforts forts for the availability of chemical standards
BAT for measurement.
EPA conducted four major sampling
The technical data gathering efforts
for this raiemakiag have is rolved
several extensive activities which are
summarized briefly in this section and m
detail in Section Sri of :the.BAT
Development Document.
In general, data gathering efforts were
coat ed-by three principal means: (1)
Re*k—%,Qf existing.infosaatian in EPA g
fileriekiiag4a the OCPSF_indust w and
Procurements%additional information "
(through written surveys of the Indastry
anti contacts with sepresentatives of
and analysis programs:11) Screening; (2)
verification; (3) longterm sampling of
physicaljchemical systems and14) 5-
plant, long-term sampling of biological
treatment systems The pdwary
objective of these programs was to
produce composite samples of
wastewater from which determinations
could be made of the concentration
(weight per unit vokme)4-md/ormass.
load (weight per unit time) of -the
pollutants present in OCP'SF
wastewaters befioreand :after vadous
Ioveramet}tai eaaad ivale�
st�esv#trsaianeiit.-
reseina&ifacAMes);_(21aaohcdtationwf
The screening programwasconducted
additional3 art a�:�rongli
is two phases: In theArstphase;7ti3
questionrurbooskdarithe.$ ritjrsaf
manufacturing plants (iacludingdirect-
Section
end indirect h
ImplementudoitefffiBil4amObAgand
represented a cross-section of the
analysis plSngt iist$e , , -
OCPSF industry. were Audieclr ones=
verr$catrcinr : "
day composite sample hom each -plant -
monitasing)� "
was: analyzed by an MTATaborato ori--.
d eveltipnmentri~
as EPA contrac#tnfor the "Preseace-
V
including responses to the`BP"
priority pollutants. -The wastewater
DEQ-CFW

11836 Federal Register / Vol.:48,: No.:._55 / Monday, March 21, 4983 /. Proposed : Rules
samples -were generally taken before
end -of -pipe treatment, but sometimes
after tini�mai relim nary end -of -pipe
treatment (eg., primary sedimentation),
dependingeowaccessibility.4o the
wastewater stream: Treated effluent
samples were taken either following
physical/chemical treatment (for
indirect dischargers) or after biological
or physical/chemical end -of -pipe
treatment (for -direct dischargers). EPA
also sampled the raw water source
(intakewater) to determine the presence
of pollutants prior to contamination by
the manufacturing process.
These -screening samples were
analyzed for the presence of -organic
priority pollutants by gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS) and for the presence of
priority pollutant metals by atomic
adsorption spectrophotometry (AAS), as
detailed in Sampling and Analysis
Procedures for Screening of Industrial
Effluents for Priority Pollutants (EPA,
Cineinna% Ohio, April 1977). (Some
metals data was collected by a method
other than AAS and was not included in
the data base because of analytical
concerns). The development of these
methods of analysis has been described
in the preamble to the proposed
regulation -for the Leather Tanning Point
Source Category,-40 CFR Part 425. 44 FR
38749, July 4 W9. A summary of all
priority pollutant analyses reported from
the screening program is incorporated
into Section VI of the BAT Development
Document.
In the second screening phase, EPA _
sampled and analyzed 40 additional
plants, including 13 direct dischargers
and 24 indirect dischargers. This phase
concentrated on smaller plants and
plants producing specialty and relatively
small -volume products.
The screening results have not been
used as part of the data base for
developing BAT limitations. Rather, they
have been used to generally identify the
pollutants of concern in a variety of
plants, to confirm process chemistry
predictions, to help identify candidate
pollutants and processes for further
study and to investigate
subcategorization for BAT.
The verification program was
designed to=obtains days of data from a
representative sample of plants in the
industry. Iv this program. EPA focused
upon plants that manufacture (and thus
are likely to discharge) priority
pollutants and those that produce large -
volume chemicals (and thus account for
a major portion of the industry's
discharge flow as well as the industry's
economic activity).
The verification program included 37
plants. Of these, 30 are direct
dischargers, 5 are.indirect dischargers
and 2 are zero dischargers (deep well
4ispoMM09f,tbe4rer41166hargers, 27..
use at least some end-ot-pipe biological
treatment-and-Ausezonly physical/ -
chemical treatment. -These plants
produce 315 product/processes,
including the major high: production
processes, the processes -used to
manufacture priority pollutants, and
many smaller -volume processes. These
product/processes represent over 70
percent of total.industry production•qpd
over 45 percent of total industry process
wastewater flow.
The verification. program was
designed not only to study the:
performance of end -of -pipe systems, as
in the: screening program, but also to
examine the nature and treatability of
176 individual product/process
wastewater,efflueuls and combinations
of such effluents in the visited plants. At
each plant, EPA sampled the raw waste
load of individual production lines,
determined the rate of production, and.
sampled the discharge from in -plant
physical/chemical treatment systems
used to treat those product/process
effluents either. singly or in combination
with other product process effluents.
Before sampling a verification plant,
EPA first -analyzed the product/
processes attheplant and, through the
use of process chemistry, determined
which priority pollutants were likely to
be discharged at the plant. A pollutant
was determined to be likely to be
discharged if it was the final
manufactured product, used as a raw
material or solvent, or commonly known
or reported to be a by-product of the
process reaction. In addition, EPA
generally analyzed a grab sample at the
plant, prior to taking 3 days of
composite samples, _to further identify
the pollutants being discharged by the
plant. Finally, EPA developed analytical
methods thatwere-specifically
appropriate to measure those pollutants
in the particular wastewater matrix
being sampled.
The methods used by EPA were
generally GC/CD (gas chromatography
with conventional detectors, such as
electron capture or flame ionization).
The Agency used these techniques
rather than GC/MS because: (1) They
were commonly in use in the industry
and were often beingused by the
sampled plants to monitor their process
wastewater streams; (2) equipment to -
use these fephaiques was widely
available; -And (3) the costs of
monitoring for a small number of
targeted priority pollutants is lower for
these techniques than for GC/MS.
However, EPA's analytical program
called for the use of GC/MS for as much
as 10 percent of the samples to confirm
the GC/CD.results.
A diseubs§ Wan sitmmar3► of all'
priority pollutant analytical methods is
contained in:Appendix E of -the BAT -
Development Document. A summary of
results of the priority pollutant analyses
is contained in Section V of the BAT.
Development Document. -
In respense to comments on the
verification program from EPA's Science
Advisory Board, EPA has carefully -
re wed the analyticaianethoas used to
collect the verification data. Based upon
our review, we have determined that
somearistakes were made in collecting
t data for some plants. For example,
appropriate spiking levels were not used
at six plants. As a result, EPA has
deleted all of the data for 6 verification
plants from the. data base used to
generate the BAT limitations.
Furthermore, some data from other
plants may be similarly deleted prior to
final promulgation if warranted by
further analysis. We believe that most of
the data used to develop the proposed
limitations are supported by adequate
quality assurance/quality control (QA/
QC) procedures and will be appropriate
for use in the final regulation.
An additional data base assembled by
EPA contains information on steam
stripping, activated carbon and solvent
extraction. Several full-scale systems
were sampled for certain priority
pollutants. Supplemental data were
obtained from pilot studies, bench scale
studies and laboratory studies, and
engineering design models were used to
allow extrapolation of the results to full
scale systems.
This physical/chemical treatment
data base has not been used to develop
BAT limitations. However, by indicating
the discharge levels achieved by
variously sized and designed physical/
chemical treatment systems, it has been
used to help determine the costs of
removing certain priority pollutants by
physical/chemical means.
The last major data -collection activity
was a long-term (approximately one
month) sampling program at 5 plants12
of which were also verification plants).
The sampling was done on a
cooperative basis among EPA. the
Chemical Manufacturers Association
and the 5 companies. The sampling was
conducted around the end -of -pipe
systems (which included biological
treatment at each plant). Split samples
were analyzed by EPA. CMA and, in
most cases, the plants. Metals were not
addressed in this study. In addition, the
study did not analyze all of the organic
priority pollutants.
DEQ-CFW 00065128

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 55 / Monday, March 21, 1983 / Proposed Rules 11837
Data from the 5-plant study, like the
verification data, were used to develop
the BAT limits. The five plants included
an additional 16 product/processes that
were not covered in the verification
study. Thus the two combined data
bases include 331 product/processes.
In addition to gathering data, EPA
studied (using both process chemistry
theory and empirical validation) the
principal feedstocks (basic raw
materials) and generic processes used in
the OCPSF industry to determine the
priority pollutants that are likely to be
discharged from particular product/
processes. This information has been
and is continuing to be used in several
ways, including. (1) Providing a
theoretical understanding of the
collected data; (2) identifying product/
processes that have not get been
sampled by EPA and are likely to
discharge priority pollutants and thus
are good candidates for future sampling
and analysis; (3) indicating the extent to
which the product/process and
pollutant -discharge data in EPA's data
base is representative of the entire
industry; and (4) assisting permit writers
and plants in determining the pollutants
that are likely to be discharged and thus
need to be treated and routinely
monitored. A detailed discussion of this
subject is contained in Section V of the
BAT Development Document. EPA
invites co
information to improve this discussion
of priority pollutant pathways.
samples in the screening, verification
and 5-plant studies. While most of these
pollutants are attributable to OCPSF
processes, some are not. For example,
the pesticide priority pollutants found in
end -of -pipe effluent cannot be attributed
to OCPSF wastewaters because they are
not used as raw materials oesolvents,
are not produced as products or co -
products, and are unlikely to appear as
raw material contaminants in OCPSF
product/processes. They are most likely
attributable to intake water used in the
process or to pesticide formulations that
were being applied around the plant
grounds but are not related to
production processes. Even after good
biological treatment that meets the
criteria set for the BPT data base (BOD
less than 50 mg/l or better than 95%
BOD reduction), the discharge of many
priority pollutants is still significant and
treatable.
Due to the huge process -wastewater
flows that occur at many OCPSF plants,
the total mass (flow times
concentration) of discharged priority
pollutants can be very high even at low
concentrations. The total mass of
discharged organic priority pollutants
from this industry is the highest of any
industry. EPA estimates that direct
dischargers would discharge 668 million
pounds of priority pollutants after
achieving BPT. (The priority pollutant
mass loading figures presented in the
preamble are based on developing flow -
weighted industry -wide priority
C. Need for BAT Regulation pollutant loadings for the 176 selected
product/process and then, on the basis
The OCPSF industry is unique in that
it is the only industry that intentionally
manufactures large volumes of the
majority of organic priority pollutants.
This fact alone indicates that significant
discharges of organic priority pollutants
will likely occur in this industry. Several
other significant sources of organic
priority -pollutant discharges in the
OCPSF industry are: (1) The use of
priority pollutants as raw materials; (2)
the use of priority pollutants as solvents;
(3) the creation of priority pollutants a18
co -products in petrochemical processes;
and (4) the presence of priority
pollutants as contaminants in raw
materials. Furthermore, many prionly
pollutant metats are used in various
product segments as catalysts, oxidizing
and reducing agents, reagents, reactants,
raw materials, by-products and
corrosion inhibitors and thus also may
be expected to be discharged from
OCPSF plants.
Actual data collected by EPA confirm
the discharge of a wide variety of
priority pollutants. Nearly.every.priority_
tk - pollutant has been detected in at least
42 percent of the influent or effluent
of flow, extrapolating the loading to the
entire industry).
Based upon the above information,
EPA has concluded that priority
pollutant discharges from the OCPSF
industry are significant even after BPT
treatment. Therefore, BAT limitations
are necessary to control priority
pollutant discharges.
D. BAT Technology Selection
Due to the diversity of priority
pollutants in the OCPSF industry, a
vasiiky of treatment technologies are
employed by OCPSF plants to control
priority -pollutant (as well as
nonconventional pollutant) discharges.
06nsequently, the selection of a
particular set of "BAT" treatment
technologies is plant -specific. Unlike
other industries for which EPA has
established BAT guidelines, the OCPSF
industry is not amenable to the
specification of a single model BAT
technology.
The range of technologies used to
control priority -pollutant discharges in
the OCPSF industry encompasses
virtually the entire range of industrial
wastewater -treatment technology.
Generally, as indicated previously, this
technology is usually some combination
of in -plant control, or treatment of
specific wastestreams (from one or
several product/processes) by any of a
variety of physical/chemical methods,
biological treatment of combined waste
streams, and post -biological treatment.
Some of the controls or technologies
preceding the biological segment of the
treatment system are installed
specifically to reduce priority pollutants.
However, others are expressly designed
into the treatment system to assure
compliance with BPT by protecting the
biological segment of the system from
shock loads and other forms of
interference. It is thus infeasible to
specify that any particular technology is
or is not a "BAT" technology or a
"priority -pollutant control" technology
in the OCPSF industry. Rather, each
plant wishing to control its priority -
pollutant discharges will employ some
combination of controls and
technologies (and, to some extent,
dilution of some process wastewater by
other process wastewater having lower
concentrations of certain priority
pollutants) that result in the desired
reduction.
Based upon these considerations, EPA
has refrained in this rulemaking from
specifying a particular set of controls as
the basis for BAT. Rather, EPA has
based the proposed BAT limitations on
the levels of priority pollutant control
that are actually achieved at various
OCPSF plants using differing treatment
configurations. In doing so, EPA has
carefully analyzed the plants in its BAT
data base to assure that the data relied
upon to develop BAT limitations
represent the best available technology
rather than simply an average of
existing performance levels.
EPA has used certain existing rules to
determine which plants are included in
the data base used to develop BAT
limitations. These rules are discussed in
Section V of the BAT Development
Document. EPA will continue to
consider the appropriateness of the
editing rules and invites comment on
them.
E. Calculation of BAT Limitations
EPA considered two general options
for developing BAT effluent limitations.
The selected option is concentration -
based limitations, based on end -of -pipe
data that reflect total treatment system
performance. The rejected option would
have set mass -based (or, in a suboption,
concentration -based) limitations, based
primarily on an evaluation of the
treatability of individual product/
DEQ-CFW 00065129

11�38 Federal Register /► VoL' 4it. Nb. 5& / Monday-. bkrcrr 21.19fa / RWosed
process stimams•bym►piantprocess
conbal.physic4ricskttea t.
anr3rhisi�ieahtnee�nass6.
1. Opt%sra� sea4ir�iiefcerta.
on SpeaaJ(fe sessea I&(--
Agency We: the rejectediwaakbased.
product-h*eess oplkmveny n6vns;
consideration throughout the
development=ofithese,segulaxions. This
options wouldhave.relied primarily on
the data.gaihere&iatke verificatiom
program for th V%pmducthmocesses
an&thairb:aata6il4 andtalswon the-
physicaW'ohenicaL treatability data
based Based ozzdi s.data,EPA.would
have, determinedwhat man limitations
coulid be:achieved Bev each product/
process through the use ofin-plant
control.
Under this option, each product/
process would have been=eonsidered a
separate subcategory, and the'regulation
would have contained separate mass -
based I'imiiWonsfor each such
subcategt)ry..Moniioring wound'have
been separately required'for each.
product/process effluent.. However,.
credit could have been provided for
removal's by an end -of -pipe (usually
biorogfcalliteatment system f sampling
before and after that system
'demonstrated a percent reduction
through the biological segment offthe
system. 'Phis is. simifir ttr tfm use of
removal{ ered%-fir ffm>lketsatmoent
program for fsdirect- dines.. (See 4o
CFR 4031.7,.48•FR 94K Jianuary 26, IM).
See also, the• proposed amendments to 40
CFR 403.7, 47 FR 42M, September-M,
1982.
This option, if supported by sufficient
technical' information; provides some
potential' advantages over an. end -of-
pipe=based regulation:
a. By setting limits an individual
product/processes; this: opdwL- would
assure treatmentpriarto•the
commingling of diffesent'process
wastewaters. Thus,. the dilution of one
process wastewaftreontainin&Po*
pollutants A E by -anther process
wastewater containing, aniy poilaburts
F-) could not be used asa:pardel N.
substitute for E.
b. This• aptiom coin be expected,. in
practice, to result in; an emphasis on
process controls and in -plant physical/
chemical treatment, thereby promoting
the recycling and reuse of wastewater
and by-products. Such; an emphasis
would result in a seduction: of the overall
pollutant release•e through various
environmental: media that might
otherwise occur througie a heavier
reliance on end -of -pipe, hioltigicai
treatment For -example, biological
treatment can, in some instances-, cause
the transfer of some -volatile organic
pollutants from the wastewater to the
air, and the- adsorption of some after
organic ponutants,aw-weffammetalsi.to
the bfelegfss#sludge: ie
disposed: ofilniagknetkods-vib h.may
afhwtother Wh&sumuin-plant :.
phgsicalkAemieai mn&ols may
similarirtmmsferpoRutants to other
media (&.&« precian' off metals. often
results in! the transfsco#imetalsfram
wastewater be other•nnediai otherin-
plant controls;anck analsients seturmat
least s3nmrpollta,the°process:.
thessbyr ftisk-ewAwnmen"
releases.
Despdte•these theenthof adwantages,
EPA has conchided..fhstthis option is
both tec callyand administsatiNOW
infeasible,., The, difficulties hies with tl'iis
option arreoutlinedbeliowr ,
a. EPA eollecteci:dsgai characterizing
176 specffic.pzoduckhVxmw effluents.
This eovem all, of thehigh-volume
products in the industry, and represents
approximately 4Apescent of the'
wastewaterfiowrmd.approxime#a 56
percent of its productiom- lespilmd s
extensive coverage„ thousands of minor
individual pteduct/ipmcesses are•left
unaddressed. In. eatingSA►i
regulatiens.tolissue a pewit under this
option;- a pemmit wrihw would typically
be faced with the acdhass task of
characterizing and developingeffluent
limitatiormimr those grade �sse�s
at ea& plant thatamnotexpi%-r
addressed by the•regsindon. The time
and expertise needed by the States and
EPA Regional offices to: implement this
approach would be- enormous. It is thus
likely that this, approach would
substantially delay the issuance of
permits to, and the installation and
operation of BAT controls. by, OCPSF
plants.
b. Caiculaiing.mass limits requires
that for -each produW-process, SPA must
calculate an FJV fllow divided by
production volume) lratimsepresentative
of good industry practice-, (Multiplying
F/P by concentration yields a mass
pollutant loading per unit of production.)
For 146 of the 1.7aproduct/processes,
EPA has: PP data wash corresponding
final effluent date- at only one plant
Moreover where we:have datafrom two
or three plants, wide variations in F/P
ratios often occur. (In one case the
variation is.a.factor of 74). Causes for
tflese disparities couldbe a.varietyof
differing process controls. To, establish a
BAT F/Pratio, EPA wouldpractically
have to set design and operating
practices for each product/process in
the industry. This is far beyond the
reasonable scope of the BAT pro4ect
c. Plants often combine the raw
wastewater -from: several product/
processes;prior tor in -plant treatment..
The piping configurations often -make it
impossiblyto=sanq Site,isohute&
wastewater-stnesmsbefore. they are
cocmbined: ' e 'm-umLe r_
several product e*hnntawouid
-confoundattempts, to, is{p'
ratios, raw; waste loads or treatnbiAties
to partfcuiar•product/processefuents.
This problem would simibuffyrconfront
plants attempting;to monitor -individual
produc*revess-effluents in order to
comply wit& permits' implementing this
option.
d. WA: s data indLcaft the day; -to.
day varkbft of physiadkla.��
treatnimt-sylstem+perform nc&fs
somewhat Rmited. Suehinfasotfon is-
a%Wable for some physimUchenirai
systems' day -today performance in
treating particular priority pollutants•in
particular wastewater matrices.
However,%r•others. only laboratory,
pilot or bench scale data and/or
theoretically based extrapolations exiat
Obtaining additional fallrscala data an
many of the mom importantrVb#si=V
chemical systems (e.g:. steazw9f ione
and activated carbon&would be
enormously complicated_1%&,systans
must be sampled at -time intervak ansch
smaller-thart regniiedtferhielagbcffls
systems. Thus, thei I imumaaminmaf
samples, toy obtaima representativeset of
data:. is• very large; and. the cost of
performing; such snaipeestioa
physical/chemicak riestmentsystesmis
correspondingly higk.
e. Monitoring for compliance with
individual productlprocess limitations
would be enormously expensive.
Sampitug and analysis for organic
pollutants, unlike analysis for
conventional pollutants and metals,. is
very expensive. Monitoring on a routine
basis for organic pollutants at; many
different points within the plant would
be excepdfoaally expensfve- For
example, A a large plans, monitored 15
sample points for pdmity pollutants
once a week, the annual cost of
monftoring alone coin be as liiglh as
$663, M
Although EPA has decided not to
propose product/ass esentedx
mass -based. BAT limitatiens. the
product/process-related data have
proved enormously usehA to tbe Agency
and are expected to he useful in the
future. First theinformation has helped
EPA verify its theoretical understanding
of the sources of priority -pollutant
discharges in the OCPSF industry. This
helps assure the representativeness of
the data used for the selected option and
will assist-permitwritan indeveloping
monitoring requirements. Second, as
discussed below, the information has
been crucial to EPNs-analysisof the
DEQ-CFW 00065130

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 55 / Monday, March 21, 1983 / Proposed Rules 11839
costs and economic impacts of the
proposed BAT limitations.
2. Option Z The selected approach —
End -of -Pipe Concenttution Limitations.
EPA has decided to propose
concentration -based BAT limitations for
two separate subcategories based upon
end -of -pipe data that reflect the best
available technology, including
combinations of process controls, in -
plant physical -chemical treatment, and
end -of -pipe (usually including
biological) treatment. The data base
includes the verification plants and the
plants included in the 5-plant study. The
use of concentration -based, end -of -pipe
BAT limitations avoids the difficulties
discussed above with respect to a mass -
based approach. However, as in the
case of BPT limitations, the permit
writer would multiply the concentration
limit by the plant's combined
wastewater flow to set a mass limitation
in the permit. In addition, the permit
may limit flow, on a case -by -case basis
using best engineering judgment, where
water use is excessive and prevents
effective reduction of priority pollutant
loadings:
Prior to calculating concentration -
based limitations, EPA considered
whether the industry should be
subcategorized for BAT purposes. We
considered the types of factors
discussed above with respect to BPT
subcategorization. We concluded that
two subcategories were appropriate for
BAT. One subcategory consists of
discharges resulting from the
manufacture of plastics and synthetic
fibers only ("Plastics Only" which
corresponds to the BPT Plastics Only
subcategory). They tend to have less
significant levels of priority pollutants
than the remaining discharges, all of
which result from the manufacture of at
least some organic chemicals ("Not
Plastics -Only" subcategory which
corresponds to the BPT oxidation, Type
I and Other Discharges subcategories).
Thus, as discussed below, relatively few
priority pollutants require control in thk
Plastics Only subcategory while many
priority pollutants require control in the
Not Plastics -Only subcategory.
The designation of fewer
subcategories for BAT than for BPT
stems from the conceptual differences
between BAT and BPT. BPT reflects the
average of the best existing industry
practice. The four BPT subcategories
reflect the fact that the best practicable
treatment technology results in differing
practicably achievable BOD and TSS
discharge levels for each subcategory.
The.data gathered by EPA for BAT
show that plants in the 3 BPT
subcategories other than Plastics Only
can all achieve the same effluent
limitations by installing the best
available technology economically
achievable. Age, size, Iocation and flow
were considered and found not to be _
factors in subcategorizatiort The BAT
subcategorization°is discussed in further
detail in Section IV of the BAT
Development Document -
EPA is considering establishing a
separate subcategory, for BAT purposes,
for discharges resulting from the
manufacture of rayon. These discharges
would otherwise be covered by the
Plastics Only subcategory. An industry
trade association has -recently submitted
raw waste load and treated effluent
data for this subcategory. These data
indicate that discharges from the
manufacture of rayon differ
dramatically from other plastics
discharges. Concentrations of metals in
other raw (untreated) waste loads are
almost always less than 5 µg/l. Rayon
raw waste discharges of zinc often
exceed that figure by 100 times or more.
Even after good treatment, it is
reasonable to expect, as the data
indicate, that rayon discharges cannot
achieve the same level as other plastics
discharges. EPA invites comments on
the suitability of establishing a separate
subcategory for discharges from rayon
manufacturers.
Having established the BAT
subcategories, EPA then established
limitations for each subcategory. EPA
first calculated long-term averages for
each priority pollutant that was
discharged above levels achievable by
BAT (36 organics and 8 metals in the
Not Plastics -Only subcategory, and 5
organics and 5 metals in the Plastics
Only subcategory). The averages were
then multiplied by variability factors to
calculate daily maximum and 4-day
average effluent limitations. The 99th
and 95th percentiles of the long-term
data distribution provide the basis for
calculating the daily maximum and 4-
day average variability factors,
resp,ely. A detailed discussion of
EPA a methodology in developing
limitations is contained in Section IX of
the BAT Development Document.
The 4-day averages are expressed as
"average of daily values for 4
consecutive monitoring days." The
actual monitoring frequency will vary
from plant to plant (see the discussion in
Section XI of this preamble). EPA feels
that monitoring four times a month is a
reasonable average frequency for some
plants. For others. a.different frequency
(e.g., once per month) may be more
aPP ,ppate:;In aasrcase _the 4-day
average would apply to any set of 4
consecutive samples, regardless of the
period of time over which the samples
were taken.
One issue that has arisen with respect
to the effluent limitations for organic
priority pollutants is the analytical
variability associated with
measurements for these pollutants,
especially at low levels. The practical
lower limit of detection for most of these
pollutants, given the proper use of
analytical procedures, is between 1 and
10 µg/l. If GC/CD is used with careful
cleanup and other appropriate
procedures, the practical detection limit
is generally even lower (between 0.1 and
1 µg/1). At very low levels approaching
the detection limit from above, unless
great precautions are taken, analytical
variability may substantially affect the
process of quantification. EPA's
statistical methodology for developing
the BAT limits has been designed with
this problem in mind. The methodology
does not require the quantification of
values below 10 µg/1.
EPA found that some pollutants
known to be in raw waste loads were
uniformly reduced to 10 µg/1 or less by
plants in EPA's data base. For others,
treatment uniformly reduced pollutant
levels to not much higher than 10 µg/l.
Appropriate statistical techniques yield
low BAT limits (both daily maximum
and 4-day average) for these 'pollutants
(often less than or equal to 10 µg/1).
Low-level concentration data is viable
for inclusion in a data base that reflects
the range of performance of BAT
systems. However, EPA feels that
setting regulatory limits at 10 µg/1, even
where warranted by appropriate
statistical techniques applied to the
data, will result in apparent violations
that may occur due to analytical
variability at this low level of detection.
In such cases, the discharger and the
pretreatment control or permitting
authority would have to review the
analytical procedures used in order to
determine if a violation actually
occurred. Many disputes would arise
concerning incidental analytical
methods issues, diverting attention from
the central issue: whether the
appropriate set of BAT controls and
treatments are being properly operated.
EPA believes that sound regulatory
policy dictates that levels be chosen that
lessen the necessity for analytical
disputes without being so high that
inadequate treatment is allowed.
Consequently, a less stringent
threshold of 50 µg/l has been set for
organic priority pollutant limitations.
This level has been selected as the .daily
maximum limitation.whenever the
statistical methodology yields lower
(less than 50 µg/1) concentrations. For
DEQ-CFW 00065131

& Esdamt -Register I Vmh 48L No. 58 J Manday. lldasa 244 IM [ PMPWB&-
pol whas -daily maxima are,
> x
,proposed to.be 50 µg/l (for the;asaeans=
d aiaew),.W&iwnat settiag41-
day "Baeeelsup�
statrstisagiww".ffieseawwww
'
should be even,lhwes timm the dai*
maxima„whiik.haa .Iwemraiae&tm50
dispaWw To.l&a9nei eni,.the 441W
average-&umulikhame to;ba:rB"er£t&so
;µB(,14fort�same:nea�sorm.. �gvuapsse
worrWfba saasedba haacisg awesaw
limits setat th&samiJeueltas da4
maodaa..U&daft maximuas liimitaotions
oc5a pjb ludll.siMcefar segiilafiory and
en5nrcemenipu�oses. .
EMB.vwll cendutia to, consider the
aoitfie5d "A
bound useerfm tliese, proposed
regulations: Given. the extremely law
levels.of &-tection far most -of the
pollutants, the.59 µg/Llevel may be
higher thamneressary toavoid
sigm'Scant analytical methods" disputes.
Certainly, for the pollntants.imquestion,
substantially lower levels are both
technically achievable and measurable,
provfdied18atadegpate care -is taken
witlf• mqm-ctbmana cdtechnigpes-
EPA. invites comments and analytical
met Beds data that woulcL stied: further
'
lighgon tIlfs issue.
i Y
A relafeMmueraisad`iiy as iud, try
" ?
trade assaaariori concerns tiie
implhmenfaftn aspectw of low level
r
limits onartheybaveBeen established
im*efinal! regrrfiWira The concern.
rafsed is- thatar any rtm Gus* lbw
level, ana?gffrzFv y fs:sufffsient
-k;
to, resuluirsoinLr cases, in apparent
noneompliemce carom-& solely by such
variabilitT The indwstty aes erciation
suggested. an upww& adjustment of such
limile0orm ttr account for -such
variabilityar, ahtrnativ*, an EPA
policy an how-to, interpret violations of a
limit drat me withinireertairt range of
analytical Variation , from the Iimit.
s)=
EPA dbernerrbefievethat• the
regularwyrlisdWshoalll-be•ad*uftil to
J
address thfweenaepm The data used- to
derivrthel eeaze&cttherange-of
variabilitytbendiiothe industryk
ineudinrawalylicaf varfolAtty as well
as product/process and treatment
variabii1y.. Fund ermore, statistical
techniquevused todeidve the daily
maxim>ralanr ens already -account
foesil aridt®ther vrerial5iiit3t>bY
!
multiplyhWthel aw-vage.long-term•
perforniame byv,ariabfiftyfactors,
Finally, thsotherrnreasums-discussed
above shoubi- reducvany remaining
variabi probisaszw�
<
EPALagmeas,.swieser, that am
erdbnzarett$p ora:gemmkpolicyr
that recognizest*mprobbams•af
analyt znbvadaht twcadd-be-usefaL
EPA i roends to consider such an
igag
approaclaan&wce%omes:aommentm en
how best4mdewelep anddinvibmazit it...;
F. AM cabtlr'i p ofBAT E s
Ths ttsw for
BAT_amithe ins. for
each: subeategoex. appl-is allplani$:
that have ftchawareaddatforst
OCPSF manufactrudzisepersOms. Ilus,
they comer- s-oi
poluteatabiamthaisandsof gasduct/
processesa -
Ue pkaft mciude&=th&BM dates
base f(wdmdhveispmautafBAT
1i eominaiude-234predu*
PMMMMOS.Mmse Rem 4
represaag ta*20 a of
industt amdappcosmnefiely
45 percenfiaf industryiiew. Thaw; EPA
believes that they pravide adak - '
representation of the•sntiw. kmEastey
with respeetto:ac)bh--end-®f-pipe
concentnWimm
In amzbAdWtHeMTdwdabasmEPA
found thatmaayr-piantma r achieve
lover eftimic fiar the
pollutants cametnibydwBM
regulationmeawkent &ase poRktants
are atsigntffcank maomFimthe
raw vama Iaad. bw
planisawyeriend*abiaboaddevelow
of oeni lexelaregardlasaof mylbgh
loadingstlattmayinma ybegnerated
by particular product/procew w idiin
the plants. I-n the cam sipiauftthat are
dischamgWa partkubwpoffistmts at
higher kvek dmwetheYpiambsin: dw
database,. ERA.haa beam able
to identify a.amrta* type a@ 11 1 or
treaftentitr cmbmis or
in -plant is tientmeni)
that is used by the hotter perfemem to
treat thanesbut that is:notbeing
use& bp the poom- '>3ese
facts lead to the cmd si®. titaet m w ell-
operatm&p1huff shouMbe aisle: to meet
the BATfindladsns mpwdbrw o€thia
produ sses- a m being used: of the
plantpmeaddedthelappoopriodir
technalogiesaae"apphed..Thum; the
proposed linsitati illisa.oan "a
base shaaldtbe aclminvabitrby
in the ind:oofty,a-va n.when.theyt use
sonve productiOiwcesses;that am not
specifically covered by our database:
Tire conclusion dwr the proposed BAD'
(imitations am bwadi*applivable is
strongly supported *an araafy d&Gf the
sourceso$piorityp st Run
pnocess; I , i tW. pemspectkw.Atsanted`
previous* priesiWpodutnKs;am
dischar `C.— Chem processes
geaw thez+e ed o1wof the-
folkwAng thme:eausss: (Aj Ifte•pollatmtt
is manuilaciured, bF the pYantr (d)t the
pollutant:ieawk-predtrctaf 6--process
reaction,-, fir*e polltrtarrti"e:uwerbas a
raw•mathristh (4) the pollutant is user# as
a solvent;. or (ether pollutant is a
contaminant oLmrawmahMERL
ia�I atastsgi�
productipooffesseffuseatanwondhawre-
the priority p iialtamtepeadaaed.
ingibrgevubuse. Il:inciadrs ab metall of
the: i igpesef ahez�al
processss:aae&M iite:h7E.'PW mdmfty
Similarly; theinciusiaa-ef=mW
differasti4APewaf 1 1 th es
usasl:in *aindustwenances9mmube
data reflect agDodicmasiandismsofihe
ued"PWhantsiss ramror
soi®mis:'Plrs>ti aeoroe sirpatrtants,
couftn4nowref-jawmmandabrOiff
laz y vaeieWoeven for a g�
depending dw
pp�
lomrs air e a
particaihr time.'he planta:amipasduct/
process= imduedaea base. smayr be
expected to pswAde a repoosembdiwe
picture with Ito din 1i Ias
WEE
EPAbleadettcogather mwedi Nafrem
addHimmuipbuits, incladhaga al
prmluc"Ip es, to br eadbm the di ect
coverage of the dhta• bass and to:
cordOut. tetiof
previously unsampled plants. In -
addifimUtgaMunfing-daMompollatonis
limited firths proposed rev&WOmw we
will be seeking daft oat pokatauftchat
are no f IbmWed. na the prwpumul, tmiarther
assure oursdarexibut
dischar@mefdWmwF Aeeta 1 wwnot
ocCuMfim@�) M thir'
infaea WA ster mtsdlii *0
proposeCimladonsor dera torunit
additional poiktm*& EPR'wdtata-
gatherhtphn isdiscoseedia greater
detail in Secfioni, XT befowv.
EPA levies emmmentw on this issue.
Specifically, do, pawduct sses exist
whose raw waste Immix few parfiealar
prioriW poduteaft are so high that their
efftaent %adims eaannot be reduced to
comply wriih thepropesedBAT
limitatiosmiyrusing the best available
tec lyachievabW. If
so, who0amedwrroduct/processer,
wiolpaitlrtw o t, dbst#eygeneraft at
what I I an#wrhat
diffmi!%predudethe adaevabi&ty of
th&BAT ffiaitations;? D certain
product/proeesseedischarge, at
significant levelh, priority pollutants that
are not finated in the proposed BAT
regullativdPVM8 x kAxecesses are
these, an6w hat PoMAU is do they°
dischaW as what iavel9911
G. BAT AemavQlsof Prey PbRa wets,
Casty andEcanamic Impacts
EPAesWwattaatiiat the propose&BAT
regul`atita3 wrilS:eash► ar ffi e iircrei>e�1'
removals *eyeed't6e9 achieved by BM
of 648 million-poan& per year of priority
pollatantm I!AT'is, estimated to result, in
DEQ-CFW 00065132

Feclaral Register. J Vol. 45,- No.- 55 -1 Monday,- March 21, 1983 Proposed Rules 11842
capital costs of $520 million and annual_
Before proposing pretreatment
u
costs of $243 million. Five plant closures
standards, the Agency examines
are anticipated. In addition, 9-process
whether the pollutants discharged by
Imes are expected to close, resulMig in
the industry pass through POTW or.
the loss of 377 out of 2NA00 total, jobs in
interfere with POTW operation or
the industry.
sludge disposal practices. In -determining
Based upon the above.. EPA has
whether pollutants pass tlugugh, a
concluded that the proposed BAT
POTW, the Agency compates the
limitations are justified and consistent
percentage of a pollutant removed by
with the requirements f the Act. -
POTWs with the percentage removed by
VHL Now Source Performance
direct dischargers applying BAT. A
Standards
pollutant is deemed to pass through the
POTW when the average percentage
The basis for new source performance
removed nationwide by well -operated
standards (NSPS) under Section 306 of
POTWs (those meeting secondary
the Act is the best available
treatment requirements) is less than the
demonstrated technology. At new
percentage removed by direct
manufacturing plants, the opportunity
dischargers complying with BA1' -
exists to design the best and most
effluent limitations guidelines f w that,
efficient processes and wastewater
pollutant
treatment facilities. Therefore,. Congress
This approach to the definition ef:pass
directed EPA to consider the best
through satisfies two competing
demonstrated process changes, in -plant
.
objectives set by Congress: That
controls, and end -of --pipe treatment
standards for indirect discharges be
technologies that reduce pollution to the
equivalent to standards for direct
maximum extent feasible.
dischargers, and that the treatment
Priority pollutants proposed for
capability and performance of the
control by this regulation include those
POTW be recognized and taken into
listed for BAT. BOD and TSS which are
account in regulating the discharge of
regulated in BPT, are proposed for
pollutants from indirect dischargers.
regulation under NSPS.
Rather than compare the mass or
The technologies used to control
concentration of pollutants. discharged
conventional and priority polbitants at
by the POTW with the mass or
existing plants ate fully applicable to
concentration of pollutants dish d
new plants. Furthermore, EPA has not
by a direct discharger, EPA compares
identified any technologies or
the percentage -of the pollutants
combinations of technologies. that are.
removed by the plant with the POTW
demonstrated for new sources that are
removal. EPA takes this approach
different from those used to establish
because a comparison of mass or
BPT and BAT limitations for existing
concentration of pollutants in a POTW
sources. Therefore. EPA is establishing
effluent with pollutants in a direct
NSPS suboa es and proposing
�II P ��
s effluent would not talcs into
a
NSPS limitations that are identical to
account mass of pollutants
those proposed for BPT and RAT.
discharged to the POTW from
IX. Prat Standards for 8dsting
nonindustrial sources ii!or the dilution of
the pollutants in the POTW effluent to
Sources
lower concentrations from the addition
A. Legal Criteria in Developing
of large amounts of nonindustrial-
Pretreatment Standordr
wastewater.
Section 309(b) of the Act requites EPA
to promulgoe pretreatment standards
for existing sources (PSES), which must -
be achieved uithin three years of
promulgations: PSES are ledbped to
prevent the Sege of pollutants that
pass tbiuugh, interfere with, or are -r
otherwise incompatible ompatible with the k .
operation ciFOTWs. U&
history of the Vn Act indicaies-that
pretreatment standards are tore
technology -lased analogous to tbe best
available technology for removal of
toxic pollutants. The General
pretreatment Regulations why serve as
the fcamew- akh r-flaproposed
pretreatment standards awe um 494M
46 FR 94k January a i981).
B. Need for Pretn atment Standards
Indirect dischargers in the OCPSF
indastry, like the direct dischargers,. use
as raw materials and mAvents. and.
pro as products or byproducts,
many organic priority pollutants..
Similarly, they use many priority
peAutant metals in their manudacturing
operations. Therefore, as in-d" case of
direct dischargers, they inay be
expected to discharge many priority
pollutants to POTWs at significant mass
and concentration. indeed, EPA
estimates that indirect dischargers
annually.discharge 174; million pounds
of priority pbll,ntaats•to:POT'Nts. •=
EPA has conducted a .study of 50 well-
operatedSlaMVifa.thakusrbiciar=. t
treatment and meet the secondary
treatment criteria to determine the
extent to which priority pollutants are
reduced by such POTW's. This study
showed that the metals proposed for
BAT regulation are typically removed at
rates varying from 59 to 91 percent in
POTWs. In contrast, BAT level
treatment by direct dischargers in the
OCPSF industry achieves removal of
these metals in the range -of 17 to 83
percent. While the ranges: overlap in
general. BAT removal .exceeds POTW
removal with respect to particular
pollutants in only a few cases. EPA has
found that one metal (lead), and cyanide
discharged from the Plastics Only
subcategory pass through POTWs, and
metals (chromium and mercury) from
the Not Plastics -Only subcategory pass
thr%M;h.
For the organic priority pollutants
Proposed for BAT regulation, data from
the 50 POTWs illustrate a wide range of
removals for various pollutants, ranging
from 45 to 98 percent reductions. BAT -
level treatment by direct dischargers in
the OCPSF industry also illustrates a
wide range of removal. Removal data
across OCPSF biological systems show
a percent reduction range from 33 to
greater than 99 percent. In many
instances, the data on removals across
biological scystems understate, because
of the location of the sampling points
the percent reduction across the entire
BAT treatment system (including
-reductions across in -plant treatment).
However, it is reasonable to assrune
that the precent reduction across an
entire system would be higher than
across the end -of -pipe treatment alone.
POTW percent reduction data are
available for 27 of the 36 organic
pollutants proposed for BAT limituations.
BAT percent reductions are greater than
POTW percent reductions for 11 priority
pollutants. For 16 o-ther priority
pollutants, POTW removals are better
than BAT removals fcalcelated only
across the end -of -pipe portion of the
BAT system, as mentioned above).
Higher POTW removals for this hitter
group indicate the: absence of pass
through with respect to the pollutants in
that group. However, as noted in the
above paragraph. the BAT removals
may be understated by the available
data.
Some of the 11 pollutants in the first
group fail into a grey area. The data
indicate that BAD' percent reductions for
5 pollutants exceed POTW percent
reduction by less than-5 percent: In light
of the. fact thatEPA.had less dataim the
POTW.ttadles:On orgauic:priority _
Pollutants: than it had forthe-metals and.
intlie`h�yticaivariB�3ty-^��- ,
Organic Priority pollutants at the
DEQ-CFW 00065133

11842 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 55 / Monday, Marche 21, 1983 /' Proposed -Rules
concentrations typically found in end -of -
pipe biological systems at POTWs and
OCPSF plants, EPA believes that
differences of 5 percent or less between
the OCPSF and POTW data for organic
priority pollutant reductions may not
reflect real differences in treatment
efficiency. Therefore, EPA has
determined that for the purposes of the
proposed PSES regulation, these grey -
area pollutants do not pass through
POTWs. We solicit comments on this
issue.
In addition to the pass -through
problem, many of the pollutants in
OCPSF wastewaters, at sufficiently high
concentrations, can inhibit
biodegradation in POTW operations.
Indeed, in some cases, OCPSF
discharges into POTWs have caused
severe upsets at POTWs resulting not
only in the pass -through of the OCPSF
discharge but also in the partial or
complete failure by the POTW to treat
other wastes.
Finally, the high concentrations of
priority pollutants in a POTW's sludge
can limit the use of sludge management
alternatives, including the beneficial use
of sludges on agricultural lands or the
codisposal of sludge with refuse for
recovery of thermal energy. In
particular, a high level of cadmium
(which is discharged by some OCPSF
plants) can result in a POTW's inability
to comply with the specific limitations
established under Section 405 of the
CWA for land spreading of Cadmium
containing wastes. See 40 CFR Part 257,
44 FR 53460, September 13, 1979. EPA is
not proposing PSES standards for
cadmium to address this concern
because cadmium discharges from
OCPSF plants occur infrequently and
are not known to be causing a national
"problem for POTW sludges. If a
particular POTW is having sludge
problems due to an OCPSF discharge of
cadmium into the POTW, that local
problem should be addressed through
the local pretreatment program. We
request comments on the proposal not to
set a national pretreatment standard for
cadmium.
Based upon the above considerations,
EPA has concluded that PSES
regulations are necessary for a
substantial number of pollutants in this
industry. Accordingly, EPA is proposing
pretreatment standards today for all of
the pollutants included in the BAT
regulation except for those which we
have determined do not pass through
POTWs as discussed above. Thus, there
are pretreatment standards for 15
organic priority pollutants and 2 metal
priority pollutants for the Not Plastics -
Only subcategory. These include 9
pollutants without corresponding POTW
data to make such a determination. EPA
solicits comments -on -whether -any -
additional pollutants should be subject
to PSES standards to prevent
interference with-POTW operationsor
to prevent POTW e sludge disposal
problems.
C. Technology Selection and
Establishment of Limits
The selected technology for PSES is
the same as for BAT: the combinatAon of
process controls, in-plantphysicalj
chemical treatment and end -of -pipe
treatment that is the best available. to
control priority pollutant at
each plant. The PSES limitaa
reflecting this technology are based
upon the same data as the BAT
limitations: the verification data and the
five plant data. This ensures that those
pollutants that were found to pass
through POTWs are controlled in a
manner that is analogous to BAT.
As discussed previously in the case of
BAT, two subcategories have been
established for pretreatment: Plastics
Only and Not Plastics -Only. Fewer
pollutants are regulated in the
pretreatment standards, reflecting the
fact that POTWs adequately remove
some of the pollutants regulated by
BAT. For the Plastics Only subcategory.
2 organic and 2 metals are limited. For
the Not Plastics -Only subcategory, 15
organics and 2 metals are limited.
Standards for these pollutants are
concentration -based and are equal to
the BAT limitations.
In some cases, EPA anticipates that
plants will install biological systems as
part of their total pretreatment systems.
This will occur when the use of
biological treatment is more cost-
effective than the use of a purely
physical/chemical, system in meeting the
standards. However, EPA anticipates
that biological treatment will be used
less frequently by indirect dischargers
than by direct dischargers, because the
pretreatment standards do not limit the
conventional pollutants BOD and TSS.
Therefore, indirect dischargers that can
control priority pollutants by physical/
chemical means will not need to install
biological treatment to address BOD
and TSS. Additionally, as discussed in
the next section, some indirect
dischargers may obtain credits for
POTW removals, resulting in less
stringent limitations which may
eliminate the need for biological
treatmept.
-Asia the case of BPT and BAT, PSES
standards are expressed in terms of
concentrationrather than mass.
However, unlike direct dischargers,
indirect dischargers are not issued
permits (except where a POTW
voluntarily chooses to adopt a permit
-system to.implementa:local
pretreatment program)'✓ Therefore, the
concentration -based PSES standards
will generallyaot m converted into
mass -based limits as in the case of BPT
and BAT limitations. EPA solicits
comments on whether. and how, EPA
should develop an approach whereby
eonceritration4ua ed PSES standards are
converted to mass -based standards.
Removal Credits -
For many priority pollutants, POTWs
do not remove the pollutants as
efficiently as biological systems at
OCPSF plants. This occurs for two main
reasons. First. influent concentrations of
these pollutants at an OCPSF plant are
often higher than at a POTW (which
dilutes pollutant4wAring wastewaters
with other wastewaters); higher influent
concentrations can in many cases be
reduced more efficiently (i.e., by a
greater percentage) than can lower
concentrations. Second. OCPSF
biological systems are more likely to
have biota that are better acclimated to
the specific OCPSF wastes than are the
POTW biota receiving such wastes.
Although some priority pollutants are
not adequately treated by POTWs, they
are removed by P07IWs to at least some
extent. Recognizing this fact. Congress
amended the (lean Water Act in 1977 to
allow POTWs to grant "removal credits"
to indirect dischargers in appropriate
circumstances. The decision whether to
grant removal credits is made by the
POTW. No POTW removal credit can be
granted without approval of the POTW
owner or operator.
Section 307(b)(1) of the CWA now
provides that if a POTW removes all or
part of a toxic pollutant discharge and
the discharge from the POTW does not
violate the limitation which would apply
to the pollutant if it were discharged by
a source other than a POTW (Le., an
industrial plant), and does not prevent
sludge use or disposal by the POTW in
accordance with Section 405 of the
CWA, then the owner or operator of the
POTW may, at his discretion, revise the
pretreatment standards to reflect the
POTW removal. EPA regulations
implementing this statutory provision
are contained in 40 CFR 403A7, 46 FR
9404 Qanuary 28.1981). Revisions of
these rules were recently proposed to
simplify procedures and encourage the
use of such `removal credits" where.
appropriate. See 47 FR 42ma (September
28,1982). The pressed rules would
establish, for well -operated POTWs,
uniform, nationally available removal
credits for the metals regulated by
DEQ-CFW 00065134

Fe Ug Register / Val. 48, No.:55 may, March 21. 1983 /-PropDsed%Ru)es 11M
today's pae fteatment standards rea g
t.; from 19 tees VGW=L no general
Y allow
a POIrW becantaremavai credit for
any pailute t tar wi icb the FGTW
demonstrate actual removal. Ahboegh
EPA anticipates ffiM nu' OCPSF
plants wA be granted removal credits
by POTWs for miabde and soine wig be
grautedieemovel c re" for
pollutants. EPA hasessumed. kircosting
purposes. diet OCPSF plants will not
obtain mnoval credits and will be
required to meet fully the proposed
PSES limitation This action may
have resulted in a siiioft atiel
overestimate of the costs and ecaeoaoic -
impact of the proposed PSES reguladom
E. Coaepliemm I)aate
EPA is proposing a compUance date
for PSES for the OCPSF category of 3
years from the date of promulgation. We
believe that three years jthe maximum
compliance period allowed by law) are
necessary for several reasons. First
many indirect dischargers presently .
have little or no treatment in place.
Therefore, very substantial capital
improvements will be required. Second,
due to the munplexity of OCPSF plant
configurations, product maces. and
wastewater matrices, a substantial
amount of engmeering design work must
precede the selection -and installation of
equipment 11il d. biological systems
typicafty require a substantial amount of
startup time to acclimate the biota,
attain equilibrium and achieve
compliance with effluent limitations.
EPA solicits aanimmats an the
proposed compliance date for PSES.
F. PSES Priority Pollirtan t Reuwvals
Costs and F.conamic imposts
EPA estimates that lie proposed PSES
regulation will result twthe incremental
removal of 165 uri$ion pounds per year
of priority pollutant& PSES is estimated
to resultin cepitalVosts of tM mdhon
and annual costs of $404 ruillion. Three
plant closures are anticipated. In
addition, 12 process lines are exile d
to close, resshmg_in the loss of 117 ad
of 195 M jobs i�aitsi r.
Based upon the above. EPA has
concluded that The proposedPS94
limitations ails justified and consistent
with the requiremeats of the Act
X. Pretreatment Studs for New
sources
Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA
to promulgate.pretreatment standards
for new sources [;1TS�. at the, sarae:iime
staHtinrLi$ use intended to) prevent, the
,�r►
throingh; iruierfere with or are otherwise
incompadhkurid& Pt7i'W_ New » uhrect
dischargers, like stew dhiKA dischargers.
have the opportunity to best mod incorporate the
technologies in lsdiW process changes.
is-pissteomiral mugs.endend-al-
pipe treat rind, and AD uah V&Ud site
selection to use adequaiade treatment
system ias�let.
The priority Pollutants, selected for
regulations by PSNS an the same as.
those selected for control by PSES. For
the reasons discussed above, EPA has
determined that these pollutants may
pass thrortgh. interfere with or otherwise
be incompatible with the POTW. The
pretreatment 9taadards selected as the
basis far PSNS are also the same as
those selected for PSES because EPA
has not identified any techaalogies ar
combination of ieclin g es that are
demonstrated fsr new sources that are
different from those used to establish
PSES. These standards are the same as
NSPS except: that pollutants regulated
by NSPS that do not pass through
POTWs are not regulated by PSNS.
XI. monitoring its
The proposed Nations control a
substantial number of priority
pollutants. including many organic
priority pollutants. To insure compliance
with the purposed effluent limitations
and standards, plants will be required to
periodical y monitor their discharges for
the regulated po$ntants. Permitting
authorities generally gust specify
monitoring requirements in diced.
dischargers' permits, indudhi type,
intervals, and frequency sufficient to
yield data that are representative of the
monitored activity. See 40CFR12211(b),
45 FR 33290, 33428. May 19.-19ft
Similarly, todurfs proposed j 4itma)
specifies thatthe pretreatment controi
authority must specify such monitoring
requirements far indirect dischargers.
To date, EPA has not promulgated
analytical methods for memyof the
organic priority pollutants. However.
EPA has proposed both GC/MS and GC
Win _ ds for tbesepotiutants in 44 FR
6684 (December 3, 3999) and expects to
promulgate Aemsoog a40 tWR Part
136. Plants willbe mq" u-iced to use
promuilgates inethode, or alternative
methods approved _by the EPA +
Administrator under 40 GFR 136.5, to
comply with monitoTutg requirements.
As in the case of other industry
regulations, today's proposed
regdatioan do mot.speei ymwnko*g
frequency. The appropiiate.mcniWring
fora P 3
not only onge ,6 al factors
the siZeeotie as_
nature of the local receiving waters.•
Thus, the specification of munitoring
frequency is best damned locally on
a case4W cme basis.
The proposed r gniad ns do provide
some g .Aowevec. an the
appropriaft range si wocrioting
frequ axles. They indsde Wo sets of
limitatims; ,dwiy comma end averages
of daily values for consecutive
monitoring days Abhoetgh the
regulations don't specify the period over
which the 4 afivemmples must
be takuu; the 4-day averages were
concieeved as replacements for the
monthly averages that have typically
been esdahleahed in effluent guidelines
and standards. EPA considers 4 times
per mouth to bear appropriate
frequeaW for saaurphotS in the
Industry. A monitoringK"uency lower
than four ties per month many.
however be more appropriate for
smaller plants in theice, given the
relatively high cost u(monaur ing far
organic priority gollutenis. For metals a
frequencygreater than four times per
month may be appreopriate is some
cases.
. EPA reoogaines that somw GCPSF
plants do -not ymeratce sarnna.prim*
pollutants is iheirprodec4*ecesa m
and therefore do mat discharge some of
the priority pollutants that are subect to
effluent standar4s and limitations is the
proposed neguiations. It would be
unreasonable to require such plants to
frequently ssonitor for these pollutants.
Therakmn. EPA has developed a
procedure is purposed { 41,4.12 whereby
the permWingautimniW &rdkwt
discharg m) or the prokmahment control
authority (Ior indirect dfischargers] may
reduce moaitoringsegairements for such
pollutants 48 once per yew. TWO criteria
must be met
First the Poliatant isrant not have been
detected during the preceding year at a
level exceeding 10 pg/i if it has
exceeded 18 WI then itis reasonable
to anonitor for it frequently enough to
assure that it is not being discharged at
levels that would violate the -applicable
limits. _
The memitoriag_data Io be considered
in making this assessment ichitiaily
include the- data- submitted in the permit
application (see 40 CFR 12L.53, 45 FR
33290 and Form 2C, 45 FR 33516. May a
1981) for direct dischargers, and the
initial reporting requirements for
indirect dischargers {see j 403.12(b)).
Subsequaaendy,#plea* seeking seduced -
monitoring requirements -wig used to
that the cofitu'ol autahontw
must certify that the 10 pgil level
DEQ-CFW 00065135

11844 Federal- Register / Vol. 48, No. 55 /. Monday. March 21, -1983 / proposed :, Rules
not been exceeded in any monitoring
that it has performed.
The second-criterion.for granting
reduced monitoring requirements is a
finding, based upon the product/
processes used at the plant; that the
pollutant in question is not likely to be
discharged above the concentration
'
level set forth in the applicable effluent
limitation or standard. This criterion is
based upon the fact that at most OCPSF
plants, the nature of the product/process
mix and the resultant discharge do not
remain constant. Even "representative"
monitoring data, unless taken very
frequently at considerable expense, will
not indicate the full potential for priority
pollutant discharges from the plant. An
analysis of product/processes, based
upon information provided by the plant,
-
will assist the control authority in
identifying the potential for priority
pollutant discharges not revealed by the
monitoring data available for the
preceedingyear, The proposed
regulations also direct the permitting or
control authority to separately consider
which product/processes were
operating when the monitoring data was
gathered, thereby providing a better
understanding of the potential sources
of priority pollutant discharges at the
plant.
sx
The analysis of the likelihood of
Y
'.
priority pollutant discharges above
regulatory levels will be made not only
by the permitting or pretreatment
control authority, but also by the plant,
through the submission of certification.
It is of course essential that the
appropriate authority review the
relevant information and satisfy itself
that such discharges are not likely to
occur. However, the plant may have
knowledge of additional facts not
considered by the authority which
indicate that such discharges will occur.
An example of this is contaminants of
raw materials. Plants are often aware of
the general levels of particular priority
pollutants that contaminate their raw
materials. Such information may be
Y =°
obtained by sampling raw materials for
°{
quality control or by repeatedly
obtaining raw materials from a sole
-'
source over and extended period of
time. The authority would generally not
be aware of such a potentially
significant source of priority pollutant
discharges at the plant.
EPA invites comment on its proposed
:
monitoring reduction regulations,
including the once -per -year minimum
r
monitoring requirement, the likelihood
that the reduction will result in
undetected permit violations, and the
efficiency and reasonableness of the
certification requirement.
f
. EPA_ has estimated the costs of
monitoring to comply with the BAT and
PSES regulaation& BBA<est mates -that a
uniform monitodiigrequirement of once
per month for all direct and indirect
dischargers would -result in total annual
costs of $5,400,01)0 for BAT and
$8,800,000 for PSES. This estimate
assumes a cost of $8W per sample, EPA
has not included this cost in the cost
summaries and economic impact
analyses prepared -for today's prelim
regulations.-IHowever, the monito ft
costs per plant are relatively low and
are not expected to ceate significant
economic impacts). Prior to final
promulgation, EPA intends. to develop a
reasonable monitoring scenari6jeg.,
assuming that a certain percentage of
plants will monitor four times per
' month, others twice per month, and
others once per month). This will be
used to develop monitoring costs to be
included in the totalcost estimates and
economic impact analyses that will be
prepared to support the final regulation.
EPA solicits comments on reasonable
scenarios for this costing exercise.
XII. Best Management Practices
Section 304(e) of the Clean Water Act
authorizes theAdministratorto
prescribe "best management practices"
("BMPs'l. EPA may develop BMPs that
apply to all industrial sites or to a
designated industrial category, and may
offer guidance to permit authorities in
establishing management practices
required by unique circumstances at a
given plant.
Although EPA is not proposing 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.
X M. Regulatory Status of Pollutants
A. Priority Pollutants Regulated
The priority pollutants the Agency is
proposing to regulate at BAT and-NSPS
for the Plastics Only and Not Plastics -
Only subcategories are set forth in
Appendix B to this preamble. The
priority pollutants the Agency is
proposing to regulate at PSES and PSNS
are a subset of the pollutants regulated
,at BAT and NSPS and are indicated in
Appendix B by asterisks.
B. Priority Pollutants Not Regulated
1. Paragraph 8 Exclusions. Paragraph
8 of the Settlement Agreement contains
provisions Authorizing EPA to exclude
toxic pollutants and industry
subcategories from regulation under
certain circumstances. Paragraph
8(a)(iii) authorizes the Administrator to
exclude from regulation: Toxic
pollutants not detectable by Section
300)xasaiyticsal methods or;other state-
of-the-art methods; toxic pollutants
present in amounts too small to be
effectively reduced by available
technologies; toxic pollutants present
only in trace amounts and neither
causing nor likely to cause toxic effects;
toxic pollutants detected in the effluent
from only a small number of sources,
within a subcategory and uniquely
related to only thosejources; toxic
pollutants that will'be effectively
controlled by the technologies upon
which are based other effluent
limitations and standards; or toxic
pollutants for which more stringent
protection is already provided under
Section 307(a) of the Act. Appendix C to
this preamble lists the 18 toxic
pollutants proposed for exclusion from
these regulations for the Plastics Only
and Not Plastics -Only subcategories
pursuant to these criteria. The 18 toxic
pollutants proposed for exclusion from
these regulations are pesticides which,
as discussed previously, are not
produced as ,products or co -products
and are unlikely to appear as raw
material contaminants in OCPSF
product/processes. Therefore, they are
not likely to be present in OCPSF
process wastewater discharges. (As
noted previously. they may occasionally
appear in discharges that contain
OCPSF effluents, but their appearance
results from Non-OCPSF-process
sources.)
2. Pollutants That Do Not Pass Through
POTWs
Some pollutants were excluded from
the PSES and PSNS regulations because
they were determined not to pass
through or interfere with, and aremot
otherwise incompatible with, the
operation of POTWs- These 28 toxic
pollutants are listed in Appendix D to
this preamble.
3. Priority Pbllutants of Concern
EPA is not proposing to regulate at
this time the priority pollutants listed in
Appendix E to this preamble because
adequate data ar not avilable (64
pollutants in the Not Plastics -Only
subcategory and 98 pollutants in the
Plastics Only subcategory). Most of
these pollutants have been detected in
at least 42 percent of sampled influents
or effluents in the screening, verification
and 5-plant sampling progams.
Furthermore, -the industry operates a
substantial number of product/
processes that, on theoretical grounds
relating to raw materials and process
chemistry; would be expected to
DEQ-CFW 00065136

Federal Register / VOL a No. 55- / Monday, March n, 19M / Proposed Rules 118M
generate these pollutants in their
process wastewaters. However, limited
information exists on their
concentrations in the industry.
Therefore, EPA cannot yet establish
uniform national standards -and
limitations controlling the discharge of
these pollutants. Nor can EPA yet
conclude that any of these pollutants is
eligible under Paragraph 8 of the
Settlement Agreement -to be -excluded
from regulation.
EPA intends to gather additional' data
on at least some of these pollutants prior
to final promulgation of these
regulations. EPA specifically solicits
comments from industry, states and the
public on whether these priority
pollutants are present, at what levels,
and what treatment technology could be
utilized to achieve effluent limitations
and standards for these pollutants. EPA
is considering regulating these priority
pollutants in the future if warranted by
the analysis of additional data.
C. Nonconventional and Nonpriority
Pollutants Excluded
The proposed regulations do not
address nonconventional pollutants.
They also do not address some
pollutants that may be covered by the
list of toxic pollutants and classes of
pollutants but are not specifically listed
as priority pollutants. Given the variable
mix of organic chemicals, plastics and
synthetic fibers produced, and the
complex process chemistry that are
associated with the OCPSF industry, it
is likely that many organic chemical
compounds and other nonconventional
pollutants are in OCPSF raw
wastewaters and. in some cases,
discharged. Some of these pollutants are
known to be toxic and/or carcinogenic
or mutagenic and, if discharged at
significant levels. would be of concern.
Indeed, some of these pollutants are
discharged at significant levels by some
plants. I ,
Although EPA is concerned about the
potential discharges of nonconventional
and non -priority pollutants from OCPW
plants and their impacts on health and
the environment, we have not been able
to include them in the proposed
regulation. -As indicated by the fore# ft
discussion,, the development of
analytical methods and gathering of
treatment data for the priori"ollutants
alone has been a large task. Addressing
a greater list of pollutants than this
priority list was beyond the feasible
scope of this regulatory effort
EPA believes that the installation and
proper operation of treatment equipment
to meet the BPTNand-BAT limitations, for
conventional and pridiltypoIlufants -
will, in may cases, be accompanied by
reductions in the discharges of -
nonconventional and non -priority toxic
pollutants to BAT levels. However, in
cases where nonconventional and non -
priority pollutants may be discharged at
significant levels even if the proposed
limitations are met, permit-iinters
should limit these pollutants on a case -
by -case basis. See Section XVII(c)
below for a general discussion of case -
by -case permit limitation. While EPA,
did gather some data on
nonoonventional and non -priority
pollutants and parameters (e.g.,
chemical oxygen demand, total organic
carbon and ammonia nitrogen), EPA did
not focus upon creating a data base for
these pollutants that could be used to
establish effluent limitations. (See
Section VI of the BPT and BAT
Development Documents for further
discussion). '
D. Conventional Pollutants Excluded
Oil and grease and fecal coliform are
not covered in this regulation. High -
molecular weight fatty acids and other
sources of oil and grease, and fecal
coliform are not generally significant in
OCPSF discharges.
The permit writing authority is
encouraged to review plant data and, if
necessary, include limitations for these
pollutants in the permit on a case -by -
case basis.
XIV. Costs, Economic Impacts, Cost
Effectiveness, Regulatory Flexibility,
Executive Order 12291{ and Science
Advisory Board
A. Costs and Economic Impacts
The cost and economic impacts
analysis is set forth in the Economic
Analysis of Proposed Effluent Standards
and Limitations for the Organic
Chemicals and Plastics, Synthetics, and
Fibers Industry, EPA 440/Z43-00C This
report details the investment and annual
costs for the industry as a whole and for
typical plants covered by the proposed
regulation. Compliance costs are based
on engineering estimates of the
ca requirements and annual
operating and maintenance costs for the
treatment technologies needed to
c:orpply with the proposed regulations.
The estimate BPT compliance costs,
EPA modified existing cost curves for
publicly owned treatment works (which
use biological systems to treat BOD-and
TSS). Next, these unit treatment costs
were combined in a building-block
approach to yield the total plant
treatment costs for 159 OCPSF facilities.
Finally, the costs for the 169'facilities
were used to estimate -treatment costs
for an addifthdI 39'f OCpSP direct
dischargers. -
To estimate BAT compliance costs;
EPA developed treatment unit cost
curves using standard engineering
practice. However, EPA didnot directly
develop plant -specific treatment costs
from these unit costs. Rather, the
Agency used a modeling approach to
characterize the types of wasteloads,
treatment technologies, and compliance
costs in the industry. EPA constructed
55 "generalized plant configurations"
("GPCs" are model plants which were
configured to represent typical
combinations of product/processes and
corresponding combined raw
wastewater loadings generally found in
the OCPSF industry). Information
collected on 176 product/processes in
the 37 plant verification program
provided the data to model combined
pollutant loadings and -to calculate
investment and operating costs for the,
model facilities. EPA estimated
compliance costs for real plants from
these results. A detailed explanation of
the cost methodology is contained in
Section VIII and Appendix G of the BPT
Development Document, Section VIII of
the BAT Development Document, and
Section 4 of the economic impact
analysis.
PSES costs were generally developed,
in the same manner as BAT costs. The
costing procedures took account of the
fact that fewer pollutants are regulated
at PSES than at BAT (since pollutants
that do not pass through POTWs are not
regulated at PSES).
EPA identified about 1500 facilities
that manufacture organic chemicals or
plastics, synthetics and fibers. Total
investment for BPT, BAT, and PSES is
estimated to be $1.7 billion with annual
costs of $750 million, including
depreciation and interest. These costs
are expressed in 1982 dollars and are
based on the determination that plants
will move from existing treatment to
BPT and BAT, from BPT to BAT or from
existing treatment to PSES. (In a few
instances, a plant may already meet
BAT for its priority pollatants but .
require some expenditure to achieve
BPT for its coventional pollutants).
Twenty-one product/process closures
are projected to occur as a result of
these compliance costs. This represents
about one percent of the total product/
process lines in the industry. EPA
estimates that 8 plants may close. These
shut -downs and closures are expected
to cause a decrease of 493 jobs. This is
less than 0.2 percent of a total
employment of 295,000. Price increases
for the industry will averago ona .-.' :.
percent. Balance of trade effects are
insignificant.
DEQ-CFW 00065137

ins 1 vim. 4& , N& 55 /-Mondk,vf » = an 1 PhWesed lades
The economic analysis sssVsses the
impact cieffhtent control costs in terms
line rdo . Euiloyment-effec sand
balance of bade effecW incaementad
impacts ta$ac itiasasdmajor product
groups were considered. The analysis
estimated levels of prima and
production volumes in 1965 without the
proposed zegulations.Impacts were
measured as charges from this basis.
The analysis also Examined the eEkwb
of these proposed regulations on
individual products and production
processes". -Me Agency developed a
model to reflect an important
characteristic of The chemical industry:
end products of some processes are
often used as raw -materials in other
processes. Thus, the models were
programmed so that a forecast for a
particularchemical product could be
related to forecasts for other chemical
products that are upstream (raw
material) or downstream (end -Product)
of that product in various manufacturing
routerutiiized byte hkbn try,
DPT. A total of 405 facilities are
estirsiatedto incur compliance casts.
Investment costs for BPI' are $3111
million with $Hitt million in annualized
costs. There are no significant economic
impacts projected as a result of BPT.
BAT. This regulation is estimated to
affect 453 of SW direct dischargers.
Investment costs are SW million and
total.annual costs$M million. Five
plants and a product/process lines are
expected to close. Two hundred and
thirty-six jobs would be lost due to plant
closures and 140 jobs would be lost clue
to process line shutdowns.
PSBS. This regulation is estimated to
affect 9i3 indirect dischargers.
Investment cents are $880 million and
total annual costs are $4W million.
Twelve product/process lines and 3
plants are expected to chose. These
colusures would result in the loss of 117
jobs.
AfSPA/PSi1Ti. The requirements for
new sources are identical to those for
existing sources. Regulation for new
sources will not generate incremental
costs or impacts.
These compliance costs are large. As
discussed.m the Public Comment
Summary. several commenters
suggested that EPA has -underestimated
costs of the technologies studied in this
regulation. However, the Agency wishes
to point out that the aggregate capital
and annual rut estimates are possibly
overestimated for .the reasons discussed
below.
First. the technology basis for PSE.S
cost estimation is equivalent to #hat for
BAT. It is possible that many facilities
that discharge to POTWs would not use
biological treatment for their process
waswwatez This could occur for two
less expensive
operated for specific meaWstasams
could. is BMW cases, achieve these
priority polotaet Iidialims without
relying upon biological twatmen L Oio
PSES standards are set for.00nventipll
pollutants. wmich - w
bioiaffiaa1 t reatmaA.
SacaodR the-iacoemeatal msi �•
esiuinies re bssedminfoimaii
supplied toEPA-in queafmoalmthe
late 19Vs as to treatment in place.
However, the industry has installed a
great deal of wastewater treatment
equipment since the plants submitted
the information. For example, in 1978-
19M alone, capital investments for
wastewater treatment in the industry
are estimated to be 5W million dollars
Clearly, less incremental heaimemt will
be needed to achieve -BAT and PSES
than assumed. We will be gathering
more information. as discussed is
Section XV of this Preamble'to improve
ouur estinuates of treatment in place.
Third. EPA used very censavative Ion
the bigh side) assumptions is developing
costs for Infect dischargers. EPA
assumed that any plant in our database
that is amt known -to beadirect
discharger is. . an.indirect
discharger. Since some of theseplants
actually discharge no process
wastewaters. this overestimates total
industry costs for pretreatment. EPA
expects to collect more information to
refine its analysis in this area.
O nepossible source of potential
underestimation of total indastryoosb
is the fact that some plants amy have
discharges ham OCPSI? operations at
which WA is answers. Thus may occur
where OCPSFoperations are-anciiiary
to otheraperatians.
B. Cost effectiveness
EPA has conducted an analysis of the
incremental removal cost per pound -
equivalent for each of the proposed
technology -based "option. A pound -
equivalent is calculated by multiplying
the number of pounds off -pollutant
discharged by a tnaeighting factorfor that
poiluiant. Tine weighting factor is equal
to the aquatic We w bity criterion
for a standard pollutant (copperl
divided bylis aquatic We water-giialitty
criterion for the pollutant being
evaluated. The are of `!nounnd-
equiv elaut" gives relatively more waight
to removal of mare higWly toxic
pollutants. Thus for a given expenditure.
the cost Perpudtgidvalent removal
would be lower when a highly toxic
- 7 pollutant is zenmed. Ibis analysis is
e r:i indudeddatiwAmpdvitbeQqpiic -
m.-I ' theinicals-an&filastics and Synthetic
Fibers C4tegos7 EFA invites aosments
on the medodokw used inthis
analysis.
C. Rggulaaryf7eaWtyAnalysis
Public Law 96- SH requires that a
R Anyhwis UWA) be
arrr Ltiosus pro@esed alter
January 1,1995. that have a significant
impactastaaa taHiielrsu mberafsnsall
Teatities.ffie and ' noy be done m
cdNunctiou ar as pint eE any adker
analysis conducted by the Agency.
A sum bass aaatysis is included
in the econamic bwact analyses. Ties
analysis stews that dwre w i l not be a
signit leant impact on any segment of the
industry, large or small. Number of
employees is the variable used to
distinguish firm size. Firms with less
than fifty employees wspl+e defined as
small businesses. The Agency invites
comment an this size definition. No
Significant &ffereotial hapaets Were
estimated for small businesses:
therefore a formal Regdstory Impact
Analysis is net required.
D. see Order 1T101 '
Executive Order 1ZW1 mgmres EPA
and other agencies to pe9<ltorm regetatosy
impact aaalses of major regulations.
.Major rules impose an annual cost to the
economy of $100 million or more or meet
other economic impadt criteria. The
proposed regulation for the Organic
Chemicals. Plastics and Synthetic Fibers
Industry exceeds 5100 million ammually
and thus is a major rule. EPA has
preps a prelimh=7 regdatm7
impact analysis MA) wbdrrh may be
obtained at the address Rated at the
beginning of Ibis preamzble.
The RIA contains as analysis of the
effect of the proposed regulations on
existing water quality 7be analysis has
two parts.
The first part of the MA projects,
based upon a modeling approach. water
quality.impacts for 50 plants located on
40 stream segments across the counhy.
EPA's published seater duality criteria
for paid poSutsatq aroused to assess
water quality impacts. the analysis
i,udicates that exieft violations of
water quality criteria will be "reduced by
about 50 percentby the proposed
regulations.
-be secoad part of iibe ILIA attempts.
toassess &a speuaficbealtb and
environmental LeneEia that may result
from -line proposed sevolsdions in a few
DEQ-CFW 00065138

Federal Reg)ster,,/ V_oL 48.;No. 55- / Monday, March 21, 19M / Proposed Rules 11847
selected locations. To date, only two
stream segments have been
investigated. Neither of these segments
has drinking water intakes. The first
segment is part of the Kanawha River in
West Virginia: Recreational and other
non -health benefits are estimated to be
in the range of $2.3 to 9.7 million, versus
- a projected cost for OCPSF plants on
that segment of about-$5.8 million. The
second segment is the Houston Ship
Channel. Recreational and commercial
fishing benefits are estimated at less
than $i million, versus costs of about
$25 million. However, this segment is
considered to present a worst -case
scenario in terms of benefits due to its
heavy use by ocean-going vessels, its
physical characteristics, and the fact
that OCPSF plants are not the major
sources of pollution within the area. In
both areas, reduction in human health
risks from commercial fishing and
volatilization of organic compounds has
_ been estimated to be quite small.
However, some additional reduction in
human health risks due to subsistence
fishing along the channel's lateral bays
is anticipated but could not be
quantified in the study. EPA expects to
study at least two additional stream
segments prior to final promulgation. In
particular, SPA hopes to analyze the
effect of the regulation upon human
health -risks caused by drinking water
taken from the receiving water bodies.
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review, as required by Executive Order
1229L Any comments from OMB to EPA
and any SPA response to those
comments are available for public
inspection at the EPA Public Information
Reference Unit at the address listed
above in this preamble. -
F_ Science Advisory Board
Pursuant to the provisions of the
Environmental Research, Development
and Demonstration Authorization Act
(ERDDAA) of 1978,42 U.S.C. 4365, EPA's
Science Advisory Board has reviewed ,
certain technical aspects of these
proposed regulations. The SAB is
currently reviewing these technical
issues anti _is preparing a report to.
Administrator. as of this reporIVIVUR
be made publicly available.
XV. Collection of Additional Bata
As explained at various points
throughout this preamble. EPA has
expended considerable resources to
characterize the OCPSF industry, in
lv�­ terms of product/process operations. -
raw waste loads, technologies in place,
effentiveness b€iechnologi� unif;and
plant coats to meet target limits.
economid impacts, and other relevant
factors. The industry is large and
complex and EPA has attempted to
obtain data that is representative of the
industry with respect to these many
factors and to appropriately
characterize the industry. -
Throughout the development of this
rulemaking, members and
representatives of the regulated industry
have expressed concern that, despite
extensive data gathering, the data base.
is incomplete and fails to adequately
address certain types of plants and
discharges. While the Agency believes
that the data base is adequate to -
support the proposed regulation, the
Agency welcomes the submission of any
data thatconfirm, supplement or
contradict elements of our data base.
To further assure the regulated
community that the final regulations will
be supported by an adequate and
representative date base, EPA will
gather additional data from OCPSF
plants under the authority of Section 3o8
of the CWA. This effort will consist of
two parts: -a_sampling and analysis of a
limited number of plants to supplement
our technical data base, and a
questionnaire soliciting information to
supplement our data base on costs and
potential economic impacts. -
The sampling and analysis program
will be designed to enhance EPA's
technical data base. It will cover the
following areas:
1. Supplemental end -of -pipe data on
regulated pollutants to increase the
number of data points reflecting BAT
treatment
2. Data on unregulated priority
pollutants and on several
nonconventional pollutant parameters
such as TOC, COD, ammonia and
certain other parameters believed to be
discharged in significant amounts, to
determine whether any of these
parameters are in fact discharged in
significant amounts and need to be
regulated -and, if so, to establish
appropriate limitations.
3. ��ggw waste load data and treated
effiiii'data for plants using product/
processes not previously sampled by
EPA.
* Data on raw waste loads from
product/processes not covered by the
verification study.
5. Additional data on physical/
chemical treatment system -performance,
both in -plant and end -of -pipe (e.g., as
used -by many indirect dischargers).
6. Additional -long-term (at least 15
days) data, to obtain additional
information to be used to develop
variability Moiors for both organic and':
metalpriorltq pollutant concentrations
in treated effluents. -
EPA has already selected some plants
for future study. Some important criteria
for plant selection include: The potential
to discharge priority pollutants (based .
upon a review of product/processes
used) for which additional information
is sought; the proper operation of
appropriate treatment technologies for
those pollutants; the -use of physical/
chemical systems known to be effective
in treating those pollutants; and the
operation of product/processes not
previously sampled but which have
some potential for generating priority
pollutants. A major consideration is
whether a plant combines several of
these criteria, thereby providing a
maximum amount of information per
plant visit.
The questionnaire will be directed at
factors that affect technology and costs
to comply with the limitations and the
impact of those costs. It would update
information received in response to the
previous BAT questionnaire as well. The
questionnaire would validate or update
existing information with basic
questions concerning current discharge
status (direct, indirect or zero), flows,
end -of -pipe influent and effluent
loadings. operation characteristics (e.g.,
number of production days annually),
and treatment in place. This information
would be used to update and broaden
our data base on the costs to be incurred
by plants to comply with the BAT
regulations. Indirect discharges would
also be asked to set forth the user fees
that they now pay to POTWs to provide
a complete picture of their wastewater .
treatment costs.
The questionnaire would also request
information that is relevant"to predicting
economic impacts. This would include
plant size, product mix, production -
levels, volume of sales, and product
prices. It would also cover new capital
investment for production and for
pollution control, capacity utilization
and employment
As mentioned previously, EPA
believes that our current estimates of
costs and resulting economic Impacts
are significaaotly overestimated.
Additional information of 'the type
outlined above should reduce such
overestimates.
The Agency requests that comments
on the additional data collection
activities be submitted as soon as
possible for immediate use in program
planning activities.
3M Non -Water -Quality -Environmental.
Impacts
The-eliminsiRoa.or:redriction-of
form of pollution may create or
aggravate other environmental
DEQ-CFW 00065139

1 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 55 / Maaday. March 21. 1983 / PrOPOsed.Rules
problems. Therefore. sections 304(b) and
306of the,A�ot.require BPA to consider
the a4cWW1Aerq utility environmental
impacts.jhzcudirtg energy requirements)
of cert4inregulations.In compaunce
with these provisions. EPA has
considered the effect of these
regulations on sir pollution, solid waste
generation, and energy consumption.
The faowiog are the non -water
quality environmental impacts
associated with the proposed
regulations:
A. Ai Pblludon`—The effect of BPT, if
viewed alone, would likely be a
moderate increase in concentrations of
hazardous air -pollution in the immediate
vicinity of some OCPSF industry plants.
This would be the result of plants
installing or upgrading the performance
of aerated lagoons, activated sludge
basins and neaft-Azation basins and
thus more effectively driving off volatile
organic compounds. This effect would
be,more then offset, however, by moving
to BAT, because we expert many plants
to comply with the BAT Limits by
installing in -process controls that
effectively remove volatile organic
compounds before they reach the end -
of -pipe controls. Thus, we expect a net
decrease in both air loadings and
conoeatrations of volatile organic
compounds Lrout BPI' and BAT
cowed, and we expect similar effects
as a result of PSESns well-
B. solid waste,-wA has considered
the effect these proposed reguations
would leave on the accumulation of solid
waste, including hazardous waste
defined under Section 30M of the
Resource Conservaton and Recovery
Act (RCRA). EPA estimates that the
total solid waste. including hazardous
wade. generated as a result of the
proposed regulations will increase
insignificantly compared to current
levels.
EPA's tine of Solid Waste has
analyzed the hazardous waste
management and disposal costs
imposed by.the ACRA regmr pments and
has published some results in 45 FR
33066 (May 19,1980). Additional cost
estimates for land disposal of,hazardous
wastes were published in 47 FR =74
(July 28,1982j.1" solid waste
streams currently generated at OCPSF
plants have been fisted as hazardous
under Section 3001 of RCRA (See 40
CFR part 261.32). Other waste streams
not listed may be hazardous by virtue of
possessing characteristics of ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity (see 40
CFR M.n-.24, 451zR 330M May 19,
19w). The annual increase in RCRA
costs due to these proposed reguations
is estimated to be $9 minion. or
approximately one percent of the total
current estimated ennual oosf for the
indpstr
C. g Beiquineaenis-�*PA
estimates that the -attainment of
proposed Wr. BA'> .MM andPSNS
will increase energy consnmptionby a
small increment aver present industry
use.
Further details are set forth in
Sections vM and UC of $ie BPT
Development Document and -Sections
VM and IX of the BAT Development
document. -
X VE. liegdahny imPieanentstion
A. Upset and BypassPrbvisions
A recurring now is whether indfttry
limitations and standards should include
provisions authori:iqgnoncompliance
with effluent lrsnilations duimS periods
of "met" c r "bypatw" An upset.
sometimes called an "excuusiom" is an
unintentional uonmXmiplumm ocmummg
for reasons beyond the reasonable
control of We pennittee. EPA believes
that met provisions are necessary
because such upsets will inevitably
occur due to linmRations in control
technlolgy. Because 4ndM�-based
limitations can require only what
technology can achieve, it is claimed
that liability for such situations is
improper. when wonted with this
issue, courts have been divided on the
question of whether an exert upset or
excursion exemption is necessary or
whether woe er eraourston incidents
may be handled through EPKs exercise
of enforcement discretion. Compare
Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253
(9th Cir. 1977) with Weyerhaeuser v.
Castle, 590 F.2d 1011(D.C. Cir. 1978). See
also Americtm.Petanrhmm Iastatu#e v.
EPA, 540 Fed 1023 (lath Cir. 19176j: CPC
Intematkwo4 Inc, v. Tivin, 540 F.Zd 973
(4th Cyr. 1976)); FMCCo R v. Dvin, 539
F.2d 973 (4th Cir.199Mij.
While as upset in an unintentional
episode duriAg which .effluent limits are
exceeded a bypass is an act of
intentional noncompliance during which
waste tread h4lities are
circumvented is emersencv situations.
EPA has both upset and bypass
provisions in NPDES permits, and has
promulgated MUM reguations which
include upset and bypass -permit
provisions. (See 45 FR 332M 33448; 40
CFR 122.60(g)(h). May 29.1280). The
upset provision eaablishes an upset as
an af6rmatige defense to prosecution for
violatiouipf tecbnology based effluent
hmitatbdsrThe bypass provision
authorizes bypassing to prevent loss of
life, perscmalh*iry, or severe property
damage. Since pernattees in the OCPSF
industry win be entitled to upset and
bypass provisions in NPDES permits,
these proposed legulations do not
specifically repeat these provisions.
B. Variancw= d
Upon fle promu%aficn of. these
regulations. the numerical eiilnent
limitations for the appropriate
subcategory must be applied in all
Federal and State MDM permits issued
to direct dischargers in fire OCPSF
industry. in addition. the preh�eatment
standards are directly applicable to
inert discluargers. _ . e
Ior the BPr e$luent Ui&itatidm6 the
only exception to tihe biv ding limitations
is EPA's "fundamentally diBerest
f(icto s" vaiiauce. (See S Z duPont de
Nemours and Ca. v. Turin. 430 U.S.112
(1977)). This veaanoe reoogusi= factors
concerning a particular discharger
which ace fnadaamstak different from
the factors considered in this
rulemaltng. Although this variance
clause was set forth in EPA's 1993-1976
industry negahadooa. it is row iicladed
in the NPDES regulations and not the
specific icy roes. i5ee the
NPDES regulations at 4D-CFR Part 125
Subpart D; 4CPR 321 K =103 &w 7,
1979) for the text and ww1anation of the
"fundamentally di fermt iiac:tots"
variance).
Discharges subject to the BAT
limitations proposed - these regulations
also are wd4ect to Nis
"fundaments different i'aclorC
variance. In addition. BAT limitations
for noncouventional pollutants may be
modified under Section 90i(e) and W1(g)
of the Act. Under Section satf l) of the
Act, these statutory modifications are
not applicable to " tmdc" or
conventional pollutants.
Discharges subject to pretreatment
standards for existing sources are
subject to the "fimdamentafly different
factors" variance and credits for
pollutants removed by POTWs (See 40
CFR 403Y and 4D3.13; 46 FR 9404
(January 28.1981j). ibsehagps subject to
pretreatment standards for new sources
are subject oeiy to &a credit Provision
(See 40 CFR 403.7. 46 FR 94H Uanuaiy
28. 1981)j. New sources subject to NSPS
are not eligible for EPXs
„faudamentaliy different factors"
variance or any statutory or regulatory
modifications. (See duPont v. Train,
supra).
C. Relabow1bP to AIPDBS Pemvts
The 8PT and BAT limitations and
NSPS in this reg� will be applied
to individual plants through kUqM
permits issued by EPA is approved
State agencies under Section 402 of the
Act. The preceding section of this
preamble discussed -the binding effect of
DEQ-CFW 00065140

this regshff aaa. RIM gaga 0
exceptwbearadommesm"
modi6oati�aaae
- This sectiaaaSisSnsseotbgailda
rela�'ioueiirl ielwieprriYsae�sii� nail
1�ae s of i estais am mope of
_ efiNMicaES®t'o' ns�edoasot
exist. Under
Statasands�w�t3ssae
NM;pe�itaiufsre c®aaae
peeamaa�e�oalametw so ina- zase-4-
case bads. 33ais ala6oa;pnowdes s
technicalandYggalbase fnraew
rmU&
Aaatherisss$ talicw'lhe aeg�ratiun
of e t-&eadlhozlty-ofIbmlhatt@sue
NPDESpermits. EPAasvetoped Uae
limi msaaaail MM"s
regulafflomYewatr'1 y I F
for this post smmr�etdbgge�. is epeeif%
cases, �e1�6 pe��y
may have (0110 b—pe l ea
polI*8 ftMMtsaz-IIdtMoVMd%T*b
regulatim The eSdafien -don not
restdctike pwersfany
auffiwItytee�erspRy wfdL —bwver any
_ EPft rejjadoiiea. Esid'e$ee►. or For
exsmgie, 9Mas>!e.4 dig set
control a partic! permit
issue rmwa mmEzuit$ee an a
case -by -case b� >� much aadien
con%aaos wrih=paPuseustgn sd.
Simflar*sM 1 11, nines
not set asadae■aifimittazoap»�
redUCfiMAMIDdMMJMCftMIIdMM6A
peso tie Aurn e4mts Ba kfim Over
where reg
removals of priority pollutants -is
addition. ifStabwag I—Mudi11
staa+laeds:aeetherpsiaseefSlss or
Federal ;late sagaeiies� pai�iaats
not.oewaed W"Mwaiafimtw
require maneiisgentimts u ccwered
pollutants), the permit -issuing au&agr
DUWA plir Sum ems. (See rise
detailed Abcasaiaa i me tely be'Iour).
A final tegic of concern is Iha
operation o'f NsiVPDES enforcement
program, maDy aspects of Which have
been eonsiden ed=m adevelvims bb
regcdafm'3'hoe Alice'
althvoHh�aierOd issstsct
liabilltyst�e.�mdfr
enforcemar>Ypevaxeaifs�s i�►�Ais
dfscrefioas��axQ*t'�v. 897
F. 2d 485. f9A Qr_ iA hen
exercisedeadieleeiis'toE mcbe-at
discretion in a mammei~
D. Re7ation�jp.s9.ibeaosed
Te = to the
Watercauds e
en fbIramantAlifissw-.
As discus ._
j todatrs�aa:irmNeed
limits faa•tf MOM'SF"dr7. fb AMe
situations, house =fowl WOW V L*
oredwa ukounwataldacbmMmV-
under a vadwFaflego`
require mors mdXLaf#stiabesalae
set foi CCPSFoessmugW mtw
disrbawasse svaliasaadhe'r acBes
resultingi t3oenL>araF
operations (eg., discharges of chemical
wasieatmsu;landfills aadlagoona. or
dwIa* elWMTgfl,sthatreaeiae
wastewater'from OCM gpeastAIs),In
these oasmilmitatiommaW}m seisn
permits, udiaisliecneesjurf aerigga'Ay
.binding A=meiho;fhat am lower 11-0-
moreotrTeSnID fban fheT1116ft MAIMth
in these pmpasedBF BAT and
pretaaavi s.Inamumbar of
hazardous waste erfforcamonl ad'mns.
EPA has sought, pursuant to various
statutoryasd�os0et 1 toabolla dse
migsasvnaf dwmayoseate
an "inandmate
end ar-Mmene, io the public lealth or
the envirommWIn1partiau7arlocaiions.
Statutory sudarffies used to bring such
acfioas include "Secfinn 504 of fe Clean
Water Act. 23 U.R'C.13K SecUm 7M
of the&esource Conservatim and
Recovery Ad jRCRAJ 42 US.C. a3973,
Section WOaf SoCampreUmIlve
F.nviroranamIdItegmnse. Compensation
and Limy Adt ICZPM Aj, 42 US C.
9606 andSed km:I43i`df the Safe- _
Drinking Wa2erJkM 4ZU:Lr. 3ML
Manyof the &efficals of concern in
these rases one PI r37poliutants that
are sabjed So ins In touts
proposed TRFBRUOM ia'hese rase&
EPA is oft=-sedftjand' n some.cases
has, already.cdftiaed in judicial decrees)
liuntsihat we borer end Those
contawedin.tude f s propvsed
regulatiaaL'llcase iavM i s are based
ommnIq=xfte-WcMcde*erMtnayions of
the nature mmd aiegree oflocd
endangerm mil- healft water
9 Yzmaa&erwoko Effects.
The: r=edies*uftMPA1m= obtained
in these easea vm7 fmm site's -site and
the haft vathe may"vary
de-ea'dte+tecdeatyEf> e
ch the, pseseeme elf-o&er -
'd sxp oure,and
�adte-
specif _01 arebased�on a
gubstantial amount of sRelpedfic
infornM*eM 'efienOW
preaeaai etaa$dlEseiilejpeett
riak.l<a *fib
progeeed , be+ased 4e
develop limits fordw
ifecaBsors 3ate'sgent
limits &MAsss-tskyis
undwrvnuMtvm&wWLnd&.wbkk we
Section 303 of the Clean Water AA 33 -
US.G UM A ,waxer quaYV almdard
limits &a amMent ooaoenization of a
particular kcal that ifs permitted in a
particular water body. The purpose of
water qwJ* standards is to jogect the
pubiic,imellh+aravAhu 6etieooe the
qualitythe
purposes stAwA at.Based+anmaiim
quality sods. PMMS Paremys cony
coed chat ere mme
stringent than Qe a ems. (der
lepd aesay�aaaepei "
determixffin'AsclonvoTmWK as
discussed heism
The aaaavt is $d
camposhensilve emaseple of tie need to
males mockaftAnci€ic "®ter quakay
determinations is EPA's onging Magara
Prong A psofiL tieacetus adeWd flue
di9dhe9ae4 tmaeAe M=&i®dke
Niagara iiiaerf 8m usted statue
1973. Intematseaal t" Cum,
Specbd Reps on &e Wtopm Mwer at 3
(1Mj•
in Tespmme to sgecAc problem along
the Mftara,llPAtsa'°&atedligation, e.g.,
United States er &I V. 3ire C*V of
NhWara f+t, Ow. Art.'Pia'81-M
(W53N.Y.,14;vI, lsad M"fed
States et al T.110aftrchezutc s &
Plesrk CDrp. at el jHyde ParkLanc#Vl),
Civ. AM Tft 79-M J1fMNN., Dec. 20
1979). (A comwift dome sMing Wn
case was entered done IM MM) EPA
has also used COMA to bgest4pte or
remedy other probUms6 as in The case of
the Loge Canal LERQ A renvmfW action
program.
In "oqp ion of &e potmCmd for
area -while dBects along Ike Mewara
River andAn La1w tlntado and the need
toz*qwSwIezqp9sItMVxeGPQ2sM
EPA and be State of New York, in
consultation rgh .the Souernmend al
Canada. Inge 4nitiated Ilm Wiggara
Frontier Agenda. Wn eliae3 is rdesigned
to.anore arrauatelF Ad=14 the spume
and quastdties.of lodc zheinkals
entering theMagma Rhmer=d.a g
the bast eciestaBc safon>aaatioa aaac7alrle,
reduce she discla gWQf euacdc rhemicals
as requireabylaw.
In additien te4beJORMOWstaEdes
that govern the dischagge of substances
to fine 13kWm Mv= the I"TreatY
Between ths+tialteAISbdes a ndCaeat
Britaiaiteiaft}tct.Bmaed Y WYaaleta,
and asAdfteshveanda
United Stales aud+l9asrpata (�
Ba=Aww Watas.'i1 ) muses that
boundmv "ahaastat be puller
on eithar-sideto thet4ury n a lhoofYlh
or properjy xI&s,o&W'ArticleANof
the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty. The
UnitedShave-has shading • • -. also
to rd-9 PjMflyiPM liwwm
to to no.11sandaryWate=TwatA to
DEQ-CFW 00065141

nwo Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 55 / Monday, March 21, 1983 / Proposed Rules
a foreign power bordering upon some of
the Lakes concerned * * *" Sanitary
DistricVV-.'ZlgYted Statesi 2WU.S r,405,
425- 6 (1924). ;-
In -addition. the 1974 Agreement
Between the United -States and Canada
on Great Lakes Water Quality (1978
Great Lakes Agreement) sets out
specific and°general water quality
objectives'for.the boundary -waters and
requires that any regulations
promulgated by either country "shall be
consistent with the achievement of the
General and Specific Objectives.''
Article V of the 1978 Great Lakes
Agreement. The treaty and international
agreement indicate the unique character
of the Niagara River as an international
water body.
The Niagara Frontier Agenda provides
a concrete example of how site -specific
factors may -require more stringent
effluent limits, as well as how the
unique international status of a water
body may require additional obligations.
In regard to the above considerations,
it should be noted that although today's
pro osed regulations use a floor of 50
µgr for organic priority pollutant limits
for a variety of reasons, detection limits
for most organic priority pollutants are
in the range of 0.1 to 10 µg/l, depending
on the method used. Indeed, limitations
at very low µg/1 ranges have been
agreed to by several chemical
companies in hazardous waste consent
decrees, e.g., United States v. Fike -
Chemicallnc., at al., Civ. Act. No. 8o-
2497 (S.D.W.Va., entered Nov.16, '1982)
and United States at al. v. Hooker
chemicals & Plastics Corp. at al. (Hyde
Park Landfill), Civ. Act. No. 79-989
(W.D.N.Y., entered April 30, 1982).
Careful attention to detail in performing
analyses (e.g., the use of appropriate
sample cleanup procedures and of
confirmatory techniques to resolve
interferences) should result in
acceptable precision and accuracy even
at these low levels. Where necessary to
protect the public health and the
environment, consent decrees in such
enforcement actions may appropriately
require the detection of organic
chemicals_ in low concentrations.
XVHI. Summary of Public Participation
In December,1981 the Agency
circulated a draft contractor's report
describing the data gathering efforts in
support of today's proposed BPT
regulations. The report was distributed
to trade associations, environmental
groups, individual companies in the-
OCPSF industry, states and EPA
regions.
In April, 1982 the Agency similarly
distributed a draft contractor's report
describing the data gathering efforts in
support of the proposed BAT, NSPS,
PSES, and-PSNS regulations.
"`>�Ia.addltioa tlie�gericy�as#c"onduetEd ''
public seminarson its -analytical
mathods;--The Agency hiis,alao -
conducted'workshops concerning the --
special problems of incorporating these
proposed regulations into 14PDES
permiti
The Agency has met frequently with
representatives of the industry and
environmental groups.
Written comments were solicited
concerning the draft contractor's -
reports. Additional written comments
have been received by the Agency. A
summary of major comments rece% d to
date is presented in Appendix F to this
proposed regulation.
M. Solicitation of Technical and
Economic Data and Comment on Other
Aspects of this Proposed Regulation
EPA invites and encourages public .
participation in this rulemaking.
The Agency asks that any deficiencies in
the record of this proposal be pointed to
with specificity and requires that
suggested revisions or corrections be
suppbrted by relevant data.
Throughout this preamble, EPA has
requested data and comments with
respect to a variety.of technical and
policy issues. We reiterate those
requests here. Set forth below is a
summary of the -major areas in which
additional comments and information
are solicited. Supporting data should be
submitted wherever appropriate.
(1) EPA is considering, as a basis for
final TSS limitations, an additional BPT
technology for solids control (i.e.
defining "average -of -the best" TSS
control as biological treatment followed
by effective solids control). If EPA
decides to use this technology, those
biological systems that are not followed
by adequate physical/chemical solids
control systems would be deleted from
the BPT TSS data base. The Agency
invites comments on this approach and
solicits-dataon the use and.
effectiveness of polishing ponds, filters
and other treatment technologies used to
reduce TSS loadings from biological
treatment systems.
(2) EPAhasconcluded that its BPT
subcategorization will not, in practice,
improperly group together plants that
cannot practicably achieve the required
limitations. EPA requests comment on
this conclusion:
(3) EPA requests comments on the
likelihood that some plants will shift
subcategories by adding or deleting
particular product/processes. For which
specific plants is this a significant
possibility?
(4) EPA's BPT subcategorization
approach bases subcategories on the
product/pro-oesses t bontri'bute`raw
waste loadings:of BOD, and sets
concentration limitations at the end of
the pipe, giving full credit for any
treatment or control taking place prior to
that point. An alternative suggested .
approach would subcategorize based on
BOIS-andjor TSS levels in the influent to
the end -of --pipe treatment system, and
set percent reduction limits. The Agency
im" comments on tl advontages and
disadvantages of these approaches.
(5) EPA invites comments on its .
consideration of simplifying the BPT
eflbcategorization scheme by combining
certain'subcategories.
(6) EPA solicits comments regarding
its unit costs (i.e., CAPDET municipal
treatment model.modified to reflect
OCPSF unit costs). EPA used this model
to estimate compliance costs for
proposed BPT limitations. Alternative
unit costs were offered without an
explanation of their basis. The Agency
solicits specific actual costs, how they
were calculated, what assumptions were
used in the calculations, and what they
were incurred for.
(7) EPA invites comments identifying
OCPSF plants that experience
significant difficulties meeting the BPT
limitations and standards because
ambient temperatures are too high
(specifically, detailed explanations as to
how high ambient temperatuare makes
meeting the proposed limitations
infeasible).
(8) EPA solicits comments on the
suitability of its regulatory and costing
approach for plants that presently
comply with BOD but not with TSS, and
presently have no biological treatment
in place.
(9) EPA solicits additional information
on the performance of BPT systems in
the Oxidation subcategory with respect
to TSS.
(10) EPA devised a method to
determine which priority pollutants are
likely to be discharged from particular
product/processes. This method was
used to assist EPA in technical data
gathering efforts for the proposed BAT
limitations. The Agency solicits
information to improve its priority
pollutant -pathway scheme. -_
(11) EPA seeks information on existing
product/processes having raw waste
loadings for particular priority
pollutants so high that achieving the
proposed BAT limitations is infeasible
economically. Specifically, what are
these product/processes, what
concentrations of what pollutants are
being generated, and what difficulties
DEQ-CFW 00065142

j VML 4% 11M 95 #may. Mamh xL iMr Fir pmed RaWsip
prehWe dce a thous ef'he
proposedRAT?
J14 EPA soliits ainiocmationen
pnadnotjp�oeases Wig, at
signs cwt-* zis, priorilly peilkU its :that
are mot' udted !n atbae PmPosedBAT
regulations. Specifically, what are these
prodact/processes, and what priority
pollutants do Ahey disalwir- at whet
levels?
(T3) i3PA solirsis coavmea� onus
determinafion that. for the MW
induelry. some priority potlatanU do not
pass through POTW&
pq EPA mates Ink motion na
addraoonal pelffittenta ffiaR the public or
industrybe'fieves shouldbe sii*ctto
PSES SuMaMMU to prevem trde&ra=
with rMW qperattoaa. Eft.► lino Mrdtas
comment vn whetter csd�mm P9BS
standards we necessary Io prevent
interference wft partic tdar PGTW
chosen sindge disposal practices.
(15) EPA Welcomes M *e
.proposed PM compliance date of three
years from the date of promulgation.
(16) EPA solicits isferma0en an
priority pollutants not regulated—
whether they am pry, and at whet
levels. VIVeAgenoywauidalso Eke
sugges€onsas to what Usabnawt
technologies could be Utifined to achieve
effhiesd studs and MIEMNSIMIUM isr
these peiiataniL
(17) EPA truants OR the
methodology used is Me analysisof 4he
incremental removal and per PGIMd
equivalent for &see URIARtims red
stamiards. (This anaiysis is included in
the record of the G(FSF Cry.)
(18) EPA invites comments an its size
definition Pam v alk less dum fifty
employees were defined as smell
businesses). UWs economic impact
ana4sis shows that theme awl aot be a
signMcantimpact as anyseffment of the
industry, large or small. The Agency
solicits information from small .plants
that would suffer econonucaIly.from the
propel regulations Deduding factual
reasons as to wlw they would su%4
(19) EPA invites industry to submit
data chat would fig any gaps That theX
believe still remain in the data base.
EPA also sefidts arMffiaoal data via
variability to supplement the exi ftg
data base.
EPA ismlmw mopmensts6mofs
pant�faoilitg, >�Aspeal8cat>y
salicitsmmmuesteand
information mass sepeesentative of
weloames fte-submissionetROMIlonal
bidogical featment K rate data by
induafty-
(22) EPAsolicits epesating and
analytical information on powdered
activated carbon performance in
removal .oftoxic pollutants+ ,
(23) EPA weloomes the scibmissi in of
additional data to make josiihle a
review of $e techtacal.assum4Aiona of
the model.tlescn'bing fhe performance of
activated carbon. steam stripping, and.
ion exchange.
(24) SPA solle tsdata from the
regulated industry tparticular'ly'frf)m any
plants that base iustalled any of The
technologies °evaluated as WWI to be
used in im1her mat curve d8 V L4op-9.
The data ohodla tadude adeftils of
design. umt costs, Uibor, any
assumptions in calculatingcosts of
capital, and oilerb9orma ef'&e
type used is Spf I s present cost
modeTr;g.
M EPA aandaaagy solicits 4ata and
product/process waste leads and torte
waste loads that could be added to the
computed master process fleiontalogue.
Data should be s4mined showing the
waste asked, Umm source. Thz
anadyticalzoB#hmdwegi, the compounds
analyzed for the compounds-a—cied,
and a quantitative zmmuwre of tie
compounds deter.
(26) EPA soluamcomments and
analyticalmeibadadata onto
appsopriateness +of Aloe So F,&q dower
limit nosed in Ahe proposed ration.
(27j EPA awekmnas comments on
whether and how to develop and
implement a compliance program or a
general policy that recognizes the
problems of analytical varisbnUity.
(28) EPA invites comment on the
proposed mordtoangveducfmn strategy.
includinglheancx-pecyewi I
monitoring regnirem riLIheYlkelihood
that the reduction wM result is
undetected perndt v%lstiorts, w3dthe
efficiency and mosemableness of the
cent caf3anjreequnemer& '
(29) To determine the economic
impact of +lids won, tine Agency
ha UMMMMthec®atuf' ®P'1',
BAT, PsMiI MandXMSfor snodel
plaatsa�:eaclu i�ity
for whichdWhr n a=&Me 73m,
l:tails of the estimated cdets and
ecorm®icbz3he
Tae�d me�+aad
ilk theEcomo®icii ctAnsiysis.'the
Agency estimates that no signifiicaet
grill suit f— sk
current practice. economic impacts le e
tn) IPA, solicits data that would proposed -regulation. Much of -the data
cvnuibute to the in*wovamsent of ka used in the;an*sis is hompublir.ly
modeliagaffmiavaluating the_ available informationiladependent '
performance, of. treatment tech log" estinuifies&%mnpokmtesources. and
as wellaslothe.design,afthe, technical+daf$$trh d to egeacir,
generalized plant configurations. EPA Because tlw Agency didoot-Baveplant
specific daft an st action costa, -cos
of capital, sales and prices and other
financial measures, -the Agency used
industryawwages, ranges, orauelytical
results to estimate compliance coats and
economic impacts. The agency invites
comments, supported by appropriate
data. on these ana s. The Agency
(c particulsujy seeks omments on whether
the incremental costs are achievable,
especially at small ar secondary
producers of organic •chemicals.
Commmanters are requested to address
not only the potential for plant oiosure
orproeess slat Clowns, but also the
effects of the regulation on capacity
expansion, production costs, cost of
capitai4nr •envireanental control.
product prices, and pmftiabilt. M
solicit sped is data an these factors.
(3�'The.Agency requests comment$
and suggestions on the economic impact
analysis methodology. In particular, we
solicit specific comments concerning the
product/process supply -demand
analysis, the closure methodologies, and
estimation of treatment costs for
facilities.
Theaapertingprovisions in this rule
will be submitted for approval to the
Office ofManagoment and Budget under
Section 3504(h) of &a paperwardc
80
Reduction Act of 19, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. Away €coal rule will explain law its
repor�:provisions pond to any
Office of Management and Budget or
public pis.
List of Subjects in 40'CFR Part 41:4
Chemicals. Mole ireatmeat wad
disposal. Water Pollution control.
Dated: February a IN&
Aane K BUADrd,
Adminisbutor. ,
Appendix d-Ahkwrinflons, l s,
T and Other arras• lised is this Neice
ActT'he bean Water Act
Agency —The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
BAT —'Me best available technology
economically achievahie, applicable to
effluent IimBations to be achieved by
July flL 198L Mor industrial dishes to
surface waters, as deftnedby Section
3M(N= df IheAcL
BAIDevelopment Doomwat—
DevelopmentDocument for Proposed
Effluent Limitations-Grudelines and
Standards for the Organic Chemicals
and Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Point
source Category, Vol. 2JBAT), EPA 4401
1=83�009--h.
BCr :Tire ibest,coaa reational aUutant
control techaelo1w, applicable to
discharges arf c myontional pollutants -
from existing industrial points sources,
DEQ-CFW 00065143

11852 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 55 / Monday,- March 21, 1983 / Proposed Rules
as defined by Section 304(b)(4) of the
Act.
BMP—Best management. practices, as
defined by Section 304(e) of the Act.
BPT--The best practicable control
technology currently available, -
applicable to effluent limitations to be
achieved by July 1,1977, for industrial
discharges to surface waters, as defined
by Section 304(b)(1) of the Act.
BPT Development Document —
Development Document for Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
;Standards for the Organic Chemicals
and Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Point
Source Category, Vol. I (BPT) EPA 440/
1-W/009-b.
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).
Consent Decree —See Settlement
Agreement.
Conventional Pollutants —
Constituents of wastewater as
determined by Section 304(a)(4) of the
Act, including, but not limited to,
pollutants classified as biochemical
oxygen demand, suspended solids, oil
and grease fecal coliform, and pH.
Direct Discharger —An industrial
discharger that introduces wastewater
to a receiving body of water with or
without treatment by the discharger.
Economic Analysis —Economic
Analysis of Proposed Effluent Standards
and Limitations for the Organic
Chemicals and Plastics, Synthetics, and
Fibers Industry, EPA 440/2-M- 004.
Effluent Limitation —A maximum
amount, per. unit of time, production or
other unit, of each specific constituent of
the effluent that is subject to limitation
from an existing point source. Allowed
pollutant discharge may be expressed as
a concentration in milligrams per liter
(mg/1) or micrograms per liter (µg/I).
End -of -Pipe Treatment (EOP)—Refers
to.those processes that treat a combined
plant wastestream for pollutant removal
prior to discharge. EOP technologies
covered are classified as primary
(physical separation processes),
secondary (biological processes), and
tertiary (treatment following secondary)
processes. Different combinations of
these treatment technologies may be
used depending on the nature of the
pollutants to be removed and the degree
of removal required.
GPCs—Generalized plant
configurations, used for costing
purposes, defined as model plants which
were configured to represent typical
combinations of product/processes and
corresponding generally found in the
OCPSF industry.
Indirect Discharger —An industrial
discharger that introduces wastewater
into a publicly owned treatment worked
In -plant Control or Treatment
Technologies —Controls or measures
applied within the manufacturing
process to reduce or eliminate pollutant
and hydraulic loadings of raw
wastewater. Typical in -plant control
measures include process modification,
instrumentation, recovery of raw
materials, solvents, products or by-
products, and water recycle.
Nonconventional Pollutants —
Parameters selected for use in
developing effluent limitation guidelines
and new source performance stsnrds
which have not been previously
designated as either conventional
pollutants or toxic pollutants.
Non -Water Environmental Quality
Impact —Deleterious aspects of control
and treatment technologies applicable to
point source category wastes, including,
but not limited to air pollution, noise,
radiation, sludge and solid waste
generation, and energy used.
NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System, a Federal program
requiring industry and municipalities to
obtain permits to discharge plant
effluents to the nation's water courses,
under Section 402 of the Act.
NSPS—New source performance
standards, applicable to industrial
facilities whose construction is begun
after -the publication of the proposed
regulations, as defined by Section 306 of
the Act
OCPSF—Organic chemicals, plastics,
and synthetic fibers manufacturing point
source category.
Point Source Category —A collection
of industrial sources with similar
function or product, established by
Section 306(b)(1)(A) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended for the purpose of establishing
Federal standards for the disposal of
wastewater.
POTW-4Publicly owned treatment
works, facilities that collect, treat, or
otherwise dispose of wastewaters,
owned and operated by a village, town,
county, authority, or other public
agency.
Pretreatment Standard —Industrial
wastewater effluent quality required for
discharge to a publicly -owned treatment
works.
Product/Process— A product
definition specifying both the raw
material and the generic process by
which it is produced.
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—Resources Conservation and
Recovery Act (Pub. L. 94-580) of We
Amendments to.Solid`Waste Disposal
Act.
Revised Settlement Agreement A
rewritten form of the Settlement
Agreement which described provisons
authorizing the exclusion from
regulation, in certain industries, of toxic
po�is and industry subcategories.
went Agreement. —Agreement
entered into by EPA with the Natural
Resources Defense Council and other
effironmental groups and approved by
tlib. U.S. District Court for the -District of
Columbia on June 7.19M One of the
principal provisions of the Settlement
Agreement was to direct EPA to
consider an extended list of 65 classes
of toxic pollutants in 21 industrial
categories in the development of effluent
limitations and guidelines and new
source performance standards.
SIC -Standard Industrial
Classification, a numerical
categorization scheme used by the U.S,
Department of Commerce to denote
segments of industry.
Toxic Pollutants —All compounds
specifically named or referred to in the
Settlement Agreement, as well as
recommended specific compounds
representative of the nonspecific or
ambiguous groups or compounds named
in the agreement. This list of pollutants
was developed based on the use of
criteria such as known occurrence in
point source effluents, in the aquatic
environment, in fish, in drinking water,
and through evaluations of
carcinogenicity, other chronic toxicity,
bioaccumulation, and persistence.
Zero Discharger —A plant that does
not discharge wastewaters to either
POTWs or to surface water bodies.
Methods of zero discharge include: deep
well injection, contract hauling, offsite
treatment, incineration, evaporation.
Impoundment, and land disposal
Appendix B—Toxic Pollutants
Regulated
Note. —This table sets forth 46 toxic
pollutants regulated at BAT and NSPS for the
Plastics -Only (denoted by P) and/or Not
Plastics -Only (denoted by O) subcategories.
The 21 toxic pollutants regulated at PSES and
PSNS are denoted by.an asterisk
Part ar pl not property PMWCW s 6
ony
s+e tr;aro►eWa o•
2-drioropneea 0.
9A-*re#JVh rra �
DEQ-CFW 00065144

F_,aiatRete�-/,�a1,:A8;-Npz55R/.Mtjnday,,March:21� 2983 /,Proposed:Rules• 11853
Pokft t orpohdantptoPdty Not Porgy
Pollutant ar P prop" NotP
onlyoHutam
Not Plastics
Por poHuutam property P
2 O._
_ _ O_._._._..
hexacitbr 0.....»..»... P.
�:-.---._._....-
2- Wophend O. _
phend..:+.,....�. ....... 0.._........ P.
isoptvxone........_................__.»_........... P.
0-............ P.
2.� O
panlBrhNttop rely_ O
acersaphdwe O_....—
12-44irirtorobena6ne Q_ _
one....._. _..._...».._ ,...._.. ...
pheral._ O........... P.
-1.2 - 0.`.c `
N-iu7osodrnethy�rrfe..._»...»....__..._.» 0.............. P.
,r.
_
acerapVme_ O - - _.
_
bis j2-eetyir xA plrjalais 0............. P.
N-reho$� _.._......_........ 0.... ......... P.
t,2.4.triddorobarmaae O_------
�'"� ` _....' O.........
....... .............. 0.............. 'P.
:.
t
diethyl plohrJ i O...... ....
butyl benryl Phtl�ate . __»». ._ .. 0.. - .. P.
isophprprs O
_'
bemane O..»...._...
di -butyl Philmiate• .... ». . _» _.. P.
o_._.-._ P
cobomta6raoflgide
di n ociyl Dhthaiste--:...._....» »._....... 0.............. P.
di n brdyl O_.
/.1.1 0..
diethyl Pttihatate _ _ .. P.
depMhalMe- _ 0..._----•
tlryt
1.1 O _ .. .
dimett>yl phthalate __..»... P.
arelypp"Ek".. .�_. O•--•--:
1124dolroaoellifirie" : 0:....:....._
berao(a _ _ M ..»....._ 0. »._..._ P.
wer>aptdglerre O'....._
dlorotorm- O .._..
l>anxo(a)pyrene _»..».. »._....._.... 0.............. P.
tluorene 0•..........
1.tdd*XOetlgWW 0—......»..
3.4-benzoguormghene .... ....._.... ............... 0.............. P.
...». P.
aaowh P%
mettrAWO d 1, k, = 0_...........
d,rysene. _._ __. _. 0....... ...... P.
<T
bermana
P.
carbon"tetra -fti a 0............
- O __
anthacene:......_.-:._.._............. ... 0;........... P.
1 _ 0'. _
Wkm a 0---------
benzo(9h7PetYlene _ . .... _ _.» ... 0....... ... t P.
1.1.1-bichlorostfian9 O _ .-_.
tridaor6etlrylene ` 0 _
fluorene... ._ ....._.. »:. ....-._......... P.
t.1drinmelAsae 0............ .
ar*monY•,____ _ _ 0 ..
-r•-- _ _ .._. P.
t.t��idtb�rarm" O�.
cedrtim 0............ P.
0.............. P.
droroettwp O' _
dron:mw P.
idano u,3 cdIPYrerre.._........................... 0...... »_.... P.
Chloroform O- - -
copper O___.... P.
Py►ane ._,_»_ _ _ __ 0....... ...... P.
1.1 0....... --
ahc_ �_ - O_ ..._..
2,3.7. ..-...._. O.. ._._ P.
eOWb— P
lead O__ ...._
saown,..,...._.._..._._....»...»».....-._-...... 0... ..........
megfylene dhtedda O� _ _
O _ _ ,
aMYWWG8- ._.. »» . .............. 0.............. P.
meMyl ddoride _ O-------
beruene.„n_._..._....._ .. _._ ......._ P.
nx" brprida
carbon P.
ckhk)i
-0..... _...... P.
tduema o _ -.
Appendixj�-Toadc:PvUutants- Not
1,2_. _ _ P_
0--------•-
Regulated*
1.1.1-bid*orO tllanB.,.».»....-._.-......._._ P.
P.
„ A cPooride P'_1.1-dddMOatl�n&
:..............._..._....».......
' 0._.........
cadnhihen O�_.__ P.
Note —This table sets forththe84
t.1z-uichto oemena...-.._............ ............. P.
1,7 2.2-tetnwhio oet1m a _.._ _.. O»....... _. P.
;,
etrvnhiharr o•.....---. P.
pollutants for Not Plastics -Only
ctuoroeu,er,e _.__.._.._. _........._..... P.
'
capper. o_.:-_-_ - P.
and the 98 toxic pollutants for the Plastics
2 cti«aeuyweM es,er. _._........ _ __. o............. P.
merctay...... o•— _ .
only subcategory -which not proposed foroa�n,
__ :__.____._ ._ _... P.
anc_.. o____..
10__...... P•.
regulation at this time generally due to lack
1,7� _ __. _ ... P.
P.
t z-o- ire didsoroentylene.____...... o _.jl�,,
lead
- 0—P•.
of adequate�dabL The letters O" (Not Plastics-
1.2-sddor6propan s...
s;
Only) andp.'(Plast�-Buty) indicate in which
i a d o.:.....Sabi:ategvey;HpOliatBl►t]S-IIOtiegUlated.
—
Append'u C—Toxic Pautants Excluded
n*Wb`On*b;.— P•Under.
Paragraph 8
... __ _ �._.._ PNot
0........P.
Note. This table sets forth 18 toxic
Plastics
Polutant arpowaat proparty p ° `
�droroenMene ----_.__ o._.__... P.
pollutants el chmied from these proposed
'
rosrena. _ _ ----.-:.--.._....._ P.
regulations for bath the. Plastics Only and Not
—
2.4.6eidikrppgprp4 P.
uidroroeeytene _ _.__. P
vinyl ddgide _ _ O:.w__..
.Plastics Only ubmtegQ6eslnlderParagraph
p.dtldo:rn.d9atlt O.__...... P_
PCB-1242.._...�..........-». o._.... __: P.
Ba13t1t0liiy — -
:�" P. -
2 x.. P
PCB-1254.:__.�..... 0.. ..... P.
PCB-1221 » »» .. O »» P.
PDUUImIIOIPbIhrQarttPnopPrfy
` ` . P.
PCB-1232.. _ _. .. O_..._.._ P.
;;
2 rtiaaphanot_ _ _ P.
PCB-1248 __ _ ___ ». _ _ ...._... 0........ ..... P.
aldrin
4 niroptranot ..,. P.
PCB-1260.:__ _ _... ............. . 0............ P.
dleidrin
Z.� P.
PCB-1016 .,....... _ .... -.. . 0....__...--. P.
r
ChlOrdaIIe:
P.
46 dnir04gead o P -
antimony . __ _ P.
raenic_ _______ _ _ o_. _ P.
4,4'-DDT
awaaplRrwr P.
asbestos. _ _. _.. O _ ..... P. -
4
4,4'-DDE.
berrrldrhe P.
berytlAnm _. -. 0...._.._» P.
P.
12 4 tridHoro6eo:en9 P
mercuY—___. .._ __. ....._..._
4,4'-DDD _
�= 0___.._ P.
„ _ O» .. .. P.
alphas
o�_.. _ P.
seleriun.,.... _ �....... O.......... P.
beta-anda8Ulfan
bis(Z 0 P.
o............ P.
_......
► _ _ .... 0..... _...... P.
tlhel%,m 0.............. P.
endosuffaa sulfate
1
P.
endrin �.
1 0 _ _ P.
endrin aldehyde
1, o ._ P.
».
heptachlor,
o_ P.
Appendix F.—Public Comment
heptacLlae epoxide
o P.
Summary
3,.
alp haBHC-,
-
1
tasNl ... O._..:_. P. -
A. BAT
beta-BHC
s�ror:nsrena ..., «. .. o�____. P.
gamul
��p Mawr` ° P'
Skier—o P.
1. Comment. It cannot be inferred
..
delta-BHC
_
Q ..__ K
from available information that different
r5
toxaphene =
: -- o-- P.
productfproeessesusing the same
Apl;Wanks ot"Regulated'N ,
by PSNS:
�
. ,_,
generic.Wocess.produce pollutantloads=
that have- sin'lllar treatabilrtie&
PSESo =
sadl ofi28' p.11u anmof the 1M prtoritq
fort1488 toxfa
N Y
�A - m° `'
r RnsrBPA's u �f productf
gro pig. ,.
s h d"from'PSffi�ndpSNS
Y�
p s tint er several genenc�process
pbtiiitants
Rregi>ra v d 3
y "r
>yape he: iyforaonveuience;
ua ` yiietFis
riof o intie�ifee'Gi
i an
S :�a
operation of POT Wa
dtcl l' , " tdeleted4d-Plrrzss t/ttls1l• '
of the industry as a whole: It has not
DEQ-CFW 00065145

11854 l dew lfftgister / Vol. 48, Wo. 55 J-L a IaWY 1 21,--1983 /-PraPosed--iWeg,
been used to develop treatability data
fin• use m. he regulation: VAnle a generic
`-process'niay "lo ue . of
prodnct/processea. the subset Q p ity
pollutants tbisassvdatedwltf� a
particular pavduat procesa is .usually
dependent,om-endleneiiealfy related
to, 9m raw:mateAd1'usei,Fsir: X&Wpa%
chlorination of benzene will iead to a
different subset ofpriority poHnxants
than the chlorination of ethylene. Thus,
the EPA agrees that the subset c
priority pollutants likely tobe,in the
effluent rasnat be inferred frem1he
genericprocess alonmrathei lbe generic
process and raw material must tenth be
courAered.
EPA hypothesrzed, when itbegan, its
BAT studies, that subsetsofVnerically
related priority pollutants, regardless of
product/process origin, have an inherent
treatability: Since such subsets are
specifically: related to -product/
processes, it €ollowe &M tkecombftied
wastewateralrom similar mixes of
product/processes will hairesimilar
treatability. The data EPA has collected
across treatmentsystems.operatingat
different,plants within the0QPSF
industry shows good andconsistent
reduction of priority pollutants swig
from a variety of product process mixes.
These. empirical results suggests that the
concept that generic subs" priority
pollutants has an-inherent.trea$abflity,
regardless ofproduct/processuigin,-is
general to -most -of the majorproductf
process mixes represented within the
OCPSF industry.
2. Comment EPA's grouping of
product/processes into generic groups
and predicting expected pollutant
loadings from.reaction chemistry and
other scientific methods is qualitative
not quantitative and, therefore, has no
place in -the establishment of effluent
limitations for product/processes not
characterized under EPA's study
program.
Response: EPA agrees that -the
predictive scheme isqualitative. it is
useful for identifying, but not predicting
precise levels of. those priority
pollutants that are likely to be found in
the combined wastewater at a plant. For
that very reason, the proposed effluent
limitations have not been derived from
the predictive scheme.
As used by EPA in its study program
of the-OCPSF ,industry, the term
"product/pr+ooess'.'. defines -a '
manufacturing vwdwd in -terms of the
product, its raw masetial and a generic
process. Through nn understanding of
the chemistry ofa-pmduca/fnromss,
generically related sulisats of priority
pollutants likely to be associated with
that product/process are. predictable.
The EPAgenerallyconfirmed the
expectedpredictability by sampling and
analymWthe individual wastewater
=��uerits of aver'i7o�`�oi�p%utx/,
processes of the OCPSF_ may.
I EPWsistudlesIAMs _
many highea iorder pvocliiot
(usingsimplm to
manufaciunesnore oamip. Aqpwo.
compounds* beyondihose4.h&ty ere
specifically,characteiized,-are ne►t
significant soutces'of prroritgpellatants.
These findings support the;coaci+pi312at
only certain raw maric
process �binadens, have a� -
significant potential to,genesate priority
pollutants.and Explain why ply
pollutants often fail to showtWol e
effluents .of many of the higher• outer
product/processes.
3. Comurents: EPA7s displays of
analytical data in tables should not be
carried out to significsrnt figures
representative of thonsandths of a pars
per billion. Thisvoul i give a misleading
impression of the precision of the
anal ' toersaader is
not familiar with the limitationsvi the
method.
,Respvnae: l' is..�rea�ble discussion
and Elie sMa of ]imitations �
standards set forth in the regulations are
content wok the comment. Carnpnter-
cakulmad averagm ass the ,
DerelopmentDocumenterasometimes
carried tadec imal points generated by
the algorithms and not rounded off in
the data presentations. However.
discussions of analytical variability in
the dent should ensure that the
reader understands the limitations of
analytical methods. Numerical values
presented in the record for this proposed
rulemaking are of two types: the
laboratory reported individual
analytical sample results, or statistics
calculated from these sample results.
The Agency reports the individual
sample results as they wens -reported by
the laboratory that enalyaed the
samples. Statistics generated from
individual analytical results represent a
summary of these values. EPA agrees
that an excessive number of :sfgffiircani
figures resulting from such calculations
does not represent a measure of the
precision of the analytical methodology.
4. Comment Because of inherent
variability in the analytical data, EPA
should not display or use that data as
numerical values, but inst6ad<shoudd
display-an&use them as ranges.
Response: Aspreviously noted. EPA is
aware dt the inherent variability of
analyAiM results. Regardless of the
substance or material.-je g j, pollutants in
the envtronmenk, tensfie streng& of a
metal, length of fife of an electrical
product, eta) a measured value is the
result of many _sources of variation. That
is, any value resulting from
measurement has uncertainty associated
ii ith it: However;11�
uncertaintyexists is a repervalue
does not precludeAe.parep aft..
reporting of specific laboratory ems.
Furthermore, EPA s statistical
proceduresInclude amd~
variability, as welt as vther sources of
variability. in the maw
computations -for debug 8re
numerical iissitations based an#he data.
previouslgdescaibed' in this
preamble, and as -done in the case of
other industry regulabom EPA hm used
such procedures in its compalatiOas of
t `the proper OCRSFvffLmwtjWA@Jines
limitations. Using such procedures that
account for variability—badEcal
and other types —makes the display and
use of that data as nummicei valpes a
valid procedure.
5. Caamfiutut At cues below
100 parts per billion {ppbj*e variability
of analytical results becomes much more
pronoumeed. As concentrations
approach 10 ppb even the identification
of compounds becomes suspect. These
limitations should be considered in any
use of the data.
Response: EPA has considered
limitations inherent in the analytical
methods in using the data to support
today's proposed guidelines and -
standards.
EPA did not analyze vetcation
samples for all pr r pollutants. Ji
only analyzed for compounds "t were
detected in a part'.screening or
those with a hot proinhiiity of - -
occurrence based on an understanding
of the process chemistry. Knowledge of
expected pollutants enabled EPA to
focus its analytical resources on those
pollutants that were ascertained to be in
each sample.
Most samples were analyzed by
compound specific methods based on
gas chromatography with conventional
detectors (GC/CD). As will be discussed
further in comment 10, EPA believes that
these very sensitive detectors produce
accurate quantitative results,
particularly in the low concentration
ranges. Properly used, GC/CD
procedures often have detection limits in
the range of 0.1 to 1 µg/L Thus, in many
cases, GC/CD results were reported in
the data base at concentrationsbelow`
10 ppb. Other data are based on
analysis withles {ograpLy wink
identification and quantification by
mass spectrometer jGt~/MS]. GC/MS
has a detection -limit of leas than 18 ppb
for nearly all pro tk pollutants. The
assertion that pollutants cannot be ,
identified by GC/MS with confidence
DEQ-CFW 00065146

Federal Register / V61..48, No. 55 % Monday, March - 21, 1983 / Proposed Rules 11855
when they are present at levels
approaching 10 ppb is incorrect.
In analyzing its data base. EPA has
treated allvalues reported below 10 ppb
from either method as 10 ppb. EPA
selected this criterion as a conservative
measure to -avoid potential problems"
concerning the variability of numbers in
the data base that were reported at less
than to pg/L
The concentration limitationsand
standards proposed today contain no
requirements lower. than 50 ppb. These
are based on data indicating long to
term achievable concentrations in the 10
to 20 ppb range and lower, and are
_ associated with relatively low
calculated variability factors -Thus, a
wide range of potential analytical error
is accounted for in the regulation.
SPA believes that the above
procedures have insured that the special
problems of measurement at the limits
of analytical detection have been fairly
considered in setting limitations. The
resulting limitations are well within the
recognized analytical capability of
available monitoring technology.
6. Comment EPA's calculation of
mass loadings for certain product/
processes appears, in some cases, to be
based on only one observation and is,
therefore inappropriate for
characterizing OCPSF industry
wastewater.
Response: As discussed earlier in this
preamble, EPA has shifted the focus of
this proposed regulation from a mass -
based regulation applied to specific
product/processes, to a concentration -
based regulation applied to the plant
discharge. Thus, the focus of the
characterization of OCPSF wastewaters
has shifted from data such as that
criticized by the commenter to end -of -
pipe data. The criticized data were,
however, used in estimating the cost of
compliance. The criticism as it relates to
the cost analysis will be discussed
below as a part of comments relating to
the cost estimating methodology.
7. Comment.EPA's "verification
sampling program covered only 37
plants of 1=7 in the industry and4M
product/processes ofaverzmused*in
the industry. Those samples are "not
sufficiently representative of the:
industry to permit characterization of
the entire industry. The data are
particularly unrepresentative of batch
and complex second generction
product/processes.
Response: EPA has collected data that
we believe, based on process chemistry,
are representative of the entire industry.
The product/processi afffuentsthat the
EPA elected to characterize are those of
high -volume products:and o€;pmducts:.
that, 664 are priority pollutants, or are
expected to be associated with them.
The priority pollutants observed in each
of these effluents were found to be
generally consistent with the raw
materials, solvents, process chemistry
and coproducts of the corresponding
product/processes. Moreover, plant
effluent data, on which these proposed
regulations are based include the
combined and treated wastewater
discharges from product/processes
other than the 178 that were -explicitly
characterized: Among these others were
higher orderproduct/processes, often
manufactured by a batch process (rather
than a continuous -process). Thus, the
EPA has collected data that it believes
is representative of the entire industry.
As discussed in Section XV of the
preamble, EPA expects -to collect
additional data to further confirm the
representativeness of the data base.
As in the response to the previous
comment, EPA notes that product/
process data are used mainly for
treatment cost estimations.
Further, the commenter is
contradicted by its own report on the 5-
plant sampling program. This report
concludes, "these (5) manufacturing
sites and their respective treatment
systems are a representative sample
from the organic chemicals industry."
Elsewhere it states, "(t)his comparison
supports the conclusion that the
participating biological treatment plants
in the five plant study generally can be
considered representative of the median
level of performance obtained by
biological -treatment of organic
chemicals industry wastewater." EPA
has used the data from the CMA/EPA
Five -Plant sampling program. It has also
used data from 37 verification plants (2
of which were included in the CMA/
EPA study). EPA believes that inclusion
of data from 35 additional plants _can
only increase the representativeness of
the data base.
Finally, we continue to invite the -
commenter and all other persons with
relevant data to submit such data to
EPA.
*Comment EPA's use of a three-day
sZphng period=ahmostplants is too
short, ignoringvariability in raw
wasteloads and makingthe data useless
for calculating longterm averages or
variability.
Response: EPNe data base includes..
on the one hand, data collected over a
24 to 30-day period at each of 5 plants.
The use of 3-day verification data, on
the other hand allowed EPA to include
a greater number of plants and product/
processes than would tiiherwise `have
been feasible. EPA believes that this
dual;approachiis-pragmatic-,and rational.
Furthermore, OCPSF plants generally
use flow equalization and biological.
treatment systems with retention times
sufficient to smooth out wasteload
variations. EPA made every effort to
ensure that the product/processes
considered representative of the
industry were in fact operating when
plants were sampled. Thus, EPA
believes that the three day sampling
period provided results that are
characteristic of long-term averages of
priority"pollutants in treated plant
effluent discharges.
Variability in the data derives from a
number of sources. These include
process variation, sampling variation,
and variation in the practices -of
analytical methods between and within
laboratories. EPA's data base reflects all
of these sources of variability.
9. Comment The most extensive and
best long-term (4 to a weeks) data base
was generated by the EPA/CMA five -
plant sampling program. This data base
is supported wtih a comprehensive QA/
QC program and can provide EPA with
an understanding of biological
treatability and uncertainty associated
with analytical methods for organic
priority pollutants. EPA's verification
phase data base, generated with a site
specific analytical methodology that
essentially. was not validated is suspect.
Response: EPA agrees that the EPA/
CMA five plant sampling program is a
good source of data to support -this
proposed regulation. EPA does not
agree, as the comment seems to imply,
that it should be used to the exclusion of
the verification data base. As noted in
responses to other comments, we
believe that the verification data are
valid, and therefore will be used by
EPA.
Furthermore, EPA notes that placing
sole reliance on the five -plant data
would result in significant gaps in the
data base. The five -plant analytical
effort included none of the metals and
• only some of the organic priority
pollutants that are characteristic of the
OCPSF industry. EPA's study of the
verification results suggests that some
pollutants, not -covered by the 5 plant
sampling program,, are discharged at .
significant and treatable levels, even
when a plant has installed a well
designed and operated biological
treatmentsystem. For these reasons,
reliance on the 5-plant data alone would
be inappropriate.
EPA concludes that a data base
resulting from a combination of the
verification and the five plant sampling
efforts is-rellabie and representative
data upon which to base today's
proposed effluent limitations.and>;;
standards. EPA invites the industry to
DEQ-CFW 00065147

12856 Federal-RegioAt / yp1.: 48, No; 55 / Monday,: March: 21, _1983 / ,Proposed Rules _
submit additional data on long-term
performance and on vaFiabilityto-
sampling,vesulm: wewmbtained'byrgas
'chromatography ,-
detectors (GC/CD): Only about 10
percent of the results were confirmed
using gas chromatography with a mass'
spectrophotometer for detectiCIR (GC/
MS). Use of-GC/CD aaahysis-increases
the risk of false positive and false
negative compound identification.
.. Response: EPA-belheves that G(3/CD
and GG/MS-ars,J)ct h excellent.:
teGhuigttes•fofi � ��,
pollutants in wastewater Both=methods
are commonly -used by: OCPSF plants; to
routinely monitor process and end -of
pipe wastewater. EPA has in fact
proposed both GC/CD amd GC/MS
methods for such analyses and expects
to promulgate them in the near future.
The use of GC/CDS can increase the
risk of false positives (i e., the risk of
"identifying" a compound that is not
actually present in the sample being
analyzed), but the likelihood of any false
negatives (i.e., the failure to detect a
compound that is actually present in the
analyzed sample) is extremely small
with the use of GC/CD. A galse positive
can -occur if the compound of interest is
so-eluted from the gas chomatograph
with a second ("interfering") ceuupound.
The risk of such an occurrence can be
minimized by smployiagontain
procedures. -Such procedures were used
by.EPA and its contractors, asAescribed ,
below.
First, proper cleanup procedures prior
to injecting the sample into the
chromatograph will reduce the number
.of potential interferences. Second,
interferences can be reduced by
selection of a GC column with -
appropriate column conditions. Third,
selective detectors (i. e., detectors
sensitive only to certain compounds,
exclusive of others present) may be
employed.
Finally, GC/MS, oar ba used for -
interferences that still remain. EPA
authorized its contrail laboratories to
run up to 10 percent of their samples on
GC/MS. The laboratory. analysts were
given the discretion to determine when
to use GC/MS. This approach, as
opposed to a rigid schedule for
systematic use of GC/MS, assured -that
the GC/MS could be run in precisely
those situations where. it was needed to
resolve interferences and confirm GC/
CD results. Furthermore, at some plants,
GC/MS was run prior to. the GC/CD
analyses to identify the compounds
present In total, GC" was actually
used forapproximately-15 percent of all
samples analyzed in the verification
procedures. As -mentioned in the
preambl%EPA haedeletedsome-data-
that do not meet its rigorous quality
criteria and will continue to examine the
remaining data to assure that it is valid.
Qualitatively (i. e., with-respectto
identifying -compounds), the GC/CD
methods used by EPA in its verification
program are similar to the GC/CD
methods which EPA has been
Avireloplugua.cler Section 800) of the
Clean Water Act. SPAs effort under
that s#atutory provisio>$-i�t�teaded-, ;�:
promulgate both GCIMS and GCIQW
methods as valid analytical procedures
for organic priority pollutants.
11. Comment The QA/QC program
used during verification "should have,
but did not include, an adequate level of
quantitative GC/MS to validate the GC/
CD analytical concentration."
Response: 'EPA disagrees. The QA/
QC program for the analyst$ of
wastewater samples from the OCPSF
industry included GC/CD quantitation
by both replicate analysis and analysis
of spiked samples. GC/CD quantitation
is known to be more accurate than GC/
MS quantitation, because some of the
conventional detectors are more
sensitive (detectim limit is lower) thsn
the mass spectrometer. Therefore,
quantitative validation .ofGC/CD
measured concentrations by GC/MS
generalVis unnecessary.
12. Comment The GC/CD methods
should have been validated at the start
of the verification program prior to -
sample collection, by an independent
methodology such as GC/MS.
Response:: The commenter appears to
be suggesting that EPA should have
conducted a "round -robin" -validation
program, incorporating the analysis of
many samples from many wastewaters
by many laboratories, prior to gathering
any of the data needed to develop
effluent guidelines and standards for the
OCPSF industry. Such a program
typically takes several years to
complete. indeed, EPA has been
conducting a validation program for the
000-series methods proposed on -
December 3, 1979. and this program has
taken several years.
As discussed above in the preamble.
EPA has been subject to a-Setthement
Agreement, modified by subsequent
court orders, that has required the
proposal ana promulgation of effluent —
guidelinesanld*standards for many
indastriis, including the OCPSF
industry, by dates set forth in the
agreement. For all industrial categories
subject to the Settlement Agreement,
EPA has recognized that compliance
with that agreement required the
-.coRection.of neceseary4 a; er by
:GG JMS=or GC/GD, p iex�'c act g
validation programs for these -analytical
methods: frr:afi'cases need`Ahen-
existing state- f­the-art methods for
GC/MS and/or GC/CD to develop the
data needed to complywith its legal
obligations under the court -sanctioned
agreement.
Although the GE/CD methods that
were used to analyze OCPSF
wastfieaters were not valiBated on a
um'iorii national basis prior to their use
in Collecting data, they wera valitpted . on a. case-hy-case basis as the data was
collected. By using appropriate QA/QC
(quality assurance/quality contro4
including such procedures as duplicate
analysis and spiked samples, EPA
validated each method for the precise
wastewater sample.being measured.
This approach had the advantage of
ensuring a valid methodology for the
specific wastewater matrix being
analyzed.
13. Comment EPA adjusted the
verification values by using recovery
values. These are obtained by injecting
a known quantity of a.pollutant into
water and determining -the percent of the
known amount measured. Such factors
are not technically supportable.
Response.- EPA does not agree as a
general proposition that use of recovery
values are technicallyimsupportable.
EPA does agree, however. that the
results of this study are better
represented as unadjusted for recovery.
EPA has, therefore, based these
proposed regulations on unadjusted
values in the data base.
14. Comment EPA deviated from its
sampling protocol in some cases in ways
that could affect the reliability of some
results
.Response. EPA has conducted a
thorough review of its data .base to
determine which values could be
affected by such errors as excessive lag
between sample collection and analysis
as well as outer departures from the
sampling protocol. Some data has been
deleted as a result of this review. If the
commenter or other members of the
public are aware of other values that
have not been properly evaluated, EPA
solicits specific comments identifying
which samples are involved; what
variations occurred -and how the
variation may have affected the
reliability of the data.
15. Commen&Same of the data -EPA is
using is as much as five years ,old and
may not be representative sf cwTent
OCPSF industry practice.
DEQ-CFW 00065148

Federal Register / VoL 46. No. 55.1 Monday, March = IM / Proposed Rules 11857
f Ampommv As desk in the body of
this preamble and in the technical
support documents, the development of
these proposed effluent limitations
guidelines involved a massive and often
sequential data gathering effort_
Technical questionnaires requesting
information under section 908 of the Act
had to be prepared. returned and
evaluated before a signfficaw sampling
effort could begin
EPA is particularly aware that some
plants have upgraded their treatment
technology and has attempted to
account for thus improvements in its
technical and costing analyses. If any
- member of the public, particularly the
regulated industry. believes that the
information they submitted to EPA is
not now representative of their facility,
EPA specifically solicits comments and
additionalinformation that would make
the previously submitted information
more representative of current practice.
It is noted that the use of outdated data
tends to yield higher (less stringent)
effluent limitations and to overstate the
impacts of the regulation. Thus, any
error is in favor of the industry.
1& Comment Some of the effluent
targets evaluated by EPA appear to be
water -quality -based and not technology
based as required by the Act
Response EPA has evaluated a
number of effineat target levels simply
for the purpose of identifying the costs,
associated with those levels. Some were
set very low to determine whether
available technology could achieve them
and what cost would be associated with
those options. Ite effluent limitations in
the regulation reflect real world data
demonstrating the actual performance of
available technology practiced in the
industry and are not based upon target
levels, or water quality criteria.
17. Comment EPA considers 54
priority pollutants to be significant for
BAT regulation. These pollutants were
selected by applying a selection
criterion. N the pollutant occurred in
more tic 59 percent of the plants
sampled it was considered significant.
Alternatively. IF the mean or median
concentration across all plants exceed
100 ppb,.it was considered shmir—O
These criteriaiwe arbitrary. They Are
particularly unfair when the mean is
used as a selection criterion, since a few
plants with bigh concentrations could
result in a mean over too ppb resulting
in regulation of that pollutant for the
whale industry rather than for the row
discharging it.
Response: EPA lawmodified.its
criteria for selactimpollaients to be
coninaidad�` .
EPA fins examined plaaAs empleyiag
f BPf treatment technology —those
meeting-&&-criieria of95 percent
removal of BW or a final effluent
concentration of So mg/l or less of BOD.
Pollutants discharged from these plants
for which we have adequate data are
covered in the proposed reoation. Only
46 pollutants are covered., • • • .
EPA is sensitive to the cohnnenter's
concantlmtindustry--wide regulation of
a sib Hof toxic pollutants
could restdt.in-mmecessery monitoring
requirements of certain polhitan by.
individual plants. As i iscussed in
Section M of this preamble, EPA has
developed a program to avoid
unnecessary nmanharing requirements.
I& Coannenk:The modeling effort
outlined by EPA for evaluating the
performance of treatment technologies
is seriou* flayed by such factors as
inaxn.0 i I kinetic dents, invalid
model components, and a lank of model
verification. However, if corrected for
these deficiencies. ies. the model has
potential value for esiiffiating
incremental costs associated with
different levels of treatment The
modeling approach, is not suitable for
purposes of establishing effluent
limitations based on a given. treatment
train.
Respa EPA is not proposing
effluent limitations based on its
modeiingeffort. Todays proposed
effluent Hadtatioiss guidelines are based
on statiisficed analysis of data from
actual treatment: systems that EPA
believes are representative of the
industry.
EPA's modeling eft was, however,
used to estimate the cost of complying
with these proposed regulations. The
comments appear to suggest that EPA
should des* the most cost-effective
treatment system for each plant in the
industry and calculate its coat For
example, one "flaw" alleged by the
commenter isthe moders failure to
account fer local topography in
calculating pumping costs.
While cast is a factor considered by
the Armor in selecting BAT
ttlysift r� detailed analysis of
every single plant with the precision
implied by math of4he-commenter's
suggestions {discussed below). EPA's
use of a computer modeling system for
55 model plants (called generalized
plant configurations, GPCs) to develop
a reasonable estimate of plant costs is
sufficient under the Act
EPA believes that these 55 GPC's
representa reasonable cross-section of
the induattg:=Hsieg titecosts grated
for complying AWBAT•effluent
limitatlaus6JILMosealculated an
estimate Mhe-66mpUimc&cost
throughout the -industry. Such a
modeling approach is permitted by the
Act Indeed. when an industrial category
is as large and diverse as the OCPSF
industry, it is the only reasonable way
to calculate toxic pollutant reduction
costs. While this approach does not
generate costs with the precision
advocated by the commentor, EPA
believes that it does estimate cost with
sufficient accuracy to permit EPA to
properly consider cost and to evaluate
economic impacts in its selection of BAT
technology. EPA solicits data that would
contribute to the improvement of the
model, as well as to the design of the
GPC's.
19. Comment A major technical flaw
in the model is that its kinetic co-
efficients do not consider competing
modes of removal in activated sludge
systems such as biooxidation,
volatilization, and adsorption. The
model itself however, does consider
removal by volatilization and
adsorption. This causes the model to
„remove" pollutants "twice" in the
activated sludge system. The model will,
thus, generally predict superior
performance in activated sludge systems
than is actually achievable.
Response: EPA believes that the
model has been properly adjusted to
consider removal by adsorption and
volatilization as well as biooxidation.
EPA will. however. continue to evaluate
the model. EPA's sampling efforts have
contained a large number of activated
sludge systems. Those data do not
support the commenter's contention that
activated sludge cannot reduce effluents
to the degree assumed by the model.
20. Co ndment EPA's comprehensive
model should be reevaluated in the light
of more recent. available data.
Response: EPA is continually seeking
data that will make this rulemaking as
technically sound as is -possible. We
solicit additional detailed technical
information that would improve the
model. EPA will thoroughly review its
model in light of all available data
before promulgation.
21. Comment The K factors (factors
used to determine rates of
biodegradability of wastestreams) used
in EPA's model are based an. insufficient
data and, thus. only are accurate to an
order of magnitude.
Responses This comment appears to
arise out of the commentoes concern
(discussed previously) that the model
would be used to calculate effluent
limitations. As stated in previous
responses, EPA is using the model for
treatment=at purposes only.
FurtbarmorevEPA bas.co. d the.
ef!l iqd !y predficl'ed e model
with that of actual activated sludge
DEQ-CFW 00065149

11858 Federal Register % Vol. 48, No. 55 / Monday; March 21, 1983 / Proposed Rules
gar
effluents and finds that they are
sufficiently comparable for use in cost
estimating Df. course,`EPA welcomes
the submission of additional K-rate
data.
22. Comment EPA's model estimates
BOD removal in activated sludge
systems by determining the BOD
contribution of individual product/
processes and calculating a weighted K
factor.based on these contributions. This
approacli is subject to large amounts of
error, and is not likely to produce a true
representation of BOD removgLl in an
activated sludge system.
Response: Weighting the K factors for
the contributions by various product/
processes of biodergradable materials to
the activated sludge system is a valid
means of deriving an appropriate K-rate
for the combined waste streams.
Comparison of GPC modeled removals
in activated sludge systems -with
removals in actual systems sampled by
EPA do not reveal large discrepancies in
BOD removal. The model appears to
estimate BOD removal well within the
acceptable range for the model's
objective of estimating costs of
compliance.
23. Comment The model sets
maximum influents for activated sludge
of total dissolved solids (IDS) and
mixed liquor volatile suspended solids
(h,%VSS) are 10,000 mg/l and 4,000 mg/1,
respectively. These values are well
below levels encountered in some
OCPSF industry waste treatment plants
which are successfully operating. For
actual systems capable of operating at
higher TDS and MLVSS the model will
add additional treatment technology
that might be more economically deleted
by operating the activated sludge
system at higher IDS and WVSS rates.
Response. These technology -based
regulations are based on technology
which EPA concludes can be used
throughout the industry. EPA recognizes
that with some plants' wastewater
matrices, the same effluent quality can
be more economically achieved by using
technoolgy: These proposed regulations
would not require industry to install the
model technology. Industry is free to use
any technology, including operating
activated sludge at higher TDS and
MLVSS values than assumed for the
model technology. The only requirement
would be that industry achieve the
proposed effluent quality. These
comments indicate that the industry's
cost to comply with the proposed
limitations will be lower than EPA's
estimates.
24. Comment EPA has not evaluated
the effectiveness of powdered activated
carbon (PAC) enhancement of activated
sludge. PAC, although expensive, may
be cost effective if the alternatives are
tertiary treatment with granular
activated carbon, or re'sin'adsorption, or
pretreatment by steam stripping, solvent
extraction, etc.
Response: EPA did not believe it had
sufficient data on actual operation of
PAC on toxic pollutants to evaluate it
and include it in the model treatment
catalogue. If particular plants believe
they -can more economically achieve the
final effluent limitations using PAC, they
are, of course, free to do so.
EPA solicits operating and analytical
information on PAC performance
removing toxic pollutants that would
permit it to include PAC in its treaNment
catalogue.
25. Comment The removal of heavy
metals due to adsorption on biological
solids in the activated sludge process is
not considered by the model.
Response. EPA has recognized this
error, which would have overstated the
cost of complying with the proposed
BAT limitation for metals, and has
corrected the model results to reflect
heavy+metals removal in the activiated
sludge system.
26. Comment If phenol concentrations
exceed 300 mg/1, a solvent extraction
system is designed in the computer
model prior to activated sludge to
minimize .potential toxicity problems.
The arbitrary Soo mg/l cut off point
should be deleted, since well acclimated
biological treatments systems can
biologically treat higher phenol
concentrations. In addition,
specification of a solvent extraction
system under these circumstances will
overstate costs associated with
treatment.
Response. EPA agrees that some
biological treatment systems can and
will adequately treat phenol
concentrations in excess of 300 mg/l.
However, since some systems will
require solvent extraction and others
will not, the model was conservatively
designed to specify and cost that
treatment on an industry -wide basis.
27. Comment The model sometimes
designs unrealistic activitated sludge
systems. In one case, it designed one
with a 15-minute detention time. Such
systems are not practical and allowing
the model to design such systems
Significantly understates costs.
Response. Such impractical designs
are a consequence of the system logic,
which attempts to upgrade biological
treatment'4o presumed BCT levels. EPA
will review and attempt to correct the
model to avoid such anomalies. For
estimating BAT compliance costs, the
model's assumed -starting point is well -
designed and operated biological
treatment. With such a floor, it is
unlikely that BAT compliance costs will
be significantly understated. Since the
model adds -other treatment processes to
the basic biological segment of the
treatment system to achieve a selected
final effluent target level for all
pollutants inthe GPC raw waste load, it
is more likely that BAT compliance .
costs will be overstated.
26. Comment The comment designs a
separate nitrification unit for ammonia
concentrations in the range of 10 mg/l to
20W mg/1 as N. Such systems are often
unnecessary in the OCPSF industry,
since operating parameters of the
activated sludge system can often be
adjusted to treat ammonia in these
ranges.
Response: Although operating
characteristics of individual activated
sludge units can be adjusted to obviate
the need for special treatment to remove
ammonia, EPA does not believe that the
need for separate nitrification units can
be eliminated in all cases simply by
adjusting the operating parameters of
activated sludge systems. Thus, in
estimating costs, EPA has
conservatively assumed that the
installation of additional treatment
would be required. -
29. Comment EPA's questionnaire for
carbon adsorption technology was
deficient. The results are therefore
suspect. The Chemical Manuufacturees
Association offered an alternative
questionnaire requesting more
information, which was rejected by
EPA. The items that differ between the
two questionnaires should be evaluated
to determine whether additional
information should be obtained.
Response. EPA, of course, has already
evaluated CMA's alternative
questionnaire, reviewing both the
information sought and that not sought,
in the light of its modeling needs. EPA
believes that the additional information
suggested by CMA would be useful for
an exhaustive study of activated carbon
performance. However, EPA does not
believe it was appropriate for the
purpose of developing model costs.
30. Comment Some of the technical
assumptions used in the model
describing the performance of activated
carbon, steam stripping and ion
exchange are incorrect.
Response. EPA has reviewed these
technical assumptions and will continue
to do so in light of available information
to insure that these assumptions reflect
the best available theoretical
foundations. We welcome the
submission of additional data.
31. Comment The basis for selecting
cadmium, chromium, cyanide, and
mercury as removable pollutants using
DEQ-CFW 00065150

Fs tl�$e�star Vel. 40. Ns, Ss, J MondaA March M. 1M I Proposed- Rules-
activiated carbon has not been
demonstrated
Response: The proposed limitations
are based -on data from a variety of
plants using different treatment
configurations. No single technology
was selected by EPA to remove any
particular pollutants.
32. Coe+meut Other technologies
contained in the treatment file used by
the model do not yield the most cost
efficient treatment train for a given
plant's unique wastewater
characteristics.
Response: As discussed in previous
comments. EPA's model technology
approach sometimes errs on the high
side in developing costs for its model
plants. This approach benefits industry
by assuming that potential economic
impacts will be fully addressed
33. Comment EPA's Master Process
File (MM contains pollutants for each
product/process found in raw
wastewaters during verificaion
sampling. The MPF is the starting point
in designing treatment systems for the
purpose of cost estimating. Some
pollutants occur in the MPF that are not
predicted by EPA's generic
methodology. They should be dropped
as extraneous since the system may
design and cost treatment for them.
Response: The data in the MFF are
actual sampling data EPA's generic
methodology is a useful tool to predict
likely priority pollutant copaoducts from
various raw materialjgeneric process
combinations. EPA does not contend
that the genic methodology will
predict every conceivable pollutant from
every source. One of it several useful
purposes is to conceptually characterize
the industry's potential for generating
priority pollutants, to ensure that EPA
has collected data from a representative
cross section of the industry. It is
technically erroneous to conclude that a
measured pollutant is extraneous simply
because the generic methodology did
not identify it as an anticipated
pollutant. It is possible, however, that
some of the pollutants listed for certaia
product/processes in the MPF, but nod'
predicted by the generic methodology,
are false positives [Le.. analytical _
anomalies). EPA has reviewed the-:
master grocesst5le and tried to idenfify
and remove such pollutants. If any
remain. they will result is
overestimating costs, rather than an
understanding.
k Comment The cost curves used by
the computer model to estimate cost for
model plants appear to underpredict
capiU& costs. i partliaular; die other two
cost estimating mannals published by
EPA generally give highers.4p1tal-cost .
estimates for comparable units.
Response: The cost curves used by the
EPA model were developed by using
actualcostestimates, preparedbyEPA's
contractor, after c msidering the
particular applications of the OCPSF
industry. The :cost estimating manuals
referenced by the commenteraremore
general estimating guides, The estimates
from one appear reasonably consistent
with those predicted.by the model. The
other predicts much higher costs. EPA
will examine this discrepancy prior to .
final promulgation.
EPA solicits data from the OCPSF
industry with which the most accurate
cost curves possible can be developed.
EPA specifically solicits. data from any
plants in the OCPSF industry that have
already installed any of the technologies
evaluated as BAT technology. Data
should be in sufficient detail to allow it
to be used in developing generalized
cost curves and should not be merely
total costs of installation. Data should
include details of design. unit costs,
labor costs, any assumptions in
calculating costs of capital, and other
information of the type included m
EPA's present cost modeling.
35. Comment.• EPA did a benchmark
analysis of its casting model by
comparing modeled costs with acutal
costs incurred for seven plants in the
OCPSF industry. While the costs
generally agree on an overall basi&
costs of individual treatment show
considerably lessagreement This points
to deficiencies in the model.
Response: EPA disagrees. As the
commenter has pointed out in other
comments, specificfacilities designed to
treat a specific wasterwater will have a
treatment system tailored to that
wastewater. Designers may find that
increasing the biological treatment
system with less iu-plant control will
result in a more cost effective treatment
system at that site or vice versa EPA'a
costing model uses more generalized
design parameters and, thus.. result in a
more standprdiaed design for costing
Purposes. For example, as discussed in
an earlier comment, the model assumes
thatiMuent phenol should be reduced
to 300 ppb to protect the treatment
system. The. commenter argued that
some biologicalsystems treating some
wastewaters.couldbe designed -to treat
higher concentrations of phenol. In this
case the model would design in -plant
treatment for phenol followed by
biological treatment. The real plants
may have po in -plant treatment, but
perhaps a more expensive biological
treatment system._.,.
Because=mod`el $ya#etis designs were
being compered with specific treatment
systems. EP4b46VJ t,,at prgpedy.
evaluated the more generalized total
cost of treatment when bendunarking
the model.
36. Comment/ The cost -estimating
model designs a treatment system based
on the average raw wasteload contained
in the master process file. If -instead
costs were estimated based on the
maximum and minimum wasteloads, the
estimated costs would differ by an order
of magnitude. This analysis shows that
the cost estimating procedure is
sensitive to variations in raw wasteload
from plant to plant. The model therefore
cannot be used to estimate total cost of
compliance but only incremental costs
from the technology to technology.
Response: EPA is estimating the cost
of compliance of this proposed
regulation by calculating the costs of
compliance of 55 representative plant
configurations (celled CPC's). These
model plants were configured to
represent typical combinations of
product/processes and corresponding
raw wasteloads found in the OCPSF
industry. Tluerefore, EPA believes it
properly used average concentration,
rather than maximum or minimum
because the average is more
representative of the industry.
Large errors in the average
concentrations (and loadings) would
create large errors in costs estimated for -
compliance. EPA believes, however, that
it has made a scientifically valid survey
of the industry by sampling a -
representative cross section of product/
process of the industry. EPA continually
solicits additional data, however, to
insure that the average wasteloads are
representative of the industry. EPA -
specifically solicits any data the
regulated industry may have on toxic
pollutant wasteloads that could be
added to the MPF catalogue. Data
should be submitted showing the
wasteloads sampled, their source with
particularity, the analytical method
used, the compounds analyzed for, the
compounds detected and a quantitative
measure of the compounds detected
Summary of Comments BPT
37. Coz omens: The data collected to
support BPT are now six years old and
were gathered before many BPT permits
were effective. They might not be
reflective of current OCPSF plants'
treatment performance (comment
submitted in July 1982). However, in
comments submitted recently. the. same
commenter criticized EPA's reliance on
plant performance data gathered after
1977. when.most plants were complying
with permits. -based upon perw t.ivriters'
best engineering judgment of BPT,
saying that>this,uere dwticaAy d s)orts.,..
the data and results in limitations
DEQ-CFW 00065151

11860 Federal Register /Vol. 48, No. 55 / Monday,, March 21, 1983 / Proposed Rules
requiring far better treatment than the -
loadings for each process flow in order
-recycle. This term has been similarly
Act contemplated for BPT limitations
to achieve the combined discharge limit.
used throughout the history of the
(comment-submitted4h Januar7,1988 by:
`Res
e uenf' : de`i#fe" ' . ` `t �
a Y
the same commenter).
of this preamble, EPA has decided to ,
m atte '
43. Comment• In -attempting to
Response. The industry has, -as late
propose concentration basedHmits
` `
.. .
-subcategorize the OC>si?4n&Strg.BFA '
as July,1982, criticized EPA on the
rather than mass-basedones.
contends that there is no correlation
ground that its data did not reflect the
39. Comments A production -based
between the age of the process and its
true treatment potential of well operated
limit does not accurately address
impact on -effluent flow or treatabft.
and designed biological treatment
treatment efficiencies or -capabilities
Clearly a plant designed and built after.
systems. In part as a response to these
comments, EPA has solicited and
during process outages, startups or
treatment upsets. -
the Federal Water Pollution Control Ad
obtained more current data onwellResponse:
The effects of normal
of 1972 has a significantly smaller flow
operated biological -treatment systems
and included them in its data base.
vatiiations in treatment efficienciesWe
accounted for in statistically derived:'
of aqueous wastes. F
tResponse: As discussed above. EPA is
Some data is as recent as 1981 but most
variability factors based on actual plant
Proposing concentration -based effluent
reflects treatment in place in the mid
data. Abnormal excursions or treatment
limitations and standards. -Thus, an
1970's.
Industry has its
upsets are addressed by percent
bypass discus"
lderplant's flow relative to a newer
plant's-lower flow
recently changed
and provisions iearlier
is not necessariily a
stance on this issue. It now contends
in this preamble.
significant factor. The chief factor for
that EPA should not use post 1977 data
40. Comment: Both BPT and BAT
subcategorization for the concentration -
unless EPA includes all plants, whether
guidelines should allow flexibility for
based regulation is the use of product/
or not they are properly designed and
case -by -case permitting considering
processes that contribute high or low
operated. In short, they now ask EPA to
such factors as plant age, size, and
raw concentrations of BOD. Age is not a
set limits reflecting average
location.
significant factor in this regard.
performance, rather than the "average of
- Response: All relevant factors,
Furthermore. age is an amorphous
the best" performance, in defining BPT.
including plant age, size and location
concept in the OCPSF indus.
per' a�nce
EPA rejects this last argument. The
were considered in deriving these
most plants have both old and new
definition of BPT, as explained in the
proposed regulations. In cases where
processes contributing to a combined
preamble, is the average -of -the -best
existing plants have factors
end -of- i
p pe dim. may, EPA's `
control of conventional pollutants by
fundamentally different than those
data base does not reveal any
end -of -pipe treatment systems, preceded
considered in setting the effluent
differences in achievable effluent
by necessary in -plant controls to assure
that the end -of -pipe systems function
limitation guideline or standard and
where those factors significantly affect a
concentrations that are attributable to
effectively and consistently. The
plant's ability to attain the limit, a
age.
selected end -of -pipe technologies have
variance may be considered on a case-
44. Comment The-BPT report makes
been widely practiced within the
by -case basis. These fundamentally
reference to an assumption that non -
industry for years, and the selection of
different factors (FDF) variances are
contact cooling water makes no
them for BPT is fully consistent with the
discussed earlier in this preamble.
contribution to the pollutant load of a
Act.
41. CommenL- If the existing data are
treatment plant Such water can exert a
The criteria for selecting plants for
not the sole basis for -writing effluent
significant BOD and TSS load.
inclusion in the data base were those
guidelines, there should be an
Response: EPA has based these
that reflect proper design and operation
opportunity for public comment
proposed regulations on end -of -pipe
of end -of -pipe systems. Arty plant that
regarding any additional data used in
discharge data which are expressed in
meets such criteria is a useful example
writing effluent guidelines.
concentration units. Where EPA could
of proper biological treatment and
Response• As described-earlierinthis•
separately attribute concentrations to
deserves to be included in the data base,
preamble. -EPA does expect to gather
process wastewater, it did so. Where it
thereby assuring a broad and fully
additional data. EPA intends to release
could not, it -assumed that commingled
representative data base. As noted in
any new data it expects tovse in
cooling water was uncontaminated. This
the preamble, 82 percent of all plants
establishing effluent limitations for
assumption results in a slightly higher
compared against these criteria met
them. In other words, in defining
public comment
42. Comment Plants that do not
raw waste concentration far process
"average -of -the -best", we included 82
discharge wastewater to POTWs or
wastewater. Thisronservative
assumption is not likely todntroduce
percent of all plants as representing the
"best" treatment, on the basis of which
directly to surface water are grouped
under a classification called "zero
substantial error. and any ertoa'would
a long-term average was computed. This
discharge." This includes plants that
favor industry.
confirms the representativeness of the
dispose of wastewaters by deep well
45. Comnren& The capital and -
data included in the BPT data base and
injection, contract hauling, and other
operating costs are expressed in1979
the appropriateness of using the
methods. Use of the term "zero
dollars. This inappropriatelyuuderstatei
selection criteria and all available data
•discharge" to describe these plants is
the incumbent financial obligations
on well designed and operated
misleading and implies that they either
associated with the won:'
treatmentsystems.
do not generate wastewater or practice
operation. -and maintenance of the
36. Comment Guideline limits should
total recycle. A term such as
treatment facilities in question. One
be based on concentrations rather than
"alternative discharge" would better
especially troublesome area that is »
a mass per unit of production. Many
describe -these plants.
ignored in this analysis is the dramatic
treatment systems are arranged to treat..
Response: EPA believes it has
increase in the cost of capital over the
a variety. of influent flows, some
adequately defined the term "zero
last three years. There are fairly
nonregulated under effluent guidelines.
discharge" to remove any -implication
standard and simple means of
A production -based limit makes it very
that it applies only to plants- generating
converting capital cost that should be
difficult to properly allocate pollutant
no wastewater or practicing -total .
applied here.
DEQ-CFW 00065152

.1 {
Fed®ral Register: /: Vol.- 4k No, .bk/ 44*dayt March .21, im /. Propgsed;;)Etues 11M
Response: EPA has used 1982 costs for
today's proposed effluent guidelines and
standards.
4& Comment EPA used the CAPDET
municipal treatment model to estimate
costs of compliance..00PSF treatment
plants are not analogous to municipal
systems and require:significantly higher
unit costs for such things as labor,
building, excavation. etc. The
commenter provides recommended unit
costs as much as 7 times those used by
EPA.
Responses: EPA believes that
CAPDET, appropriately modified to
reflect OCPSF unit costs, is technically -
sound costing approach. EPA solicits
specific comments on the accuracy of
the unit costs it used. The commenter,
however, simply offered alternative
costs without explaining the basis for
them Such cmnclusory data cannot be
properly evaluated to determine
whether the costs EPA used are in fact
too low. EPA, therefore, solicits specific
comments regarding its unit costs
including specific actual -costs, how they
were calculated, what assumptions were
used and for what they were incurred. -
47. Comment EPA evaluated TSS
effluent targets of 20. 30, and 50 mg/l..
EPA did not evaluate a TSS target level
of 100 mg/1 on the basis that such a level
• would be deleterious to the receiving
waters, The report fails to justify that
f conclusion. In any event it is irrelevant
to a technology4msed regulation.
Response: EPA evaluated long-term
target levels of 20.30 and 50 mgA of TSS
for cosiingpimposes only and believes
them to be reasonable target levels for
available technology in the industry.
y Technology -based analyses have been
conducted and are -the basis of today's
proposed of anent limitations and
standards.
48: Commenp The BPT report
inappropriately equates TSS with-BOD.
Plesponsaw The evaluation leading to
TSS and BOD limitations for four
subcategories was:not based on that
assumptiom-hudead separate, actual
B011•and.TSS-data were evaluated.
Thuirthe limits proposed today do not
rest onAny assumption about TSS/BOD
correlation.
49. Commene-iie effluent target a
limits failed to adequately address
ambient temperature effects on
biological treatment system efficiency.
Use of heating degree days is an
inappropriate variable for assessing
those effacta,since it ignores poor
' system.peafurmance atvery high,,
' temperatsties-hiaieoverl use-bf State
boundariesto,detenmnejheadM-degree
Response: EPA used heating degree
days to assess whether.lodations should
be a factor in subcategorizing the
OCPSF industry. In particular, EPA
wanted to assess whether plants in
generally colder climates should be
subcategorized to reflect poorer dy"stem
performance. The analysis was limited
to whether generally colder climates
would have.asignificant effect on a
plant's ability>to-achieve_thelimitations
and standards proposed today. For such
an analysis EPA believes consideration
by states, rather than by even smaller
geographical subdivisions, is
appropriate. Temperature was not found
to be a significant factor in determining
a plant's ability -to •treat -conventional
pollutants. If temperature had been
found io be a -significant factor, a more
detailed analysis such as recommended
by the commenter might be appropriate.
EPA is not aware of OCPSF plants that
experience significant difficulties
meeting the limitations and standards
proposed today because ambient
temperature is toahigh. If such plants
exist, EPA invites comments identifying
those plants and explaining In.detail
how high ambient.temperature makes
meeting today's proposed limitations
and standards infeasible.
5it. Comment Some OCPSF plants
discharge -into water quality limited -
stream segments: Permits, and resulting
treatment. were designed to meet water
quality limitations; not technology -
based limitations. Inclusion of these
plants in the technology -oriented data
base is, therefore,`inapproprfate.
Response: EPA has reviewed the data
submitted by the industry regarding
these plants with treatment systems
designed to meet water quality limits.
Several.planta that included treatment
not considered BPT were deleted from
the BPT data base. In many of the
plants, the;treatment that was allegedly
installed tormeetwater quality based
requirements consisted simply of well
designed -and operated BPT'systems. As
such -EPA'b6lieireethat.the data are' : -
The iddasWal ►u141 isubcategbrliied
bejed on product/process; influent
ldings,.and size. of the, treatment unit.
Response;=EPAthas conducted a
thorough:review of the industry and,
concluded :that subcategorIzationbased
on four broad groups of product/ `
processes is -appropriate. For this
concentration=based regulations, EPA
believe&thatyiliese£categories
adequatetg•'ddkribe: eigni imnt ;
variations within a state. the industry. EPA does not
size of the treatment unit is a relevant
factor in defining subcategories. Size of
an existing treatment system may
become relevant in considering the cost
of compliance. Where existing treatment
is inadequate, EPA has calculated
incremental costs associated with
upgrading the treatment system to meet
proposed limitations or standards and
has evaluated their associated economic
impacts.._ _
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR Parts 414 and 416 are
amended as set forth below.
PART 416—iREMOYED]
1.40 CFR is amended by removing
Part 416.
9. 40 CFR Part 414 is revised to read as
follows:
PART 414--ORGANIC CHEMICALS,
PLASTICS, AND SYNTHETIC FIBERS
Subpart A --General
Sec.
414.10 General definitions.
414.11 Applicability.
414.12 Compliance data for Pretreatment
Standards -for Existing Sources (PSES).
414.13 Monitoring requirements.
Subpart B—Plastics Only Subcategory
414.20:- Applicability:description of the
plastics only -subcategory.
414.21 Specialized definitions.
414.22 =-Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application'of the best practicable
control technology(BPT)."
414.23 Effluent-lunitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control tecbnology (BCT).
414.24 Effluent limitations representing the
degree -of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology economically
achievable (BAT).
414.25 New source performance standards
(NSPS).
414.26 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES).
_
414.27 Pretreatmentstandards-for new
source.&(PSNS)v
'p6category
414.30_:�4plicability; description of the
oxidation: subcategor�.
414.31 Specialized definitions.
414.32 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable -by
the application of the best practicable
control technology(BPT).
414.33 Effluentlimitations representing -the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best practicable
414;K_ _ "d1%�represent3ng'tl►e
DEQ-CFW 00065153

Federal - Rooster f Vol. 48, No., -M&6rJ 21, 1983 tPropoSed-Rulft
414m New source pedermance standards
ANSPS).
IstandamMwnew
Subpart D-Type i Subcategory
414AD --A"Ucahift description of the Type
. Isubcategory.
414AI Specialized defilaftions.
414.42 Effluent limitations representing the
degree effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the beat practicable
pollutant control technology CHM.
414.43 Effluentilidtations representing Ihe
degree ofeffluent reduction attainable by
the application df*40best coMentional
pollutant conbul tacJuuAWffJCTJ.
414.44 Effluent limitations representing the
degree 'of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT).
414-45 New source performance standards
(NSPS)-
414.46 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES).
414.47 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Subpart E--Otber Disclsarges Subcategory
4MW ApplicabiliW. description.of the
Other DiscluuVes subcaboary.
414.51 Specialized definitions.
414.52 Ellitient limitations representing the
degree of eiih reduction attainable by
application of "best practicable
pollutant control technology JBPn.
414.53 . Effluent huidebons representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCIJ. -
414.54 Effluent hruilations vepresenting the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT).
414M New source performance standards
(NSPSy
414-56, Pretreatment standards forexisting
sources (PSES).
414.57 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Authority: Secs. 30L 304 (b), (c), (4 and
(g), 306 (b) and (c), 307 and 501 of the Clean
Water .6.6ttthe Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, as
amended by the Clean Water Act of 19n)
(the "Act"); 3 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. 92-80o;91 Stat. 1567,
Pub. L. 95-217.
Subpart A --General
§ 414-10 !General definitions.
As used in this part:
(a) Except as provided in this
regulation, the general definitions,
abbreviations andd-methods of analysis
set forth in Part 401,of this chapter shall
apply to this part.
M 'Tretreatment control authority"
means: (IJ The POTW if the POTW's
MSMM
inquiry of 111010 IMIivkkmU-Jmme&ately
has bees' in accordance with
responsible hw c�g
the re--.4.
infarmatiori,:
the =,A*Iwft Iff I&e
the
SMI
"Priority pblutan:W means the toxic
d sum
times I - gliketwelve-mmoolli period
pollutants fisted in49CFR 4K.15.
preroeahg &a vubmissidn of the
q .
§ 414.ft --Applicability.
certificatiam am&lhe polls has, in no
case beenAlelecled at ale*d-exceedin
The provisions of this pan we
to ue/hand
A J
applicable to discharges resulting faina Mm -Based upon a review of the raw
the MaMdRChUo4A-SYAIhetiC materials and raw material
chemicals:. oral sys"fic"161116 gent processes and
except dmdJhay-d&x*, 4* tomw,
sUventssaidivrohicts-mansfactwed,
such dischargesUrinb&'M qnwmavam ad
and adietA00k0lin Immw-by &e
IZ,
Of offlumtaNd saidelbissiiiind
standav&im-parwin; affoa~,of ged
this subdiapter-up I's IbViid not aboveAm covocientmilenulevel set forth.
apply -.So :discharges from the in the applicable efflueM fmfttion er
extraction of organic fhemical standardL
compounds fromrstural materials.
§41&12 Cornpilincedata for
Pretreatment Standards ftw Existing
Sources (PSESJ.
All dwJmnm agqect WM In, ibis
part must comply with thestandards no
later than three years after tion
of this regulation.
§ 41413, Montateirequlienwit-
(a) The pretreatment-ocori2rol authority
shall specify m6,61taring VIw• intervals
and ErequenG7 sequirements. for each
industrial riser for all polut=ts
controlled by the applicable categorical
pretreat -ant standardMES) or (PSNS)
in this part IU frequency shall be
sufficient to yield data that are
representative of the monikired activity.
(b) The permitting authority or
pretreatment control authority may
reduce the monitoring frequency for a
particular pollutant to once per year if.
(1) The pollidant has not been
detected during the preceding year at a
level exceeding 10.p8lk
(2) Based upon a review of all
product/processes,used at" plant
whose effluents contribute to the
discharge, the. authority determines that
the pollutant ie itat MWy to be discharge
above the concentration level set forth
in the applicable effluent limitation or
standard. In reviewing the product/
processes used, the control authority
shall separately review:
(i) All product/processes in operation
when monitoring occurred, and
(ii) All other product/processes that
are regularly scheduled to -operate -
periodically; and
(3) Tlfe,fability seeking a reduction in
moniteiiiig submits a certification by an
authorized employee stating that:
(i) The certifier has knowledge of the
information -contained in the
certification, based upon personal
examination of the information or upon
§ 414�20 descr%mon at the
plastics only siftcaligory-
The provisions of this subpart are,
applicable to discharges resultingfrom
the man-L-A-m-idplastics and
synthetir- fibeis a3li-
it 414M � ftiddind ft*Mn
For lbepuqxise ofibbvubpart
Except as provided ln� CFX
414.10(e) or belam 1he-general -
definitions, abbwviat!Ruandmiethods
of analysis set Aw1h in-40 OR Part 4M
shall apply to this subpart
§ 4MM
tiedegreeot4dro ntsedocliosattainable
by the applicagm of tM be li or N c able
pollutant control technobsy 4WTI.
Except as provided in 46GFR 125.30
through I Ps -'49 any erring point source
subject to this subpart nest schwire
discharges not exceecM* the quantity
determined by multiplying the process
wastewater Bow subject to this subpart
times the concentration listed in the
following table.
SUBPMTJ3
,WT 49MMM b"UNOM
Poft"t or pok4w pop" 6183w
for wV I lorinmOdy
der- aiera--- -
B005--- 49 22
Tss 117 36
PH M (1)
§ 414.23 Effluentbriltations representing
the degree at Milo dreduction attalruible
by the applicationvithe boa conventional
potent conwtedinalfty(em
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through I25.32, any wasting point sourc . a
subject to this subpart must achieve
DEQ-CFW-00065154

EM
1 .
Federal Rtagist / Vol. 48, No.- 55 / Monday, March 21, 19W / Proposed Rules 11$63
discharges m exceeding the quantity SUBPART B—Controlled . SUBPART B
determined by multiplying the process
wastewater flow subject to this subpart roses effti;entl Brttitations pront ��y°Os'"M
times the concentration listed in the A1ef�7B8°f • Average of
following table. PoBtra" or t ww-f' for 4 f�retreaemenso (,es . for new Mardrmun
day consecutive any 4,ure
SUBPART B . n'"gdays day
days
SIFT elfkrent Urnitallons
beryl Chloride _ _ _...___._....... • 50 —
Por.aM or poWrt Property Matwnrm Mawn wn cadmium.._._..... 30 20 lftrtyt cMoride........... _ _._ _ .._. 50 —
tor any 1 for mond* Chromium..._.. »_.... 110 60 Anxoieint..._.... ____. 50
average Copper„_ _ --- 120 60 Cyanide _ _ 50 20
I sad _. 40 20 Lead _........... ........_ _ __ _ 40 20
TSS 117 fi e _ — ._:_.... so • ,Au units we miomgrams per liter. A dash (—) sijr iNes no
PH (1) (') 'AB units, pK BOD5 and TSS we micrograms per limitation.
filer. GODS and TSS are milligrams per liter A dash (—)
'M ut� e>mrpt PH are milligrams per Mer. signifies no limitation. - -
EYwhst t1M anpa at &0 b 90 8f � trmeA
§ 414.24 EH MII: Wnitations representing
the degree of efftusint reduction allWroble Matw un Ma*mrm
by the application of the best avallail" I Pok"m orpoButard PraPerty folic 1 for mwd*
technology economicallyad*mable (BAT). evenIAW
Except as provided to 40 CFR 125.30 eoos---- _ — _. __ .. 49 22
through 125.32, any existing point source TSS._......__ _. 117 35
subject to this subpart must achieve PH -- •_.._ _ _ �) t')
discharges not exceeding the quantity -WMin the range of &0 to 9.0 at an times.
determined by multiplying the- process
wastewater flow subject to this subpart
times the concentration listed in the § 414.26 Pertreatment standards for
following table. existing sources (PSES).
SUBPART B
SAT etttuent limitations'
Average of
Pbieant ar poill" t Propsily
for any I day " s1°
Phenol 50
bis (2. t00 so
Anaolai, 5o
men• so —
Vim'A Chloride 50
Cadmum 30 20
C 110 so
CaPP� 120 60
law 40 20
Cyanide so 20
'M units am mil r 9 atns Per Bier. A dash (—) signifies no
§ 414.25 NOW
(Ssa�ucx pertorma^ce
standdwds
Any new source subject to this
subpart must achieve discharges not
exceeding the quantity determined by
multiplying the process wastewater flow
subject to this subpart times the
concentration listed is the following
table.
SMART B
i..
uses slBuenF IgBarls!
PaButant or Polk VmPeafr for 4
consecutive
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that introduces pollutants
into a publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) must comply with 40 CFR Part
403 and achieve the following
pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSESr
SUBPART B
Pretreatment standards for
existing screen'
Average of
Pownant or poor property Maximum dai vva4 M
for arry 1 oortsecutive
day monitoring
days
vwrfi _�� Sol—
AaWeirt._..:...._ 50 _
Cyanide _ 50 20
40 20
' M nits are miaogrems per liter. A dash (—) signifies no
�Yorl
J
141427 Pretrea6eent standards for new
sources (PSHM6
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
any new source subject to this subpart
that introduces pollutants -into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
Ptrwtw 5o — with 40 CFR Part 403 and. achieve the
bk(s 100 50 following pretreatment standards for
— new sources (PSN,S): .
Subpart C—Oxidation Subcategory
§ 414.30 AppiicabWW, description of the
oxidation subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges resulting from
the manufacture of organic chemicals
only or both organic chemicals and
plastics and synthetic fibers that include
wastewater from the oxidation generic
process.
§ 414.31 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR
414.10(e) or below, the general
definitions, abbreviations, and methods
of analysis set forth in 40 CFR 401 shall
apply to this subpart.
(b) "High water -use" means a plant at
which wastewater discharge is greater
than or equal to 0.2 gallon per pound of
total daily production.
(c) "Low water -use" means a plant at
which wastewater discharge is less than
0.2 gallon per pound of daily production.
(d) "Daily production" means the
annual production divided by the
number of operating days in the year.
Production shall be determined for each
plant based upon past production
practices, present trends, or committed
growth.
§ 414.32 Effluent Wnitations representing
the degree of effluentreduction attainable
by the application of the bestpracticable
pollutant eontr+oMolaloiopyJBP'yl.:
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through M.32, any existing pohit source
subject to this subpart must achieve -
discharges not exceeding the -,quantity'
determined by multiplying the process
wastewater flow subject to this subpart
times the concentration listed in the
following table.
(a) High Water Use.
DEQ-CFW 00065155

11864 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. r55 / Monday, Marcia 21, 1-983 /, Proposed Rules
SUBPART C(a)
TSS.... __...... _ ........................__..... 246 84
pl-1 -............ ........................ _........ (') (2)
' All units except pH are nx'Vigrants per liter.
'Within the range of 6.0 b 9.0 at all tunes.
Low Water Use.
SUBPART C(b)
BOD5............ ................... _..._......... 1 146 58
TSS....—...-..--._---------- _......_....1 353 120
pH.......... ........_... y.......................... (') 1 (')
' AV units except PH are mihmns per liter
'Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.
§ 414.33 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
through 125.32, any existing point source
subject to this subpart must achieve
discharges not exceeding the quantity
determined by multiplying the process
wastewater flow subject to this subpart
times the concentration listed in the
following table.
(a) High Water Use.
SUBPART C(a)
WT effluent limitations '
Podutam or poltutant property Maximum Maxinxm
for any 1 I tpr monthly
day1 average
BOD5........ ............ ._..............106 42
TSS.................. .._—.........................I 246 84
pH.....__._.......__...___..___ —_..--I (') (1)
' All units except pH are milligrams per liter.
' Vdithin be range of &0 to 9.0 at all tines.
(b) Low Water Use.
SUBPART C(b)
TSS._...._............_.._.___...---.-.--� 353 120
PH....................................................
' AV ,nits except PH ere aMma per &ter.
I Otflln the range of 6-0 i0 9.0 ffi aV times.
§ 414.34 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of"best available
technology economically achievable (BAT)..
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point source
subject to this subpart must achieve
discharges not exceeding the quantity
determined by multiplying the process -
wastewater flow subject to this subpart
times_the concentration_ listed in the
following table.
SUBPART C
BAT effluent Nnetabons I
Average of
Pollutant or pollutant property values
for any 1 daily4
day Consecull"
2, 4. 6-trichloropheno!..... _..... ....._I
175
100
21chlorophend................................
75
50
2, 4-dichFwoPhenol ........................�
200
100
2.4-6methYlPfrenol ............ _........I
50
—
2-nitroPhenol. .............._......._........
100 i
75
4-r*ropherwt........................._..._..
5D
3150
2, 4-dedtropherrol .............. .._.........
255
pentachbropllenol.............. _........
100
50
phenol........... ._.................... _.......
50
—
acenaphthene.—---------------- ------ _.
50
—
1, 2, 4-trichloroberrzene ...... _........ 1
225
125
1, 2-dichiorobenzene._.._._—...._..
250
125
isophor......... _..._..._..._.__._
50
—
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ...........
350
150
dfn-butyl phthalate ....... ................
300
150
diethyl phthalate. ....................... . ...
275
126
dimethyl pftMtafate______......—
375
175
acenaphttryiene.......................
flourene..................................---
50
50
—
—
pherlanthrem....... ...... _..................
50
—
benzene....._......_.»......__...._.....
125
75
carbon letrachlaide..—..._.._.__
so
—
1. 2-didNoroethane_..._...__-.—
150
100
1, 1, 1-bichloroe0lane..................
50
—
1, ,diddoro e.—._.__.----
225
In
1, 1. 2-Vichloroethane..—.._
75
50
dNoroethane ............. __»........ _.....
So
-
- 75
so
,, 1diddoroedlyierte.�._..__.
1
275
15o
methyiew d"We _—._
so
—
methoe ddwde»___._........... _.
50
—
methyf bromide ...... ............. .... _...
50
dichkx0bromomethane........_--._--
50
—
tolulm................. _........ -................
225
125
trichloreothylene ........... — ..... .._.....
75
50
antimony ..........................................
780
370
cadmium .. ...... ............. ............. .....
70
j 40
chromium ............ ..........
/90
90
copper _..-...._....._...__.....—........
150
70
lead........._.._ ........................_........
70
40
so
riot.. _—......._....____.—..._........
cardde... ..... ........ ._.._....... .-.......
210
410
100
� 180
SUBPART C—C"dirwed
NSPsef ien: WTWabbis
Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for 4
conescullime
Clay, monitoruv
i I
days
z+-�no+............._......»!
50 1
—
2-r4WOPhen01....�.....:.............—.I
too 1
too
75
325
z 4-ClinitroptMW ...........................
150
100
pentachiorophand .............. _... .......
100 `
50
pheriol....... _—--- ------- I ........... _........�
—.
acenaphth----------------_._...... _1
50
—
1. ?{atriddoroberaene.......... ...
r 225
125
1, �................._..
250 1
125
isophyone._.-.._...................... .... .
50
—
tzs(2-ethyMrexyf) phthalate ............
950
150
phthalate ............._ --I
300
150
40" ptaheiate....__....._........_...1
phthalate--_ ......................
275
975
125
175
aceaaplriMlease--- ---------- _-------- -'_
5o
—
0uerene_ .._...._....»..—.__
50
--
phenanttrene __ ._ _....._._....
50
—
benrene.......... ..... _..........................
125
75
carbon teaachionde__..........—_..
50
—
1.2-r rosd1ane—_...—....._
150
100
1, 1, 1-bichicroethane ..............._..
50
—
1.1drthioros"U e...._—....._...._.
225
125-
7, t, 24riordoroadvene._.—.
75
50
So
—
75
So
1, 1-dyaoroegrylene .....................
125
75
ethylbenzene _ ----- ---------------- _--------
275
150
methylene ddoride......
50
—
metlryl ctdorde_.—.........._...._.._
50
—
mettp4 bornde._._......._....__.......
50
—
�.... __........
5o
—
toiuene.... ..... ............. _.......... ........
225
125
Viddorosihyl...... _..... _.._...._..I
75
50
790
370
esdndun_..._—...._..... __»..._..
chrorrdtlm...._..._................._....__
70
190
40
90
copper _._
150
70
70
40
mercury_..------_..— M_
90
50
zoo............ --- .................... _........
210
too
cyanide ....... _— ......... ........._...._..
410
1ti0
MaIarxm J Max n m
PoWitam or pollutant MoPOM loranany 1 for
>
Water Use:
TSS
IA8 units are micrograms per Ider. A dash (—) WdieS no tow Water Use:
fimitation.
§ 414.35 New source performance 'RS _ ---- -
standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this
subpart must achieve discharges not
exceeding the quantity determined by
multiplying the process wastewater flow
subject to this subpart times the
concentration listed in the following
table.
SUBPART C
Average of
Pollutant or golhetapt property Maximumtva m
for meter 4
day otxlseartNe
monitoring
I days
2. 4. 6-b ichloropherol .................. 175 100
a ...........» 75 5o
�t 2. 4-tbrophenol ....................... 2D0 100
1061 42
246 I 84
14658
353 120
(1) \ )
'AV unds except pH, BOD' and TSS are mirJogams Der
View. 9006 and TSS are mTigrmts pair ;m; A dads (—)
sigrdiies no fmillation,
'VVMm the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at a0 tines
§ 414.36 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 pollutants
into a publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) must comply with 40 CFR part
403 and achieve the following
pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES).
DEQ-CFW 00065156

,
Oder", °ice. 4 )j96; 56,1 MOU&Y, 'March 21, IM J Propnaed Rt W
`� rarolddetioa wastewater flow subject to this subpart
Acid cleavage Alkoxylation times the concentration listed in the
condensation Hydrolysis
eiatigaoumea, bomerization Carbonylation following table.
of Esteri$cation Hydrogenation
Pokow or pax property f4aidnnaarl 0 Hydeoacetylation Neutralization SUBPART D
hear 4
SOf� ' 1414.41 Specialized defWtlorys.• SAT effluent pmttatioos
g For the purpose of this subpart
Except as provided in 40 C17R § 414.10(e) Pollutant or poKu w properV nAalftm Average
"
Z4AWearoplievid /75 '00 the general definitions, abbreviations, , 1 cow
4440140FOP110 2W too and methods of analysis set forth in 40
100 76 CFR Part 401 shall apply to this subpart.
500 325 2 4,8 tricMonopherwl. _ 175 too
2 1M 100 $414.42 Effluent lindtadons representing 2ctuoroomot.._._._ 75 5o
iaphomrra 5o — the degree of effluent reduction atI ina' W Z4-�"01 -- 200 100
37 die 4 p1rKmMea_ 5 175 by the application of the best practicable Z4"�VWW%f * 50 —
9D — latent control 24ftq -W1_....._.. 100 75
0uonene _ 50 — P� technology (SM 44*0P11erw 500 3M
'°1°---- 50 — Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 2.4-&* 50 t100
aroroe+f s— soo 1through 125.32, any existing point source � 'so 00 50
awYlyt aorade 50- — subject to this subpart must achieve scen"ptolene• s0 —
aaonw,m 190 discharges not exceeding the quantity � � 125
determined by multiplying the process isowamne. s9
'MuniftorMcmMenspef-W°r• Adash" s no wastewater flow subject to this subpart d-WM "doe � 160
times the concentration listed in the diethyl phthafem 275 125
¢ 75
41U? Pn�+enbnertt standards for new following table. s KM— s50 1—
sources ( 1` SUBPART D phen ne._ 50antf— 50
—
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, n 1255 rs
any new source subject to this subpart WT ef"m IMtati m I carbon teaacharas• 50 —
that introduces pollutants into a publicly Pok tsra or paKAm vmpe;r 44ar nun t 1, _� '60 1OD
owned treatment works must comply 1= 1 for rnormly 1.tcichotoadiane 225 125
with 40 CFR-Part 403 and achieve the average 1.1.2- 76 5g
cfilomedrarre so
following pretreatment standards for SODS___•-- 100 40 gym_ 75
TSS_..__.__.._ 137 47 1.1 dchbrow 125. 75
new sources {PSNS). pf4 t1 (1 e9ryfberaeoe _ 275 1611
.SUBPART C -AK unit PH— Mffq mrcept is per leer. raeerytera celloride 50 _
'VWKin Kte-range of &0 to 9.0 at M Ornea �Me" 50 —
M 50 —
plebeense atardwds for
new souses'
of
PabAsnt or poNAM pmpefty - &jseas a da v8rues
for erny t 4consecutive
-
Z4A4 h%WoptJsnd
175
100
2•c
75
so
2.440dorg t-lai
200
100
Z44iaedW1pt rd
so
-
100
75
500
150
325
100
2
isopfror ,
50
375
—
175
__
dmetlyi
auermphaylene
50
—
Krrorans:
50
50
—
POMMINrelle
1.2-Skel1 oodkore
150
too
c1dwood,arre
50
50
—
—
MOMMA W
dwornisn.
190
90
90
5o
' AN uits are microgramper Sm A dash. (—) signifies no
GWAMWM
St D—Ty►Pfe t SUbCM4PWrY
1414.40 AppftMMy, deew"On of Type
1-subcategory.
Jbe provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges resulting from
the manufacture of organic chemicals
fly ouboth .rhamicaig.and ,
plai dw aid pjahetic.Ems -1hat include_
wrastewategin n_ y of,the following _ -.
C`l3rpw r3=geMMiii,*Qcesses but Rot
from the oxidation -generic -process.
$ 414A3 Etftwd Nmitatlons representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application at #w best conventions!
Pollutant control technology (BM
Except aa.provided in 40 CFR i2 M
through 125 32, any existing point source
subject to this subpart must achieve
discharges not exceeding the quantity
determined by multiplying the process
wastewater How subject to this subpart
times the concentration listed in the
following table.
SUBPART D
SCT st%wnt ar itaaon'
Pab ant orpohnsat property Merdrlasn fta*num
1:7 average
BOOS ....... _ . 100 40
137 47
PH ----- (1) (')
'AK uit .sNO prp J, eMEW
riUanrs K1ar
'VVWiin 01e range of 6.0 b Eat ep aafirnea
- § 414.44 EfflMnt Hndtations representing
the
reduction attainable
by the Apt ofthe test avalfabte
technology a y-schtevable (BAT)
Ekoopt.A&prorided in 40,CFR 125.30
throtigfi iWJ angexisting point source
subject to this subpart•must achieve
•gnaatttg :.:.
determinedby--au Wplying .the process
50
225.
75
7e0
70
190
150
70
90
210
410
—
125
50
370
40
g0
70
40
50
100
160
aroMhYlene
arft"MV._..._..
cedmiun
clrarrirm
—
oopper
lead
rtrercray
cYaNde_w...-
'FAO, arts we micrograms per aer. A dash (—) sWvfo s no
§ 414.45 New source performance
Any new source subject to this
subpart must achieve discharges not
exceeding the quantity determined by
multiplying the process wastewater flow
subject to this subpart times the
concentration listed in the following
table.
SUBPART D
NSPS effluent fimttaWm
Aav�e�rrage of
Pohdant or po9u� pmpe ft me>amran dlard for� 1 a
consecutive
mor
rod
_
1751
75
200
50,
100"..
500
150
100
50
100
—
75
325
100
of
DEQ-CFW 00065157

11866 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 55 / Monday, March 21, 19W / Proposed Rules
SUBPART D—Continued
luent Mnitaill" I
Average of
Pollutant a p�u� propertyt
dew vu4 res
1
uonsectove
per"C"Oroptrenol._._....---I........00
s0
phenol.................. ......_...............50
_
ac:enaphthone...............................50
_
1,2.4-trichbroobenzem..»...........M
7."
125
1,2-dohforobenzene ................_...0
itsieopttorone....
._...0
.......................bls(2�
_
phthaate._.....0
150u9tn-bury)
i>ftMtaMe.............._._»_0
150diedy4
pfdhalate.................._..»._.5
125dmeflyd
phMcalete.....»_.
i75�enapntltylene.`
..._....0
_fluorene.........._
..............o
_Phenardhrene............_.-----_0
—
benzene........................5
75carton
tetrachloride...........__...0
_1,2-dGibroelhane
............._._.......0
100
1,1,1-bidrieroetimW .....................
5o
_
1.1 dichioroettwo .............
225
125
1.1.2-trichbrcedum........ _...........
75
s0
chioroethane ....... ._..__.................
50
_
chdorotorm ...... ».»...... ..... _.........
75
50
1.1-dictdoroethylene__.............. _..
125
75
ethylberrzene........_ .»_.._._._...
275
150
mettyiene chloride._ .............__....
5o
_
methyl chheortde ....... .......................
so
_
methy bromide ...............................
90
_
d1ohlorobromometharie............ _....
so
_
toluene................ .......... ........ .».....
225
125
trlohbrcethytene ..... _...... ..............
75
90
antlmony.......... _......_....... _»..._....
780
370
cadrtwxn........
70
40.
chrortnium._. ..__.._ .........._......
too
90
copper......_ ._ _ _._......»......._
160
70
lead ................ _.__
70
40
merery......_ _.._....._...._..._._.....
90
so
inc. z................__...... ........»._......
210
100
cyanide .... _...... ......._»»._....»...._..
410
190
Pollutant or pokd" property
fo arty 1
day
tor mono*
average
BOD5............. :... .».......................
100
40
TSS........................ ._... ..... _..........
137
47
PH._.................................................
SUBPART D—Continued
Pretreafinerrt 9WWards for
axis" Sources'
Average of
PolNrtam or pogutam properly MaAnvj rt
for rry 1 for a
day oorreeutuwe
4-nitropheral........_......._.__._ ._. Soo 325
z4-dxMtrephenoi .......... ... ............. 150 100
isoptwrone.................. _.......... _._.. 5o _
dlmeflcyl phthalate......._.._375 17s
acenaphthyl.._......... _.._......_._ 50 _
fburene.__»_.._.............. 50 _
5o _
150chloroethane100
._........__._ _ ... 50 _
nw" bromide ....... ... .....___ 50 _
chronauxn.._.._...._......»___..__.. 190 90
merprry._..................... ..... _....... .... 90, s0
' AN urets are micrograms per bear. A dash (—) signifes no
limitation. I
§ 414.47 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 4o3.7,
any new source subject to this subpart
that introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR Part 403 and achieve the
following pretreatment standards for
new sources (PSNS).
Subpart D
Prerealma't standards /or
new sources '
Average
P011utam ofpo#uWd property Ma)dmum dailyvaluesof
for arty 1 for 4
corisectave
2.4.6-ir1chloropher1oi.. --____... 175 too
dib 2-rophenol.......... ....._..__....... 75 5o
'AN units except pH. BOD5 and Ts3 ae micrograms
liter. BOD5 ad TSS are mtlligrams per fter. A dash
2,4:dwhlorophenol........... _ _...._.
24:din+etlylphenol.._...__.._.__..
200
50
no
signifies no fimitation.
2-nitrophenol ................. _... _._......
100
75
4-mtrophend................_............._..
500
325
Z4-ckftWhenol
ISO
100
isophoome...................... _... .........
50
_
§ 414.46 Pretreatment standards for
dimeBryi Wvthaiate ...................
375
175
existing sources (PSES).
acenap'"hylena............ ....... - ... _._
so
_
fluorene............................. _..... _...
50
_
phenanttre lie ...............................
50
_
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that introduces pollutants
into a publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) must comply with 40 CFR Part
403 and achieve the following
pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES).
SUBPART D
Prelreeinant strbrds for
ems" sources '
PoWWt or pWWtam property ty v�aa,eae
Mrru"rD for 4
for any 1 consecutiveday ��
175 100
75 50
200 100
50
100 75
1.2dichlOroethane ................... _.... 150 fao
diloroethane .................... 50 _
methyl bromide ._...... ..... — ....... .._.. so _
chromium ............................. _ ... 190 90
me+curry......... 90 50
'Ali units are micrograms per liter. A dash (—) sigdfim no
Mmftaum
Subpart E--Other Discharges
Subcategory -
§ 414.50 Applic aWiity, description of other
,discharges subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges resulting from
the manufacture of organic chemicals
only or both organic chemicals and
plastics, and synthetic fibers that are not
subject to subparts B. C and D of this
part.
§ 414.51 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
Except as provided in 40 CFR
414.10(e) the general definitions,
abbreviations, and methods of analysis
set forth ih 40 CFR Part 401 shall apply
to this subpart.
§ 414.52 Effuent limitations represent) ►►g
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the hest practicable
POWUnt control technology (BM
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point source
Subject to this subpart must achieve
discharges -not exceeding the quantity
determined by multiplying the process
wastewater flow subject to this subpart
times the concentration listed in the
following table.
SUBPART E
BPT efsuerd fmitabons'
PoMaard or potfulam property �r.
mavrxm
for more"
average
26
TSS—_...._...---. —115i 39
PH (-) (')
'AN trills except pH we milligram per flier.
2Wtthln the range of &0 to 9.0 ffi of times.
§ 414.53 Effluent Imdtations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best conventia►al
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.3o
through 125.32, any existing point source
subject to t�is subpart must achieve
discharges not exceeding the quantity
determined by multiplying the process
wastewater flow subject to this subpart
times the concentration listed in the
following table.
SUBPART E
BCT eifluem lirrrtaborm '
Polka- or pow— property mawnum for f
d t age
aver
Boo5_._.__.__.__�_...____ 69 za
TSs_ _ ___.__.._�. ._ _ 115 39
pH --- — ---- --- M (�
' All urals except PH are milligrams per fifer
'Wigan the range of 6.0 to 9A at of times.
§ 414.54 Effluent Nnita"Ons representing
the degree of effluent reduction attafnoble
by the application of the best available
technology economically achWvable (13AT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR § 125.3o
through 125.32, any existing point source
subject to this subpart must achieve
discharges not exceeding the quantity
determined by multiplying the process
wastewater flow subject to this subpart
times the concentration listed in the
following table.
DEQ-CFW 00065158