42522 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Section XV-Availability of Technical VillI. Economic Considerations AGENCY Information for information on those A. Cost and Economic Impact documents. Copies of the technical and B. Economic Methodology 40 CFR Parts 414 and 416 economic documents may be obtained C. Significant Changes in the Economic from the National Impact Methodology [FRL 3230-5] Technical Information Service, Springfield, D. Baseline Analysis Virginia 22161 E. Economic Results Organic Chemicals and Plastics and (Phone: (703) 487-4600). For additional F. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Synthetic Fibers Category Effluent technical information, contact Mr. G. Cost Effectiveness Analysis Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Elwood H. Forsht, Industrial Technology H. SBA Loans Standards, and New Source. Division (WH-552), U.S. Environmental I. Executive Order 12291 Performance Standards Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., IX.Non-Water Quality Environmental Washington, DC 20460 (Phone: (202) Impacts AGENCY: Environmental Protection 382-7190). For additional economic A. Air Pollution Agency (EPA). * information, contact Ms. Kathleen B. Solid Waste ACTION: Final rule. Ehrensberger, Analysis and Evaluation C. Energy Requirements Division (WH-586), U.S. Environmental X. Public Participation and Summary of Responses to Major Comments SUMMARY: This regulation establishes Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., effluent limitations guidelines and XI. Best Management Practices (BMPs) Washington, DC 20460 (Phone: (202) XII. Upset and Bypass Provisions standards that limit the discharge of 382-5397). XIII. Variances and Modifications pollutants into navigable waters and On January 11, 1988, the complete XIV. Implementation of Limitations and publicly owned treatment works public record for this rulemaking, Standards (POTWs) by existing and new sources including the Agency's responses to A. Flow Basis in the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and comments received during rulemaking, B. Relationship to NPDES Permits Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) industrial will be available for review in EPA's C. Indirect Dischargers category. The Clean Water Act and a Public Information Reference Unit, XV. Availability of Technical Information consent decree require EPA to issue this Room 2404 (Rear) (EPA Library), 401 M XVI. Office of Management and Budget regulation. (OMB) Review Street, SW., Washington, DC. The EPA XVII. List of Subjects The regulation establishes effluent public information regulation (40 CFR limitations guidelines attainable by the Part 2) provides that a reasonable fee Appendices application of the "best practicable may be charged for copying. A-Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Other control technology currently available" Terms Used in this Notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. B-Toxic Polluants Excluded From PSES and (BPT) and the "best available Mr. Elwood H. Forsht at (202) 382-7190. technology economically achievable" PSNS Because They Are Sufficiently (BAT), pretreatment standards SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Controlled by Existing Technologies applicable to existing and new C-Toxic Pollutants Not Detected in the Overview Treated Effluents of Direct Dischargers dischargers to POTWs (PSES and PSNS, This preamble describes the legal or in Wastewaters from Process Sources respectively), and new source authority, background, the technical and D-Toxic Pollutants (1) Detected in Treated performance standards (NSPS) economic bases, and other aspects of Effluents from a Small Number of attainable by the application of the the final regulation. The abbreviations, Discharge Sources and Uniquely Related "best available to Those Sources, (2) Present Only in demonstrated acronyms, and other terms used in the technology." Trace Amounts and Neither Causing Nor Supplementary Information sections are DATES: In accordance with 40 CFR Likely to Cause Toxic Effects, or (3) Part. defined in Appendix A to this notice. Sufficiently Controlled by Existing 23 (50 FR 7268, February 21, 1985), this Organization of This Notice Technologies regulation shall be considered issued for E-Toxic Pollutants That Do Not Pass purposes of judicial review at 1:00 p.m. I. Legal Authority Through or Interfere With POTWs Eastern time November 19, 1987. These II. Scope of This Rulemaking regulations shall become effective Ill. Background I. Legal Authority December 21, 1987. A. The Clean Water Act B. Overview of the Industry This regulation is promulgated under The compliance date for PSES is the authority of sections 301, 304, 306, November 5, 1990. The compliance IV. Development of the Final OCPSF date Rulemaking 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean Water Act for NSPS and PSNS is the date the new A. Efforts Leading to the Proposed (the Federal Water Pollution Control Act source begins operation. Deadlines for Regulation Amendments of 1972, as amended (33 compliance with BPT and BAT are B. Post Proposal Notices U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), also referred to as established in permits. C. Summary of the Data Base Used in the "the Act." It is also promulgated in Under section 509(b)(1) of the Clean Final Regulations response to the decree in Natural Water Act, judicial review of this D. Engineering Costing Methodology E. Pollutant Loading Estimate Methodology Resources Defense Council, Inc v. Train, regulation can be had only by filing a 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified, 12 petition for review in the United States V. Summary of the Most Significant Changes from Proposal and Notices ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979), modified by Court of Appeals within 120 days after A. BPT Orders dated October 26, 1982, August 2, the regulation is considered issued for B. BAT 1983, January 6, 1984, July 5, 1984, purposes of judicial review. Under C. PSES January 7, 1985, April 24, 1986, and section 509(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act, VI. Basis for the Final Regulation January 8, 1987. the requirements in this regulation may A. BPT not be challenged later in civil or B. BCT II. Scope of This Rulemaking C. BAT criminal proceedings brought by EPA to This final regulation establishes enforce these requirements. D. NSPS E. PSES effluent limitations guidelines and ADDRESSES: The basis for this regulation F. PSNS standards for existing and new organic is detailed in four major documents. See VII. Pollutants Not Regulated chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42523

(OCPSF) manufacturing facilities. It wastewaters from the production of operations which are unrelated to applies to process wastewater synthetic organic chemical products that existing OCPSF plant operations, even discharges from these facilities. are specifically regulated under the though conducted on-site, are not For the purposes of this regulation, Petrochemical and Integrated covered by the OCPSF regulation OCPSF process wastewater discharges Subcategories of the Petroleum Refining because they may generate wastewater are defined as discharges from all Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 419, with characteristics dissimilar to that establishments or portions of Subparts C and E) or the Chemical from the commercial OCPSF establishments that manufacture Synthesis Products Subcategory of the manufacturing facility. products or product groups listed in the Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing Point applicability sections of this regulation, Finally, as described in the following Source Category (40 CFR Part 439, paragraphs, this regulation does not and are included within the following Subpart C). The principles discussed in U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of cover certain .production that has the preceding paragraph apply as historically been reported to the Bureau the Census Standard Industrial follows: The process wastewater of Census under a non-OCPSF SIC Classification (SIC) major groups: discharges by petroleum refineries and (1) SIC 2865-Cyclic Crudes and pharmaceutical subgroup heading, even if such manufacturers from production could be reported under one Intermediates, Dyes, and Organic production of organic chemical products Pigments, specifically of the five SIC code groups covered by covered by 40 CFR Part 419 regulation. (2) SIC 2869-Industrial Organic Subparts C and E and Part 439 Subpart today's Chemicals, not Elsewhere Classified, C, respectively, that are treated in The Settlement Agreement (see (3) SIC 2821-Plastic Materials, combination with other petroleum Section III.A) requires the Agency to Synthetic Resins, and Nonvulcanizable refinery or pharmaceutical establish regulations for the Organic Elastomers, manufacturing wastewater, respectively, Chemicals Manufacturing SIC codes (4) SIC 2823-Cellulosic Man-Made are not subject to the OCPSF regulation 2865 and 2869 and for the Plastics and Fibers, and no matter what SIC code they use to Synthetic Materials manufacturing SIC (5) SIC 2824-Synthetic Organic report their products. However, if the code 282. SIC 282 includes the three Fibers, Except Cellulosic. wastewaters from their OCPSF codes covered by this regulation, 2821, The OCPSF regulation does not apply production are separately discharged to 2823, and 2824, as well as SIC 2822, to process wastewater discharges from a POTW or treated in a separate Synthetic Rubber (Vulcanizable the manufacture of organic chemical treatment system, and they report their Elastomers), which is covered compounds solely by extraction from products (from these processes) under specifically in the Settlement Agreement plant and animal raw materials or by SIC codes 2865, 2869, or 2821, then by another industrial category, Rubber fermentation processes. discharges from these manufacturing Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 428). The The OCPSF regulation covers all operations are subject to regulation Agency therefore directed its data OCPSF products or processes whether under the OCPSF regulation, regardless collection efforts to those facilities that or not they are located at facilities of whether the OCPSF products are report manufacturing activities under where the OCPSF covered operations covered by 40 CFR Part 419, 'Subparts C SIC codes 2821, 2823, 2824, 2865 and are a minor portion of and ancillary to and E and Part 439, Subpart C. 2869. Based on an assessment of this the primary production activities or a Today's OCPSF category regulation information and the integrated nature of major portion of the activities. applies to plastics molding and forming the synthetic organic chemicals, plastics The OCPSF regulation does not apply processes when plastic resin and synthetic fibers industry, to discharges the from OCPSF product/ manufacturers mold or form (e.g., process operations which Agency also defined the applicability of are covered extrude and pelletize) crude by the the OCPSF regulation by listing the provisions of other categorical intermediate plastic material for industry effluent limitations specific products and product groups guidelines shipment off-site. This regulation also and standards if the that provide the technical basis for the wastewater is applies to the extrusion of fibers. treated regulation. in combination with the non- Plastics molding and forming processes OCPSF industrial Since many of these products may be category regulated other than those described above wastewater. are reported under more than one SIC code (Some products or product regulated by the Plastics Molding and groups are manufactured even though they are often by different Forming effluent guidelines and processes and some processes manufactured with the same reaction with standards (40 CFR Part 463). slight chemistry or unit operations, the Agency operating condition variations Public comments requested guidance give different products. EPA uses the considered extending the applicability relating to the coverage of OCPSF of the OCPSF regulation (50 FR 29068; term "product/process" to mean research and development facilities. different variations of the same basic July 17, 1985, or 51 FR 44082; December Stand-alone OCPSF research and 8, 1986) to include OCPSF production process to manufacture different development, pilot plant, technical products as well as to manufacture the reported under the following SIC service, and laboratory bench scale subgroups: same product using different processes.) operations are not covered by the However, the OCPSF regulation does OCPSF regulation. However, 1. SIC 2911058-aromatic apply to the product/processes covered wastewater from such operations hydrocarbons manufactured from by this regulation if the facility reports conducted in conjunction with and purchased refinery products, OCPSF products under SIC codes 2865, related to existing OCPSF 2. SIC 2911632-aliphatic 2869, or 2821, and its OCPSF manufacturing operations at OCPSF hydrocarbons manufactured from wastewaters are treated in a separate facilities is covered by the OCPSF purchased refinery products, treatment system at the facility or regulation because these operations 3. SIC 28914-synthetic resin and discharged separately to a municipal would most likely generate wastewater rubber adhesives (including only those treatment system. with characteristics similar to the synthetic resins listed under both SIC For example, some vertically commercial manufacturing facility. 28914 and SIC 2821 that are polymerized integrated petroleum refineries and Research and development, pilot plant, for use or sale by adhesive pharmaceutical manufacturers discharge technical service, and laboratory manufacturers), 42524 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42524 Federal Register I Vol. 52, No. 214 I Thursday, November 5, 1987 I Rules and Regulations 4. Chemicals and Chemical OCPSF manufacturing under all of the activities, toxic pollutants may be Preparations, not Elsewhere Classified: above SIC subgroups. The Agency present in the discharge in amounts that a. SIC 2899568-sizes, all types agrees in part with these commenters. warrant best professional judgement b. SIC 2899597-other industrial The OCPSF technical, cost, and (BPJ) regulatory control. The adhesives chemical specialties, including fluxes, economic impact data gathering efforts and sealants, plastics molding and plastic wood preparations, and focused only on those primary and forming, and paint and ink formulation embalming fluids, secondary manufacturers that report and printing Paragraph 8 exclusions do 5. SIC 2843085-bulk surface active OCPSF manufacturing activities under not include process wastewater from the agents, and the above SIC codes 2821, 2823, 2824, secondary manufacture of synthetic 6. SIC 3079--miscellaneous plastics 2865 and 2869. Specific efforts were not resins. Similarly, the soaps and products (including only cellophane directed toward gathering technical and detergents Paragraph 8 exclusion does manufacture from the viscose process]. financial data from facilities that report not include process wastewater from the However, for the reasons discussed OCPSF manufacturing under SIC manufacture of surface active agents below, the Agency has decided not to subgroups 2911058, 2911632, 28914, (SIC 2843). In these cases, and even in of the OCPSF 2843085, 2899568, 2899597 and 3079. As a cases where priority pollutants from extend the applicability cost and economic regulation to discharges from result, EPA lacks OCPSF production covered by other information from a significant number of categorical standards (e.g., petroleum establishments that manufacture OCPSF manufacturing have, in the past, reported plants that report OCPSF refining and pharmaceuticals) have been products and activities to the Bureau of Census under such production under these non-OCPSF excluded from those regulations under these latter SIC subgroups. the terms of Paragraph 8 of the SIC subgroups. section The SIC codes are classifications of Consequently, the applicability Settlement Agreement, BPJ priority of the final regulation (§ 414.11) clarifies pollutant regulation for individual plants commercial and industrial that the OCPSF regulation does not establishments by type of activity in having OCPSF production may be apply to a plant's OCPSF production appropriate. which they are engaged. The that has been reported by the plant in predominant purpose of the SIC code is the past under SIC groups 2911058, III. Background to classify the manufacturing industries 2911632, 28914, 2843085, 2899568, A. The Clean Water Act for the collection of economic data. The 2899597, and 3079. product descriptions in SIC codes are /Approximately 140 of the 940 OCPSF The Federal Water Pollution Control often technically ambiguous and also plants that provide the basis for today's Act Amendments of 1972 established a list products that are no longer produced regulation reported parts of their OCPSF comprehensive program to "restore and in commercial quantities. For this production under SIC codes 2911058, maintain the chemical, physical, and reason, the Agency proposed to define 2911632, 28914, 2843085, 2899568, and biological integrity of the Nation's the applicability of the OCPSF 2899597 as well as SIC codes 2821, 2823, waters." (Section 101(a)) To implement regulation in terms of both SIC codes 2824, 2865, and 2869. As a result of the the Act, EPA was required to issue and specific products and product definition of applicability, a smaller effluent limitations guidelines, groups (50 FR 29073, July 17, 1985). Many portion of plant production than was pretreatment standards, and new source chemical products may appear under reported as OCPSF production for these performance standards for industrial more than one SIC code depending on plants will be covered by today's dischargers. raw material sources, the manufacturing regulation. In addition to these regulations for use in the next stage of the The Agency does note, however, that type of sale or industrial categories, EPA was required manufacturing process, or the OCPSF manufacturing processes are promulgate effluent limitations phenolic, urea, to end use. For example, essentially identical regardless of how guidelines and standards applicable to and acrylic resin manufacture may be manufacturing facilities may report The Act SIC 28914, Synthetic discharges of toxic pollutants. reported under OCPSF production to the Bureau of a timetable for issuing these Resin Adhesives, as well as under SIC included Census. Therefore, the OCPSF data base standards. However, EPA was unable to 2821, Plastics Materials and Resins. and effluent limitations and standards and xylene meet many of the deadlines and, as a Benzene, toluene, provide permit issuing authorities with result, in 1976, it was sued by several manufacture may be reported under SIC guidance for establishing "Best Refining, or under SIC environmental groups. In settling this 2911, Petroleum Professional Judgement" (BPJ) permits lawsuit, EPA and the plaintiffs executed 2911058, Aromatics, Made from for OCPSF production activities to as well as a "Settlement Agreement" that was Purchased Refinery Products, which this regulation does not apply. by the Court. This agreement SIC 2865, Cyclic Crudes and Some of the non-OCPSF SIC approved Likewise, alkylbenzene EPA required EPA to develop a program and Intermediates. subgroups were the subject of prior adhere to a schedule for controlling 65 sulfonic acids and salts manufacture decisions not to establish national "priority" toxic pollutants and classes of may be reported under SIC 2843085, regulations for priority pollutants under which 8 of the pollutants. In carrying out this program,. Bulk Surface Active Agents, the terms of Paragraph required to promulgate BAT include all amphoteric, anionic, cationic Settlement Agreement. Such action was EPA was surface active agents effluent limitations guidelines, and nonionic bulk taken for adhesive and sealant pretreatment standards, and new source excluding surface active agents manufacturing (SIC 2891), as well as produced or purchased and sold as plastics molding and forming (SIC 3079), performance standards for a variety of and ink formulation and printing major industries, including the OCPSF active ingredients in formulated paint NaturalResources as well as SIC 286, Industrial (which industries were within SIC 2851, industry. See products, Council, Inc v. Train, supra. Organic Chemicals. 2893, 2711, 2721, 2731 and ten other SIC Defense Many commenters stated that the 27 groups) and soap and detergent Many of the basic elements of the Agency's OCPSF technical and manufacturing (SIC 2841). However, it Settlement Agreement were economic studies do not contain should be noted that in specific incorporated into the Clean Water Act sufficient information to extend instances where a plant in these of 1977. Like the Agreement, the Act coverage to all facilities reporting categories has OCPSF production stressed control of toxic pollutants, Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42525 including the 65 "priority" toxic conventional pollutants. BAT remains in Pretreatment Regulations, which set pollutants and classes of pollutants. effect for the toxic and nonconventional forth the framework for categorical Under the Act, the EPA is required to pollutants. In addition to other factors pretreatment standards, are found at 40 establish several different kinds of specified in section 304(b)(4](B), the Act CFR Part 403. (Those regulations contain effluent limitations guidelines and requires that the BCT effluent a definition of pass through that standards. They are summarized briefly limitations guidelines be assessed in addresses localized rather than national below: light of a two part "cost- instances of pass through and does not 1. Best Practicable Control Technology reasonableness" test. American Paper use the percent removal comparison test Currently Available (BPT) Institute v. EPA, 660 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. described above. See 52 FR 1586, 1981). The first test compares the cost January 14, 1987.) BPT effluent limitations guidelines are for private industry to reduce its generally based on the average of the discharge of conventional pollutants 6. Pretreatment Standards for New best existing performance by plants of with the cost to publicly owned Sources (PSNS) various sizes, ages, and unit processes treatment works for similar levels of within the category or subcategory for Like PSES, PSNS are designed to reduction in their discharge of these prevent the discharge of pollutants that control of familiar (i.e., conventional) The second test examines the pollutants. pass through, interfere with, or are pollutants. additional cost-effectiveness of with the In establishing BPT effluent industrial treatment beyond BPT. EPA otherwise incompatible operation of a POTW. PSNS are to be limitations guidelines, EPA considers must find that limitations are the total cost in relation to the effluent "reasonable" under both tests before issued at the same time as NSPS. New reduction benefits, the age of equipment establishing them as BCT. In no case indirect dischargers, like new direct and facilities involved, the processes may BCT be less stringent than BPT. dischargers, have the opportunity to employed, process changes required, EPA has promulgated a methodology incorporate in their plant the best engineering aspects of the control for establishing BCT effluent limitations available demonstrated technologies. technologies, and non-water quality. guidelines (51 FR 24974, July 8, 1986). The Agency considers the same factors environmental impacts (including energy in promulgating PSNS as it considers in requirements). The Agency considers 4. New Source Performance Standards promulgating NSPS. (NSPS) the category-wide or subcategory-wide B. Overview of the Industry cost of applying the technology in NSPS are based on the performance of relation to the effluent reduction the best available demonstrated The OCPSF industry is large and benefits. technology. New plants have the diverse, and many plants in the industry to install the best and most 2. Best Available Technology opportunity are highly complex. This industry Economically Achievable (BAT) efficient production processes and manufactures over 25,000 different wastewater treatment technologies. As organic chemicals, plastics, and BAT effluent limitations guidelines, in a result, NSPS should represent the most synthetic fibers. However, less than half general, represent the best existing stringent numerical values attainable of these products are produced in excess performance in the category or through the application of best available of 1,000 pounds per year. The industry subcategory. The Act establishes BAT demonstrated control technology for all includes approximately 750 facilities as the principal national means of pollutants (toxic, conventional and whose principal or primary production controlling the direct discharge of toxic nonconventional). activities are covered under the OCPSF and nonconventional pollutants to SIC groups. There are approximately 200 navigable waters. 5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) other plants which are secondary In establishing BAT, the Agency producers of OCPSF products, i.e., PSES are designed to prevent the considers the age of equipment and OCPSF production is ancillary to their facilities involved, the processes discharge of pollutants that pass primary production activities. (As through, interfere with, or are otherwise employed, the engineering aspects of the discussed above in this preamble, this incompatible with the operation of control technologies, process changes, regulation covers OCPSF discharges the cost of achieving such effluent publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The Clean Water Act requires from secondary producers, with certain reduction, and non-water quality exceptions.) Thus the total number of environmental impacts. pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass through POTWs or interfere plants to be regulated totally or in part 3. Best Conventional Pollutant Control with POTWs' treatment processes or by the OCPSF industry regulation is Technology (BCT) sludge disposal methods. The legislative approximately 1,000. Secondary OCPSF The 1977 Amendments to the Clean history of the 1977 Act indicates that plants may be part of other chemical Water Act added section 301(b)(2)(E), pretreatment standards are to be producing industries such as the establishing "best conventional technology-based and analogous to the petroleum refining, inorganic chemicals, pollutant control technology" (BCT) for BAT effluent limitations guidelines for pharmaceuticals, and pesticides the discharge of conventional pollutants removal of toxic pollutants. For the industries as well as chemical from existing industrial point sources. purpose of determining whether to formulation industries such as the Section 304(a)(4) designated the promulgate national category-wide adhesives and sealants, the paint and following as conventional pollutants: pretreatment standards, EPA generally ink, and the plastics molding and BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, pH, and any determines that there is pass through of forming industries. additional pollutants defined by the a pollutant and thus a need for Some plants produce chemicals in Administrator as conventional. The categorical standards if the nation-wide large volumes while others produce only Administrator designated oil and grease average percentage of a pollutant small volumes of "specialty" chemicals. a conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 removed by well-operated POTWs Large volume production tends to use (44 FR 44501). achieving secondary treatment is less continuous processes. Continuous BCT is not an additional limitation but than the percent removed by the BAT processes are generally more efficient replaces BAT for the control of model treatment system. The General than batch processes in minimizing 42526 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42526 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 I Thursday, November 5, 1987 I Rules and Regulations water use and optimizing the the quantity shipped was 151 billion 14676). Phase I,.covering 27 additional consumption of raw materials. pounds. The corresponding value of product/processes, was promulgated on Different products are made by shipments equaled $59 billion, and January 5, 1976 (41 FR 902). The Agency varying the raw materials, the chemical employment in the industry totaled also promulgated effluent limitations reaction conditions, and the chemical 183,000 in 1982. In that same year a total guidelines and standards for the Plastics engineering unit processes. The products of 455 firms operated the 940 facilities and Synthetic Fibers Industry in two being manufactured at a single large referred to above. phases. Phase I, covering 31 product/ chemical plant can vary on a weekly or Plant and firm sizes and types vary processes, was promulgated on April 5, even daily basis. Thus, a single. plant considerably. Single plant firms are 1974 (39 FR 12502). Phase II, covering may produce simultaneously many much smaller in terms of total (OCPSF eight additional product/processes, was different products using a variety of and non-OCPSF) sales, an average of promulgated on January 23, 1975 (40 FR continuous and batch operations and $33 million annually. By contrast, multi- 3716). the product mix may change on a plant firms are much larger with average These regulations were challenged. weekly or daily basis. annual sales totaling $1.39 billion. This On February 10, 1976, the Court in Union A total of 940 facilities (based on 1982 relationship holds whether a plant is a Carbidev. Train, 541 F.2d 1171 (4th Cir. production) are included in the technical primary producer or a secondary 1976), remanded the Phase I Organic and economic studies used as a basis for producer of OCPSF products. Chemicals regulation. EPA withdrew the this regulation. Approximately 76 Certain sectors of the OCPSF industry Phase II Organic Chemicals regulation percent of these facilities are primary tend to be more concentrated than on April 1, 1976 (41 FR 13936). However, OCPSF manufacturers (over 50 percent others. Cellulosic fiber manufacturers pursuant to an agreement with the of their total plant production involves exhibit the most concentration, with all industry petitioners, the regulations for OCPSF products) and approximately 24 domestic production coming from only butadiene manufacture were left in percent of the facilities are secondary six plants. Synthetic fibers place. The Court also remanded the OCPSF manufacturers that produce manufacturers are the next-most Phase I Plastics and Synthetic Fibers mainly other types of products. An concentrated with 40 plants. The organic regulations in FMC Corp. v. Train, 539 estimated 32 percent of the plants are chemicals and plastics sectors are the F.2d 973 (4th Cir. 1976), and in response direct dischargers, about 42 percent least concentrated and the most EPA withdrew both the Phase I and II discharge indirectly (i.e., to publicly competitive; both sectors have large Plastics and Synthetic Fibers regulations owned treatment works), and the numbers of plants and firms with both on August 4, 1976 (41 FR 32587] except remaining facilities (26 percent) either primary and secondary producers. In for the pH limitations, which had not do not discharge to surface waters or addition, most sectors of the OCPSF been addressed in the lawsuit. have unknown discharge status. The industry face extensive foreign Consequently, only the regulations estimated average daily process competition. covering butadiene manufacture for the International OCPSF trade is an wastewater discharge per plant is 1.31 Organic Chemicals industry and the pH important factor for this industry and MGD (millions of gallons per day) for regulations for the Plastics and direct dischargers and 0.25 MGD for the U.S. economy. In 1984, exports of Synthetic Fibers industry have been in OCPSF products were five percent of all indirect dischargers. The non- effect to date. These regulations are discharging plants use dry processes, U.S. exports, while OCPSF imports superseded by the regulations for one percent of all U.S. reuse their wastewater, or dispose of accounted promulgated today. their wastewater by deep well injection, imports. Both imports and exports of In the absence of promulgated, incineration, contract hauling, or by OCPSF products have increased over effective effluent limitations guidelines means of evaporation and percolation the last 15 years, particularly for plastic ponds. resins and organic chemicals. and standards, OCPSF direct As a result of the wide variety and While U.S. exports were three times dischargers have been issued NPDES complexity of raw materials and greater than imports in 1984, the trend permits on a case-by-case basis using processes used and of products over the most recent years has been for best professional judgment (BPJ), as manufactured in the OCPSF industry, an exports to remain constant or decline; provided in section 402(a)(1) of the exceptionally wide variety of pollutants while imports have steadily increased. CWA. are found in the wastewaters of this As expansion in foreign petrochemical 2. Initiation of Current Rulemaking industry. They include conventional production continues, the worldwide Efforts pollutants (pH, BOD, TSS and oil and market for OCPSF products will grease); an unusually wide variety of continue to become increasingly Subsequent to the remand and toxic priority pollutants (both metals competitive in all product sectors. withdrawal of the above regulations, and organic compounds); and a large Domestic producers of basic commodity studies and data gathering were number of nonconventional pollutants. chemicals face the greatest problems in initiated in order to provide a basis for Many of the toxic and nonconventional terms of foreign competition. issuing effluent limitations guidelines and standards for this industry. These pollutants are organic compounds IV. Development of the Final OCPSF produced by the industry for sale. efforts provided a basis for a March Regulation Others are created by the industry as 1983 proposal and July 1985, October byproducts of their production A. Efforts Leading to the Proposed 1985, and December 1986 (post-proposal) operations. EPA focused its attention in Rulemaking notices of availability of information. today's rulemaking on the conventional These efforts are described below. 1. Earlier Regulatory Efforts pollutants and on the 126 toxic priority On March 21, 1983, the Agency pollutants. EPA originally promulgated effluent proposed regulations for the OCPSF Economic data provided in response limitations guidelines and standards for categories at 48 FR 11828. The proposed to "308 survey" questionnaires the Organic Chemicals Manufacturing regulations included effluent limitations completed pursuant to Section 308 of the Industry in two phases. Phase I. guidelines based on the application of CWA indicate that OCPSF production in covering 40 product/processes, was BPT, BCT, and BAT, along with NSPS 1982 totaled 185 billion pounds and that promulgated on April 25, 1974 (39 FR and PSES and PSNS. EPA proposed BPT Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42527 regulations for four subcategories to to the March 1983 proposal were hydroxide precipitation and sulfide control the discharge of conventional discussed. Most of the changes noticed precipitation from metals industries. The pollutants, 5-day biochemical oxygen were a direct result of the comments Notice also discussed treatment of demand (designated as BOD throughout received on the proposed regulation or cyanide in OCPSF wastewater by this notice), total suspended solids due to the new information and data alkaline chlorination, and the (TSS), and pH. EPA also proposed BAT collected after the proposal was application- of package biological or in- regulations for two subcategories (based published. The changes discussed in this plant biological treatment in setting on general types of products made), notice included a new approach to BPT limits for some pollutants. Finally, EPA controlling 36 toxic organic and eight subcategorization, changes to the announced the availability of additional toxic metal pollutants in the Not technology bases for BAT, PSES, NSPS data to characterize the effectiveness of Plastics-Only Subcategory and five toxic and PSNS, with a description of what steam stripping technology. organic and five toxic metal pollutants the revisions in the proposed limitations C. Summary of the Data Base Used in in the Plastics Only Subcategory. The and standards would be, based on the the FinalRegulations Agency also proposed BCT limitations changes in technology and the new data. setting all BCT limitations equal to BPT EPA presented new estimates of The data used for the proposal were regulations based on the application of a pollutant loadings and discussed collected through industry surveys via proposed BCT cost test methodology revisions to the engineering costing 1976 and 1977 questionnaires, telephone (see 47 FR 49176). With regard to PSES methodology. Options were presented calls, and sampling visits and are and PSNS, EPA proposed standards for toxic pollutant monitoring described in the following paragraphs. controlling 15 toxic organic pollutants in requirements, and a revised The data used for the engineering the Not Plastics-Only Subcategory and methodology for determining economic analysis were extracted from the two toxic metal pollutants in the Plastics impacts was discussed. industry responses to the 1976 BPT Only Subcategory. For NSPS, EPA On October 11, 1985 (50 FR 41528), the questionnaire and a subsequent 1977 proposed to establish limitations based Agency extended the comment period BAT questionnaire. The data from these on the proposed BPT limitations for for the July 17, 1985 notice (50 FR 29068). questionnaires were computerized and conventional pollutants and on the The notice also provided corrected sent to the plants for their review and proposed BAT limitations for toxic estimates of the wastewater pollutant comments during December 1979 and pollutants. PSNS was proposed to be loadings set forth in the July notice and January 1980. Also, (long-term daily) equal to PSES. announced the addition of both data pollutant raw waste and final effluent As part of the proposal, the Agency analyses and regulatory options to the data were collected by EPA through on- solicited additional comments and site sampling visits. information on 30 specific issues related record. In this notice, the Agency discussed possible controls of air The above questionnaires requested to the proposed rulemaking (refer to emissions of volatile pollutants, the information related to products section XIX of the proposal at 48 FR possibility of editing the BPT data base manufactured, processes used, 11850 of March 21, 1983). These issues for TSS performance, and the possibility production rates, age and size of related to several topics including: (1) of accommodating for adverse economic facilities, water consumption, The industry generic process basis for impacts at small facilities. The notice wastewater generation, treatment the subcategorization scheme, (2) the technologies employed, and influent potential use of post-biological polishing also discussed establishing alternative zinc wastewater and effluent characteristics. ponds and filters as the technology basis BAT limits for manufacturers of rayon fibers that use the viscose process Additionally, some qualitative for the BPT total suspended solids limitations, (3) the potential difficulty of and manufacturers of acrylic fibers that information was gathered through meeting BPT limitations due to high or use the zinc chloride/solvent process. telephone calls on the generation of low ambient temperatures, (4) the On December 8, 1986 (51 FR 44082), wastewater and mode of discharge at methodology devised to determine the Agency published another notice of 301 plastics manufacturing facilities. which priority pollutants are likely to be availability in which several additional From all these sources of data, the discharged from particular product/ issues for the OCPSF regulation were Agency identified 428 plants which processes, (5) the technical and discussed, including options for make up the 1983 Proposal Summary economic achievability of the proposed alternative BAT limits and PSES for Data Base. The Proposal Summary Data BAT limitations at individual plants, (6) small plants, and a revised BPT Base is a corrected and updated version a workable scheme for not regulating all subcategorization approach. In of the original data found in the 1976 priority pollutants at all plants, (7) the conjunction with this new approach to and 1977 generated 308 Data Base. methodology for excluding certain subcategorization, the Agency presented Data on product/processes, plant priority pollutants from PSES, (8) the a mathematical equation to model long- location and age, production, percent unit costs and costing models used for term average effluent concentrations of operating capacity, mode of discharge, developing BPT and BAT costs, (9) the BOD and TSS as a function of the treatment unit operations, influent and analytical methods utilized to develop proportion of activity in each effluent wastewater flow and the priority pollutant data base, and (10) subcategory at an individual facility. concentrations, and period of data the economic impact analysis The coefficients used in this equation collection were obtained from the methodology. The Agency also were estimated from reported plant data original 1976 and 1977 questionnaires acknowledged the need for more data. using standard statistical regression data printouts for each of the plants in In addition to soliciting information, methods. The Notice also discussed the the data base. The information on each EPA stated its intent to collect possible use in the POTW pass-through plant was examined, and the data were additional data. analysis of qualitative information modified to reflect any corrections to the which would expand the data base for original data and to incorporate the B. PostProposal Notices evaluating the effectiveness of POTW plant's responses to the 1979-1980 On July 17,1985 (50 FR 29068], the removal. The Notice discussed the mailing. Agency published a notice of possibility of transferring metals As part of the data collection efforts, availability in which numerous changes treatment effectiveness data based on the Agency conducted four major 42528 Federal Register j Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations sampling studies in order to characterize biological wastewater treatment system economic and financial data from a the raw wastewaters and treated influent samples were taken subsequent number of public and private sources.) wastewaters in the OCPSF industry. to in-plant treatment and prior to The technical data collected through These studies are the Screening Study biological treatment and to any the new 308 survey included data on (performed in two phases), Verification preliminary neutralization and settling, processes, production levels, raw Study, Five-Plant Study and Twelve- although in some instances following wastewater characteristics and Plant Study, and are discussed in the equalization, of each plant's combined treatment performance from calendar following paragraphs. waste stream. The five plants were In year 1980, which was selected to reflect 1977 and 1978, EPA performed selected because of the specific toxic normal plant operations at near capacity sampling at 131 plants to determine the organic pollutants expected to be levels. Economic and financial data presence of priority pollutants (Phase I generated by plant processes and were collected for calendar year 1982 to of the Screening Study). These plants because they were characterized as then-current market conditions. were chosen because they operated reflect having well-designed and well-operated In addition to this new survey, EPA product/processes that produce the activated sludge treatment systems. highest volume organic chemicals, also conducted toxic pollutant sampling Seven to thirty sets of influent and at 12 additional OCPSF facilities plastics and synthetic fibers. Twenty- effluent samples (generally 24-hour four hour composite samples were taken between March of 1983 and May of 1984. composites) were collected at each plant Eight plants were sampled between 14 of the raw plant water, effluent from over a four- to six-week sampling certain product/processes, and and 20 days each; three plants between period. Thus, the toxic pollutant data 10 and 12 days; and one plant for one wastewater influents and effluents at base which formed the basis of the the plant wastewater treatment day. The analytical protocol used to March 21, 1983 proposal was generated measure the volatile organic priority facilities. These samples were analyzed from the OCPSF industry over a period for toxic pollutants and conventional pollutants was Method 1624 (purge and of time from 1977 through part of 1981. trap followed by isotope dilution GC- pollutants. The Agency received numerous In December 1979, samples were MS) while Method 1625 (isotope dilution comments on the proposed regulation GC-MS) was used to measure semi- collected from an additional 40 plants from individuals representing industry, (Phase II of the Screening Study). These volatile organic priority pollutants. (See environmental groups, and state and 40 CFR Part 136 for a description of plants manufactured products such as local governments. These comments dyes, flame retardants, coal tar these methods.) This new sampling criticized the data and analyses that the data base for distillates, photographic chemicals, were fundamental to the proposed program improved flavors, surface active agents, aerosols, regulation and pollutants already covered by the urged the Agency to proposal, expanded the coverage of petroleum additives, and other low reassess its data base and reconsider volume specialty chemicals. many aspects of the proposal. priority pollutants, and provided an Subsequent to this screening effort, Significant comments on the proposal additional basis for estimating EPA conducted more intense sampling concerned, among other issues: (1). The wastewater treatment system at 37 plants with samples collected from adequacy of the Agency's variability. During the program, EPA data base to from the effluents of 147 product/processes cover a diverse industry such as this, (2) sampled influents to and effluents manufacturing organic chemicals and 29 the BPT subcategorization scheme (3) in-plant controls including steam product/processes manufacturing the treatment effectiveness data base strippers, chemical precipitation units, plastics or synthetic fibers, as well as and editing rules, (4) the compliance and an in-plant activated carbon from treatment system influents and cost estimates, and (5) the economic adsorption unit. The end-of-pipe effluents at selected facilities impact methodology. Following a review systems influents and effluents sampled (Verification Study). This sampling was and analysis of these and other included extended aeration and pure conducted over a period of three days at comments, the Agency began a new oxygen activated sludge systems, a each plant (with the exception of one data gathering effort in order to assure powdered activated carbon (PAC) plant which had six days of data), and that the OCPSF regulation is based upon biological system, polishing ponds, was performed in order to verify the information that represents the entire filtration units, and an activated carbon presence and estimate the industry and to assess wastewater adsorption unit. concentrations of priority pollutants in treatment installed since 1977. The D. Engineering Costing Methodology discharges from the predominant Agency conducted an extensive data product/processes in the industry. gathering program to improve the The development of effluent The raw wastewater sampling data coverage of all types of OCPSF limitations guidelines includes for the priority pollutants gathered from manufacturers. identifying technologies available for the 176 product/process wastewater This effort involved mailing new reducing pollutant loadings, quantifying streams in the Verification Study were "Section 308" survey questionnaires the reduction of pollutants by a computerized to become the Master (i.e., under the authority of Section 308 technology or group of technologies, and Process File (MPF). These data were of the Act) to all manufacturers of identifying the costs and economic used in estimating the pollutants and OCPSF products. In addition to this impacts associated with the application loadings for the product/processes in survey, which covered all known OCPSF of the technologies or groups of the industry for the proposal. manufacturers, EPA also sent a technologies. The results of these From June 1980 to May 1981, EPA, supplemental questionnaire to 84 OCPSF analyses form the basis for regulatory with cooperation from the Chemical facilities known to have installed options. Manufacturers Association (CMA) and selected wastewater treatment unit To derive costs since proposal, EPA five participating chemical plants, operations for which EPA sought has changed its engineering costing performed the EPA/CMA Five-Plant additional information. methodology in response to comments Study to gather longer-term data on Also included in the 1983 308 survey and as a result of further analyses and biological treatment of certain specific questionnaire were questions designed evaluations performed by the Agency. toxic pollutants at organic chemical to obtain additional cost, economic and The costs of the proposed regulation plants. In addition to effluent data, financial data. (EPA also obtained were based on estimates of compliance Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42529 costs for model plants, referred to as plants. A summary of the major aspects organic pollutants; and multi-stage or generalized plant configurations of the costing methodology follows. A package biological treatment was costed ("GPC's"). The GPC's represent typical more detailed description of this for the remaining regulated organic combinations of product/processes as methodology is contained in Section VIII pollutants. Chemical precipitation was reported by plants in the OCPSF of the Development Document. costed for metals removal, and cyanide industry data base. The product/ The final engineering costing destruction-via alkaline chlorination processes used in GPCs were the 147 methodology was used to develop costs was costed to control total cyanide. organic chemicals product/processes on a plant-specific basis for selected For plants with product/process flows and 29 plastic/synthetic fibers product/ BPT options for BOD and TSS, and for less than 500 gallons per day, only processes for which the Master Process in-plant wastewater stream control of contract hauling was costed. Current File contains data. priority toxic pollutants for selected zero discharge wastestreams such as The Agency received a number of BAT and PSES options. wastestreams Which were reported to be comments as a result of the proposal BPT Costing discharged or disposed of currently via pointing out inadequate coverage of the contract hauling, deep well disposal, industry using the Agency's Plant-specific BPT costs were incineration, or land disposal including methodology, and claiming that EPA had developed based on a comparison of the surface impoundmeit use were not underestimated the cost of compliance individual plant's current [i.e., 1980) included in the BAT cost analysis. Costs because of it. In order to respond to BOD and TSS effluent concentrations associated with RCRA requirements for these comments, data on industry's (as reported by the plants) and the surface impoundments were included in experience in the acquisition and calculated effluent long-term average the baseline costs for certain facilities operation of certain technologies were concentration targets upon which the and are discussed below. required to revise and/or calibrate BOD and TSS limits in the BPT predictive cost models. This additional regulation are based. The treatment NSPS Costing information was obtained from the system technologies that were costed for EPA used its BPT costing methods to OCPSF industry using the 1983 308 each plant depended on that comparison systems for (after adjustment for dilution by non- cost entirely new treatment survey data collection effort, discussed process wastewater flows). If the new sources based on model flow sizes earlier. This specific data collection- for each subcategory. BAT technology current discharge concentrations were used to estimate costs for effort was part of the Supplemental exceeded the calculated target levels, costs Questionnaire which was sent to 84 the Agency determined the additional new sources to control priority pollutant selected OCPSF manufacturers, and discharges. requested detailed cost information treatment units or operational upgrades -that would be needed to achieve the PSES Costing regarding capital and operating costs for long-term average target concentration specific treatment technologies. A total levels and calculated the cost of the PSES toxic pollutant removal cost of 67 questionnaires were completed treatment. For example, some plants estimates were obtained using the same and returned with useful data and were costed for the addition of clarifiers procedures as used in the BAT costing. information. The remaining 17 plants did for improved control of solids in existing of not respond or did not provide useful RCRA Baseline Costs for Relining systems. Where the required upgrades Surface Impoundments data and information. were substantial, EPA costed full scale The cost data collected was adjusted activated sludge treatment and/or The Hazardous and Solid Waste to 1982 dollars (if reported as other year second stage activated sludge. Amendments enacted in November 1984 dollars] using the Engineering News (Pub. L 98-616, November 8, 1984) Record (ENR) index. The reported plant BAT Costing require that each existing surface cost data were used, where possible, to BAT technology in the regulation impoundment be retrofitted by derive curves for estimating the cost of promulgated today is based upon BPT November 8, 1988 so as to be in acquiring and operating the technology plus appropriate in-plant or compliance with the minimum technologies. Where the data were not end-of-pipe physical/chemical treatment technology requirements established by sufficient to derive the cost curves, the for the removal of individual toxic the Amendments for land-based data were used to check the accuracy of pollutants. The costing approach thus treatment, storage and disposal of cost curves derived from other sources incorporates in-plant treatment costs. hazardous wastes. Facilities in the of information such as equipment First, EPA estimated each plant's OCPSF Industry were reviewed to vendors. current level of discharge for each toxic determine what costs would be incurred For the final regulation, the Agency pollutant. These estimates were as a result of the 1984 amendments. has estimated the total costs of the obtained by using data in the Master Utilizing the RCRA 1986 National regulation on a plant-by-plant basis Process File and 1983 308 Survey (see Screening Survey of Hazardous Waste using all available data, i.e., by adding Section IV-C above) for the product/ Treatment, Storage,Disposal, and together the estimated individual costs processes used by the plant. Recycling Facilities ("Screening Survey for all the plants. Plants which provided Based on the toxic pollutants Data Base"], a total of 48 OCPSF partial responses to questionnaires estimated to be present, the appropriate facilities were identified as likely to (primarily secondary producers) were in-plant treatment technology was incur costs as a result of the costed on a plant-by-plant basis as well selected. For plants using end-of-pipe amendments, and were therefore as those which provided full responses. biological treatment, each pollutant included in the RCRA costing analysis. However, the Agency estimated discharged to the end-of-pipe biological After evaluation, these costs were loadings for the partial response plants system had to be above a certain included for 41 of these plants in the using data submitted by full response concentration value before in-plant baseline economic analysis. The plants plants and data included in the Master treatment would be costed. Steam selected included plants with surface Process File in order to generate plant- stripping was costed for the removal of impoundments that are used for by-plant estimates of raw waste volatile organic pollutants; activated treatment or storage. Costs were characteristics for the partial response carbon was costed for other specific estimated to retrofit these 42530 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations impoundments with double liners and to estimate raw (untreated) and current process wastewater pollutant install groundwater monitoring wells. (1980) toxic pollutant loadings, as well concentrations. For example, if a This is discussed in more detail in as projected BPT and BAT loadings for pollutant was reported as 30 ppb at the Section VIII of the document entitled direct dischargers and PSES loadings for final effluent sampling location with 1 "Development Document for Effluent indirect dischargers, on a plant-by-plant MGD of process wastewater flow and 9 Guidelines, New Source Performance basis. MGD of noncontaminated nonprocess Standards and Pretreatment Standards The current (1980) in-place treatment cooling water flow, then the for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and toxic pollutant annual loadings are concentration of the pollutant in the Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category." estimated to be 1.6 million and 22.6 process wastewater was actually 300 E. PollutantLoading Estimate million pounds for direct and indirect ppb. Similarly, if the same plant Methodology dischargers respectively. The toxic reported that another pollutant was not pollutant estimated loadings for direct detected at the same sampling location This section describes the dischargers after compliance with BAT methodology used to calculate pollutant and the analytical method threshold are 0.49 million pounds, and for indirect level or minimum "detection" level was loading estimates and presents a dischargers after compliance with PSES summary of the results of these 10 ppb, then the other pollutant are 0.08 million pounds. concentration calculations for the OCPSF regulated At the time in the process wastewater of proposal, the Agency could be as high as 90 ppb without being process waste streams. A more detailed overestimated the annual discharges of description of these efforts is contained toxic pollutants. Industry comments detected in the diluted final effluent. in Section VIII of the Development objected to these overestimates, argued One hundred six plants reported Form Document. that toxic pollutant discharges by the 2C toxic pollutant data in the 1983 Section 308 Questionnaire. Of these, 70 1. Conventional Pollutant Loadings OCPSF industry are low, and questioned the need to establish BAT limitations on plants diluted the process wastewater BOD and TSS loadings (i.e., pounds of a wide range of toxic pollutants. These before the Form 2C effluent sampling pollutants discharged by direct commenters suggested that the Agency point. The following table relates the dischargers) were calculated .from the rely on the NPDES permit application number of plants with Form 2C data to data base on a plant-by-plant basis. Form 2C toxic pollutant data for the range of dilution at the effluent Current (1980) BOD and TSS loadings determining toxic pollutant loadings. sampling point. were calculated by multiplying current They maintained that available NPDES BOD and TSS concentration values, as permit application Form 2C data TABLE 1-RANGE OF DILUTION FOR PLANTS reported by the plants, times the plant's constitute the most appropriate WITH FORM 2C DATA process and wastewater flow. For plants for extensive data base for predicting the which EPA lacked either BOD or TSS Number of extent (frequency) of occurrence of plants with current effluent data, effluent priority pollutants in the OCPSF Range ofdilution In percent Form 2C concentrations data were estimated using the industry. They argued that the Form 2C (percent) available reported plant effluent data as data submitted by trade association a basis. member companies indicate that only a 0 ...... 36(34) BPT loadings (i.e., the pounds that > 0 to 25 ...... 20(19) few priority pollutants are detected in > 25 to 100 ...... 20(19) would be discharged after compliance treated discharges and concluded that > 100 to 500 ...... 17(16) with BPT) were calculated by > 500 to 6054 ...... 13(12) existing treatment systems, installed Total ...... 106(100) multiplying the BOD and TSS long-term principally for the control of average effluent concentration targets conventional pollutants, do an excellent times the plant's process wastewater job of controlling priority pollutant The Agency was able to identify 13 flow. (The methodology for determining discharges. facilities that reported measured toxic long-term average effluent target values The Agency disagrees with these pollutant concentrations of treated is described in Section VI of this notice.) comments and, for the reasons process wastewater both before and For plants already achieving the long- discussed below, has concluded that after dilution with nonprocess term average effluent target for BPT, its although the industry's loadings are wastewater. In general, analyzing the current concentration values are used to lower than estimated at proposal, many diluted effluents yields underestimated calculate BPT loadings. OCPSF plants currently discharge or undetected values for organic toxic The current (1980) in-place treatment significant amounts of toxic pollutants. pollutants that were measured in the BOD and TSS estimated annual Thus regulation beyond BPT is undiluted process wastewater. discharge loadings are 61.49 and 99.59 warranted. However, this was not generally the million pounds per year, respectively. Since the OCPSF regulations apply to case for cyanide and toxic pollutant The BOD and TSS BPT estimated process wastewater only (nonprocess metals such as cadmium, chromium, and discharge loadings, based on wastewater is regulated by permit lead. These compounds are commonly compliance with today's regulation, are writers on a case-by-case basis), the found in cooling water additives that 19.76 and 33.32 million pounds per year, Agency determined the relative may be utilized to inhibit biological respectively. contributions of process and nonprocess growth or the formation of rust and 2. Toxic Pollutant Loadings wastewater at the effluent sample sites scale in cooling equipment. The using data from the 1983 308 Survey. presence of a portion of these metals The methodology used to estimate These data were used to calculate plant- and cyanide in the diluted effluent OCPSF industry toxic pollutant loadings by-plant "dilution factors" for use in seems in many cases to be caused by uses the data from the Master Process adjusting or assessing analytical data at their presence in nonprocess cooling File and the 1983 survey data which effluent sampling locations. This water. Therefore, the assumption that incorporates NPDES permit application information was used to determine if the nonprocess dilution wastewater is form data where appropriate and other reported Section 308 and Form 2C final relatively free of toxic pollutants available toxic pollutant analytical data. effluent concentration data could be appears true for the organic toxic The methodology has been used to used to adequately characterize actual pollutants but is not necessarily true for Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42531 cyanide and the toxic metal parameters. monthly average BPT limitations were organic chemical production and in Thus, the use of unqualified Form 2C proposed for each of the subcategories. which plastics production is less than 5 data does not provide an adequate Commenters claimed that the percent of total OCPSF production. assessment of process wastewater toxic proposed subcategorization scheme was This scheme was intended to address pollutant constituents and unworkable and that it arbitrarily the issues raised by commenters on the concentrations. Using Form 2C data grouped chemical processes into non- first proposed subcategorization tends to underestimate organic toxic homogeneous groups with respect to scheme, and was also based primarily pollutant loadings in process effluent treatability. They also on production characteristics. wastewater and may actually complained that, under the proposed Industry commenters argued, overestimate metal toxic pollutant scheme, minor changes in production or however, that even given the revisions loadings in process wastewater. product mix could cause the applicable in the July 17, 1985 subcategorization discharge subcategory to change. scheme, a one or two percent difference V. Summary of the Most Significant in relative production could still place Changes From Proposal and Notices Numerous specific comments questioned whether specific product/processes similar plants in different subcategories This section describes several of the were properly placed within the with significantly different limitations. most significant changes from proposal subcategorization scheme. In addition, it was asserted that some and subsequent notices to the final rule. Following a review of the comments plants could not be placed in any of the Other areas of change and issues are and analysis of additional BOD and TSS subcategories and that there was no discussed in Sections VI, VIII and X of loading and production data, the Agency mechanism presented to develop this preamble, the Development developed and solicited comment on a limitations for these plants. Industry Document, the Economic Impact new BPT subcategorization scheme commenters also commented that the Analysis, and the record for this rule. consisting of eight product-based analysis of BOD concentration values ignored the effects of different water use A. BPT subcategories (50 FR 29068; July 17, 1985). In this scheme, plants were practices and various water On March 21, 1983, EPA proposed BPT classified according to the proportion of conservation efforts by OCPSF plants. limitations for BOD, TSS and pH for four their total production volume associated In order to respond to the issues subcategories of the OCPSF industry (48 with particular classes of OCPSF raised concerning the BPT FR 11828). These were subcategory 1- products. The eight production-class subcategorization, the Agency has Plastics only, subcategory 2-oxidation, subcategories and the plant production modified its July 17, 1985 scheme as subcategory 3-type 1 (which included characteristics associated with them are follows: The fundamental product-based specified processes other than as follows: (1) Rayon fibers-plants in subcategory classification framework is oxidation), and subcategory 4-other which rayon fibers production by the generally retained with the exception discharges. These subcategories were viscose-rayon process constitute at least that one subcategory, thermoplastics developed following an analysis of 95 percent of total OCPSF production. and organics, is dropped as it is simply a manufacturing processes in use by the (2) Other man-made fibers-plants in combination of two distinct OCPSF industry and the BOD loadings which other man-made fiber and organic subcategories under the new scheme. associated with them. chemical production constitute at least This approach was noticed in the Subcategory 1 included discharges 95 percent of total OCPSF production. December 8, 1986 notice of availability resulting from the manufacture of (3) Thermosets--plants in which (51 FR 44082) and is discussed in more plastics and synthetic fibers only. thermosetting resins constitute at least detail in section VI of this notice. In the Subcategory 2 included discharges from 95 percent of total OCPSF production final regulation, BPT limitations for the manufacture of organic chemicals and plants in which thermosetting resins facilities are not based on their only or both organic chemicals and plus organic chemicals constitute at assignment to a single subcategory plastics and synthetic fibers that least 95 percent of total OCPSF defined in terms of the predominant included wastewater from the oxidation production. (4) Thermoplastics-plants production at the facility. Instead, process only. This subcategory was in which thermoplastic materials limitations for a particular facility are further divided Into two groups based on constitute at least 95 percent of total determined explicitly by the proportion flow: A high-water usage group (greater OCPSF production. (5) Thermoplastics of subcategory production at the plant. than or equal to 0.2 gallon per pound of and Organics-plants in which This approach parallels the way EPA total daily production) and a low-water thermoplastic materials and organic generally implements its effluent usage group (less than 0.2 gallon per chemicals constitute at least 95 percent limitations and standards in the sense pound of total daily production). of total OCPSF production. (6) that it uses proportions of types of Subcategory 3 included discharges Commodity Organics-plants in which activities (categories, subcategories, or resulting from the manufacture of either organic commodity chemicals (those process operations) generating organic chemicals only or both organic produced nationally at a level exceeding wastewaters in what is essentially a chemicals and plastics and synthetic one billion pounds per year) constitute building block approach to establish fibers that included wastewater from at least 75 percent of organic chemical limits for plants with multiple activities, Type I chemical processes but not from production and in which plastics or in this case subcategory processes. the oxidation process. Type I processes production is less than 5 percent of total The seven product-based subcategories were listed as peroxidation, acid OCPSF production. (7) Bulk Organics- provided for in today's regulation cleavage, condensation, isomerization, plants whose production was not generally cover the following types of esterification, hydro-acetylation, classified as either commodity or products and SIC codes: hydration, alkoxylation, hydrolysis, specialty organics (those produced at a (1)Rayon Fiber (Viscose process carbonylation, hydrogenation, and level below 40 million pounds per year) only). neutralization. Subcategory 4 included but is at least 95 percent organics, and (2) Other Fibers (SIC 2823, except all OCPSF discharges not included in (8) Specialty Organics-plants in which rayon, and 2824). subcategories 1-3. Different BOD and specialty organic chemical products (3) Thermoplastics (SIC 28213). TSS daily maximum and maximum constitute at least 75 percent of total (4) Thermosets (SIC 28214). 42532 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42532 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations (5) Commodity Organics-organic response to Comment Number 4 in percent removal by at least five percent. chemical products produced nationally Section X of this preamble.) The rationale given at the time was that in amounts greater than or equal to one The proposed basis in 1983 for BAT a difference of less than five percent billion pounds per year (generally SIC limits was in-plant physical/chemical may not reflect real differences in 2865 and 28691. technology and biological treatment for treatment efficiency. Rather, EPA said, (6) Bulk Organics-organic chemical plants that have or need biological they may reflect analytical variability at products produced nationally in treatment and in-plant physical/ the concentrations typically found in amounts less than I billion but more chemical technology for non-biological end-of-pipe biological systems at than 40 million pounds per year treatment plants. After the publication POTWs and OCPSF plants. In its notice of the proposed regulation on March 21, (generally SIC 2865 and 2869). of availabilty published on July 17, 1985 1983 (48 FR 11828) the Agency (50 FR 29068), the Agency announced (7) Specialty Organics-organic conducted sampling at 12 additional using a percent chemical products produced nationally OCPSF plants in order to collect that it would consider in amounts less than or equal to 40 additional data that would characterize differential as great as ten percent.- million pounds per year (generally SIC the effectiveness of in-plant treatment At the same time EPA announced that 2865 and 2869). technologies. This led to the proposal of it was considering regulating some volatile and semivolatile organic toxic B. BAT revised technology bases for BAT published in the notice of availability of pollutants on two additional bases. One The Agency proposed in 1983 to July 17, 1985 (50 FR 29068). was interference based upon potential establish BAT limits for two At that time, EPA discussed three safety hazards to workers due to subcategories. The "Plastics Only" technology options being considered for volatilization of pollutants in POTWa' subcategory consisted of plants that controlling toxic priority pollutants at headworks. The other was pass through manufacture plastics and synthetic BAT. Option I consisted of biological based on the belief that pollutants pass fibers only. Plants in this subcategory treatment only. Option II added in-plant through POTWs by volatilizing in tend to discharge significant levels of control technologies to Option I substantial part to the atmosphere from fewer priority pollutants than plants treatment. These in-plant technologies the primary and secondary stages of the included in the "Not Plastics-Only" included steam stripping to remove biological treatment systems employed subcategory, all of which result from the volatile and semi-volatile (based on by POTWs. analytical methods GC/MS fractions) manufacture of at least some organic After considering comments and chemicals. The proposed limits thus priority pollutants, activated carbon for various base/neutral priority pollutants, evaluating the different approaches, the controlled relatively few priority Agency announced that it no longer pollutants in the "Plastics Only" chemical precipitation for metals and subcategory, and many were proposed alkaline chlorination for cyanide, and intended to use percent removal to be controlled in the "Not Plastics- possibly in-plant biological treatment for differentials but instead intended to Only" subcategory. removal of polynuclear aromatic (PNA) compare actual POTW percent removals priority pollutants. Option III added to actual BAT treatment system percent The Agency modified its proposed activated carbon to Option II technology removal to determine pass-through approach in its July 17, 1985 notice of as a final polish to the end-of-pipe availability (50 FR 29068). The revised (December 8, 1986, 51 FR 44082). biological treatment system. However, the Agency stated that it approach was to not subcategorize the The technology option selected as a OCPSF category by product mix for would consider conducting the basis for this rule (and discussed in comparison by comparing only POTW BAT. Since OCPSF plants can Section VI of this preamble) is in-plant economically achieve compliance with and BAT removal efficiencies for physical/chemical and biological comparable influent concentration the BAT limitations for toxic priority treatment with BPT end-of-pipe ranges. pollutants through some combination of treatment. For plants without end-of- in-plant or end-of-pipe demonstrated pipe biological treatment, a separate set The approach used in selecting technology irrespective of products of limitations are provided. In addition, pollutants for regulation in the PSES produced, the BPT product mix separate zinc limitations are provided issued today determines pass through by subcategorization is not a necessary for rayon fiber production by the viscose comparing BAT and POTW removals basis for establishing BAT limitations. process and acrylic fiber production by directly (i.e., no percent removal In addition, EPA analyzed the costs for the zinc chloride solvent process. differential is used). However, as will be compliance and their associated impacts C. PSES discussed in greater detail in Section VI, and believes that product mix the final data base used to develop subcategories do not appear to be The determination of pollutants for these respective removals was modified necessary for an effective, equitable regulation at PSES relies on an analysis to assure consistency with the industrial BAT regulation. EPA recognizes that this of whether pollutants pass through, data base used to establish limitations. requires all direct discharger NPDES interfere with, or are otherwise This was done by using average plant incompatible with POTWs. The Agency permits to limit and to monitor all influent and effluent values and, to the regulated pollutants, which, if done on a has traditionally determined routine and frequent basis, could require passthrough by comparing the extent possible, by using plant removal large expenditures. Therefore, the percentage of a pollutant removed by data only where influent concentrations Agency intends to provide guidance to the selected BAT treatment system to were equal to or greater than ten times permit writers which will instruct them the percentage removed by POTW's the analytical threshold level (generally on how to determine which pollutants with good secondary treatment. ten times 10 ppb, or 100 ppb). In may only need to be monitored for on a However, the Agency proposed in 1983 addition, EPA is establishing PSES for minimum basis, which must be no less to modify this approach slightly and three pollutants whose removal by frequently than once per year. determine pass through only if the BAT POTWs is accomplished in part by (Monitoring is discussed further in percent removal exceeded the POTW volatilization. Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42533 Federal Register I Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42533 VI. Basis for the Final Regulation limitations in the course of normal process wastewater flow; For-purposes operations. of the 1986 notice, variability factors A. BPT The BPT long-term average effluent were based on a daily measurement 1. BPT Subcategorization and Method values were developed from a data base data base consisting of data from 23 unchanged from the for Deriving Limitations comprised of selected plant average plants which were values reported to the Agency in the 1985 notice. The Agency has retained The Agency is designating seven 1983 survey discussed previously. (The the regression equation framework to subcategory classifications for the basis for selection is presented in A.2, calculate the long-term average OCPSF category to be used for the below.) In this survey, plants were to subcategory bases for BPT limitations in purpose of establishing BPT limitations. report average annual influent and the final regulation. Comments on the In this final subcategorization scheme, effluent BOD and TSS along with 1986 notice, however, prompted the facilities are not assigned to a single technical information concerning Agency to reconsider the flow subcategory based on the predominant treatment operation, process flows and adjustment term. On reanalysis, EPA production at the facility. While some subcategory production classifications. concluded that inclusion of the flow plants may have production which falls The variability factors were term was not appropriate and that there entirely within one of the seven developed from a data base comprised was no technical basis in the record to subcategory classifications, most plants of individual daily measurements on conclude that achievable long-term have production which is divided among treated effluent BOD and TSS from 21 mean effluent concentrations were two or more subcategories. To analyze and 20 of these OCPSF plants, significantly affected by water use treatment effectiveness for each of the respectively. Daily measurement data practices in the industry. individual subcategories, EPA needed to are required to determine variability The final variability factors used in develop a method for assessing and factors and were obtained from plants conjunction with the long-term means to using the treatability data from the as part of the 1983 survey supplemental calculate the limitations are based on many OCPSF plants whose influents questionnaire and from prior data the same daily measurement data base and effluents are comprised of submittals. In the history of the as in the previous notices, with the wastewater from two or more development of effluent guidelines exception that two plants' data subcategory operations. The method regulations, it has usually been the case previously included have been excluded EPA used is based on a regression that variability factors are determined because measured performance. equation that accounts for the pollutant from data bases comprised of different included effects of polishing ponds at discharges from such multiple sets of plants and, usually, smaller these plants and one plant was excluded subcategory plants in an explicit and numbers of plants, in comparison to because it had an average effluent TSS straight-forward manner. For setting the data sets consisting of plant annual greater than 100 mg/1. Thus, the final limits in the final regulation, the averages. This is due to the fact that variability factors are derived from data regression equation is used to model many plants do not monitor frequently obtained from 21 plants for BOD and 20 long-term average effluent BOD as a enough for use of their data in analyzing plants for TSS. function of the proportion of the day to day variability or do not have In applying the limitations set forth in production of each subcategory at each monitoring records for the period being the regulation, the permit writer will use facility. The coefficients of this equation studied (1980, in the case of the OCPSF what is essentially a building-block are estimated from actual plant data BPT study), since some plants do not approach that takes into consideration using standard statistical regression maintain the records of daily values applicable subcategory characteristics methods. The equation has a coefficient used to report monthly averages for and the proportion of production that corresponds to each of the greater than three years. Individual quantities within each subcategory at subcategory classifications listed above. daily pollutant measurements are the plant. Production characteristics are The BPT subcategory long-term average therefore more difficult to obtain. reflected explicitly in the plant's effluent values are determined for each However, plants in the OCPSF annual limitations through the use of this subcategory using the appropriate average and daily data bases cover the approach. coefficient. full range of subcategory classifications 2. Data Selection Criteria BPT limitations for each subcategory covered by this regulation. are based on a combination of long-term For the July 17, 1985 Notice, the 1983 The Agency has received two average effluent values and variability survey annual average data were used diametrically opposed sets of comments factors that account for variation in to determine the effluent BOD and TSS on the proposed data editing criteria treatment performance about the long long-term averages for the subcategories used to develop BPT limitations. EPA term averages. The long term averages presented. Limitations were determined proposed to select plants for analysis in are values that a plant should target the by multiplying the long-term averages developing limitations only if the plants design of its treatment system to for each subcategory by the variability achieve at least a 95 percent removal achieve on an average basis. The factors determined from the daily efficiency for BOD or a long term variability factors are values that measurement data base. In response to average effluent BOD concentration represent the ratio of a large value that comments on the 1985 notice, the below 50 mg/1. On one hand, many would be expected to occur only rarely Agency proposed a revised approach. industry commenters argued that these (on a daily or monthly basis) to the long based on a regression analysis of the criteria were too stringent; were based term average. The purpose of the 1983 survey annual average data. The upon data collected after 1977 from variability factor is to allow for basis of the revised approach, presented plants that had already achieved variation in effluent concentrations in the December 8, 1986 Notice, was a compliance with BPT permits and thus about the long-term average. A facility mathematical equation that models raised the standard of performance that designs and operates its treatment long-term average effluent BOD as a above what it would have been had the facility to achieve the long-term average function of the subcategory regulation been promulgated in a timely on a consistent basis should be able to characteristics and includes a term that manner; and had the effect of excluding some well- comply with the daily and monthly attempted to account for plant OCPSF from the BPT data base 42534 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations designed, well-operated plants. An final BOD editing criteria (95 percent/40 The editing criteria were applied to environmental interest group argued, in mg/l for biological only treatment; the the 1983 "308 survey" data, comprised of contrast, that the criteria were not editing criteria have excluded other annual average BOD and TSS data from stringent enough, in that they resulted in plants that, despite having BPT-type plants in the OCPSF industry. The the inclusion of the majority of plants in technology in-place, were determined purpose of the editing criteria was to the data base used to develop effluent not to meet the performance criteria establish a minimum level of treatment limitations. used to establish the data base for performance acceptable for admission The data collected by EPA for the BPT support of BPT limitations. EPA of a plant's data into the data base that regulation are indeed, as industry concludes that the use of post-1977 data would be used to determine BPT commenters have noted, based largely has resulted in a good quality but not limitations. First, only data from plants on post-1977 data. EPA had originally unrealistic BPT data base. with suitable treatment (i.e., biological collected data in the early and mid- EPA has modified the BOD editing treatment) were considered for inclusion 1970's which reflected OCPSF pollutant criteria to make them slightly more in the data base. For these plants, the control practices at that time. As a result stringent. However, it must be noted use of both a percent removal criterion of industry challenges to EPA's ensuing that EPA does not consider the selection and an average effluent concentration promulgation of BPT (and other) of editing criteria to be a strict criterion for BOD is appropriate since limitations for the OCPSF industry, EPA numerical exercise based upon well operated treatment can achieve began a new regulatory development exclusion of data greater than a median either substantial removals or low program, which included a new series of or any other such measure. EPA effluent levels or both. In addition, use data gathering efforts (see Section IV of specifically disagrees with the comment of only a percent removal criterion this preamble). Industry commenters are that data reflecting BPT performance would exclude data from plants that correct in noting that the data are thus must necessarily comprise performance submitted useable data but did not taken to a large extent from OCPSF levels better than a median. The criteria report influent data. The use of an plants that had already been issued BPT represent in numerical terms what is effluent level criterion allowed the use permits that required compliance by July essentially an exercise of the Agency's of data from such plants in developing 1977 with BPT limitations established by judgment, informed in part by industry limitations. the permit writers on a case-by-case data, as to the general range of Following review of the data base, basis. It is thus fair to conclude that the performance that should be attained by EPA continues to believe that 95 percent performance of at least some of these the range of diverse OCPSF plants BOD removal is an appropriate editing plants was better when EPA collected operating well-designed biological criterion. Well over half the plants in the the data for the new rulemaking effort systems properly. The numerical 308 survey that reported both influent than it had been in the mid-1970s when analyses discussed below should thus and effluent BOD achieve better than 95 the original BPT regulations were be regarded as an analytical tool that percent removal. The median removal promulgated. assisted EPA in exercising its judgment. for these plants is 95.8 percent, which EPA does not believe that the use of The data to which the criteria have reflects good removal from an post-1977 data is improper. First, the been applied reflect the performance of engineering point of view. Clean Water Act provides for the plants that have been issued BPT The Agency also continues to believe periodic revision of BPT regulations permits requiring compliance with BPT that achievement of a specified long- when appropriate. Thus it is within permit limits. It is not unreasonable to term average effluent BOD EPA's authority to write BPT regulations expect, therefore, that the class of concentration is also an acceptable after 1977 and to base them on the best facilities identified as the "best" standard of performance to qualify a information available at the time. performers in the industry is plant's data for inclusion in the data Moreover, it is not unfair to the industry. considerably larger than it would have base for BPT limits. In order to establish The final BPT regulations are based on been had the data been collected in the a concentration value, i.e., a data the same technology that was used to mid-1970's. This result is consistent with selection criterion for the final effectively control BOD and TSS in the the purpose and intent of the NPDES regulation and respond to various 1970s-biological treatment preceded .by program: To require those plants comments, the Agency re-examined the appropriate process controls and in- performing below the level of the best 1983 308 survey data. There are data plant treatment to assure effective, performers to improve their performance from a total of 99 direct discharging consistent control in the biological to the point of being on a par with the plants with end-of-pipe biological system, and followed by secondary best performers. Moreover, it should be treatment only (the selected BPT clarification as necessary to assure noted that while the majority of OCPSF technology, as discussed below) that adequate control of solids. The resulting plants pass the initial screening criteria, reported average effluent BOD and a full effluent limitations are not necessarily a majority of OCPSF plants range of information regarding more (or less) stringent than they would (approximately 70 percent) will production at the plant. All of these data have been if based on pre-1977 data. nonetheless need to upgrade their were used in the evaluation of the BOD Many of the plants that satisfy the final treatment systems' performance to data selection criterion, even in cases of data editing criteria discussed below, comply with the BPT effluent limitations plants that did not report influent values and thus are included in the BPT data guidelines, based upon the reported and for which removal efficiencies could base, would not have satisfied those effluent data (for 1980), and the long- therefore not be estimated. The median criteria in the mid-1970s. The improved term average targets for BOD and TSS. BOD average effluent for these 99 plants performance wrought by the issuance of The fact that a majority of plants will is 29 mg/l. There is no engineering or and compliance with BPT permits in the need to upgrade years after they statistical theory that would support the 1970's has resulted in EPA's ability in received their initial BPT permits use of the median effluent concentration .1987 to use data from a large number of indicates that the result of the adoption as a data selection criterion for plants to develop the BPT limitations. of the data base used to develop the developing a regulatory data base. In Approximately 72 percent of the plants limitations is appropriately judged the fact, there are many plants that, in the for which data were obtained pass the best practicable treatment. Agency's best judgment, achieve Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42535 excellent treatment and have average mag/l, which suggests that the proposed I arbitrarily excludes data from the two effluent values greater than the overall 50 mg/l data selection criterion is high. plants whose performance slightly median of 29 mg/l. There are many In the absence of a theoretical exceeds 30 mg/l and would result in reasonable explanations for differences engineering or statistical solution which melamine resin production being the in average effluent levels at well would determine what value should be predominant thermoset production operated plants. Differences in plants' used in a regulatory context, the Agency represented in the data base. BPT permit limitations, coupled with examined some reasonable alternatives The average BOD effluent values for individual plant waste management suggested by the results displayed in rayon/fibers and thermoplastics are practices and wastewater treatment Tables 2A and 2B. The Agency lower than the average values for system design and operation practices, considered using different editing thermosets, organics and mixes. The and the types of products and processes criteria for different product groups, Agency evaluated the effects on long- at each plant, contribute to differences such as those listed in Table 2B, but term average effluent values for these in average effluent levels achieved. decided to use a single criterion to groups by uniformly editing the data To obtain insight into differences in define the final data base. base at 30, 35, 40 and 50 mg/l, using the BOD values among different An important reason for using a single BP'T regression approach to calculate subcategories, the data were divided editing criterion for all subcategories is each of the subcategory long-term into subsets two different ways based that this facilitates setting an editing average values. The long-term averages on subcategory production at each plant. criterion for the group of plants that do for rayon/fibers and thermoplastics are The results of this analysis are not fall primarily into a single relatively insensitive to the use of the 30, summarized in Tables 2A and 2B. The subcategory. These mixed plants 35, 40 and 50 mg/l edited data bases. data were assigned by plant in one case comprise a significant segment of the That is, the long-term averages are into three groupings and in the other into industry, and it is important that the roughly the same regardless of which of five groupings, and in each case the data base for the regulations include these editing criteria is used. medians of the average BOD effluent data from this segment. Editing criteria After considering the effect of the values in each grouping were that are subcategory specific cannot be various editing criteria on the different determined. In the first case plants were applied to mixed plants. We did, groupings discussed above, EPA has assigned as plastics, organics, or mixed however, examine BOD levels by the concluded that a 40 mg/I editing and in the second, as fibers/rayon, groupings used in Tables 2A and 2B to criterion for BOD is most appropriate. thermoplastics, thermosets, organics or gain insight into what uniform editing Moreover, in defining BPT level mixed. All plants considered in the criterion would be appropriate. performance, this criterion results in a analysis had biological treatment only in For the groupings exhibiting relatively data base that provides adequate place. The assignment of a plant to a high BOD levels, organics and mixed coverage of the industry. group was determined by the plants, EPA determined that a 40 mg/l Thus, data from plants with suitable predominant production at the plant, BOD edit would be appropriate. This treatment will be included in the data that is, whether a plant had 95 percent value is between the median for these base for BOD if the plant achieves 95 or more of its production in the group. two groupings. Given the fact that plants percent BOD removal or a 40 mg/l long- For instance, if a plant has 95 percent or with substantial organics production term average. As a result of these more plastics production, it was placed tend to have fairly high influent BOD criteria, BOD data from 71 plants are in the plastics group. Those plants not levels or complex, relatively difficult-to- retained in the analysis. containing 95 percent or more of a group biodegrade wastewaters, EPA believes As discussed previously, the Agency production were classified as mixed. that a more stringent edit would not be also saw a need to edit the data base for performance. The Agency is using TABLE 2A-MEDIANS FOR THREE GROUPINGS appropriate for these two groupings. TSS However, EPA believes that a less two editing criteria for selecting TSS stringent edit would be inappropriate, data, both of which must be met. The Nurn- Medianplant bert bafof o1 vrg since many plants in these groupings first criterion is that data must be from a Groupings plant effuen aver- BOO meet the 40 mg/l criterion. plant that meets one of the BOD editing ages (rg/9 The other groupings have median criteria, i.e., achieves either 95 percent values below 40 mg/l, and EPA removal of BOD or 40 mg/l. The second Plastics ...... 30 20.5 examined them closely to determine is that the average effluent TSS must be Organics ...... 42 42.5 Mixed (at remaining plants) ...... 27 35 whether they should be subject to more 100 mg/I or less. As a result of this edit, stringent editing criteria than the TSS data from 61 plants are retained for AMplants ...... g 29 organics and mixed groupings. EPA analysis. concluded that they should not for the In a well-designed, well-operated TABLE 2B-MEDIANS FOR FIVE GROUPINGS reasons discussed below. biological treatment system, achievable The thermosets groupings contains effluent TSS concentration levels are Num- Median to achievable effluent BOD ber of of plant three plants, whose average effluent related Groupings pant averag BOD levels are approximately 15, 32, levels and, in fact, often are aver- SOD0 and 34 mg/l, respectively. EPA believes approximately proportional to BOD. aes (mg/I) all three should be retained in the data This is reflected in the OCPSF data base base. This is particularly important for those plants that meet the BOD Rayon/Fibers ...... 7 14 Thermoplastcs ...... 17 18 because a major source of wastewater performance editing criteria (provided Thermoseets.3...... 3 32 at the plant with the lowest value is that they also exhibit proper clarifier Organcs ...... 42 42.5 Mixed (all remaining plants) ...... 30 35.5 melamine resin production; several performance, as discussed below). By All plns...... 99 29 other types of resins fall under the using TSS data only from plants that thermoset classification. Thus, including have good BOD treatment, the Agency is all three plants' data provides improved thus establishing an effective initial The largest median average effluent coverage of thermoset operations in the editing for TSS removal by the BOD for a grouping in both cases is 42.5 data base. An editing criterion of 30 mg/ biological system. However, as BOD is 42536 Federal Re ister / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42536 Federal Register /-Vol. 52, N.24/TusaNvme ,18 ue n euain treated through biological treatment,. required in good biological treatment EPA has selected Option I, biological additional TSS may be generated in the systems that have met one of the BOD treatment with clarification, as the form of biological solids. Thus, some editing criteria. technology basis for BPT limitations plants may need to add post-biological, . The Agency considered the more controlling BOD and TSS for the OCPSF secondary clarifiers to assure that such stringent TSS editing criterion of 60 industry. (This option has previously biological solids are appropriately mg/l, rather than 100 mg/l. The been referred to simply as "biological treated. Agency's analysis demonstrated that treatment." However, a properly Thus, while the 95/40 BOD editing this is not appropriate. Most designed biological treatment system insures good BOD treatment and a basic fundamentally, this criterion would includes "secondary clarification", level of TSS removal, plants meeting result in the exclusion of plants that which usually consists of a clarifier this BOD editing level will not EPA believes are well-designed and following the biological treatment step. necessarily meet a TSS level suitable for well-operated plants. Moreover, the EPA's costing methodology for BPT inclusion in the data base used to set relationship between BOD and TSS is Option I includes the installation of TSS limitations. To insure that the TSS well defined for plants with TSS less secondary clarifiers for plants needing data base for setting limitations reflects than 100 mg/I and BOD meeting the 95/ significantly improved TSS control.) proper control, EPA proposed in the 40 criteria. There were 70 plants identified in the December 8, 1986 Notice to include only The Agency gave serious OCPSF 1983 Section 308 survey that rely data reflecting a long-term average TSS consideration to the statistical method exclusively upon end-of-pipe physical/ concentration of less than or equal to recommended by a commenter for the chemical treatment. Forty-one of these 100 mg/l. analysis of the BOD/TSS relationship. plants reported effluent BOD and 45 The December 1986 Notice requested The commenter recommended a linear plants reported effluent TSS values. comment on the use of the 100 mg/l TSS regression relationship between the Some of these plants have such low editing criterion and, as an alternative, untransformed (not converted to levels of BOD that they will only have to use of 55 mg/I as the editing criterion for logarithms) BOD and TSS data. The upgrade their treatment to meet the TSS TSS along with setting the TSS Agency has retained the use of a linear limits. Some of the other plants which limitations based upon the relationship regression relationship between the reported BOD values were achieving between BOD and TSS. Some natural logarithms of the BOD and TSS low concentrations by dilution with commenters criticized both 100 mg/l and data. The logarithmic approach is nonprocess waters; for these plants the 55 mg/l as overly stringent and asserted similar to that recommended by the BOD concentrations were adjusted to that such additional TSS editing was commenter but resulted in a somewhat take into account this dilution. Based unnecessary since the BOD editing was better fit to the data. upon this evaluation, plants which did sufficient to assure that TSS was The Agency also considered in not meet the long-term average target adequately controlled. These comments, response to comments an editing for BOD (approximately 71 percent of while agreeing that there was a criterion based on secondary clarifier these plants) were determined (for relationship between BOD and TSS, also design criteria, i.e., clarifier overflow costing) either to have sufficient BOD in recommended a slightly different rates and solids loadings rates. While their OCPSF process wastewaters to these methodological approach for analyzing the Agency agrees that using support biological treatment or to have have the BOD/TSS relationship. design criteria, if available, may flows small enough (less than 500 The Agency disagrees with the provided an appropriate editing gallons per day) to be contract hauled. commenters who argued in effect that criterion, very little data were supplied In addition, costs were included for to the Agency's all TSS data from plants that meet the by industry in response these plants to upgrade treatment of TSS these design BOD criteria be included in the data request for data regarding where necessary as part of installing contained in base for setting TSS limitations. The criteria or are otherwise biological treatment and clarification, to the record. Agency has examined the data and has provide chemically assisted concluded that an additional TSS edit is 3. Technology Selection clarification, for algae control at existing required at a level of 100 mg/l. Support cost The Agency developed three ponds, or for contract hauling. The for this is evident in the reasonably with the TSS limitations technology options for consideration in of compliance consistent BOD and TSS relationship for without biological treatment developing BPT limitations. Option I for plants plants in the data set that results from upon the performance of consists of biological treatment, which are based the 95/40 BOD edit that have TSS values the data from biological usually involves either activated sludge clarifiers, using of 100 mg/l or less. For plants that have treatment plants' secondary clarifier is a or aerated lagoons, followed by TSS values above 100 mg/l, there performance. marked change in the pattern of the clarification (and preceded by I technology is in place at 156 BOD/TSS relationship. Below 100 mg/1 appropriate process controls and in- Option plants in the . TSS, the pattern in the BOD/TSS data is plant treatment to assure that the of304 direct discharging industry data base. Seventy-one characterized by a homoscedastic or biological system may be operated OCPSF in the reasonably constant dispersion pattern optimally). Many direct discharge of those plants are included along the range of the data. Above the facilities in the OCPSF industry have Option I data base used to develop the BPT limitations for BOD, since their 100 mg/l TSS value, there is a marked installed this kind of treatment. BOD editing spread in the dispersion pattern of the Option II consists of Option I treatment passes the 95/40 and 61 of the 71 plants are BOD/TSS data. The Agency believes technology with the addition of a criteria; in the data base to develop that this change in dispersion (referred polishing pond to follow biological included effluent TSS to as heteroscedastic) reflects treatment. TSS limitations since their mg/l. insufficient control of TSS in some of the Option III includes multimedia long-term average is less than 100 treatment systems. The Agency has filtration as an alternative technology Twenty-three of these facilities have averages less concluded that the 100 mg/l TSS editing (in lieu of Option II ponds) to achieve reported actual long-term criterion provides a reasonable measure TSS control beyond Option I biological than or equal to their respective Option of the additional control on TSS treatment. I, subcategory-proportioned (based on Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42537

1980 production) long-term average validity of the Option II data as an can be controlled by the addition of concentration levels. expression of a true incremental control copper sulfate.) Consequently, the The Agency estimates that BPT option and to reexamine the sources of Agency has concluded that Option II Option I would cost the OCPSF direct the data. (polishing ponds added to good discharge plants $215.8 million in capital In the July 17, 1985 notice, EPA biological treatment) is not sufficiently investment and $76.6 million annually discussed its belief that plants using demonstrated or practicable as a basis and remove 41.7 million lb/yr of BOD polishing ponds in the OCPSF industry for BPT limitations for the OCPSF and 66.3 million lb/yr of TSS in addition have done so not to add another industry. to current removals. EPA has concluded treatment step after effective Option I- EPA has evaluated Option III (good that the costs of compliance with BPT level biological treatment but rather to biological treatment plus multimedia are justified by the pounds of pollutants improve upon substandard biological filtration] technology to determine if this that will be removed by such treatment. As noted above, the Option II option can achieve, in a practicable compliance. data base showed little incremental manner, additional conventional EPA has rejected Options II and III removal over Option I. Subsequent to pollutant removal beyond that because they are not clearly the December 8, 1986 Notice, EPA achievable by well-designed, well- demonstrated to enhance the treatment reexamined all available engineering operated biological treatment with of OCPSF discharges beyond the levels information on plants with polishing secondary clarification. achieved by the Option I requirements ponds, including treatment plant Forty-five plants identified filtration and because they do not currently schematics provided by these facilities as an in place technology in the 1983 308 appear to be used by a representative in response to 308 questionnaires. This survey. Of these, 30 submitted data portion of the industry. examination revealed that seven of the (BOD or TSS); however, only 28 could Theoretically, a polishing pond should 18 original Option II facilities are using be evaluated for both BOD and TSS accomplish additional removal of TSS their polishing ponds as secondary performance. Eleven plants had and perhaps some removal of insoluble clarifiers (i.e., in lieu of effective biological treatment (usually with BOD. However, as discussed below, the secondary clarification typically secondary clarification) followed by data available to the Agency do not included in an Option I biological filtration and passed the 95/40 BOD and clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of system), another six facilities use their 100 TSS editing criteria. Because only 11 polishing ponds following effective ponds to control or equalize unusual plants in the OCPSF data base use this biological treatment with clarification. releases or combine treated wastewater Option III technology and comply with The Agency identified 18 plants that from their biological systems with other the editing criteria, this option would reported using polishing ponds and also wastewaters at the final pond stage, and require EPA to regulate all seven met the earlier editing criteria for BOD one facility uses its pond as a reaeration subcategories based upon a very small of 95 percent removal or 50 mg/l or less basin prior to discharge. data set. and TSS of 100 mg/l or less. (All but one This reanalysis confirms the The median effluent TSS of the 18 also meet the final editing hypothesis that, in most cases, plants concentration value for these 11 plants criteria of 95 percent removal or 40 mg/l that have installed polishing ponds have is 32 mg/l. If three additional plants for BOD and meeting BOD criteria plus done so to improve the substandard were included in this data base because 100 mg/l for TSS.) For reasons discussed treatment afforded by their biological they use Option I treatment plus either below, EPA does not believe that the systems. In general, if the plant's ponds or activated carbon followed by data support any firm estimate of biological treatment system were well- filters, the resulting median TSS value incremental pollutant removals and designed and well-operated, polishing would be 34 mg/l. These results, when incremental costs for Option II. ponds would not have been installed. compared to the performance of EPA notes first that only 17 plants in For example, some plants, where land is ponds to clarification only following biological the industry have polishing ponds and readily available, use polishing treatment (median value of 30 mg/I) meet the 95/40 BOD editing criteria. achieve some of the BOD removal that by clearly show that the efficiency of Even if ponds were demonstrated to be would otherwise be achieved filtration following good biological an effective treatment option for this activated sludge treatment because this not more treatment and clarification is industry, which they are not, the data BOD removal is accomplished demonstrated for this industry. base for BPT Option II limitations would economically at these plants by Moreover, on the average, OCPSF plants necessarily be very small relative to the polishing ponds. In summary, almost no with more than Option I treatment in large number of BPT subcategories, and plants have installed ponds to achieve removal of BOD and TSS EPA's data base (biological treatment therefore, would provide far less additional plus filtration) have not demonstrated coverage of subcategories in the beyond that achieved by well-operated, removal beyond that the Option I data base. well-designed biological treatment with substantial BOD industry than achievable by Option I treatment alone. In examining the data from the 18 clarification. value Option II Further, EPA believes that there The median BOD concentration plants originally placed in the to data base (using the 95/50 criteria), EPA would be significant problems for these plants in 19 nmg/I compared the installation and a median value of 23 mg/I BOD for those noted that they yielded concentrations connected with in place much lower than Option I operation of polishing ponds added to plants with Option I technology that were not and meeting the 95/40 BOD editing concentrations. Option II plants biological treatment (Option II)at some averaged only 2 mg/I BOD and 8 mg/I OCPSF facilities. Due to the size of criteria. TSS lower than Option I plants. Because polishing ponds (they are often Like Option II, then, the results of this these increments seemed rather small, significantly larger than activated sludge analysis of Option III data do not EPA performed a statistical analysis to systems), land availability is a barrier to provide evidence of a significant compare the averages for the two data installation at a number of plants. In difference in performance between bases. The results of the analysis did not addition, algae growth in warm climates plants with good biological treatment provide evidence of a significant interferes with the operation of the alone compared to those with biological difference between the two data sets. polishing ponds-by creating high treatment plus filtration. The data do not These results led EPA to question the suspended solids levels. (Algae growth support any firm estimate either of 42538 Federal Register /-Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42538 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 I Rules and Regulations incremental pollutant removal benefits limitations on series of end-of-pipe cyanide. For facilities without end-of- or of incremental costs for Option III technologies (as distinct from in-plant pipe biological treatment, BAT limits are technology. treatment and preliminary end-of-pipe being issued for 59 priority pollutants, One commenter suggested that, in treatment such as equalization and including 53 organic priority pollutants, light of the apparent poor incremental neutralization necessary for good end- five metal priority pollutants and performance of filters in the OCPSF of-pipe treatment). EPA believes that cyanide. (See Section 5 below for industry, EPA should transfer data from effective biological treatment including discussion of the pollutant selection). non-OCPSF filtration operations,. clarification, rather than alternatives specifically from domestic sewage whose effectiveness and practicability 2. Technology Selection treatment. EPA also possesses some have not been sufficiently documented, As noted in Section V, the Agency filtration data from certain industries is the appropriate basis for BPT developed three technology options for other than the OCPSF industry. limitations in the OCPSF industry. end-of-pipe BAT effluent limitations. However, EPA believes that it would be (The Agency decided not to promulgate inappropriate to use non-OCPSF B. BCT any supplemental in-plant BAT wastewater data to set the OCPSF BPT EPA is not promulgating BCT limitations to control volatile pollutants limitations. regulations as part of this regulation. for reasons discussed in Section X of The OCPSF industry filtration data do C. BAT this preamble.) not indicate any substantial TSS or BOD Option L This option would establish removal beyond that achieved by 1. BAT Subcategorization concentration-based BAT effluent Option I technology. This fact indicates limitations for priority pollutants based that differences in the biological solids The Agency is promulgating BAT limitations for two subcategories. These on using BPT-level biological treatment in the OCPSF industry may be as described above for dischargers using responsible for the lack of filtration subcategories are largely determined by raw waste characteristics. The end-of- end-of-pipe biological treatment. For effectiveness. For example, if the OCPSF plants not using end-of-pipe biological biological floc (solids] were to break pipe biological treatment subcategory into smaller-sized or colloidal particles, includes plants which have or will treatment, the Option I treatment is in- install biological treatment to comply plant controls, consisting of physical/ they could pass through the filter chemical treatment and in-plant substantially untreated. While EPA with BPT limits. The non-end-of-pipe cannot be certain. whether this occurs, biological treatment subcategory biological treatment to achieve the same the data indicate that filters are not as includes plants which either generate toxic pollutant limits as are achieved by effective in removing OCPSF such low levels of BOD that they do not end-of-pipe biological treatment at BPT. wastewater solids as they may be for need biological treatment or choose to Option II. This option would establish domestic sewage or certain other use physical/chemical treatment alone concentration-based BAT effluent industry wastewater solids. EPA does to comply with the BPT limitations for limitations based on the performance of not believe that the appropriateness of BOD. The Agency has concluded that, the end-of-pipe treatment component transferring data from these other within each subcategory, all plants can required to meet BPT limitations wastewaters to the OCPSF industry is treat priority pollutants to the levels (biological treatment for the end-of-pipe demonstrated. established for that subcategory. biological treatment subcategory and Finally, it should be noted that Different limits are being established physical/chemical treatment for the polishing ponds and filters have rarely for these two subcategories. Biological non-end-of-pipe biological treatment been selected by EPA as a BPT treatment is an integral part of the subcategory) plus in-plant control technology for any industry. Moreover, model BAT treatment technology for the technologies which would remove filtration has in the vast majority of end-of-pipe biological treatment priority pollutants from waste streams cases been expressly rejected even at subcategory; it achieves incremental from particular processes prior to BAT as yielding minimal incremental removals of some priority pollutants discharge to the end-of-pipe treatment removals at relatively high cost. Thus to beyond the removals achieved by in- system. Two variations of Option II the extent that the commenter wishes plant treatment without end-of-pipe were considered, based upon differing EPA to transfer filtration data from biological treatment. In addition, the in-plant control technologies used to other industries, it must be recognized Agency is establishing two different treat selected priority pollutants that filtration data has, with very few limitations for the pollutant zinc. One is including several polynuclear aromatic exceptions (i.e., to remove certain toxic based on data collected from rayon hydrocarbons, several phthalate esters pollutants at BAT), not been considered manufacture using the viscose process and phenol. The selected in-plant sufficient to justify the use of filters for and acrylic fibers manufacture using the technologies which form the sole basis BPT and even for BAT. Of course, where zinc chloride/solvent process. This of the limitations for the non-end-of-pipe solids that contain toxic pollutants may limitation applies only to those plants biological treatment plants and a partial remain after BPT Option I treatment, that use the viscose process to basis for plants using end-of-pipe those pollutants are specifically required manufacture rayon and the zinc biological treatment, include steam to be reduced to the level required by chloride/solvent process to manufacture stripping to remove volatile priority the more stringent BAT regulations acrylic fibers. The other zinc limitation pollutants, activated carbon adsorption promulgated today. is based on the performance of chemical for various base/neutral priority Thus, in summary, EPA has rejected precipitation technology used in the pollutants, chemical precipitation for Options II and III because they are not metal finishing point source category, metals, alkaline chlorination for currently demonstrated to be effective and applies to all plants other than cyanide, and in-plant biological technologies for additional control of those described above. treatment (Option IIB) for removal of OCPSF discharges that have already The Agency is issuing BAT limits for selected priority pollutants including been treated by Option I technology, 63 priority pollutants for facilities with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, good biological treatment. Moreover, it end-of-pipe biological treatment, phthalate esters, and phenol. After should be noted that the Agency including 57 organic priority pollutants, considering the application of activated generally has refrained from basing BPT five metal priority pollutants and carbon adsorption systems (Option IIA) Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42539 to remove these latter pollutants, EPA all plants except for a subset of small an increasingly large number of non- selected in-plant biological treatment plants. As discussed immediately below, impacted plants and would substantially (Option IIB) for costing on the basis of for plants whose annual OCPSF increase the amount of uncontrolled available data demonstrating that the production is less than or equal to five toxic discharges. effluent levels achieved by dedicated million pounds, EPA has concluded that EPA also considered restricting relief biological systems treating waste Option II is not economically to small production plants owned by streams from segregated processes achievable. For these plants, EPA has small businesses. EPA rejected this result in levels equivalent to those set BAT equal to BPT. approach because it could not achieved by activated carbon differentiate clearly between the adsorption technology and that the in- 3. Economic Impacts; Alternative Requirements for Small Plants economic impacts that would be plant biological treatment is less costly. experienced by small production plants The estimated incremental cost of EPA has determined that Option II is owned by large businesses and small compliance with this option (Option 1IB) not economically achievable for a class production plants owned by small over BPT is $360.8 in capital investment of small plants, namely those whose businesses. (This issue is discussed in and $230.4 in annualized costs (1986 annual OCPSF production is-less than or greater detail in Section VIII F of this dollars). This option is estimated to equal to five million pounds. Therefore, preamble.) remove a total of 1.1 million lb/yr of EPA has set BAT equal to BPT for plants priority pollutants beyond removals by whose annual OCPSF production is less 4. Technology and Data Selection the BPT technology. than or equal to five million pounds. Criteria for Toxic Pollutant Groups For this group of small producers, the Option III. Option III adds activated The BAT limits are based on priority carbon adsorption to the end-of-pipe costs of meeting BAT limitations pollutant data from both OCPSF and treatment to follow biological treatment applicable to all other direct dischargers other industrial plants with BAT model would be an additional $6.2 million or physical/chemical treatment in treatment technologies in-place. (See annually beyond the cost of complying addition to the Option II level of in-plant Section IV for data gathering efforts in controls. with BPT. The 19 plants in this group would be heavily and disproportionately the OCPSF industry.) In selecting plants Option I technology is capable of and product/processes for use in treating some toxic priority pollutants to impacted by being required to meet the developing the data base for BAT some extent; however, it does not BAT requirements established for all limitations, EPA gave priority to represent the best available technology. other direct dischargers. One half (9) of product/processes involving the In particular, the effectiveness of these 19 plants are projected to manufacture of either priority pollutants biological treatment for removing metal experience a full plant or production line closure, and almost 80 percent (15) of or high volume chemicals derived from pollutants and volatile organic priority pollutants. In each stage of its pollutants is li m'ited. Its effectiveness for them would incur significant adverse BAT data base development, the other pollutants as well is often less impacts as defined in Section VIII of this Agency has attempted than what the Option II technologies can preamble. This contrasts with an overall to obtain data from achieve. The Agency has identified closure rate of seven percent and total OCPSF plants representing BAT many plants that combine various types significant impact rate of 13 percent for performance to provide as complete of in-plant treatment with end-of-pipe direct dischargers as a whole. The coverage as possible for the priority biological treatment. Therefore, EPA has projected closures for the group of small pollutants discharged by the OCPSF decided to reject Option I. plants are estimated to result in the loss industry. The Agency used information Option III (addition of end-of-pipe of 162 jobs. The incremental (over BPT) collected in all surveys as a basis for carbon adsorption) achieves further amount of toxic pollutants that would identifying representative plants to be reduction in concentrations of some have been removed by these 19 plants is sampled (in the 12 plant study), as is pollutants after Option II, particularly 818 pounds (0.07 percent of the toxic discussed in Section IV of this preamble. for organic pollutants that are less discharges being removed from all The current BAT data base for organic biodegradable. The capital investment directs). EPA has thus determined, priority pollutants and the toxic metal cost associated with activated carbon based upon the costs and resulting zinc (for certain rayon and acrylic fibers adsorption systems that are large heavy and disproportionate economic producers) contains data which enough to treat the volume of water impacts incurred by the 19 plants in this adequately represent the performance of discharged from end-of-pipe treatment is sector, and in light of the small increase wastewater treatment technology very high, $1.2 billion, and the in their discharges occasioned by this employed by the OCPSF industry. As annualized cost is $831.9 million (1986 action and the fact that they will be discussed below, data for toxic metals dollars). These incremental costs would required to meet BPT control levels, to (including zinc from producers other be expected to cause very substantial set BAT equal to BPT for this group. than those mentioned above) and incremental impacts, including 26 plant EPA also considered setting BAT cyanide have been transferred from closures, and 16 product line closures equal to BPT for direct dischargers with another industry data base. resulting in a loss of 6475 jobs. In production levels higher than five The OCPSF Verification Study addition, 44 plants would incur other million pounds per year. However, EPA emphasized data collection which significant impacts. Given the determined that the impacts for other described raw process wastewater and exceptionally high costs and significant production groups, such as plants effluents from the principal treatment economic impacts associated with producing ten million pounds or less and configurations (i.e., preliminary in plant Option III, EPA has decided not to adopt plants producing 15 million pounds or treatment and biological treatment for Option III as the basis for BAT less per year are not nearly so combined plant wastewaters). In regulation. disproportionate as for those in the five- cooperation with CMA and participating The Agency has selected Option II as million pound or less group, and that the OCPSF plants, EPA next conducted the the basis for BAT limits for both BAT limitations were not economically EPA/CMA Five-Plant Study to assess subcategories. EPA has determined that unachievable for these groups. To the effectiveness of biological treatment Option II is the best available exempt plants in these groups would in removing certain organic priority terhnology economically achievable for relieve from full compliance with BAT pollutants. Finally, the Agency carried 42540 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42540 Federal Register I Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 I Rules and Regulations out the Twelve-Plant Study designed to a treated effluent from the steam Steam strippers are designed to provide additional data on certain stripper at the lowest possible level (a remove individual volatile pollutants nonbiological treatment technologies, long-term average steam stripping based on a ratio (Henry's Law Constant) such as steam stripping and activated effluent level at the analytical threshold of their aqueous solubility (tendency to carbon adsorption. Site visits were level of 10 ppb) and no data were stay in solution] to vapor pressure conducted at these plants prior to available from the end-of-pipe biological (tendency to volatilize). The column sampling to assure that they had well treatment for this pollutant. To establish height, amount of packing or number of operated biological treatment systems, limits for the non-end-of-pipe biological trays, the operating steam pressure, and and to assess what in-plant treatment treatment subcategory, the Agency used temperature of the heated feed technologies these plants employed and steam stripping data for volatile organic (wastewater) are varied according to the how they were being operated and pollutants collected from plants that strippability (using Henry's Law maintained. This study was also either did not have end-of-pipe Constant) of the volatile pollutants to be designed to obtain supplemental long- biological treatment or provided data on stripped. Volatiles with lower Henry's term performance data for selected the separate performance of the in-plant Law Constants require greater column biological and physical/chemical steam stripping treatment technology. height, more trays or packing material, treatment technologies. Steam stripping technology employs steam to remove volatile greater steam pressure and temperature, The following criteria were used to superheated more frequent cleaning and generally assure that data used for setting pollutants of varying solubility in limitations were analytically reliable, wastewater. The technology specifically more careful operation than do volatiles reflective of good treatment, and involves passing superheated steam with higher strippability. Although the adequate to characterize variability: through a preheated wastewater stream degree to which a compound is stripped * The analytical method must be EPA column packed with heat resistant can depend to some extent upon the approved; packing materials or metal trays in wastewater matrix, the basis for the * There must be data for both the counter-current fashion. Stripping of the design and operation of steam strippers influent and effluent from the treatment organic volatiles constituents of the is such that matrix differences are taken system; wastewater stream occurs because the into account for the volatile compounds * The average influent concentration organic volatiles tend to vaporize into the Agency has evaluated. of a pollutant must be at least ten times the steam until their concentrations in Data on the performance of steam the minimum (analytical threshold) level the vapor and liquid phases (within the stripper control technology for volatile (in most cases 10 ppb); and stripper] are in equilibrium. The height organic compounds that formed the - Data for each pollutant must have of the column and the amount of packing basis of the July 17, 1985 Notice been obtained from one or more plants material and/or the number of metal proposed approach for controlling with at least three days of both influent trays along with steam pressure in the volatile organic pollutants were and effluent data. column generally determine the amounts obtained for twelve (12) organic volatile Additional editing was performed to of volatiles that can be removed and the priority pollutants from four plants that ensure that the quality of treatment effluent pollutant levels that can be used steam stripping technology for represented by the data was BAT-level attained by the stripper. After the waste streams from four processes. The treatment. Detailed descriptions of how volatile pollutants are extracted from July 17, 1985 notice considered the editing was done are contained in the wastewater into the super heated regulating the volatile priority pollutants the record for this rule and summarized steam, the steam is condensed to form according to steam strippability using in Section VII of the Development two layers of generally immiscible Henry's Law Constant. The pollutants Document. As detailed previously and liquids, the aqueous and volatile layers. were separated into three classes with discussed further in Section X of this The aqueous layer is generally recycled high, medium and low stripping preamble, the data covers a broad back to the steam stripper influent feed potential based on their Henry's Law spectrum of industry-production and stream because it may still contain low thus may be properly applied to all Constants. levels of the volatiles. The volatile layer Additional steam stripper data were OCPSF plants. may be recycled to the process from a. Volatiles Limits. The Agency is obtained from industry as a part of which it came, incinerated on-site, or or as a follow up to .basing its BAT limitations and costs for contract hauled (for incineration, comments submitted volatile pollutants on in-plant steam reclaiming, or further treatment off-site) comments on this proposed approach. stripping technology alone for plants depending on the specific plant's The Agency surveyed (by telephone) without end-of-pipe biological requirements. commenters' plants for any steam treatment. For all volatiles limited in the Steam stripping is an energy intensive stripping data they had to support their end-of-pipe biological treatment technology in which heat energy is comments. The Agency also requested subcategory except 1,1-Dichloroethane, required to both preheat the wastewater (by telephone) other plants that, based the combination of steam stripping and and to generate the super heated steam on the type of product/processes end-of-pipe biological treatment are needed to extract the volatiles from employed, might have steam strippers used for limitations (and costing). The wastewater. In addition, some waste in-place to provide any existing data data used to derive these limits for the streams may require pretreatment such demonstrating performance of steam end-of-pipe biological treatment as solids removal, e.g. filtration, prior to stripping. The data were reviewed in subcategory were taken from plants stripping because accumulation of solids detail and edited to assure that only which exhibited good volatile pollutant within the column will prevent efficient data representing BAT-level design and reduction across the entire treatment contact between the steam and operation were retained for purposes of system. For the end-of-pipe biological wastewater phases. Periodic cleaning of developing limitations. The final data treatment subcategory the limitations the column and its packing materials or base used to develop BAT limitations (and costs) are based on the removals trays is a necessary part of routine consisted of performance results from 7 achieved by steam stripping alone for steam stripper maintenance to assure steam strippers at 5 plants for 15 volatile one pollutant (1,1-Dichloroethane), since that low effluent levels are consistently organic pollutants. EPA believes that the the data for this pollutant demonstrated achieved. data for these plants provide an Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42541 adequate basis to set limitations for the the comparable "high" or "medium" temperature and pressure and other industry. subgroup of the 15 pollutants for which factors. These data were first sorted by the Agency had data. This approach EPA used an average variability process waste stream stripped for each tends to be somewhat conservative but factor for two reasons. First, EPA of the compounds in the high and in the Agency's judgement not believes the average variability factor to medium strippability groups. (The low unreasonable in light of the uncertainty be reasonable and achievable through strippability pollutants were determined that would be associated with achieving vigilant control of those factors that to require types of treatment other than a lower long-term average for the produce variability, particularly in light steam stripping, i.e., carbon adsorption pollutants for which data are of the fact that the variability factor or in-plant biological treatment. See unavailable. The high strippability long- values are fairly high. Second, since Section 4.d. below.) term average thus derived is 64.5 Ag/l, limitations are derived by multiplying A further sort of the strippability data while the medium strippability long-term the long-term average times the was made taking into account the average is slightly higher 64.7 ug/l. variability factor, and since the long- process wastewater matrix. This review While it may appear anomalous that term averages were based upon the confirmed that process wastewater the high strippable subgroup yields a highest of the long-term averages in matrices in this industry generally do just slightly lower long-term average each pollutant subgroup, the use of the not preclude compliance with the effluent concentration, EPA believes largest variability factor calculated from concentration levels established in that this is not the case. First, in the the available data would have resulted today's regulations. context of the maximum levels entering in limitations that would be too high to However, EPA has determined that the steam strippers within the two effect meaningful treatment. EPA one product/process (production of subgroups (12,000 lig/l to over 23 million believes that the final limitations set methyl chloride from methanol by ;.g/l), the difference between these two forth in the regulation, based upon hydrochlorination) does produce an long-term averages is negligible and conservatively high long-term averages exceptionally corrosive wastewater essentially reflects the same level of and upon average variability factors whose matrix adversely affects the long-term control from an engineering yield achievable effluent limitations average performance of the packed viewpoint. Second, the "high" and "medium" strippable appropriate to represent best available tower type of steam stripper for which compounds behave design and operation of treatment the data was submitted. Therefore, EPA comparably in steam strippers, in the technology for a wide range of product/ is excluding the submitted steam sense that roughly the same low effluent process wastewater matrices. These stripping data from that product/process levels can be achieved with properly average values are used to calculate from the calculation of BAT and PSES designed and operated steam strippers. limitations for the 13 volatile organic limitations for the volatile pollutants. In other words, it is possible to mitigate pollutants for plants that do not use end- The final regulations establish small differences in theoretical of-pipe biological treatment and for limitations for 28 volatile pollutants. For strippability among compounds in these PSES. 15 of these pollutants, the limitations are groups with different design and b. Cyanide Limitations. The final based directly on data representing the operating techniques. The small by regulation contains concentration-based actual control of these pollutants differences in long-term average effluent limitations for total cyanide treatment systems operating in the performance seen in the data reflect, in from process waste streams covered by OCPSF industry. EPA calculated a EPA's judgment, not real differences in for each of these the regulation. The selected technology separate limitation strippability among pollutants but rather of pollutants. For some of these pollutants the difference in steam stripper basis for controlling the discharge the available effluent data consisted of cyanide is chemical oxidation by the operations among the plants from which This measurements so low that very few the data was taken. Indeed, one could alkaline chlorination method. exceeded the analytical threshold level reasonably collapse the two subgroups technology is demonstrated in the (10 ppb, the minimum level for most into one group and develop a single OCPSF industry and is widely used in pollutants); see Section X, comment 7. long-term average for the 13 pollutants the metal finishing industry. This Since variability factors could not be for which EPA lacks data. While such method involves the oxidation of free calculated directly for these pollutants, an approach might be technically cyanide to carbon dioxide and nitrogen EPA transferred variability factors from defensible, EPA decided it would be using chlorine gas in an alkaline related pollutants. most reasonable to retain the distinction solution at generally elevated For 13 other volatile pollutants, EPA between "high" and "medium" temperatures. Ozone can also be used to lacked sufficient data to calculate subgroups, which remains a valid and oxidize free cyanide. The chemical limitations directly from data relating to important distinction for the purpose of oxidation equipment often consists of an these pollutants. Instead, EPA developing variability factors, as equalization tank followed by two concluded that these pollutants may be discussed below. reaction tanks, although the reaction can treated to levels equivalent, based upon The "high" and "medium" subgroup be carried out in a single tank. Henry's Law Constants, to those variability factors were derived by using Generally, a several-fold excess of achieved for the 15 pollutants for which the average of the variability factors chlorine and caustic plus elevated there were data. Dividing the 15 developed for each of the pollutants in temperatures are necessary to drive the pollutants into "high" and "medium" the subgroups. The variability factor for oxidation reaction to completion, that is, strippability subgroups, EPA developed the maximum daily limitation for the to the production of carbon dioxide and a long-term average and variability "high" strippability subgroup was 5.884, nitrogen. factors for each subgroup and applied and for the "medium" subgroup was Eleven direct and indirect discharge these to the 13 pollutants for which data 12.266. The variability data in general plants use cyanide destruction, were lacking (six pollutants in the high confirmed the engineering hypothesis including some plants that reported the subgroup and seven in the medium that medium strippability pollutants use of alkaline chlorination. However, subgroup). The long-term average for may have higher variabilities due to performance data on cyanide each subgroup was determined by the their greater sensitivity, on a short-term destruction are not available from the highest of the long-term averages within basis, to fluctuations in steam OCPSF industry. Nonetheless, 42542 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42542 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 I Rules and Regulations performance data on cyanide product/process sources, a potential for estimated loadings for these pollutants. destruction by alkaline chlorination in cyanide complexing is present. They argued that to the extent that EPA the metal finishing industry are However, no data has been submitted to found metals in OCPSF wastewaters, available, and EPA indicated in its demonstrate that the actual levels of these pollutants resulted not from December 8, 1986 Notice that it was complexing interfere with the ability of OCPSF processes, many of which do not considering using the performance data these or other plants to meet the total use metals, but rather from non-process for cyanide destruction from the metal cyanide limitations. Thus, EPA believes wastewaters (e.g., zinc and chromium finishing industry to develop cyanide that limitations controlling total cyanide used as corrosion inhibitors and often limitations and standards. Public are appropriate for all dischargers contained in cooling water blowdown) comments on this notice suggested that subject to this regulation. A detailed or due to their presence in intake EPA should transfer cyanide destruction writeup identifying the sources of waters. The commenters concluded that performance data from the cyanide and the six product/processes EPA should regulate only those metals pharmaceutical manufacturing industry with a potential for complex formation present in OCPSF process wastewaters rather than from the metal finishing with nickel and copper is contained in as a result of the process use of the industry because of the similarity in Section V of the Development metals, applying the limits to those wastewater characteristics shared by Document. wastewaters only. the OCPSF and pharmaceutical Limitations are based upon the To address these comments, EPA has industrial categories. EPA has evaluated transfer of data on alkaline chlorination conducted a detailed analysis of the cyanide destruction in the (chemical oxidation) technology from process wastewater sources of metals in pharmaceutical industry and has the metal finishing industry data base. the OCPSF industry. In response to rejected transfer of performance data These limitations apply only to the criticism that EPA has relied too heavily from that industry for use in the cyanide-bearing waste streams; thus on limited Master Process File metals development of OCPSF cyanide only cyanide-bearing process data, EPA painstakingly reviewed the limitations because the cyanide wastewater flow should be used by responses to the latest (1983) Section 308 destruction performance data from the permit writers to convert the survey to examine which metals were pharmaceutical industry are from a concentration-based cyanide limitations used as catalysts in particular OCPSF cyanide hydrolysis system which into mass-based permit limitations. product/processes or were for other utilizes high temperatures and pressures Cyanide-bearing waste streams are reasons likely to be present in the to hydrolyze free cyanide, and this listed in Appendix A to the regulation or effluent from these processes. When particular type of cyanide destruction may be identified by the permit writer. necessary, EPA contacted plant technology has not yet been c. Metals Limitations. The final rule personnel for additional information. demonstrated to be effective on OCPSF contains concentration-based effluent The results of EPA's analysis, together cyanide-bearing wastewater. EPA is not limitations for chromium, copper, lead, with supporting documentation, are set aware of any OCPSF plants using nickel and zinc. The limitations are to be forth in the rulemaking record and hydrolysis treatment for cyanide. In applied only to the flows discharged summarized in Section V of the contrast, cyanide destruction, of which from metal-bearing process wastewaters Development Document. alkaline chlorination is a common type, (defined in the regulation and discussed Based upon this analysis, EPA has is used by some OCPSF plants. EPA below). Separate zinc limitations have concluded that chromium, copper, lead, believes that the cyanide destruction by been established for rayon nickel and zinc are discharged from alkaline chlorination data from the manufacturers using the viscose process OCPSF process wastewaters at metal finishing industr is more and acrylic fibers manufacturers using frequencies and levels that warrant appropriate for transfer to the OCPSF the zinc chloride/solvent process. national control. However, EPA agrees industry since this technology is used on The proposed regulations and the July with the commenters that many OCPSF cyanide waste streams in the OCPSF .1985 notice both set forth end-of-pipe wastewaters do not contain these industry. concentration limitations for nine pollutants or contain them only at Another significant issue raised metals. The limits were based on end-of- insignificant levels. At most plants, concerning the use of alkaline pipe effluent data taken at plants using process wastewater flows containing chlorination technology in the OCPSF biological systems preceded in some these metals constitute only a small industry was the contention that while cases by in-plant treatment for which percentage of the total plant OCPSF this technology may effectively reduce neither raw waste nor in-plant treatment process wastewater flow. As a result, concentrations of free cyanide in OCPSF effluent metals*data were available. For end-of-pipe data obtained by EPA often wastewaters, it cannot reduce plants that do not use biological do not reflect treatment but rather concentrations of metal-complexed treatment, EPA solicited comment in the reflect the dilution of metal-bearing cyanides. Commenters have stated that December 1986 notice on establishing process wastewater by nonmetal- the limitations and standards should be limitations based upon the use of bearing wastewater. Thus, these data for amenable cyanide only. EPA has hydroxide precipitation data from are not suitable for the purpose of evaluated the expected amount of several metals industries. For OCPSF setting effluent limitations reflecting the cyanide complexing due to the presence wastestreams with complexed metals, use of best available technology. of certain transition metals (nickel, EPA indicated that it was considering Therefore, EPA has concluded, copper, and cobalt) in OCPSF cyanide the use of sulfide precipitation to consistent with the industry comments, bearing waste streams, and has achieve the same limitations. to focus its regulations on metal-bearing concluded that there are no Industry commenters strongly process wastewaters only. combinations of cobalt and cyanide and criticized several aspects of EPA's The approach taken in the final only a few (6) product/process waste proposed approach. First, they argued regulation is to establish concentration- streams that would contain that most priority pollutant metals are based limitations that apply only to combinations of either copper and not present in significant quantities in metal-bearing process wastewaters cyanide (four sources) or nickel and OCPSF wastewaters. They criticized the (similar to-the cyanide limitations). The cyanide (two sources). For these data base upon which EPA had permit writer will establish a mass Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42543 limitation by summing the flows of complexing agents. This is important and acrylic fibers manufacturers using metal-bearing wastewaters and because the data base reflects both the zinc chloride/solvent process. multiplying them by the concentration treatment of waste streams containing Process wastewaters from the rayon/ limitation. Compliance could be complexing agents and segregating these viscose and acrylic/zinc chloride/ monitored in-plant or, after accounting waste streams prior to treatment. solvent processes contain zinc at levels for dilution by nonmetal-bearing process The transfer of technology and that are typically a hundred times the wastewater and nonprocess limitations from the Metal Finishing levels in other OCPSF wastewaters. wastewaters, at the outfall. (Of course, Industry category is further supported EPA has collected data assessing the the permit writer may on a case-by-case by the principle of precipitation. Given performance of chemical precipitation basis provide additional discharge sufficient retention time and the proper with lime and clarification in treating allowances for metals in non-OCPSF pH (which is achieved by the addition of zinc in these discharges. The final process or other wastewaters where hydroxide, frequently in the form of limitations are based on these data. they are present at significant levels. lime), and barring the binding up of d. Other Organic Pollutants.The When BAT limits have not been metals in strong organic complexes (see Agency considered two in-plant established, these allowances must be discussion below), a metal exceeding its technologies for the removal of organic based upon the permit writer's best solubility level in water can be removed pollutants other than those removed by professional judgment of BAT as well]. to a particular level-that is, the effluent steam stripping. These are activated This approach is similar to that taken by can be treated to a level approaching its carbon adsorption and in-plant EPA in other industry effluent solubility level for each constituent biological treatment. limitations guidelines. (See 40 CFR Parts metal. This is a physical/chemical Activated carbon adsorption is a 433 and 439 for monitoring requirements phenomenon which is relatively proven technology primarily used for the related to their cyanide limitations). independent of the type of wastewater, removal of organic chemical EPA has listed the product/processes barring the presence of strong contaminants from individual process considered to have metal-bearing complexing agents. waste streams. The carbon has a very process wastewater in Appendix A of Some product/processes do have large surface area per unit mass and the regulation. This list is based on wastewaters that contain organic removes pollutants through adsorption EPA's careful review of data in the compounds which bind up the metals in and physical separation mechanisms. In record. However, EPA recognizes that at stable complexes which are not addition to removal of most organic some sites process wastewaters not amenable to optimal settling through the chemicals, activated carbon achieves listed in Appendix A may contain use of lime. EPA asked for comment in limited removal of other pollutants such significant levels of metals. In such the December 1986 notice on the use of as BOD and metals. Carbon used in a cases, the NPDES program regulations sulfide precipitation in these situations. fixed column, as opposed to being authorize the permit writer to provide an Industry commenters argued that the directly applied in a granular or allowance for these additional effectiveness of this technology has not powdered form to a waste stream, may wastewaters, using the concentration been demonstrated for highly stable, also act as a filtration unit. limitations set forth in the regulation. metallo-organic chemicals. EPA agrees. Eighteen OCPSF plants in the data The concentration limitations are Strongly complexed priority pollutant base for this regulation are known to based upon the use of hydroxide metals are used or created, for instance, use activated carbon as an in-plant precipitation technology, which is the in the manufacture of metal complexed treatment technology. Although standard metals technology that forms dyestuffs (metallized dyes) or metallized. performance data for a specific the basis for virtually all of EPA's BAT organic pigments. The most common individual in-plant carbon adsorption metals limitations for metal-bearing priority pollutant metals found in these unit prior to biological treatment were wastewaters. Because very little OCPSF products are trivalent chromium and not available, the Agency collected data on the effectiveness of hydroxide copper. The degree of complexing of performance data during the 12-plant precipitation technology is available, these metals may vary among different study from an in-plant (dedicated) EPA has decided to transfer data for this product/processes. Consequently, each carbon adsorption unit following steam technology from the Metal Finishing plant may need to use a different set of stripping at an OCPSF facility for which Industry. A comparison of the metals unique technologies to remove these the carbon adsorption unit treated a raw waste data from metal finishing metals. Thus metals limits are not set by process-waste stream priorto discharge. plants with the validated product/ this regulation, and must be established This plant manufactures only inter- process OCPSF raw waste data by permit writers on a case-by-case related products whose similar indicates that the concentrations of the basis, for certain product/processes wastestreams are combined and sent to metals of concern in the OCPSF industry containing complexed metals. These a physical/chemical treatment system are within the range of concentrations product/processes are listed in consisting of steam stripping followed found at metal finishing plants. Also, the Appendix B to the regulation. by activated carbon. The toxic metal finishing wastewater matrices The list in Appendix B has been pollutants associated with these waste contain organic compounds which are compiled based upon an analysis streams are removed by either steam used as cleaning solvents and plating contained in the rulemaking record. EPA stripping or activated carbon, or a bath additives. Some of these has concluded that all other metal- combination of them. compounds serve as complexing agents bearing process wastewaters (whether The Agency has decided to use these and their presence is reflected in the listed in Appendix A to the regulation or available performance data from the metal finishing industry data base. This established as metal-bearing by a permhit end-of-pipe carbon adsorption unit as data base also contains hydroxide writer) can be treated using hydroxide the basis for establishing BAT limits for precipitation performance results from precipitation to the levels set forth in the four pollutants (2-nitrophenol, 4- plants with waste streams from certain regulation. nitrophenol, 2-4-dinitrophenol and 4,6- operations (electroless plating, Finally, EPA has established a dinitro-o-cresol) and for the combination immersion plating, and printed board separate zinc limitation for rayon of steam stripping and activated carbon circuit board manufacturing) containing manufacturers using the viscose process adsorption for nitrobenzene. These data 42644 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42544 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations show very good removals for the carbon sources of polynuclear aromatic of compounds or classes of compounds adsorption unit of 4,6.dinitro-o-cresol, 2- hydrocarbons, phthalate esters, covered by the NRDC Consent Decree. nitrophenol and 4-nitrophenol. However, acrylonitrile, phenol, and 2-4- Over the next several years data were the data indicate that for 2,4- dimethylphenol in dedicated biological gathered to further identify and quantify dinitrophenol and nitrobenzene, the treatment systems (i.e., with a minimum pollutants being discharged from carbon adsorption unit is experiencing amount of dilution with other process specific processes and in combined competitive adsorption phenomena. This wastewaters). The Agency has discharges from facilities with multiple condition exists when a matrix contains determined that these data are processes. adsorbable compounds in solution appropriate for use in characterizing the The final BAT OCPSF regulation for which are being selectively adsorbed, performance of in-plant biological the end-of-pipe biological treatment and desorbed. The data from the plant treatment based upon the waste stream subcategory sets limitations for the 63 sampled by EPA and from another characteristics of the influent to the toxic pollutants set forth in Subpart I of carbon adsorption unit for nitrobenzene treatment systems. For the pollutants the regulation. Regulating such a large at a plant which submitted data yield which have limits derived from this in- number of toxic pollutants is effluent limitations that are higher when plant treatment technology data base, unprecedented in the effluent guidelines compared to the other organic pollutant the limitations for the non-end-of-pipe rulemaking program, reflecting the fact effluent limitations in this regulation. biological treatment subcategory are that many of the organic toxic pollutants EPA believes that these are the more stringent than for the end-of-pipe are directly manufactured by OCPSF limitations, based upon currently biological treatment subcategory. Both facilities as well as used as raw available data, that are generally biological treatment systems (end-of- materials or generated as byproducts in achievable across the industry. pipe and the dedicated systems used for industry processes. There are one metal Nonetheless, even this level of the in-plant biological treatment basis) priority pollutant (antimony) and three demonstrated treatment gives remove these pollutants from the waste organic priority pollutants (2,4,6- significant removals for these stream in most cases to levels at or trichlorophenol and 3,3'- compounds. '(Current discharge levels of below the analytical minimum level. dichlorobenzidine and dioxin) for which 150,000 pounds annually for these two However, available data indicate that the Agency does not have sufficient data pollutants would be reduced to less than the variability of the larger end-of-pipe to regulate or exclude them in the end- 10,000 pounds annually after BAT and biological systems in the data base is of-pipe biological treatment PSES.) Therefore, limitations for 2,4- greater. This may be explained by the subcategory. dinitrophenol and nitrobenzene are fact that the larger end-of-pipe systems The data base for the non-end-of-pipe based upon the data available. Further receive commingled waste streams with biological treatment subcategory work to identify additional technologies .a larger number of organic pollutants, limitations (set forth in Subpart J) or use of carbon adsorption units in and thus may be more susceptible to includes data from biological end-of- series for removal of these compounds daily fluctuations in performance pipe subcategory plants if samples of will need to be conducted to determine The Agency is also relying on the the influent and effluent of the in-plant whether removal of these compounds ability of end-of-pipe biological treatment were collected. Even with can be improved. treatment to achieve some additional these data, there are eight priority In-plant biological treatment is an pollutant removal beyond carbon pollutants for which the Agency does effective and less costly alternative to adsorption and in-plant biological not have sufficient data to set carbon adsorption for control of certain treatment except in the case of 4,6- limitations in the non-end-of-pipe toxic organic pollutants, especially those dinitro-o-cresol. For this pollutant only biological treatment subcategory. For which are effectively absorbed into the the in-plant activated carbon technology these 8 pollutants (2-chlorophenol, 2,4- sludge and are relatively biodegradable. is used as a basis in both BAT dichlorophenol, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, and In-plant biological treatment may subcategories. Thus, BAT limitations are 2,6-dinitrotoluene and the four identified require a longer detention time and lower for several pollutants regulated by in the preceding paragraph), the Agency certain species of acclimated biomass to the end-of-pipe biological treatment is not setting limits. Limitations for these be effective as compared to end-of-pipe subcategory than are the limitations for pollutants are being reserved pending biological treatment that is the same pollutants regulated by the availability of additional information predominantly designed to treat BOD. non-end-of-pipe biological treatment concerning their removal by in-plant EPA has determined that in-plant subcategory. physical/chemical treatment systems. biological treatment with an acclimated Thus, the Subpart I limitations cover 59 biomass is as effective as activated 5. Pollutant Selection toxic pollutants. carbon adsorption for removing priority In developing the OCPSF regulation, Readers should note that even though pollutants such as polynuclear priority toxic pollutants of concern were nonconventional pollutants and certain aromatics hydrocarbons, phthalate identified through analytical programs toxic pollutants are not directly limited esters, acrylonitrile, phenol, and 2,4- to detect and quantify them in the raw by this regulation, they will nonetheless dimethylphenol. EPA has thus selected wastewaters discharged from the be indirectly controlled in many cases this treatment for BAT control of these product/process lines which were most by the technologies used to comply with pollutants. important or most common in the the promulgated limitations if they are In-plant biological treatment is industry. The initial work in determining present in treatable concentrations. demonstrated at 33 plants in the OCPSF the chemical constituents present in the While the degree of such indirect control data base. Three plants' data were process wastewaters began in 1977. EPA will vary, in some cases unregulated available for use in developing BAT did not attempt to identify or quantify pollutants will be substantially reduced limitations for the above pollutants pollutants other than the priority toxic by the operation of technologies based upon the performance of in-plant and conventional pollutants. The initial installed to comply with limitations for biological treatment. The performance effort included screening process related regulated pollutants. data for in-plant biological treatment wastewaters for the presence of In the final rule, EPA has decided that were taken from plants that treat major compounds on the priority pollutant list each discharger in a subcategory will be Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42545 subject to the effluent limitations for all treatment subcategory will apply to new ranges for the industrial wastewater pollutants regulated for that sources that use biological treatment in treatment system and the POTW. subcategory. Once a pollutant is order to comply with BOD and TSS EPA has decided not to use a five or regulated in the OCPSF regulation, it standards. Standards are established for ten percent removal differential for must also be limited in the NPDES 63 priority pollutants. The subcategory determining pollutants to regulate in permit issued to direct dischargers. See for sources that do not use end-of-pipe PSES in the final rule. Some commenters Sections 301 and 304 of the Act; see also biological treatment apply to new have urged that due to analytical 40 CFR 122.44(a). EPA recognizes that sources that will generate such low variability, data showing BAT guidance on appropriate monitoring levels of BOD that they do not need end- performance slightly better than that of requirements for OCPSF plants would of-pipe biological treatment or choose POTWs may not reflect a real difference be useful, particularly to assure that physical/chemical controls to comply in removal efficiency and may lead to monitoring will not be needlessly with the BOD standard. These facilities unnecessary imposition of PSES required for pollutants that are not likely will have priority pollutant standards requirements. Another commenter to be discharged at a plant. EPA intends for 59 priority pollutants which are argued to the contrary that analytical to publish guidance on OCPSF based on the application of the in-plant variability, if any, can work in the monitoring in the near future. This control technologies with or.without opposite direction, i.e., data showing guidance will address the issues of end-of-pipe physical/chemical that POTWs perform as well or better compliance monitoring in general, of treatment. In all cases the standards are than BAT may also be erroneous and initially determining which pollutants equivalent to the limits established for lead to an inappropriate decision not to should be subject only to infrequent BAT. The Agency has determined that establish PSES for a pollutant. EPA has monitoring based on a conclusion that NSPS will not cause a barrier to entry concluded that the most reasonable they are unlikely to be discharged, and for any new source OCPSF plants. approach is to accept the available data of determining the appropriate flow relative E. PSES as the best information on the upon which to base mass permit percent removals achievable by requirements. This issue is addressed in PSES are applicable to indirect industrial plants that employ BAT more detail in Section X of this notice. dischargers and are generally analogous technology and by POTWs, and to D. NSPS to BAT limitations applicable to direct perform BAT/POTW comparisons on the basis of differences in EPA is promulgating new source dischargers. The Agency is promulgating directly PSES for 47 priority pollutants which are performance standards that reflect use removal. Such an approach is unbiased determined to pass through POTWs. The not favor either over- of the best available demonstrated in that it does standards apply to all existing indirect technology for all new direct discharging regulation or under-regulation in sources. NSPS are established for discharging OCPSF plants. EPA determining which pollutants are conventional pollutants (BOD, TSS, and determines which pollutants to regulate regulated at PSES. pH) on the basis of BPT model treatment in PSES on the basis of whether or not Other commenters urged EPA to use a technology. Priority pollutant limits are they pass through, interfere with, or are five or ten percent differential to based on BAT model treatment otherwise incompatible with the address the problem of low POTW technology. The standards are operation of POTWs (including effluent concentrations which may mask equivalent to the BPT and BAT interference with sludge practices). the full extent of POTW treatment. EPA limitations. 1. Pass-Through Evaluation; Pollutants noted in the proposal that in addition to analytical variability, a differential The Agency considered the same Selected for Regulation technology options as were discussed might be used because POTW influent previously for BPT and BAT. BPT The principal means by which the concentrations are typically much lower Options II and III were rejected because Agency evaluates pollutant pass than industry treatment system influent they are not adequately demonstrated in through, and the general methodology concentrations and many POTW the OCPSF category. BAT Option I was used for this regulation, is to compare effluent concentrations are below the rejected as the basis for priority the pollutant percentage removed by analytical threshold level. When below pollutant limits for the same reason it well-operated POTWs with secondary this threshold, the effluent values are was rejected for BAT, because it is not treatment with the percentage removed reported as being at the analytical the best available demonstrated by BAT technology. threshold or "detection limit" (more technology. BAT Option III was rejected As discussed previously in Sections precisely, the "minimum level" because of its high cost and the IV and V of this notice, EPA proposed to established in 40 CFR Part 136, which relatively small incremental removal it determine that pass through occurs only overestimates the effluent concentration would achieve, and because it is not if BAT technology removes at least five and underestimates the percent well demonstrated as an end-of-pipe percent more than a well-operated removed. It is not possible in such technology, either with or without end- POTW removes. In the July 17, 1985 situations to determine to what level of-pipe biological treatment technology. notice EPA stated that it was below the detection limit the POTWs The Agency is issuing conventional considering modification of the pass are actually treating the pollutants and pollutant new source standards for the through comparison to use a ten percent thus it is not possible to determine the same seven subcategories for which BPT instead of a five percent removal extent to which POTW removals are limits were established. These differential Finally, in the December 8, underestimated and to determine the standards are equivalent to the limits 1986 notice EPA announced that it effect, if any, on the outcome of a pass- established for BPT. would not use either a five or ten through comparison. Thus, it is Priority pollutant new source percent differential in making its pass uncertain whether a compensating performance standards are applied to through determinations. The Agency differential would be appropriate. new sources according to the same also stated that it was considering Moreover, a five or ten percent subcategorization scheme used in conducting the comparisons of removal differential could result in a setting BAT limitations. The set of using influent pollutant values from determination of no pass-through where standards in the end-of-pipe biological comparable influent concentration pass-through was occurring. It should be 42546 Federal Register / Veil.'52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42546 Federal Register I Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 I Rules and Regulations noted that to allow even a few of the limitations generally reflect the efficiency using the arithmetic averages pollutants to go unregulated based upon technical capability of BAT level of all influent samples and effluent the five percent differential may be treatment rather than low influent samples. significant in terms of the number of concentrations. EPA recognizes that it has used daily pounds of toxic pollutants discharged to Consistent with the BAT data editing removal estimates in pass-through receiving waters. Finally, the problem approach and the available POTW analyses for other industries. Since the discussed by the commenters will be pollutant data above 100 ppb or "ten primary pollutants of concern in these greatly mitigated by changes in the data times the detection limit", EPA has also other industries (usually metals) were editing criteria. used the "ten times detection limit" generally removed much more EPA has modified the criteria under criterion for pollutants in BAT-level efficiently by BAT-level technology than which the data for conducting the pass- industrial and POTW influents for by POTWs, the mode of analysis was through comparison test were selected. purposes of selecting the data used to not crucial to the determination of pass In previous analyses, EPA used perform pass through comparisons for through. For the OCPSF industry, the individual daily pairs and plant average the final regulation for all of the BAT and POTW removal efficiencies for pairs of influent and effluent data when pollutants for which such data are particular pollutants are frequently influent concentrations exceeded 20 available. For most (24) of the pollutants rather close to one another, and EPA pg/l. For pollutants with low influent which pass through, EPA has used data has considered its approach more concentrations, i.e., not much higher from the POTW data base with an carefully. This consideration has led to than 20 gzg/l, the effluent concentrations influent concentration average greater the change in approach described above were consistently at or below the than ten times the pollutant's detection for this industry. The approach of using method detection limit (or, more limit. For 16 pollutants for which influent and effluent averages in precisely, the "minimum level" adequate POTW data are unavailable removal estimates rather than averaging established in 40 CFR Part 136) and thus using the "ten times" approach, the pass daily removal estimates is in fact could not be quantified by using the through analysis uses data which consistent with EPA's approach for applicable method. The conservative remain after applying a 20 ppb editing establishing percent removal approach of adopting the "detection criterion because no influent data above requirements in certain other CWA limit" or the analytical threshold as the 100 ppb or "ten times the detection regulations. (See 40 CFR Part 439 and 40 effluent value for such measurements limit" exist for these pollutants. CFR 133.102). has the effect of underestimating the EPA has also modified its approach to Moreover, EPA disagrees with the POTW's percent removal, perhaps calculating plants' percent removals for commenter who argues that NRDC vs. greatly underestimating the removal. In purposes of comparing BAT-level EPA, 790 F.2d 289 (3rd Cir. 1986), many cases, in fact, both POTW and industrial plant and POTW removals. compels the use of daily removal BAT treatment systems with relatively EPA's earlier approach was to calculate estimates in performing generalized low influent concentrations yielded a facility's percent removals by BAT-POTW comparisons for purposes effluent measurements below detection, calculating daily removal estimates of deciding whether pollutants generally and the resulting percent removals were based on influent and effluent pass through so as to require PSES on a not true measures of treatment measurements taken on the same day, national basis. EPA believes that effectiveness, but rather were functions and then averaging these removals. We Congress did not require EPA to use a of influent concentrations. The percent have concluded that this method of technically flawed comparison of BAT removal comparison thus had the effect using daily removal estimates was and POTW performance. of determining pass through in some inappropriate. First, many OCPSF Some commenters argued that EPA cases solely because the POTW had a biological systems have retention times should not find pass through and should lower pollutant influent concentration, exceeding one day's duration. Thus, not promulgate PSES for a pollutant rather than basing the determination on comparison of influent and effluent when POTW removals are very high demonstrated differences in treatability. samples taken on the same day is not a (e.g., 85 percent or higher), or when The POTW might be achieving as high a good indication of removal. Second, POTWs are specifically designed to percent removal as the BAT level even if the retention time is shorter than treat industrial wastewaters efficiently. technology, but there was no basis for a full day, any sampled influent, after EPA does not accept these arguments. determining whether this was so or not. mixture and dispersal within the EPA is using the same criterion for pass- A second concern with the 20 )g/l biological system, cannot be traced to a through in the OCPSF industry that it influent criterion was its inconsistency particular sample leaving the system. In has used for many years to set PSES for with the criteria used to select industrial fact, in the typical biological treatment other industries: whether POTW data for assessing treatability and • system, a portion of the biological solids treatment efficiency is as great as BAT calculating BAT effluent limitations. are recirculated within the system, level industrial treatment efficiency. If One of EPA's criteria for selecting data which further complicates the BAT level treatment in industrial plants to set BAT effluent limitations for direct evaluation of removals based on generally is more effective than POTW dischargers is that the influent data for comparison of daily influent and effluent removal, a pollutant will be regulated in that plant must exceed ten times the samples. Third, due to the low PSES. Section 307(b) of the Act provides pollutant's analytical threshold. (See concentrations frequently found in both that a particular POTW's removal of Section X comment and response OCPSF and POTW biological systems, - pollutants may be considered and that number 7 for a discussion of analytical small daily changes in pollutant limitations for particular industrial users thresholds.) When an influent concentrations result in larger changes of POTWs may be revised if the POTW concentration is below this level, in removal efficiency estimates. these can demonstrate a consistent removal of effluent concentrations below the changes are misleading in that they do pollutants in question and meet other pollutant's analytical threshold often not necessarily reflect significant requirements relating to sludge quality. may be achieved using less than BAT- variation in the system's operation. The removal credits may be granted level treatment. The editing criterion Therefore, EPA has modified its consistent with the removal efficiencies helps to insure that BAT effluent approach to calculate a plant's removal of individual POTWs on a case-by-case Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42547 basis. See Cerro CopperProducts Co. were used for 7 pollutants, and 4 of EPA's decision is supported by the and Village of Sauget v. Ruckelshaus, these were found to pass through. Conference Report which accompanied 762 F.2d 1060 (7th Cir. 1985). Moreover, EPA disagrees with the comment that the Water Quality Act of 1987. The EPA notes that no commenter provided EPA must assume pass through in the report states, with respect to conducting adequate information on any particular absence of full scale data to the removal credit determinations: POTW's removal of all the toxic contrary. Section 307(b) of the Act "The purpose of removal credits under pollutants found by EPA to generally requires EPA to promulgate section 307(b)(1) is to allow reduced pass through to form a basis for pretreatment standards "for those pretreatment requirements on the basis separate consideration (e.g., by pollutants which are determined not to of treatment consistently achieved by subcategorization) of any POTW. be susceptible to treatment by (the the particular publicly owned treatment Another area in which the final POTW) or which would interfere with works. Dispersion into the air of toxic regulation differs from the proposal the operation of such treatment works." volatile organic chemicals does not concerns those pollutants for which EPA Thus at least one reasonable constitute treatment of these pollutants. lacks sufficient field sampling data to interpretation of the statute is that EPA Consequently, removal credits cannot perform the pass-through comparison. must make a determination of pass be issued for such pollutants on the Despite the fact that EPA sampled 50 through or interference prior to basis of their emission from treatment POTWs in addition to conducting the promulgating pretreatment standards, works." many OCPSF industry sampling efforts rather than to assume pass through. In The basis for removal credits is discussed in Section IV of this preamble, any event, the statute does not prohibit analogous in some aspects to the basis there are 3 pollutants that are regulated the use of pilot/bench-scale data when for the pass through analysis. Essential at BAT for which EPA lacks sufficient they are the best available data. to both is the calculation of POTW POTW treatment data to perform a Certainly, EPA has a preference for full- percent removal, the former on a local pass-through analysis. These are in scale data and has expended level and the latter on a national level. It addition to the 8 pollutants discussed considerable resources to obtain such was Congress' clear intent that POTW previously under BAT for which EPA data. However, to address remaining air emissions not be considered "removal" for purposes of relaxing lacks sufficient OCPSF industry field data gaps, EPA believes that it is treatment data to establish BAT limits. appropriate to use the best alternative pretreatment standards through removal credits, which strongly implies that such Another 3 pollutants listed in Appendix information available. emissions should not be considered as B, for which there are insufficient Some industry commenters objected POTW "removal" in calculating POTW POTW treatment data, are excluded that the alternative data are of lesser from regulation since industrial quality than the full-scale data and have removal efficiencies in conducting pass- treatment data indicates that they are a larger range of potential error than the through comparisons. (For the reasons discussed in Section X of this preamble, sufficiently controlled by existing full-scale data. EPA acknowledges that EPA is not establishing in-plant PSES for industrial treatment technologies. this may be so; that is why EPA has relied upon full-scale data whenever volatiles; thus, while steam stripping is In the 1983 proposal, EPA adopted the available. However, EPA believes that the technology basis for controlling approach of assuming pass through in the pilot/bench-scale data used here are volatile pollutants, and the costs of the absence of data to the contrary. of good technical quality and sufficient steam stripping are taken into account Some industrial commenters objected to for use in the comparative analysis and in the regulatory decisions, some air this approach, arguing that section may thus be used in the absence of emissions by indirect dischargers may 307(b) authorizes EPA to promulgate adequate full scale data. Further, EPA occur before discharge to POTWs. pretreatment standards only for does not agree that the use of a five or Nevertheless, EPA believes that many pollutants that pass through or interfere ten percent differential to compare BAT plants will use steam stripping with the POTW, and that EPA is thus and POTW removal efficiencies is technology to comply with PSES for required to affirmatively find pass compelled when using pilot/bench-scale volatile pollutants and that this will through or interference as a data. As discussed previously, any result in substantial reductions in precondition to promulgating analytical inaccuracy in the data, volatile emissions from indirect pretreatment standards. An regardless of the type of data used, can discharging OCPSF plants. PSES is thus environmental group argued to the be in either direction. an important step to controlling these contrary that EPA has an obligation to The final pass through issue concerns emissions.) require pretreatment if there may be three volatile pollutants EPA also considered regulating pass through or interference and that in (hexachlorobenzene, hexachloroethane, volatile pollutants on the basis of the absence of adequate data, pass and hexachlorobutadiene) which are interference with POTWs in that they through must be assumed. regulated at BAT based on technology have the potential to threaten the health In subsequent notices, EPA requested and data transfer from other volatile and safety of POTW workers. While comment on an alternative approach of pollutants that are treated by steam there is some information in the record using pilot and bench scale data in the stripping technology. These pollutants to support this basis, it is limited. absence of full-scale data to determine are also regarded as passing through the Therefore, EPA is not relying on this POTW removal rates, and to use those POTW due to a determination of basis, but notes that the information data for the comparative analysis. EPA potential volatilization, Their "removal" tends to support the decision made on made the alternative pilot and bench- from POTW wastewater includes some grounds of pass through. scale data available for comment. After emissions of the pollutants to air rather Similarly, EPA is not relying on considering public comments on this than removal through treatment. This interference with POTW sludge use and approach and on the data to be used, volatilization occurs in POTW sewer disposal options as a basis for EPA has decided in the final rule to use systems, equalization and other tanks, determining to set pretreatment data based upon pilot and bench scale and secondary treatment systems. standards for particular pollutants. First, performance when adequate full scale Therefore, EPA has established PSES for EPA's current sludge criteria are very data are lacking. The alternative data these pollutants. limited. Second, POTWs' choices of 42548 Federal Re ister / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42548 Federal Register / Vol. 52.,o 1 hrdy oebr5,18 ue n euain disposal options for sludge are site- annually. Moreover, this option would be significantly impacted under any specific. It was thus not feasible at this result in the closure of two additional measure. A very large number of pounds time to base nationally applicable plants, with 371 incremental job losses. of toxic pollutants (22.5 million pounds) selection of pollutants for PSES Based upon a combination of these will be removed by PSES from regulation on current impact of factors (relatively small incremental discharges to POTWs. EPA has discharges of specific pollutants to removals, high cost, economic impacts, therefore concluded that promulgation POTWs by OCPSF facilities on POTWs' and redundancy of treatment, of PSES as described above is sludge disposal practices. equipment), EPA is not promulgating warranted for OCPSF indirect PSES based upon end-of-pipe biological dischargers. 2. Technology Selection treatment. EPA considered exempting certain Indirect dischargers generate In addition, while information is small plants from PSES, focusing wastewaters with the same pollutant limited, EPA believes that at least some particularly on the sector of plants characteristics as direct discharging indirect dischargers located in urban producing less than or equal to five plants: therefore the same technology areas may lack sufficient land to install million pounds of products annually. options as were discussed previously for end-of-pipe treatment. (Indirect These plants are projected to incur a BAT are appropriate for consideration dischargers tend to have more limited closure rate of 26 percent (27 out of 105 as the basis for PSES. The Agency is access to land than direct dischargers, plants) and other significant impacts of promulgating PSES for all indirect although this is not always the case.) about 36 percent. Eight hundred twenty- dischargers on the same technology Although EPA has rejected the option three jobs in this sector would be lost basis as that adopted for the BAT non- of adding end-of-pipe biological due to the projected closures. end-of-pipe biological treatment treatment, it should be recognized that The closure rate of 26 percent for subcategory. EPA is not including end- EPA is using in-plant biological these small plants is higher than the 14 of-pipe biological treatment (i.e., treatment as part of its model percent rate projected for indirect biological treatment after application of technology for the treatment of certain dischargers overall; however, this in-plant treatment and before discharge nonvolatile pollutants in particular impact is not as severely to the POTW) in the final PSES model waste streams. Specifically, for such disproportionate as was the impact technology based on the following pollutants, EPA has in some cases used exhibited by small direct discharging considerations. As a matter of treatment in-plant biological treatment systems as plants compared to all direct theory, end-of-pipe biological an alternative to in-plant activated dischargers. Although the significant pretreatment may be largely redundant carbon adsorption for some absorbable impacts other than closure show a to the biological treatment provided by and biodegradable organic pollutants. clearer disproportion for the small the POTW. The primary function of Thus EPA has in fact used biological indirect dischargers, they too are not so biological treatment is to reduce BOD treatment as part of PSES model great as to clearly define this class of loadings, whether :at the OCPSF plant or treatment technology where appropriate. small plants as different in kind from the at the POTW. Of course, an OCPSF rest of the indirect dischargers. Indeed, system may be more acclimated to the 3. Economic Impact that the PSES in particular, plants that produce less types of wastes discharged by the EPA has determined than five million pounds annually do not OCPSF plant than is the POTW. promulgated today are economically achievable for OCPSF indirect suffer impacts at a significantly higher However, this distinction is of limited produce less than importance once the OCPSF dischargers as a whole. Moreover, EPA rate than plants that wastewaters are pretreated by BAT- has decided not to exempt any sector of 10 or 15 million pounds annually. level in-plant physical/chemical small plants from PSES. Consequently, Also, plants producing five million treatment. all indirect dischargers must comply pounds or less of OCPSF product The data indicate that biological with PSES. For a detailed description of currently discharge about 2.54 million pretreatment following in-plant EPA's economic impact methodology pounds of toxic pollutants to POTWs treatment comprised in the model and analysis, and small plant impact annually. Compliance with PSES by technology for the BAT and PSES analysis, see Section VIII of this these plants would result in toxic regulation results in very modest preamble. pollutant removals of 2.53 million incremental removals of priority toxic The projected capital and annualized pounds annually. (For plants that pollutants. This can be seen by costs are $291.5 and $204.3 million produce less than 10 or 15 million comparing the BAT limitations for respectively, with an estimated closure pounds, compliance with PSES would plants with and without end-of-pipe rate for all indirect discharging plants of result in pollutant removals of 4.87 biological treatment. Since both sets of 14 percent (52 product lines and plants million or 5.42 million pounds, limitations are quite low for virtually all out of the 362 plants for which sufficient respectively.) Although POTWs may pollutants, the total incremental pounds information exists for costing). Projected remove a substantial portion of the of toxic pollutants removed by adding job losses associated with these pollutants discharged into receiving end-of-pipe biological treatment to in- projected closures total 2,190. An waters, the discharges that could be plant treatment for all indirect additional 17 percent of the indirect avoided by compliance with PSES dischargers would be less than 13,000 plants will incur significant profitability would still be significant (about 1.0, 1.4, pounds. (The actual number of pounds reduction or cost-to-sales impacts. or 1.6 million pounds for production removed would be less because, among While these impacts are significant, the cutoff levels at 5, 10, or 15 million other things, biological treatment could Agency does not believe they constitute pounds produced, respectively). not be effectively used by a number of economic unachievability for the The Agency considered a potential indirect dischargers with low BOD. They indirect discharging segment of the exemption for the smaller class of would thus in any event be subject only OCPSF industry. Eighty-six percent of indirect discharging plants with annual to limitations equivalent to BAT limits the indirect discharger segment of the production equal to or less than one without end-of-pipe biological industry will not suffer either plant or million pounds. This group of plants is treatment.) The cost of achieving these product line closures, and 69 percent of projected to experience a closure rate of removals would be $20.8 million the indirect discharging plants will not 33 percent (14 plant and product line Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42549 closures] and a total significant impact amounts of toxic pollutants that an Paragraph 8(a)(iii) also allows rate of 81 percent. The projected exemption would permit. exclusion of pollutants that are: (1) employment loss is 161. Although the in the effluent from a small 4. PSES Compliance Deadline Detected total significant impact percentage is number of sources and uniquely related very high, the disproportion of closures EPA has established a three-year to those sources; (2) present in only between this group of small indirect deadline for compliance with PSES. trace amounts not causing nor likely to dischargers and all indirect dischargers Design and construction of systems cause toxic effects; (3) sufficiently (33 versus 14 percent) is considerably adequate for compliance with PSES will controlled by existing technologies upon less than the disproportion in the case of be a substantial undertaking for many which are based other effluent small direct dischargers given less indirect OCPSF dischargers, due to the limitations guidelines and standards; or stringent BAT limitations and all direct technical complexity of the tasks of (4) present in amounts too small to be dischargers (47 versus 7 percent). characterizing various plant effectively controlled by technologies Moreover, the exemption of these plants wastewaters, assessing various known to the Administrator. Ninety- would result in the failure to remove a treatment combinations, and installing seven different priority pollutants were very large amount of toxic pollutants- different treatment units for particular found in OCPSF plants product/process at least 315 thousand pounds and product/processes and particular wastewater discharges during the pollutants. Thus, EPA believes that perhaps as many as 805 thousand a full numerous sampling programs. Twenty of pounds-from indirect discharges. three-year compliance period is these pollutants were found at treatable Accordingly, EPA has decided not to appropriate. levels only in a small number of establish a PSES exemption for this F. PSNS instances. In those instances, these levels were attributable to class of plants. Just as PSES and BAT are to be based EPA considered a variety of less manufacturing activities that are on comparable treatment, PSNS is uniquely related to the plants sampled. stringent technology options to generally analogous to NSPS. EPA is not (Another 8 priority pollutants were determine whether it would be possible including end-of-pipe biological found only in trace amounts which to afford substantial relief to some treatment in its PSNS model treatment nor are likely to cause indirect dischargers while at the same technology, for the same reasons neither cause effects.) Another 3 priority time obtaining significant levels of discussed above with respect to PSES. toxic pollutants were found to be sufficiently pollutant reductions. For example, EPA The Agency is promulgating PSNS on (in considered the options of regulating only the same technology basis as PSES and controlled by existing technologies metals, or only metals and cyanide, and issuing standards for 47 priority addition to the 3 listed in Appendix B) PSES and PSNS only. These 31 of reducing monitoring frequency. None pollutants that have been determined to for D to of these options reduced projected pass through or otherwise interfere with pollutants are listed in Appendix closures or other impacts substantially. the operation of POTWs. The Agency this notice along with the particular them from Thus the only real alternative to has determined that PSNS will not cause reason for excluding imposing full PSES requirements is a a barrier to entry for new source OCPSF regulation. total exemption. plants. Paragraph 8(b) of the Settlement Agreement authorizes the Administrator EPA believes that an exemption for VII. Pollutants Not Regulated to exclude from nationally applicable small indirect dischargers is not Paragraph 8 of the modified pretreatment standards a subcategory or compelled by the fact that a segment of category if (i) 95 percent or more of all small direct dischargers have received Settlement Agreement, approved by the District Court for the District of point sources in the subcategory some regulatory relief in the form of a introduce into POTWs only pollutants less stringent level of regulation. Small Columbia on March 9, 1979 (12 ERC 1833) contains provisions authorizing the that are susceptible to treatment by the direct dischargers have since the mid- exclusion from regulation, in certain POTW and which do not interfere with, 1970s been regulated by NPDES permits instances, of priority pollutants and do not pass through, or are not and will continue to be subject to BPT industry subcategories. otherwise incompatible with such limitations, thereby assuring that most Paragraph 8(a)(iii) of the modified treatment work, or (ii) the toxicity and toxic pollutants will be removed from Settlement Agreement allows the amount of incompatible pollutants their wastewaters. In contrast, most Administrator to exclude from (taken together) introduced by such indirect dischargers have to this day regulation priority pollutants not point sources into POTWs is so failed to install any pretreatment, detected by Section 304(h) analytical insignificant as not to justify developing thereby resulting in 22.6 million pounds methods or other state-of-the-art a national pretreatment regulation. of toxic pollutants being discharged into methods. The 28 priority pollutants not Since indirect dischargers generate POTWs by all indirect dischargers detected in the OCPSF plant or product/ wastewaters with the same pollutant annually; approximately 2.5 million process effluents, and excluded from characteristics as direct discharge pounds (11 percent) are discharged to this regulation for this reason are listed plants, EPA has reviewed available data POTWs by small indirect dischargers in Appendix C of this notice. One from direct and indirect dischargers and producing five million pounds or less of additional priority pollutant (dioxin) is excluding the same 59 priority OCPSF products. was not detected at levels of detection pollutants listed in Appendices C and D EPA has thus determined not to being used at the time of the sampling from nationally applicable pretreatment exempt small plants from PSES or to work. This level of detection was 3 x standards. Appendix E lists six establish less stringent PSES for them. 10- ' grams/liter which is five orders of additional pollutants that are regulated While the impacts on small plants are magnitude higher than the detection at BAT but not regulated at PSES significant, they are in the Agency's limits of the analytical method presently because they do not pass-through or opinion neither so high nor so being used to study dioxin (TCDD] in interfere with POTWs. disproportionate as to justify an industrial wastewater discharges. Thus, As noted in Section VI of this exemption, especially in light of the dioxin is being reserved rather than preamble, certain specific OCPSF continued discharge of substantial excluded from regulation. process wastewaters contain certain 42550 Federal Register / Vol. 52, NO. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42550 Federal Register I Vol. 52, No. 214 I Thursday, November 5, 1987 I Rules and Regulations metals in complexed forms that are 1982, may not exactly reflect current Key comments and methodological unique to those sources and for which conditions in the industry today and changes are summarized below. appropriate treatment must be that plants may have changed product/ Commenters stated that EPA used an determined on a plant-specific basis. process lines, or even gone out of inadequate financial data base for its The metals and waste streams involved business since the data were collected. economic analysis for facilities in the are listed in Appendix B to the OCPSF Despite the fact that the technical and size group exceeding $10 million in regulations and are excluded from economic data are several years old and sales. Based on the evaluation of this set regulation by § 414.11(f), pursuant to thus inevitably do not precisely match of comments, the financial data base paragraph 8(a)(iii) of the Settlement the present status of particular plants, used to calculate discounted cash flow Agreement. EPA believes that the data provide a and liquidation values for OCPSF plants VIII. Economic Considerations sound and reasonable basis for in the impact analysis was changed assessing the overall ability of the from FIN/STAT to Dun &Bradstreet. A. Cost and Economic Impact industry to achieve compliance with the The previously used FIN/STAT data EPA's economic impact assessment is regulations. The purpose of the impact base, which covered the period 1976-m set forth in the report entitled analysis is to characterize the impact of 1981, itself consisted of Dun & "Economic Impact Analysis of Effluent these regulations for the industry as a Bradstreet data and was developed by Limitations and Standards for the whole and for major groupings within the Small Business Administration. The Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and the industry. EPA does not believe that change to Dun &Bradstreet data both Synthetic Fibers Industry." This report changes within the industry during the increased the total size of the entire presents the investment and annualized past few years significantly modify the data base used (from 61 plants to 190 compliance costs for the plants covered technical, cost or economic conclusions plants) and increased the number of by the OCPSF regulation. The report underlying the regulation. However, plants in the "greater than $10 million also estimates the probable economic where appropriate, the cost and impact sales" category from 4 to 73. effect of compliance costs in terms of analyses have considered recent trends Another set of comments stated that plant and product line closures, affecting the industry. EPA used outdated financial data. By employment changes, profitability B. Economic Methodology using the Dun & Bradstreet data, EPA impacts, and regulatory costs as a has updated its financial information to percent of sales. Local community The Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) cover the time period 1981 to 1986. (The impacts and international trade effects uses three primary impact measures: FIN/STAT data covered the period are also presented. A separate closure, profitability and cost-to-sales. 1976-1981). Regulatory Flexibility Analysis detailing The values are estimated for almost all Another set of comments stated that the small business impacts has been OCPSF plants (see above) using a EPA's use of a single financial ratio for conducted and is included in the combination of section 308 survey data plants within a size grouping does not Economic Impact Analysis for this and secondary sources, such as Dun & take into account plant-to-plant industry. Bradstreet financial records, plus plant variability. EPA adopted an improved EPA has identified 654 facilities that specific compliance costs developed by method for estimating cash flow and will incur costs as a result of this the Agency. The closure analysis uses a salvage value that takes into account regulation. The costs of implementing net present value approach which plant-to-plant variability. Instead of the regulations are estimated on a plant- compares cash flow to salvage value. A using median financial ratios to relate by-plant basis for all of the facilities that closure is projected if the salvage value these quantities to sales for arbitrary discharge wastewater. Of the facilities, exceeds the present value of cash flow. size groups within the industry, the 289 are direct dischargers and 365 are Plant closure is projected when a plant's Agency developed regression equations indirect dischargers. Total investment OCPSF employment is greater than 80 to relate each quantity to plant specific costs for BPT, BAT, and PSES are percent of total plant employment; sales. The regression estimates use the projected to be $855.4 million with product line closure is projected when a full range of the data (now expanded to annualized costs of $505.1 million, plant's OCPSF employment is less than better characterize the full range of including depreciation and interest. or equal to 80 percent of plant sales in the industry) and do not result These costs are in 1986 dollars and are employment. in arbitrary gaps or jumps introduced by based on the determination that plants The profitability impact measure the previous method. The overall effect will build on existing treatment. These indicates the extent to which OCPSF of the change in methodology has been costs reflect setting of BAT equal to BPT compliance costs affect plant to provide a better description of the for the small production plants. profitability. A significant impact is consequences of the Agency's The number of plants costed is greater counted if the compliance costs reduce regulation. than the number of plants in the the plant profits to the lowest decile One commenter stated that EPA's economic impact analysis because the value for all plants in a particular three intended use of a profitability measure production and shipment information digit SIC code. which identifies a significant impact as needed for the analysis was not The cost-to-sales impact measure occurring if plant profitability falls by 25 provided by a few companies despite compares compliance costs to plant percent is inappropriate because it does follow-up requests after the 1983 308 sales, with a significant impact counted not consider the precompliance profit survey questionnaires were submitted. if the ratio exceeds five percent. context. The definition of what For BPT, 214 plants are costed but the constitutes a significant profit impact impact analysis includes only 209 of C. Significant Changes in the Economic was changed from a profit decrease of these facilities. For BAT, 289 plants are Impact Methodology 25 percent or more to any case where costed; the impact analysis covers 283. There have been a number of the compliance costs reduce plant For PSES, 365 plants are costed; the substantive revisions to the economic profits to the lowest decile (10 percent) impact analysis covers 362. analysis methodology and data base as in a particular three digit SIC code. The Agency recognizes that its data a result of comments received on the Since all plants in EPA's OCPSF base, which represents conditions in December 1986 notice of availability. economic data base are above the Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42551 lowest SIC decile prior to incurring BAT F. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis compliance costs, this measure effectively identifies significant The incremental capital and The Regulatory Flexibility Act 15 reductions in precompliance annualized costs of complying with BAT U.S.C. 601 et seq. Pub. L. 96-354) requires profitability resulting from the limitations are $348.1 and $224.2 million, EPA to assess whether its regulation. respectively. Estimated plant and regulations create a disproportionate product line closures total 11, effect on small businesses. In assessing Another set of comments stated EPA representing four percent of the 283 the disproportionate effect for purposes must revise its analysis to reflect plants analyzed. Significant profitability of complying with the Regulatory changes in the new tax code enacted in and cost-to-sales impacts occur at an Flexibility Act, EPA had to decide 1986. The tax rates used in the final additional 11 plants resulting in a total whether its analysis of impacts on small analysis reflect the new tax code of 22 significantly impacted plants or 8 businesses would address all small enacted in 1986. The major changes percent of the direct discharging plants. plants or only those small plants reflect deletion of the investment tax Job losses totalling 1,197 are expected to operated by small firms. This issue credit and the reduction of the impact of occur as a result of the plant and arose because the OCPSF analysis is a compliance costs as an expense item. product line closures. This employment plant specific analysis. In previous D. Baseline Analysis loss represents 0.7 percent of OCPSF economic analyses the impacts were total employment. (These costs and modeled, and the Agency did not have The baseline economic analysis impact results reflect the setting of BAT the ability to differentiate its assessment evaluates each plant's financial equal to BPT for plants producing five of disproportionate effect by ownership. operating condition prior to incurring million pounds or less per year of The Agency had the ability to consider compliance costs for this regulation. production.) that distinction in developing this This analysis also takes into account guideline. If the Agency did not take certain estimated costs associated with PSES ownership into account in its definition other significant regulations which are For PSES, the total capital and of small businesses and treats all small not yet promulgated or provided for in annualized costs of compliance are plants as small businesses, the Agency annual operating expenses. Baseline $291.5 and $204.3 million, respectively. would be consistent with previous costs include RCRA costs for relining Estimated plant and product line approaches. If, however, a distinction is surface impoundments that treat. store, closures total 52, representing 14.4 made between small single plant and dispose of hazardous wastes. An percent of the 362 plants analyzed. operations and small plants owned by estimated 41 plants are projected to Significant profitability and cost-to-sales large corporate entities, the Agency incur RCRA costs in the baseline. impacts are estimated to occur at an would be inconsistent with previous Capital and annualized RCRA costs for additional 63 plants resulting in a total definitions of small businesses- these facilities total $25.2 and $8.8 significantly impacted universe of 115 or definitions which were developed, million, respectively (1986 dollars). 31.8 percent of the indirect discharging necessarily, in the absence of Other RCRA costs as well as Superfund plants. Job losses totalling 2,190 are knowledge of ownership. requirements are assumed to be expected to occur as a result of the plant The Agency presented this issue in the incorporated in annual operating costs and product line closures. This December 1986 Federal Register notice because the financial data used reflect a employment loss represents 1.2 percent and solicited comment on whether small time period (from 1981 to 1986) after of the OCPSF total employment. OCPSF plants owned by large these requirements became effective. companies are effectively run as small There are no significant economic PSNS and NSPS businesses-i.e., do companies tend to view individual plants as profit centers impacts projected as a result of the For the control of toxic pollutants, the and decide on their continued operation baseline costs; therefore, all plants treatment options selected for direct and based mainly on the plant's financial analyzed in the baseline are included in indirect discharging new sources are performance, or are plants more subsequent analyses. Had closures been identical to those selected for existing typically operated in the context of a projected to occur they would have sources except that no exemption will firm's overall plan to satisfy product reduced projected impacts from these be provided for new direct discharging regulations. The baseline RCRA costs markets? The implication is that if small small plants. plants are run independently as profit are carried forward into subsequent For the control of conventional analyses and are included in the centers, they should be included in the preregulatory costs of a plant. pollutants in NSPS, EPA has adopted the small business analysis along with same technology bases as for BPT. single plant small businesses when the E. Economic Results Planned new OCPSF plant disproportionate effeci of the regulation BPT construction in the U.S. over the time is assessed. period 1986 to 1991 is estimated to be The Agency conducted an extensive The capital and annualized costs of only 4.5 percent of total planned OCPSF analysis to address the issue of whether complying with the BPT limitations are construction worldwide. Most of this large companies could be anticipated, $215.8 and $76.6 million, respectively, new construction will be in the form of for a variety of reasons, to continue to and affect 214 plants. No plant or renovation work or upgrading of existing operate a facility projected to be a product line closures are projected; 8 of product lines rather than construction of closure in our Economic Impact the 209 direct discharging plants completely new plants. When new Analysis. This could occur because analyzed experience significant construction does occur, the capital firms which are vertically integrated profitability or cost-to-sales impacts. costs of the regulation are estimated to require the output of all the plants in the Seventy-eight plants are expected not to represent between two and four percent corporate organization to fill its product incur incremental BPT costs or impacts. of the costs of constructing a new plant. lines. Among other reasons for No job losses are expected to occur as a These cost increases .are low and are maintaining unprofitable or marginal result of BPT. not expected to be a barrier to entry. plants are the desire to remain in a 42552 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42552 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations given product or geographic market, or 2. Results of Small Plant Analysis for Administration (SBA) financing as the belief that the plant's product(s) will Indirect Dischargers needed for pollution control equipment. ultimately prove worth retaining. The three basic programs are: (1) the Industry comments supported the Under PSES, the impact of the regulation is also very similar for plants Pollution Control Finance Guarantee notion that small plants are generally Program, (2) the Section 503 Program treated as independent financial units with annual production less than or equal to five million pounds and plants and (3) the Regular Business Loan and that parent companies will usually with annual production less than or Program (Section 7(a)). Eligibility for not keep small plants open, especially in SBA programs varies by industry. the long run, if they are unprofitable. equal to five million pounds and parent company sales less than $20 million For further information and specifics Our analysis of the industry shows that on the Pollution Control Finance small plants tend to experience about annually. Impacts occur at approximately 62 percent of the plants; Guarantee Program, contact the U.S. the same level of impacts, regardless of Small Business Administration, Office of ownership, in the long run. This result impacts for all indirect dischargers are approximately 31 percent. Pollution Control Financing, 1441 L occurs despite the fact that in our Street, NW., Washington, DC 20416, closure analysis the weighted average A complete description of the small plant analysis and its results is (202) 653-2548. cost of capital assigned to plants owned The Section 503 Program, as amended by medium and large sized firms was presented in the Economic Impact Analysis. in July 1980, allows long-term loans to from one to two percentage points lower small and medium size businesses. than the weighted average cost of G. Cost Effectiveness Analysis These loans are made by SBA-approved capital assigned to small single plant EPA has conducted an analysis of the local development companies. firms. Through SBA's Regular Business Loan To-understand better the incidence of incremental cost per pound equivalent for removal of the pollutants controlled Program (Section 7(a)), loans made impacts in relation to ownership, available by commercial banks are impacts on small plants (both direct and by the OCPSF regulation. A pound- guaranteed by SBA. This program has indirect discharging plants) were equivalent is calculated by multiplying interest rates equivalent to market rates. evaluated based both on plant the number of pounds of a pollutant by production alone and on plant the toxic weighting factor for that For additional information on the production in combination with pollutant. The weighting factors give Regular Business Loan (Section 7(a)) aggregate company sales. The former relatively more weight to more highly and Section 503 Programs, contact the approach captures impacts at small toxic pollutants. Thus, for a given appropriate district or local SBA office. plants without regard to ownership. The expenditure and pounds of pollutants The coordinator at EPA Headquarters is latter approach captures impacts removed, the cost per pound-equivalent Ms. Karen V. Brown, Small Business occurring at small plants owned by removed would be lower when more Ombudsman (A-149C), Environmental small firms. We evaluated all plants highly toxic pollutants are removed than Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., with production levels of <5 million if less toxic pollutants are removed. Washington, DC 20460; (703) 557-1938. pounds, <10 million pounds, and <15 The cost effectiveness methodology I. Executive Order 12291 million pounds (annual OCPSF used in this analysis, unlike that for production) irrespective of size of the previous effluent guidelines, takes into Executive Order 12291 requires EPA firm owning the plant. We also account reduction of air emissions of and other agencies to perform regulatory evaluated production and parent volatile organic chemicals expected to impact analyses [RIAs) of major company sales combinations of <5 result from use of the model technology regulations. Major regulations are those million pounds and <20 million of sales (specifically steam stripping) upon that impose an annual cost to the and <10 million pounds and <$20 which the water discharge limitations economy of $100 million or more, or of million of sales. and standards are based. Reductions in meet other.criteria. Implementation air emissions of these pollutants is the promulgated regulation for the 1. Results of Small Plant Analysis for counted in computing the cost- Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Direct Dischargers effectiveness of the regulation since the Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) Industry has Under BAT, the analysis shows that, treatment technologies costed for the been projected to cost over $100 million in the absence of the reduced regulation reduce these emissions. (To annually and thus is considered a major requirements for plants producing five the extent that some plants use less regulation. In compliance with E.O. million pounds per year or less of expensive treatment than steam 12291, EPA has prepared an RIA which product, provided for in the final rule, stripping that results in greater-than- consists of a benefit-cost analysis and a the impact of the regulation would be projected air emissions, the predicted water quality analysis. The benefit-cost fairly similar with respect to plants with reduction of air emissions is an analysis compares the costs of the annual production less than or equal to overestimate. Correspondingly, the regulation with its benefits. The 5 million pounds and plants with both predicted costs and economic impacts aggregate benefits, both monetizable annual production less than or equal to would be overestimated as well.) The and non-monetizable, exceed or are at 5 million pounds and parent company toxic weighting factors used take into least reasonably commensurate with sales less than $20 million annually. At account the toxicity and carcinogenicity costs. these plants, significant impacts would of these chemicals and their effects on Benefits were grouped into three occur at between 60 and 80 percent of humans through inhalation. categories: (1) Non-quantified and non- the plants. This level of impact would be The cost effectiveness values for the monetized benefits; (2) quantified and much greater than that experienced by selected BAT and PSES options are $5 non-monetized benefits and (3) direct discharging plants overall. The and $34 per pound-equivalent, quantified and monetized benefits. overall significant impact level for direct respectively. The non-quantified and non- dischargers is 13 percent before special monetized benefits that were identified provision for plants with annual H. SBA Loans include: (1) Protecting and restoring the production less than or equal to five The Agency continues to encourage integrity of aquatic ecosystems (The million pounds. small concerns to use Small Business EPA comparative risk project ranked - S, Federal Register / Vol. 52. No21 Thn..-.,--,rn or 0, I lU,,! .. . A 6,A,, LflJ,-O o e No. 214 / Thursxlav Noverribr R 1027 /I ,1n .4 ID I+ point source discharges as a relatively to pollutants could be underestimated high risk to aquatic ecosystems); (2) each pollutant were compared to EPA by not considering volatilization water quality criteria. Instream reducing the potential health risks to between point swimmers of product/process. concentrations are projected to exceed from dermal exposure to wastestream generation and point of surface waters containing pollutants criteria in five of the stream segments influent into industrial treatment under current conditions. A total of 14 from OCPSF discharges; (3) reducing the facilities. potential health risks to persons eating priority pollutants are projected to In addition to the benefits analysis exceed instream criteria using a more than average amounts of fish above, contaminated a water quality analysis was criterion for carcinogens based on 10-6 with OCPSF-discharged performed, which consisted of three pollutants; and (4) reducing the potential individual risk. Priority pollutant studies. The first projected water quality instream concentrations after health risks to persons drinking impacts for 170 direct discharging contaminated drinking water from implementation of PSES are projected to OCPSF facilities discharging into 134 exceed criteria in one receiving stream groundwater sources impacted by stream segments across surface the country. segment for two pollutants. waters containing OCPSF EPA's published water quality criteria discharges. for priority pollutants The third water quality study One benefit are used to assess evaluated three stream segments in could be quantified but water quality impacts. The analysis not monetized. With current treatment projected detail (Houston Ship Channel, Kanawha that under existing conditions River at OCPSF facilities forty-seven thousand 32 percent of the 134 receiving and Lower Delaware River). people stream Monetizable water quality benefits are estimated to be exposed segments exceed water quality criteria. were through inhalation to volatile organic A total of 30 pollutants calculated for these streams and compound are projected to compared to (VOC) priority pollutants exceed instream criteria using a expected BAT costs for above long term intake levels criterion for the carcinogens OCPSF direct discharging facilities. recommended that is Comparison by EPA and may based on a 10-6 individual risk. Twenty- of benefits with BAT costs experience health effects other than nine percent of the receiving show disparate results across the .sites. cancer. stream The The OCPSF regulation would segments are projected to exceed water Kanawha River results indicate that reduce these effects. quality criteria with the estimated annual water quality The monetized the implementation national water quality of BAT treatment levels in this benefits ($0.1 to $2.7 million) are benefits that result from the regulation. commensurate with the annualized costs implementation A total of 24 pollutants are of BPT and BAT are projected to exceed instream criteria at ($1.5 million). The Delaware River estimated to range from $178-$330 BAT. results indicate that the estimated million (1982 dollars) annually. These The second study annual water quality benefits ($2.1-$9.1 benefits evaluated the are based on estimates of effects of 94 indirect discharging OCPSF million) are significant but are less than increased uses or improvements in facilities which the annualized costs of $18.7 million. recreational discharge to 57 POTWs. fishing and boating, At current loadings, treatment works The Houston Ship Channel monetized commercial fishing, diversionary uses inhibition and/or sludge annual water quality benefits (<$1.0 (i.e., irrigation) and contamination intrinsic (non-use are projected to occur at 8 of the 57 million) are substantially less than benefits). When estimates of health POTWs annualized costs ($8.8 million), due (cancer as a result of five of the 22 reduction) and environmental pollutants which have inhibition/sludge largely to the commercial shipping usage (smog protection) benefits that result contamination of the Channel, which precludes many from values. The the reduction of air emissions are implementation of PSES removes of the benefits evaluated. The monetized added, benefits estimated range from inhibition problems for all but one - water quality benefits were based on roughly $189-$393 million (1982 dollars). pollutant at one POTW and estimates of increased use or The annualized costs to sludge direct contamination problems for all but one improvements in recreational fishing dischargers in the OCPSF industry of pollutant at one and boating, commercial fishing and moving to BAT POTW. The POTW are estimated to be $270 inhibition and sludge values used in this intrinsic (non-use) benefits. Health risks million (in 1982 dollars). analysis are in from the ingestion of contaminated fish There were general not regulatory many limitations in values. They are based upon engineering tissue were also assessed in the three estimating the benefits: (1) The national case studies, and for the Delaware River water quality or health-related guidance or guidelines benefits were based on an published by EPA reductions in drinking water health risks assumed linear and FDA. Thus EPA is relationship between not basing its regulatory approach for were considered. (The Delaware River total pollutant loadings and benefits case study was the only case study attributed PSES upon a finding that some to cleanup of surface waters pollutants interfere with where active drinking water intakes in the U.S. (2) The POTWs by environmental impairing their treatment effectiveness were present in the vicinity of OCPSF impacts of toxics on aquatic ecosystems or dischargers.) Due to the difficulty in are not well causing them to violate applicable understood and the benefits sludge limits for their extrapolating the results of these case of reducing toxics chosen disposal are likely to be methods. Rather, the PSES are based studies to a national scale covering all underestimated in the monetized upon a determination regulated plants in the OCPSF industry national water of pass through as quality benefits. (3) explained earlier in the preamble. and all impacted receiving waters, the Uncertainty exists regarding the However, magnitude the analysis does help monetized national water quality of the intermedia transfer of indicate the potential benefits assessment (described above) both priority benefits for POTW pollutant VOCs and operation and sludge disposal that may was employed. nonpriority VOC pollutants from OCPSF result from compliance direct with PSES. IX. Non-Water Quality discharge wastestreams to the air. Also, the effects of POTW wastewater Environmental Priority pollutant emission estimates discharges Impacts range of 56 priority pollutants on from 7,000 MT/yr to 20,600 MT/yr. receiving streams were evaluated Nonpriority VOC pollutant for 56 The elimination or reduction of one emission indirect discharging OCPSF facilities, form of pollution may create or estimates from direct discharge plants which discharge to 42 POTWs range from on 41 aggravate other environmental 9,100 MT/yr to 36,600 MT/yr. stream segments. For these 41 segments, problems. (4) The air emissions and thus exposures Therefore. sections 304(b) and projected instream concentrations for 306 of the Act require EPA to consider 42554 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42554 Federal Register I Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations the non-water quality environmental X. Public Participation and Summary of modifications to the previously impacts (including energy requirements) Responses to Major Comments discussed approaches. EPA provided a of certain regulations. In compliance Public participation in the 2-month comment period, and received with these provisions, EPA has development of the OCPSF effluent as a result 163 technical comments from considered the effect of these limitation guidelines and standards has 37 members of the public. regulations on air pollution, solid waste been extensive. Throughout the Throughout this rulemaking, EPA has generation, and energy consumption. development of this regulation, EPA has not only welcomed the submission of The following are the non-water made numerous documents available to comments but also solicited data that quality environmental impacts the public for comment and has held could be used to supplement, correct, or associated with this regulation: meetings for the purpose of providing fill gaps in EPA's data base. Where information and receiving information adequately documented data of A. Air Pollution and views from many individuals and sufficient quality were submitted, EPA used the data along with other data it The effect of BPT, if viewed alone, organizations. had collected. EPA believes that it has -would likely be a moderate increase in Prior to publication of the proposed regulation on March 21, 1983, EPA made made all reasonable efforts to obtain emissions of volatile organic public input on this rule. compounds, and publicly available a variety of major thus in air pollution in Included in the record for this rule is a the immediate vicinity of some OCPSF documents. These included EPA's Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures large response to comments document. industry plants. This would be the result for the Analysis of Pollutants at 40 CFR The sheer volume of comments of plants installing or upgrading the Part 136 which detailed analytical precludes the publication of EPA's performance of aerated lagoons, methods to be used by EPA to analyze responses to all of them in this activated sludge basins and equalization samples of'OCPSF industry preamble. EPA has discussed and basins and thus more effectively driving wastewaters, and a Background responded to many comments earlier in off volatile organic compounds. This Document consisting of three volumes this preamble. Set forth below are effect will be more than offset, we and appendices, providing much of the responses to some additional significant believe, by the effect of compliance technical and costing foundation for comments. Other comments are efforts to meet BAT, because we expect EPA's subsequent regulatory proposal. responded to in the separate response to many plants to comply with the BAT EPA also discussed its data and comments document mentioned above. limits by installing in-process controls methodology at various meetings and Finally, the various data compilations, that effectively remove volatile organic workshops with interested members of editing and other information contained compounds before they reach the end- the public, enabling them to submit in the record for this rule address (and of-pipe controls. These in-process detailed comments on this information in some instances were obtained or controls would be accompanied by prior to the publication of the proposal. acquired specifically for the purpose of effective air pollution controls. Thus, we Thus in the proposal, EPA was able to addressing) the public comments. exp-ect a net decrease in both air take the unusual step of publishing 1. PercentRemoval vs. Concentration- loadings and in concentrations of responses to 51 preproposal public Based BPT Limitations volatile organic compounds in the comments. See 48 FR 11853-61 (March treated effluents from and BAT 21, 1983). Comment: A number of industry combined, and we expect similar effects The public comment period for the commenters have stated that the Agency as a result of PSES as well. A proposal, set originally for three months, should base BPT limitations on a combination of percent reduction and description of these loadings are was extended to provide for a total of maximum concentration limitations to contained in previous (Section IV) four and a half months for comment. A control the discharge of BOD from portions of this preamble. In addition, total of 756 technical comments, totalling approximately 2000 pages, were OCPSF facilities. Section X (commenter issues section) of submitted by industry, government,. (A plant's BPT TSS limitation would this preamble contains more discussion environmental and other groups and be some multiple of its percent reduction on the volatile pollutants. individuals. Partly in response to these derived BOD limit). The commenters B. Solid Waste comments and partly to incorporate favored an average percent reduction supplemental data (as urged by many limitation of 95 percent for some EPA has considered the effect these commenters), EPA modified its data dischargers coupled with a maximum regulations would have on the base, methodologies and regulatory long-term concentration level of 50 mg/I production of solid waste, including approaches and discussed these for others. High raw waste load plants hazardous waste defined under Section changes in a Notice of Availability and (those having average raw waste 3001 of the Resource Conservation and request for comments on July 17, 1985 concentrations over 1000 mg/l) would Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA estimates (50 FR 29068). EPA followed this shortly have to achieve a 95 percent BOD that increases in total solid waste, with an additional Notice of Availability reduction from raw waste levels while including hazardous waste, resulting on October 11, 1985 (50 FR 41528) in low raw waste load plants (those below from the OCPSF regulation will be which EPA made extensive additional 1000 mg/l) would have to meet a 50 mg/l insignificant compared to current levels. documentation available to the public to concentration limit. The commenters enable fully informed comment on the maintained that the imposition of C. Energy Requirements modifications. The total comment period concentration limitations on all EPA estimates that the attainment of for the two notices was five and a half discharges including those with high BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS will months. In response, EPA received over raw waste loads, inhibits water increase energy consumption by a small 1,100 technical comments from 72 conservation efforts and unfairly increment over present industry use. members of the public. discriminates against plants which Finally, on December 8, 1986 (51 FR engage in water conservation practices. Further details are set forth in Section 44082), EPA published yet another notice They also maintained that percent VIII of the Development Document. discussing several issues and proposed reduction limitations would better Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42555 reflect th-e inherent variability of OCPSF are generally designed and costed by concentration limitations require only process operations than would wastewater engineering firms. that effluent data be available. In the concentration limitations. The Agency does not agree with the case of the OCPSF categories, Response: Effluent limitations assertion that concentration limitations considerably less influent than effluent guidelines can be in the form of percent discourage water conservation. The data are available. The Agency believes reduction, concentration, or production Agency notes that commenters did not that in order to establish percent based mass limitations. Selection of an support this assertion with quantitative reduction limitations for a category or appropriate approach is within EPA's or qualitative data demonstrating how subcategory, the influent data should be discretion and is based upon its and to what extent water conservation comparable to the effluent data in judgement as to which is most is practiced and how such practices quantity and quality and should provide appropriate for a particular industry and would be impacted by concentration as much coverage of the category as the data set. Thus for example, limitations - limitations. The comment ignores the effluent data. This would be necessary can be based solely on the performance fact that water conservation is often to correctly reflect the variability of of applicable treatment systems or on practiced for a variety of sound reasons production operations and treatment treatment system performance and of efficiency and economy, and that performance within the category. production. When the available wastewater treatment costs themselves Moreover, if EPA were to develop may be substantially reduced by production data for a category can be percent reduction limitations using the correlated with pollutant discharges, reducing the flow which must be treated. The resulting cost savings may outweigh available BPT data base, the resulting EPA can develop mass limitations based limitations would be less representative on both treatment system performance any increased cost that arguably results and production. This approach, from being required to treat the more of the OCPSF categories because many appropriate for the concentrated stream to meet an effluent plants employing numerous product/ however, is not be deleted from the OCPSF category because of the large concentration limitation. The record processes would number of different products involved, before the Agency does not demonstrate limitation development data base due to the constantly changing nature of the that the concentration limitations will lack of daily raw waste data. This product mix, and the lack of any discourage water conservation. consideration also argues in favor of established strong correlation between Commenters contend that percent- issuing the concentration approach, for production type and pollutant discharge. reduction limitations would which more data is available. Thus for the OCPSF BPT regulation, EPA accommodate variations in BOD loading 2. The Effect of Temperature in has promulgated concentration-based caused by process changes better than Achieving BPT Permit Limits limitations rather than mass-based concentration limits do. The limitations. commenters' insistence that percent Comment: EPA has incorrectly EPA also prefers concentration-based reduction limitations are more evaluated the effect of temperature on limitations over percent-reduction accommodative to process changes biological treatment plants and has limitations for this industry. EPA ignores the fact that most plants have concluded that it is not important in the believes that percent reduction equalization basins on the front end of context of effluent limitations limitations would allow plants with high treatment systems for the express guidelines. One element of this incorrect raw waste loads to discharge very high purpose of dampening surges in raw analysis was EPA's deletion of nine concentrations of BOD on a long-term waste BOD due to process events (spills, plants from the data base simply average basis. Yet the data collected by etc.) and changes. The effect of these because they had summer/winter EPA demonstrates that even high raw basins is to smooth out BOD loadings. NPDES permits. This step is arbitrary waste loads can be reduced to low The remaining variability has been and virtually assures that the effect of concentrations through the use of BPT accommodated by the variability factor temperature will not be considered in technology. Concentration limitations developed by EPA for the BOD the estimation of effluent variability. describe the limits of performance of concentration limitations. In developing Also, the commenter argued that a this technology better than percent percent reduction limitations, there is a number of plants in the 308 data base removal requirements do. danger that the variability due to showed statistically significant For example, a plant with an average process changes may be over- temperature effects. raw waste BOD concentration of 2,000 compensated for and that the resulting Response: EPA has studied the effects mg/I would be allowed by a 95 percent limitations could be met by poorly reduction requirement to discharge a operated plants. of temperature variations on biological long-term average concentration of BOD Percent reduction limitations might treatment system performance in the of 100 mg/I (after applying a variability penalize plants which utilize in-plant OCPSF industry. In warm climates, the factor, the actual daily limit would be methods to treat raw waste BOD. The Agency believes that warmer than substantially higher). Such reduction in raw waste BOD achieved average temperatures do not have any concentrations are unacceptably high; in-plant could only be measured if all significant effect on biological treatment this is indicated by the fact that some the individual product/process effluents efficiency or variability. However, algae OCPSF plants with average raw waste were analyzed prior to in-plant blooms can be a wastewater treatment BOD concentrations greater than 2,000 treatment on a regular basis, a practical problem in ponds located in warm mg/l achieve long-term average BOD impossibility for some plants and an climates. Nonetheless, polishing ponds effluent concentrations of less than 100 unwarranted burden for many others. are not part of the technology basis for mg/l. As a result, it would be very difficult to BPT limitations. Also, EPA was not able Percent-reduction limitations also credit these plants with in-plant to associate algae bloom problems with discourage the efficient operation of removal. any elements of biological treatment biological treatment systems. From an Finally, the development of percent (aerated lagoons, clarification, engineering point of view, optimally reduction limitations requires that equalization, basins, etc.). Consequently, designed systems are designed to meet influent as well as effluent data EPA believes that algae growth target BOD levels, not a specific percent descriptive of treatment technology problems in warm climates are not reduction in BOD. That is how systems performance be available, whereas relevant to the final BPT regulations. 42556 -Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42556 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 I Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations In order to evaluate Winter well-operated biological treatment, wastewater is accounted for by the performance of biological treatment which as noted above is capable of products and processes utilized by the systems, EPA has analyzed BOD uniform treatment throughout the year 36 plants in the data base. Products that removal efficiency, BOD effluent, and as demonstrated by a number of plants. could be manufactured-by the 232 operational changes for 21 plants Another problem with daily data from product/processes utilized at the 36 located in various parts of the country these plants is that during certain plants account for 84 percent of industry and reporting daily data. These analyses periods of the spring and fall, these production and 76 percent of process indicate that there is a slight reduction plants may be able to operate their wastewater. in average BOD removal efficiency and treatment plants at less than full It is estimated that the OCPSF a small increase in average effluent efficiency because they are required to industry manufactures more than 20,000 BOD during January and February for meet the less stringent set of permit individual products; however, overall some plants. However, many plants limits. production is concentrated in a limited were able to maintain a BOD removal In summary, the Agency believes that number of high-volume chemicals. efficiency of 95 percent or greater and it has accounted adequately for the Excluding consideration of plastics, effluent BOD concentrations effect of temperature changes on resins, and synthetic fibers, EPA has characteristic of good operation during biological treatment performance in its identified 36 organic chemicals that are the entire year. The analysis also variability analysis by including in the manufactured in quantities greater than suggests that the plants with lower variability data base a number of plants one billion pounds per year. These efficiencies are affected as much by from climates with significant chemicals are referred to as commodity inefficient operating practices as by temperature variation. The inclusion of chemicals. Two hundred eighteen winter temperature considerations. data from plants with summer/winter organic chemicals are manufactured in Indeed, plants in colder climates, with permits would result in an overestimate quantities between 40 million and one the widest annual temperature of the variability of biological treatment billion pounds per year. These fluctuation, generally achieved more operations in the OCPSF categories. chemicals are referred to as bulk consistent year-round performance than 3. Representativenessof the Data Base chemicals. Together, these 254 plants in middle latitudes. A discussion Used to Establish BA T Effluent chemicals account for approximately 91 of inefficient operating practices used by Guidelines percent of total annual production some plants as well as practices volume of organic chemicals as reported Comment: Industry commenters employed by plants achieving superior data base for claimed that the Agency's BAT data in the 308 questionnaire all year performance may be found in the OCPSF industry. By sampling Section VII of the Development base was not adequate to represent wastewater treatability across the wide OCPSF plants which manufacture many Document. The adoption of practices of these high-volume chemicals, as well used by plants with higher winter variety of product/process effluents discharged by the OCPSF industry. as other types of OCPSF plants, EPA efficiencies should result in improved has, in fact, gathered sampling data winter efficiency. Response: EPA has determined that the data base supporting the OCPSF which is representative of production in EPA has determined that temperature regulations is representative of OCPSF the entire industry. effects can be mitigated by operational industry wastewaters, treatment In addition to their general coverage and technological changes, so that technologies, processes, and products. of major industry product/processes and compliance with BPT limitations using EPA conducted four major sampling products, the BAT sampling programs biological treatment is possible for all programs during the development of have focused on OCPSF plants, product/ OCPSF plants with well-designed and BAT limitations. In total, 186 plants processes and products known or well-operated biological systems. were sampled in the Agency's screening, believed to be associated with priority Section VII of the final development verification, 5-plant and 12-plant pollutant discharges. EPA evaluated the document contains a thorough studies. After editing the data base so 176 product/processes sampled during discussion of summer/winter effects and that only good quality data (i.e., having the screening sampling effort in order to how individual OCPSF plants have dealt adequate Quality Assurance/Quality determine predictability of priority with this problem. In addition, EPA has Control) representing BAT treatment pollutant occurrence based on product/ developed costs for plants which need were used, the edited BAT data base process chemistry. The Agency to upgrade their winter-time biological contains sampling data for 36 OCPSF determined that priority pollutants could treatment operation to comply with final plants (including industry supplied data) appear in waste streams of plants BPT limitations. representing 232 product/processes. utilizing various product/processes if Regarding the deletion of nine These 36 plants account for priority pollutants were involved as summer/winter plant's data from the approximately 26 percent of production reactants, products, by-products, data base, the Agency notes that volume and 24 percent of the process catalysts, or reagent contaminants in because these plants were subject to wastewater flow of the entire industry. these product/processes. The meeting two different sets of permit The types of product/processes utilized information obtained from the review of limits, they had no incentive to attempt by these 36 plants represent the screening plant sampling was used to achieve uniform limitations approximately 13 percent of the types of by EPA to select plants for its later throughout the year. Not surprisingly, OCPSF product/processes in use. Since sampling efforts that would represent as then, the daily data from these plants the products manufactured by these much as possible priority pollutant exhibit a two-tier pattern. These data facilities are manufactured at other discharge in the OCPSF industry. In can be characterized-by two means, and OCPSF facilities, the data obtained from selecting plants and product/processes the variability-of these data over a 12 these plants represent even greater for sampling during the Verification month period is fundamentally different percentages of total industry production Study, EPA gave priority to product/ from the data from plants required to and flow. Thus, about 68 percent of processes -involving the manufacture of meet only one set of permit limits. OCPSF industry production (in total either priority pollutant.or high-volume Consequently, the data generated during pounds) is represented and about 57 chemicals derived from priority these periods is not-representative of percent of the OCPSF industry pollutants.,Similarly, EPA selected Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42557 plants for sampling during the EPA/ rulemaking efforts, each affected OCPSF facilities as well as used as raw CMA Five-Plant Study and the " plant or industry segment had the materials or generated as byproducts in subsequent Twelve Plant Study based in opportunity to comment and submit industry processes. part upon the known or suspected sampling data which it believed should As discussed elsewhere EPA has presence of certain priority pollutants at be added to the data base considered by determined that the OCPSF industry significant concentrations in plant EPA. should not be subcategorized based on wastewaters. As a result, the existinig Finally, it should be noted that the product mix for the BAT regulation BAT data base adequately represents number of plants from which data are because the pollutants are treatable to priority pollutant discharges by the used to develop BAT limitations is comparable levels for a wide variety of entire OCPSF industry. necessarily limited by the fact that a plants within the industry. (See Section The current BAT data base also large portion of the industry does not IV of the Development Document.) provides broad coverage of the major currently have well-designed, well- However, EPA is promulgating BAT wastewater treatment technologies operated BAT treatment in place. Since limitations for two-subcategories which employed by the OCPSF industry. The BAT must be based upon the best are largely determined by raw waste Verification Study emphasized data available technology in the industry, the characteristics (see Section VI.C.1. of collection on raw process wastewaters data must inevitably be limited to only this notice). Nevertheless, most OCPSF and the principal treatment the best performers in the industry. plants routinely discharge only a limited configurations (i.e., preliminary 4. Establishmentof Effluent Limitations subset (e.g., 5-15) of the pollutants treatment and biological treatment) for and Monitoring Requirements in NPDES regulated at BAT. Thus, in the case of a combined plant wastewaters. The EPA/ Permits for OCPSFFacilities typical plant in the industry, the CMA Five-Plant Study was designed to regulations impose limitations for many commenters have assess the effectiveness of biological Comment: Some pollutants that are not in fact discharged argued that a plant should be subject to treatment in removing organic priority by the plant. limitations only for those pollutants that pollutants. The final phase of the In the final regulation, EPA has it discharges at significant levels. They decided that each discharger in a sampling program, the Twelve Plant imposition of limits will argue that the subcategory will be subject to the Study, provided additional data on inevitably result in compliance* treatment effluent limitations for all pollutants many nonbiological monitoring for pollutants that are not controls regulated for that subcategory. First, technologies, including in-plant the discharge, and that this present in EPA recognizes the difficulty in and end-of-pipe treatment technologies, costs. In the July imposes unnecessary guaranteeing that a plant will never and supplemental long-term 17, 1985 Notice, EPA sought to address during the permit term discharge a performance data for other treatment this concern by proposing a monitoring pollutant regulated for the applicable technologies. scheme whereby monitoring for subcategory. Many factors do cause In developing its BAT data base, EPA pollutants could be drastically reduced did not sample wastewaters and if preliminary monitoring and other changes in the nature of OCPSF plant wastewater discharges, such as process treatment systems for all plants in the information indicated that the pollutants OCPSF industry. The considerable would not be discharged at significant changes, raw material changes, and changes, as well as more expense associated with the sampling of levels. product line toxic pollutants, especially organic The July 17, 1985 proposal of a subtle factors that may result in changes pollutants, has imposed practical monitoring scheme provoked substantial in the wastewater matrix. Inserting a constraints on the scope of OCPSF comments from both sides of the issue. limitation in a plant's permit for a sampling programs. Resource concerns Some argued that the scheme required pollutant not generally expected (based also reflect the need for rigorous quality more initial monitoring than was on initial information) to be discharged assurance/quality control procedures necessary to determine whether assures that in fact the plant will be (e.g., blank samples, duplicate samples, pollutants were likely to be present in vigilant not to introduce the pollutant etc.) at each stage of sampling/analysis the discharge during the permit term. into its discharge without adequate to ensure the highest possible quality for Many of these commenters also argued treatment. Second, the limitations on sampling data. These procedures that EPA's test for determining which these pollutants are fair, since in the significantly increase the cost of pollutants would require more frequent event that a plant does discharge such a sampling and analysis. As a result, the monitoring was too stringent (i.e., too pollutant, EPA has determined that each OCPSF sampling program has been inclusive). In contrast, one commenter of the regulated pollutants can be designed with the intention of collecting argued that the test did not adequately successfully treated by OCPSF the greatest possible quantity of data account for discharge variability and dischargers by the use of the best - without sacrificing data quality. thus would result in the incorrect available technology economically Due to its concern that the earlier conclusion that certain pollutants were achievable. versions of the BAT data base may not not likely to be discharged (were not Once a pollutant is regulated in the adequately address the variety of "pollutants of concern") when in fact OCPSF regulation for dischargers in a priority pollutant loadings in OCPSF they would be discharged at levels and particular subcategory, it must also be industry wastewaters, EPA has at each frequencies that warrant frequent limited in the NPDES permit issued to stage in the rulemaking solicted compliance monitoring. any discharger in that subcategory. See additional data on the presence, Response: The final OCPSF Sections 301 and 304 of the Act; see also concentrations, and treatability of regulations regulate 63 toxic pollutants 40 CFR 122.44(a). The question remains, priority pollutants in OCPSF plant at BAT and 47 toxic pollutants for PSES. however, as to how much monitoring wastewaters. Valid data (as determined Regulating such a large number of the will be required for the various by editing and quality assurance rules) toxic priority pollutants is pollutants regulated by the permit. submitted by industry were unprecedented in the effluent guidelines EPA believes that industry's concern incorporated in the BAT data base and rulemaking program, reflecting the fact that OCPSF dischargers not be required utilized in the calculation of BAT that many of the organic toxic pollutants to expend unnecessary resources to effluent limitations. During the OCPSF are directly manufactured by OCPSF monitor for non-existent pollutants is 42558 Federal Register ./ Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42558 Federal Register]/ Vol. 52, N.24ITusaNvme ,18 ue n euain legitimate. While dischargers will contain numerous other requirements Thus, permit writers should obtain in- normally monitor frequently for at least concerning monitoring and reporting. plant, pre-dilution data when necessary some toxic pollutants that are expected However, the NPDES regulations do to properly characterize the wastewater to be discharged, their monitoring costs not establish more specific requirements for purposes of establishing monitoring would increase if other toxic pollutants as to the frequency of monitoring that requirements. were also to be monitored frequently. should be required. The frequency with To address issues of particular Whether the cost increase would be which compliance monitoring should be concern, EPA'intends to publish significant would depend on several performed will normally depend upon a guidance on OCPSF monitoring in the factors, including whether the plant used variety of factors. One factor, of course, near future. GC/CD or GC/MS methods (which in is the level at which particular This guidance will address both the turn depends on the number of organic pollutants are likely to be discharged in issues of compliance monitoring pollutants discharged by the plant) and the event that the plant fails to treat its generally and of initially determining whether the additional pollutants were effluent adequately. This level would which pollutants should be subject only members of the same class of depend on production-, process- and to infrequent monitoring based on a compounds as the pollutants that would raw material-related factors, 0s conclusion that they are unlikely to be be monitored in any event. The discussed above and elsewhere in the discharged. incremental cost of monitoring using record for this regulation. Other factors 5. Air Emissions of Volatile Pollutants Methods 1624 and 1625 for organics and relevant to setting monitoring atomic adsorption for metals could requirements include the size-of the Comment: In the July 17, 1985 Federal range from $295 for one organic plant, the size of the plant's flow, the Register-notice (50 FR at 29083), EPA compound and one metal to $1,350 for a nature and sensitivity of standards discussed its concerns about the scan of all regulated organic and metal applicable to the receiving water, and "substantial impacts that may result priority pollutants. Thus it certainly is other site-specific factors. Permit writers from volatile air emissions at OCPSF desirable to minimize unnecessary have throughout the history of the biological treatment plants." EPA stated monitoring. However, as discussed NPDES permit program made judgments that available information strongly above and in the July 17, 1985 notice, as to the appropriate monitoring indicated that biological treatment there is legitimate concern that frequencies for particular plants, based systems fail to treat substantial portions pollutants may be discharged even if upon these site-specific considerations. of volatile and semi-volatile pollutants some initial information (e.g., a permit EPA believes that this approach remains but rather transfer them to the air. In application) suggests that they are not the most appropriate for the OCPSF light of this information, EPA stated that currently discharged. industry as it has been for all other it was seriously considering After considering the comments industries. promulgating, in addition to the end-of- submitted on both sides of the issue EPA recognizes that specific guidance pipe effluent limitations, an additional raised by the July 17, 1985 notice, EPA on appropriate monitoring requirements set of in-plant, pre-biological limitations has decided that the appropriate for OCPSF plants would be useful, for a set of 20 volatile and semi-volatile monitoring scheme for plants in this particularly to assure that monitoring pollutants. EPA stated that if it industry, as in other industries for which not be needlessly required for pollutants promulgated in-plant limitations, they EPA has promulgated effluent that are not discharged at a plant. One would be applied prior to any biological limitations guidelines and standards in noteworthy factor is the monitoring treatment system, and control the past, is best determined on a case- scheme assumed by.EPA.for purposes. of - authorities would require compliance. by-case basis. EPA has generally estimating the costs of complying with monitoring prior to the biological refrained from setting inflexible the OCPSF regulation. EPA has assumed system. However, EPA acknowledged monitoring requirements in effluent that all plants would monitor their toxic that even this approach might not result guideline regulations for other pollutants four times per month. In in a significant reduction of air industries, and the NPDES permit addition, EPA has assumed that three of emissions. This might occur, EPA said, If regulations have similarly been written the four analyses would include only sources choose to use in-plant control to allow the permit writer to establish in those toxic pollutants expected to be techniques other than steam stripping the permit (subject to all the procedural present at levels of regulatory concern. which meet the BAT limitations but do and substantive safeguards afforded by However, the fourth monthly analysis not result in any significant reduction of the NPDES permit procedures of 40 CFR included all regulated toxic pollutants. air emissions. Therefore, EPA noted that Parts 122 and 124 and by the judicial In assessing wastewater data as part if warranted, EPA may use Clean Air review provision of section 509(b) of the of the analysis for developing Act ("CAA") authority to address Act) a set of monitoring requirements appropriate monitoring frequencies for volatile air emissions. that are appropriately tailored to the toxic pollutants, permit writers should In the subsequent October 11, 1985 plant. See 40 CFR 122.44(1) and 122.48. take special care to account for the Federal Register notice (50 FR at 41529). The NPDES regulations set forth effects of dilution, which may indicate EPA extended its discussion of the monitoring and reporting requirements the absence of pollutants which in fact OCPSF volatile air emissions issue. EPA for NPDES dischargers. Section122.48 may be discharged. For example, as re-emphasized that setting pre-biological requires that each permit specify mentioned earlier in this preamble, an limitations, while serving to discourage -requirements regarding monitoring type, indication on a Form 2C permit the substitution of air stripping for intervals and frequency sufficient to application that a pollutant is absent or treatment, would not absolutely yield data which are representative of is present only at very low preclude air stripping. For example, the monitored activity. Section 122.44(i) concentrations may reflect dilution and some facilities use air strippers, or adds that the monitoring results must be may fail to reveal that the pollutant Is achieve some degree of air stripping in reported with a frequency depending on genuinely associated with and equalization basins and other devices, the nature and effect of the discharge, discharged from particular plant prior to biological treatment. EPA but In no case less than once per year. processes in significant amounts and reiterated that it was therefore Sections 122.41, 122.44 and 122.48 thus needs to be monitored frequently. considering addressing this problem Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42559 through the Clean Air Act. However, allow substantial air emissions while increases in ozone levels in the ambient EPA also stated that it would consider alternative technologies are available air. These commenters also argued that three additional options for addressing which do not result in such emissions. EPA overestimated the total volatile the problem under the Clean Water Act. The commenter pointed out that section pollutants emitted to the air noting that The first option was to require that 304(b) of the Clean Water Act includes EPA's estimates were based upon the in-plant limitations apply at a point "non-water quality environmental estimated relative rates of prior to any unit or process that is impact" as one of the factors to be taken biodegradation and volatilization. capable of transferring significant into account in promulgating effluent Industry commenters also argued that quantities of pollutants to the air. limitations. In this regard, the EPA had incorrectly calculated the costs Alternatively, a certain level of commenter cited legislative history incurred to meet the in-plant limits. In emissions (e.g., the air stripping of 20 accompanying this provision to the particular, they asserted that significant percent or more of the pollutants in effect that water pollution controls energy costs would be incurred to questioi4 might be designated as should not result in overall generate the required steam and that significant, resulting in applying the environmental degradation. steam generation would itself result in limits prior to the point where such In contrast, numerous other air emissions from boilers, with emissions occur. commenters argued that EPA lacks associated control costs. The second option was to specify in authority to set limitations under the Finally, industry commenters argued the regulation that technologies that CWA that are designed to control air that the in-plant limitations would have involve significant levels of air stripping emissions. Moreover, these commenters the effect of denying plants the are not BAT because they result in argued, the CAA is the statutory vehicle opportunity to use biological treatment significant adverse non-water quality chosen by Congress for regulating air to treat their organic pollutants, since (air) impacts. This would have been emissions, and EPA should confine itself they would require that dischargers accomplished by listing particular to acting under the CAA, if any action is meet limits prior to the point where the technologies or specifying numerical warranted. (Several commenters noted wastewaters entered the biological criteria for determining significant levels that the Resource Conservation and treatment plant. of air emissions. Recovery Act (RCRA) is an appropriate Response: To address this multimedia The third option was to specify regulatory vehicle for addressing at least issue, EPA held many meetings among technologies, such as steam stripping some air emissions related to some the various EPA offices that implement with recovery, that must be employed to OCPSF dischargers managing hazardous statutory programs that may have some remove volatile organic pollutants. EPA wastes.) These commenters noted that relevance to the issue of air emissions acknowledged that the Agency has the CWA does not contain any from OCPSF wastewater treatment historically disfavored specifying provisions explicitly authorizing the facilities. After considering the broad technologies and has relied exclusively specification of technology, the direct variety of technical, policy, and legal upon effluent limitations and standards limitation of air emissions, or the issues involved, EPA has decided that reflecting the selected model establishment of in-plant limitations for technologies to achieve particular the issue of volatile air emissions from the purpose of controlling air emissions. OCPSF facilities is best addressed under control levels. Indeed, EPA noted that Some commenters argued further that laws that specifically direct EPA to Congress intended that numerical in-plant limitations were beyond EPA's criteria be the method generally used to statutory authority, which, they control air emissions. The primary statutes providing such directions are set standards. However, since the CWA asserted, authorizes only the limitation the CAA and, in the case of facilities does not explicitly forbid the of discharges, i.e., the addition of specification of technology, and given pollutants to waters of the United managing hazardous waste, RCRA. (The the extraordinary situation where States. Some of these commenters Toxic Substances Control Act may also numerical limitations alone may be argued further that the statutory be used to control air emissions where incapable of assuring the use of the best requirement that nonwater quality EPA determines that it would be in the available technology from an overall environmental factors be considered is: public interest to use this authority.) environmental perspective, EPA (1) Intended to preclude effluent As a preliminary matter, the nature of believed that this option may be legally limitations that result in net adverse the volatile emissions from OCPSF acceptable. environmental impacts but not to wastewater treatment systems must be EPA stated that it would continue to authorize specific limitations for the understood. In the absence of any explore both the legal issues and the purpose of controlling air emissions, and wastewater treatment, OCPSF facilities practical difficulties presented by the (2) intended to address primarily would discharge wastewaters above options and invited comment on adverse energy impacts. containing volatile and semi-volatile them. EPA received many comments in Many industry commenters disagreed organic pollutants into the receiving response, which are summarized below. with the Agency's preliminary waters or into POTWs, without removal Commenters disagreed widely as to assessment that the air emissions from of these pollutants. These pollutants EPA's legal authority to promulgate in- OCPSF plants constituted a significant would be contained initially in the plant limits to control emissions of environmental problem. They argued receiving waters or the POTWs, but a volatile air pollutants as part of this that while the Agency's preliminary significant percentage of them would regulation under the CWA. One assessment was that eight million ultimately volatilize from the receiving commenter argued that EPA is legally pounds of pollutants are emitted waters or POTWs into the atmosphere. required to establish in-plant limitations annually from OCPSF biological Because most direct discharging OCPSF for OCPSF plants. The commenter did treatment systems, this figure is minute plants in fact already have wastewater not cite any statutory authority that as compared with total VOC (volatile treatment facilities, most of these directly authorizes controls on air organic compounds) emissions volatile pollutants are not discharged emissions under the CWA. However, the nationwide. Moreover, they argued that and volatilized downstream, but rather commenter argued that control most OCPSF plant emissions are very are taken out of the wastewater prior to measures and practices are not the small and in-any event are insignificant discharge through biodegradation, "best", as required by the statute, if they in that they do not result in significant recovery, accumulation in sludge, or 42560 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42560 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 I Thursday, November 5, 1987 I Rules and Regulations volatilization. While the volatilization promulgating effluent limitations. wastewater treatment occurs. This from existing wastewater treatment However, the legislative history and approach is, as industry commenters systems may tend to concentrate case law examining this section 304(b) have noted, consistent with the general residual volatile pollutants near the factor focus on the need to avoid the statutory scheme of controlling plant, it would be offset by the BPT and creation of significant adverse nonwater discharges from point sources. EPA BAT regulations' combined effect. quality effects, or to consider the costs certainly is empowered to monitor Efforts to comply with BPT and BAT of mitigating such effects, rather than internal waste streams. See, e.g., Mobil regulations are expected to enhance the making it clear that the CWA could be Oil Corp. v. EPA, 716 F.2d 1187 (7th Cir. performance of the existing wastewater used as statutory authority for 1983) (EPA may monitor internal waste treatment facilities. It appears likely that controlling these nonwater quality streams to gain information as to which they will generally cause a net decrease effects. See, e.g., 1972 Legis. Hist. at 232 pollutants are being discharged and to in air emissions. In many cases they will and 268-69, and 1977 Legis. Hist. at 412. better assess a plant's treatment result in the increased use of See also, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Castle, efficiency). Moreover, EPA may technologies such as steam stripping 690 F.2d 1011, 1044-53 (D.C. Cir. 1978); establish limits on internal waste that will lessen air emissions. At worst, American PaperInstitute v. Train, 543 streams when end-of-pipe limits are they will fail to address an existing air F.2d 328, 339-40 (3rd Cir. 1976); C&H impractical or infeasible, such as where pollution problem. Sugar Co. v. EPA, 553 F.2d 280, 289-90 the final discharge point is inaccessible The issue before the Agency, then, is (2d Cir. 1977); FMC Corp. v. Train 539 (e.g., under 10 meters of water), so not so much whether the Agency should F.2d 973, 979 (4th Cir. 1976); Kennecott diluted as to make monitoring address an air pollution problem that is Copper v. EPA, 612 F.2d 1232, 1246 (10th inpracticable, or subject to interferences created through the promulgation of Cir. 1979) (cases upholding regulations that render detection and quantification OCPSF wastewater treatment in which EPA considered nonwater inpracticable. See 40 CFR 122.45(h). requirements. Rather, the principal issue quality impacts and in some cases However, EPA has never to date is whether, in setting CWA requirements suggested means of mitigating those established in-plant limits for the to limit the discharge of volatile organic impacts); AISI v. EPA, 968 F.2d 284, 308 purpose of addressing air emissions. The pollutants in wastewaters, EPA should (3rd Cir. 1977); Hooker Chemicals and legal issues raised by such a regulatory simultaneously use CWA authority to Plastics Corp. v. Train, 537 F.2d 620, 638 approach are difficult and need not be restrict the air emissions of these (2nd Cir. 1976) (cases remanding reached given the fact that Congress has pollutants as well. As discussed below, regulation where EPA gave no provided EPA with broad authority to EPA has decided that it would be most consideration at all to nonwater quality regulate air emissions directly under appropriate to address the air emissions impacts). Indeed, the legislative history other statutes. issue directly by using the statutory indicates that the section 304(b) The CAA and RCRA provide a broad authorities designed explicitly for this requirement to consider non-water array of regulatory tools to address the purpose, rather than to attempt indirect quality effects was designed to assure wide variety of air emissions. Clean Air regulation through the Clean Water Act. that EPA's internal structure and Act regulatory programs include State The legal and practical difficulties personnel attitudes were sensitized to Implementation Plans (SIPs) to associated with attempting to regulate the existence of such effects to assure implement National Ambient Air air emissions under the Clean Water that the net results of all of EPA's Quality Standards (NAAQS), National Act are considerable. First, the statute programs enhanced the environment Emission Standards for Hazardous Air provides no explicit authority for and to temper effluent limitations, if Pollutants (NESHAPS), and New Source specifying technology, such as steam necessary to prevent such effects. See Performance Standards (NSPS). In stripping, to control wastewater Weyerhaeuser,supra, 690 F.2d at 1044- addition, two major different permit discharges. Rather, the statute calls for 53. In the present case, this requirement programs have been established to deal regulation that establishes effluent has in fact had the effect of focusing the with new sources, one in areas that limitations and standards (with certain Agency as a whole on the issue of have obtained compliance with NAAQS exceptions, such as best management OCPSF air emissions. As discussed (Prevention of Significant Deterioration- practice (BMP) requirements under below, EPA is currently collecting data PSD) and the other in non-attainment section 304(e) of the CWA), rather than and considering regulations under a areas. The CAA contains a variety of specific management requirements. variety of legal authorities to address other authorities not discussed here. Indeed, the legislative history of the Act OCPSF air emissions. RCRA also provides explicit, direct indicates that Congress did not want Thus, while it is not clear that EPA is authority to regulate air emissions from EPA to specify technology but rather precluded from promulgating in-plant hazardous waste treatment, storage and wanted EPA to allow dischargers to limits to control air emissions under the disposal (TSD) facilities. For example, select the means by which they would CWA, such action is not required and section 3004(n) requires EPA to comply with effluent limitations. See, indeed is not explicitly authorized by promulgate regulations for the e.g., 1972 Legislative History at 311, 794- the CWA. This points toward our monitoring and control of air emissions 95 and at 1477. conclusion that it is most appropriate to at TSD facilities as may be necessary to Setting in-plant limitations to address use the legal authorities that are more protect human health and the air emissions has its own set of directly applicable and more clearly environment. problems under the CWA. Neither the suited to the problem at hand, such as EPA believes that the use of statute nor its legislative history the Clean Air Act. authorities other than the CWA to provides explicit authority or a sense of Another potential problem in using in- address air emissions from OCPSF Congress that EPA should directly plant limits under the CWA is that it is wastewater is preferable for several control air emissions through effluent inconsistent with the general approach reasons. First and foremost, as noted limitations promulgated under the CWA. taken by EPA under the CWA of above, statutes such as the CAA and The CWA clearly gives EPA authority to determining compliance with effluent RCRA specifically authorize and require consider potential adverse nonwater limitations at the end of pipe or, at least, EPA to regulate air emissions; the CWA quality environmental impacts before at the point at which no more process does not. Second, these other authorities Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42561 provide for a more direct and effective will be overstated. However, EPA highly Emissions occur from sewers, junction means of controlling air emissions than recommends that plants incorporate boxes, screens, settling basins, does the CWA. Even under a broad steam stripping with product recovery or equalization basins, biological treatment. reading of the CWA, EPA would be destruction into their wastewater systemsi air-or steam strippers lacking limited to indirectly controlling the air treatment systems at this time, to limit product recovery and any other units emissions through in-plant wastewater air emissions presently and in order to where the wastewater is in contact with discharge limits, giving rise to some of avoid costly retrofit requirements that the air. In addition, those pollutants not the practical implementation problems may be subsequently imposed under the emitted near the point of discharge may discussed in the July and October 1985 CAA, RCRA or other appropriate volatilize subsequently from the notice. The CAA and RCRA, in contrast, statute. EPA's current activities receiving waters. clearly authorize the direct control of assessing this issue in detail, which will In an effort being led by EPA's Office the emission itself. Third, because the form the basis for subsequent regulatory of Air and Radiation, EPA is evaluating CAA and to some extent the RCRA activity, are summarized below. the magnitude of the VOC emissions authorities provide broad authorization Extensive efforts are underway to from OCPSF plants primarily by to regulate a wide variety of emission evaluate and regulate volatile organic reviewing data already collected under sources, they provide a better context pollutant emissions from wastewater in the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, but for regulatory activity than does the the organic chemicals, plastics, and is also collecting additional data CWA. synthetic fibers industry. Volatile specifically for this purpose. Data on the While multimedia issues are clearly organic compounds (VOCs) emitted organic content of wastewater can be raised in this rulemaking, they are from wastewater at OCPSF plants can used to estimate emissions. Data similarly inherent in many other Agency pose air pollution problems by directly collected under the authority of section regulations, including previously causing human health effects and/or by 308 of the Clean Water Act on the promulgated effluent guidelines. The contributing to the formation of ozone, priority pollutant concentrations in decision not to use CWA authority to which then adversely affects human wastewater are being reviewed along control air emissions here is consistent health and the environment. Pollutants with sampling-data obtained by EPA to with longstanding Agency practice to emitted from OCPSF wastewater which support the OCPSF effluent guidelines. regulate adverse effects in media other directly cause human health effects Analysis of these data indicates that for than the one being directly addressed include two organic compounds which purposes of developing air emission through applying statutory authorities are listed as hazardous air pollutants controls that information on the volatile expressly established to address those under section 112 of the Clean Air Act organic content of individual other media. For example, EPA has (vinyl chloride and benzene) and eight wastewater streams at the point of consistently recognized that wastewater organics for which EPA has published a discharge from the process units is treatment often produces residues that notice stating an intent to list them as limited. It is important to realize that may present environmental problems in hazardous air pollutants (methylene these data were designed to measure other media unless properly controlled chloride, ethylene dichloride, ethylene wastewater treatment effectiveness and (e.g., hazardous sludges). EPA has not oxide, butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, thus focus mostly on the concentrations regulated disposal in these other media trichloroethylene, chloroform, and of priority pollutants in the wastewater under the CWA but rather has regulated perchloroethylene). Organic compounds in the influent and effluent of disposal under other directly applicable which contribute to ozone formation are wastewater treatment systems. Further, statutory authorities (e.g., RCRA). In referred to as volatile organic due to the potential for emissions promulgating this and other effluent compounds, and include most organic between the point of discharge from a guidelines, EPA has considered the compounds except for those specifically process and the influent to end-of-pipe associated costs of disposing of exempted through a series of notices treatment systems, as well as the wastewater treatment residues in which have appeared in the Federal likelihood of organic emissions other compliance with applicable Register. Also, the EPA currently is than priority pollutants, the data requirements. examining certain chemicals that may underestimate air emissions. It is important to reemphasize that be contained in volatile organic In an attempt to improve the basis for EPA has based the effluent limitations compound emissions and their role as estimating emissions, EPA sent for volatile pollutants on the use of potential depleters of stratospheric questionnaires to nine OCPSF steam stripping with product recovery or ozone. Stratospheric ozone depletion companies in July 1986 requesting that destruction rather than on techniques may result in increased cases of skin they submit existing data or provide that would allow air emissions, and has cancer in humans and significant estimates of the organic content in the developed the compliance costs for this environmental effects as well. The wastewater at the process unit regulation based on the use of this more Agency is'continuing to study discharge. Data were requested for both expensive treatment technology. This is stratospheric ozone depletion and its volatile organics and for the specific based on the Agency's conclusion, environmental and health risk impacts. organic pollutants referred to earlier taking into account the air emission The reduction in VOC emissions from which have been listed or are being aspects of wastewater treatment, that OCPSF wastewaters may also reduce considered for listing under section 112 steam stripping with product recovery or emissions of potential ozone depleters, of the Clean Air Act. (These are referred destruction better represents the use of thus assisting in-the protection of to as hazardous air pollutants and "best available technology." To the stratospheric ozone. potentially hazardous air pollutants, extent that some OCPSF plants choose Volatile organic compounds are respectively. Other pollutants may also to comply with the effluent limitations emitted from wastewater beginning at become listed or considered for listing by using techniques that result in some the point where the wastewater first as hazardous air pollutants as better air emissions (whether through contacts air. Thus, air pollutants from health effects data become available in volatilization from biological treatment wastewater may be of concern the future.) Responses to this request or through prior air stripping), EPA's immediately as the wastewater is contained data for the hazardous or estimated costs and economic impacts discharged from the. process unit. potentially hazardous air pollutants, but 42562 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations for the most part the quantities of VOCs disposal facilities, but has several cost-effective in different wastewater and priority pollutants in the discharges statutory and regulatory exemptions matrices. For example, GC/CD may be were estimated or not provided. -which affect wastewater. As noted cheaper for a wastewater with only a The responses indicated that the VOC above, potential Clean Air Act few priority pollutants belonging to the content would probably be at least ten authorities to employ include section 111 same class of compounds, while GC/MS times greater than that of the CWA (New Source Performance Standards), is cheaper for analyzingfor a wide priority pollutants. If this is the case, the Section 112 (National Emission range of compounds. Second, analytical VOC emissions based on a ten-fold Standards for Hazardous Air methods for organic compounds have increase in the air loadings derived from Pollutants), and/or State been evolving and improving throughout the section 308 data would amount to Implementation Plans and State the period of the OCPSF rulemaking. As 70,000 metric tons/year. The EPA regulations based on control technique available procedures were refined, EPA considers emissions of 70,000 tons/year guidance issued by EPA. While EPA is took advantage of these refinements. of VOC from an emission source evaluating which regulatory authority or Third, EPA was unable to promulgate category to be significant, especially authorities to use for control of standard methods for most of these since approximately 50 percent of the emissions from wastewater, additional compounds (in a separate rulemaking) in OCPSF wastewater VOC emissions efforts to collect data and develop air 40 CFR Part 136 until after some of the occur in areas where the National sampling procedures (which are the data used to develop the OCPSF limits Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone same regardless of regulatory authority) were collected. is not being attained (non-attainment are proceeding. It is not possible to directly compare areas). In addition, preliminary It should be noted that in the interim, and contrast these various methods in estimates indicate that risk and while EPA is proceeding with regulatory the sense of determining a numerical incidence of adverse effects resulting development, OCPSF wastewater relationship of data generated by one from potentially hazardous air treatment systems may be subject to method to that of another. Each method pollutants emitted at OCPSF new source review under the Clean Air used by EPA to generate the data being wastewater treatment facilities are Act. This may be required where new used has represented EPA's judgement significant. systems are installed to attain the as to the best method to use at the time The responses to the July 1986 data effluent limitations and standards being for the given purpose of data request also indicate that the majority of promulgated in this Federal Register development in light of the evolving the emissions are due to a small notice. These systems may be required state of the art. Data collected by to install air pollution control technology procedures deemed inadequate were percentage of the wastewater streams. to meet best available control This suggests that sizable emission subsequently dropped from the data reductions can be obtained through technology (BACT) requirements in base. EPA believes that it is most ozone attainment areas and/or lowest appropriate to treat all the data retained treatment of a relatively small achievable emission reduction (LAER) percentage of OCPSF plant after editing as equally appropriate for requirements in ozone nonattainment use in establishing the limitations. wastewaters. As a result, the EPA has areas. Information currently being initiated a program to identify to support regulatory Dischargers by using the technologies wastewater streams that contain gathered by EPA upon which the limitations are based, development could be used by States in be able to demonstrate relatively high concentrations of VOCs making these determinations. should and to determine the cost of removing Finally, readers should note that, compliance with these limitations using the VOCs. The EPA believes that consistent with the above discussion, the Part 136 analytical methods. emission controls will be most effective EPA has already begun to regulate air 7. Definition of Analytical Levels of and cost from both an environmental emissions of VOC from wastewater Detection and Their Use in Rulemaking standpoint if applied at the point of systems. On May 4, 1987, EPA published maximum VOC concentration. This will proposed new source performance Comment: A number of commenters generally be at the process unit standards under section 111 of the Clean were critical of.the manner in which discharge. Air pollution controls can be Air Act to limit emissions of VOC from EPA dealt with analytical levels of used at this point to reduce emissions new, modified, and reconstructed detection and low pollutant from wastewater line junctions, open refinery wastewater systems (52 FR concentrations. Many commenters troughs, and other possible emission 16334). The proposed standards require expressed the view that the 1985 points in the collection system and from the refinery wastewater systems to use proposal established limits below what all downstream treatment and the "best demonstrated technology", as the commenters term the "limit of processing points. Since treatment costs that term is defined in the Clean Air Act, quantification" (LOQ). Many are directly related to the amount of to reduce volatile organic emissions. commenters also stated that the limits wastewater, VOC removal is most cost proposed by EPA are at, near, or below effective if performed prior to being 6. Use of Different Analytical Methods the "Method Detection Limit" (MDL), the mixed with other wastewaters that . Comment: Some commenters have "limit of detection" (LOD), or the contain little or no VOCs. This stated that the various analytical "detection limit." Commenters cited information will be incorporated into a methods used by EPA to generate the journal articles from "Analytical technical document which can then be data used to d~velop the limitations are Chemistry," 52, December 1980, p. 2243; used for standards development. varied and not comparable. For example "Analytical Chemistry" 55, December The EPA is presently evaluating the methods used include a variety of 1983, page 2217 and "Spectrachem" whether the Clean Air Act, Resource GC/CD methods and GC/MS Acta. B, 33B, 1978, page 242. Conservation and Recovery Act or a procedures. Response: The Agency's position is combination of these and perhaps other Response: EPA acknowledges that a that the definitions of MDL, LOD and statutes should be used as a basis for variety of methods have been used to LOQ cited by commenters contain a regulating emissions from wastewater. develop the limitations. There are number of ambiguities that make their RCRA requires the regulation of air several reasons for this. First, different use in rulemaking problematic. The emissions at treatment, storage, and methods are more appropriate or more exception is the definition of MDL Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42563 provided by EPA (40 CFR Part 136). The used for cleaner water matrices than methods would prevent nonregulated other definitions do not provide explicit OCPSF wastewaters).) Similarly, EPA compounds from coeluting with step by step procedures including has published PQLs as part of its regulated compounds during the computational formulae that are recently revised hazardous waste analysis of a complex OCPSF industry sufficiently specific that a reader can groundwater monitoring regulations (52 wastewater. follow and obtain a result. At various FR 25942; July 9, 1987). However, the Response: EPA agrees that matrix points in the other definitions the reader PQLs in that regulation have not interferences can make measurement must make assumptions and undergone as extensive a validation difficult for a few of the pollutants at the interpretations that can be translated procedure as the Part 136 methods, and 10 g/L level in a few effluents, but not into operational steps to obtain a result. they are not to be used for any in many. EPA has found that well- In approaching development of regulatory purpose; they were published designed, well-operated treatment analytical methods to be used for primarily to provide guidance to systems that include in-plant treatment regulation of the OCPSF and other analytical laboratories. (Moreover, these (e.g., steam stripping; precipitation) industries, EPA sought a means by PQLs are based upon analytical followed by biological treatment reduce which low concentrations of organic procedures that do not reflect the state the matrix effects so that the sample pollutants in wastewaters could be of the art as fully as the Part 136 behaves in the analysis process in reliably measured, and sought to avoid methods do.) nearly the same way as does reagent the ambiguities associated with the In using the minimum level approach water, so that matrix interferences do definitions of LOQ, LOD, and detection for developing the OCPSF effluent not present a problem. The limitations limit. guidelines, EPA has used the approach and standards that EPA is promulgating For recent measurements of organic established in the analytical procedures today are based on well-designed and pollutants in this industry, EPA used which it has promulgated in Part 136 and well-operated treatment system isotope dilution GC/MS Methods 1624 which are described above. The performance. and 1625 (40 CFR Part 136; 49 FR 43234). promulgated Part 136 methods are For dischargers who do not use end- These methods specify the exact levels required to be used by NPDES of-pipe biological treatment, matrix at which the instrument must be permittees; thus it is the use of the Part interferences are also not likely to be a calibrated (see Section 7 "Calibration" 136 method's approach to Minimum problem. Effluent limitations below 50 in either method), and specify the Levels that is relevant in evaluating ppb are established primarily for two "Minimum Level" at which the entire whether particular concentrations can types of groups, volatile pollutants analytical system must give be monitored for and thus may treated by steam stripping and organic recognizable signals for the pollutant appropriately be established as pollutants treated by in-plant biological and acceptable calibration points. (See regulatory limits. Moreover, it is notable treatment. In both cases, the limitations the footnotes to table 2 of Method 1624 that, in any event, the limitations and are based upon data that demonstrate and to tables 3 and 4 of Method 1625).) standards established in this rule that the pollutants have been and thus These Minimum Levels are specified in compare favorably with a variety of can be measured at the regulatory the methods and are not statistically analytical detection/quantification levels. If situations remain in particular based, nor are they the same as the LOD definitions. No effluent limitation is less wastewaters where such measurement as one commenter suggests. These than the minimum level that can be is difficult, the pollutants can be minimum levels are based on EPA's measured reliably with isotope dilution monitored at the effluent from the in- experience with pollutant levels that can methods; similarly, the limitations are plant steam stripper or biological be measured with near 100 percent above the MDL for every pollutant in treatment unit. In such a case, certainty in every laboratory EPA every method and are above the LOQ employs using these methods. for at least one method alternate to the significant problems from matrix The minimum levels are pollutant isotope dilution methods. Therefore, the interferences are unlikely. specific and are different for different Agency concludes that pollutants can be To establish an effluent limit for daily pollutants. Of the pollutants listed in reliably measured at the promulgated maximum or monthly average, the data Methods 1624 and 1625, approximately levels. used are in most cases below the 22 percent have Minimum Levels of effluent limit because the limit allows greater than 10 Ag/l; the remaining 8. Complex Matrices for the variability of the data about the approximately 78 percent have Comment: Industry commented that average of the data (generally referred Minimum Levels of 10 pg/l. (Note, the analytical measurement at low to as the long-term average). For however, that the MDL for these levels is highly matrix dependent; i.e., analytical results reported below the pollutants is generally much lower than interferences in the sample from other Minimum Level (i.e., the level that EPA the Minimum Levels.] pollutants and other substances can can reliably measure consistent with the EPA recognizes that it has used in preclude measurement of pollutant 40 CFR Part 136 methods), the effluent some of its programs an analytical levels at the promulgated effluent limits. data was set at the Minimum Level, thus approach related to the LOQ, called PQL One commenter submitted data that assuring that the effluent limitations ("practical quantification level"), which purport to show that the analytical would not be based upon values below is generally some multiple of the MDL. methods EPA uses will not permit a level that can be measured reliably. This is done, for example in the recently accurate measurement of the effluent EPA has used its analytical methods to promulgated drinking water standards limits EPA has set because of the measure pollutant levels, in the presence ("maximum contaminant levels") for complex matrices. Other commenters of a wide variety of sample matrices, volatile organic chemicals (52 FR 25690, state that the proposed effluent limits and EPA's data establish that these July 8, 1987). That regulation established are too low for measurement in complex measurements can be made. PQLs generally at levels of 5 pg/l, which wastewaters and that the methods were EPA acknowledges that a portion of is in fact lower than the minimum levels developed using reagent water and not its Part 136 analytical method established for the corresponding wastewater matrices. development was conducted using pollutants under the Part 136 Finally, one commenter states that reagent water. As industry commenters regulations. (They are generally to be EPA has not demonstrated that its correctly point out, every wastewater 42564 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42564 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 214 I Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations sample from every plant in every wastewater-specific techniques that are However, a detailed response is set industry is different. EPA must, appropriate to addressing the specific forth in the Response to Comments however, use samples and analytical co-eluting compounds for that document for this rulemaking. measurements as the fundamental wastewater. Historically, in the face of comments mechanism for obtaining information EPA disagrees with the commenter by industries similar, to those raised here used in the Agency's rulemaking. EPA's that provided the results of a survey of by the OCPSF industry, EPA has not analytical methods were developed not detection limits in commercial analytical modified its basic conceptual approach only for regulating the OCPSF industry, laboratories. This survey purports to to setting effluent limitations, but rather but for all industries discharging show that laboratories cannot detect the has provided explicitly in the NPDES pollutants into wastewater. As a partial pollutants at the effluent limits EPA has regulations that demonstration of a solution to this problem, EPA used proposed, because of complex matrix treatment system upset in compliance reagent water as a reference sample problems. The values reported in this with certain criteria and procedures matrix, because reagent water can be survey are estimates, based on shall constitute an affirmative defense made reliably and reproducibly in unsupported judgements, and are not to an enforcement action. See the analytical laboratories and is therefore measured values. As indicated in a discussion below in Section XII of this globally available. EPA also tested footnote to the table of data, the results preamble and the cases cited therein. treated wastewaters in developing its are "based on a potential need for a EPA's approach in this regard is methods, and found that its methods tenfold dilution of wastewater samples." consistent with all judicial decisions on produced results nearly EPA assumes no need for such dilution, this issue to date. indistinguishable from results produced and has set effluent limits on the basis EPA has decided here to act with reagent water, as stated above. of pollutant levels actually measured, consistently with its historical practice. Further, EPA uses reagent water as a not on estimates. The final limitations and standards have reference matrix in nearly all of its In Methods 1624 and 1625, EPA has not been made less stringent to allow methods, and measures deviations from made provisions for dilution of increased latitude. EPA "untreated effluents and other samples". dischargers the results produced with reagent water believes that the current limits, These as an indicator of method performance provisions were made so that the developed by multiplying long-term Agency could determine (e.g., see section 8 of Methods 601-613, the efficiency averages by variability factors, of various treatment systems in 624-625, and 1624-1625). adequately allow for discharge removing the toxic organic pollutants. In addition to providing analytical variability and should be achieved This efficiency is determined by methods that permit measurement of consistently by OCPSF dischargers. measuring the influent to, and the pollutants at or below the effluent for minimizing effluent from, the treatment system. The Many techniques exist limitations and standards that EPA is waste stream variability, including today promulgating, EPA has provided influents to treatment contain higher concentrations and a greater variety of frequent inspection and repair of flexibility in its analytical methods to equipment and the use of back-up further deal with complex matrix pollutants at measurable levels than the effluents, and the methods permit systems; operator training and problems that may arise. This flexibility performance evaluations; management is permitted in two forms. First, a. dilution of these influents to permit reliable measurement of the pollutant control; careful communication and permittee may apply to the coordination among production and Administrator for use of an alternate concentrations. EPA has not promulgated influent limits. EPA wastewater treatment personnel; spill test procedure under 40 CFR 136.4 diversion and holding systems; and 136.5. As of January 21, 1987, more regulates effluents and has reliably measured equalization basins to make effluent than 800 applications for an alternate pollutant concentrations in effluents without the need for dilution. flow and quality more uniform; and test procedure have been made. Second, quality assurance/quality control (QA/ use of alternate chromatographic 9. EPA Should Modify Its Approach to QC) to minimize analytical variability. columns and other minor changes to the Determining Compliance The use of these techniques should methods are considered within the Comment: Some commenters have result in compliance at all times, apart scope of the methods, provided that the argued that the effluent limitations and from instances of upsets. quality assurance'criteria in the methods standards do not reflect the entire range EPA believes that the suggestions are met. of variability that can be expected from offered by the commenters have serious EPA cannot develop a generic method well-designed, well-operated facilities. drawbacks. Raising permit limits to that would prevent every non-regulated They recommend that some relief should allow increased variability would compound from interfering (coeluting) be provided to facilities in the form of inevitably result in less vigilant day-to- with every regulated compound, higher limits or a formal policy that day wastewater treatment and, on because of the sheer number of chemical allows periodic exceedances of the average, increased discharges of compounds. (More than 8,000,000 have limits. pollutants. This is directly contrary to been registered with the Chemical Response: The issue raised here by the Congressional intent that Abstracts Service.) Rather, as noted commenters is not unique to the OCPSF dischargers consistently employ the best above, EPA has provided flexibility in regulation. It has in fact been raised in available technology economically its methods, in terms of alternate comments on many other effluent achievable. Similarly, an enforcement methods, cleanup procedures, and the guideline rulemakings and in NPDES policy that allows periodic exceedances use of selective detectors. EPA also permit proceedings. Moreover, it has of limits (a policy which would be permits the user of its methods to been the subject of numerous lawsuits in generic and outside the scope of this improve the separations or lower the various United States Courts of Appeals. OCPSF rulemaking) would be fraught cost of measurements provided that the Because the issue is really a generic with the potential for mischief. First, it quality control requirements of the Clean Water Act regulatory issue could result in periodically excessive method are met. This flexibility allows addressed by NPDES regulations rather discharges. Second, it could result in laboratory chemists to apply their than a specific OCPSF issue, EPA's time-consuming fact-finding disputes in expertise in developing and using response is outlined only briefly below. enforcement cases as to the nature, Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42565 extent and frequencies of each alleged subcategorization, among other things to XII. Upset and Bypass Provisions violation rather than the swift, factually better take into account both technology simplified enforcement action availability and economic achievability. A recurring issue is whether industry envisioned by Congress. Where a particular size-based segment limitations and standards should include provisions that authorize noncompliance 10. Alternate BAT Limits or of the industry is so impacted by PretreatmentStandards for Small Plants regulation as to bring into question during "upsets" or "bypasses." An whether the regulation is economically upset, sometimes called an "excursion," Comment: EPA lacks statutory is unintentional noncompliance beyond authority to create alternative BAT achievable for that segment, EPA may consider economic achievability in the reasonable control of the permittee. limits or PSES for small plants even if EPA believes that upset provisions are they suffer greater economic impact setting limitations for that segment. Nothing in the statute or legislative appropriate because upsets will than larger plants. sometimes occur, despite proper Response: EPA agrees with the history precludes EPA from considering comment that the Regulatory Flexibility such a factor in establishing the operation of industrial processes and Act does not provide independent regulations. pollution control equipment. Because authority for the fashioning of The commenter argues that while the technology-based limitations can require alternative BAT or PSES standards for Act provides for consideration of only what technology can achieve, many small plants. The alternative BAT economic impacts upon an industry as a claim that liability for upsets is requirements promulgated today, i.e., whole, certain statutory provisions and improper. When confronted with this BAT equals BPT for direct discharging the Act's legislative history indicate that issue, courts have been divided on the plants with annual production of five if a regulation is economically . questions of whether an explicit upset or million pounds or less, have been achievable for the industry as a whole, excursion exemption is necessary or established solely under the authority of particular plants may not be exempt whether upset or excursion incidents the Clean Water Act. based upon their particular inability to may be handled through EPA's In its effluent guidelines program, EPA comply. EPA agrees and notes that enforcement discretion. Compare has often considered disproportionate Congress clearly expected that some Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253 small plant impacts and, where plants would be unable to comply and (9th Cir. 1977), with Weyerhaeuser v. appropriate, fashioned alternative would be forced to close. (Indeed in this Castle, supra and Corn Refiners requirements or outright exemptions for rulemaking, EPA projects closures as a Association, et al. v. Castle, 594 F.2d small plants. For example, the result of compliance with BAT as well 1223 (8th Cir. 1979). See also Sierra Club electroplating pretreatment standards as with PSES.) However, EPA believes v. Union Oil Co., 813 F.2d 1480 (9th Cir. contained less stringent requirements that this expectation extended only to 1987), American Petroleum Institute v. for all electroplaters with flows less the effect of requirements EPA, 540 F.2d 1023 (10th Cir. 1976), CPC than 10,000 gallons per day. on particular The Court in plants; it did not imply a prohibition 1320 NationalAssociation of Metal Finishers on International,Inc. v. Train, 540 F.2d taking adverse economic impact into (8th Cir. 1976), and FMC Corp. v. Train, v. EPA, 719 F.2d 624 (3rd Cir. 1983), account noted this relaxed requirement with in defining and segmenting 539 F.2d 973 (4th Cir. 1976). approval in the course of upholding entire classes of plants. In fashioning An upset, as noted above, is an EPA's regulation against an industry alternative requirements for a segment unintentional episode during which challenge that the regulation as a whole of small direct dischargers, EPA has effluent limits are exceeded; a bypass, was not economically achievable. considered the fact that about half of the however, is an act of intentional The Act clearly requires EPA to plants in that segment are projected to noncompliance during which waste consider economic impacts in setting close and most of the remaining plants facilities are circumvented in in treatment BAT limitations. BAT means "best the segment would suffer other emergency situations. EPA has, in the significant economic available technology economically impacts, while for past, included bypass provisions in the rest of the direct dischargers, the achievable" (emphasis added). (CWA NPDES permits. section 301(b)(2)(H)) Where economic impacts are quite low. This strongly supports the conclusion that the class of EPA has determined that both upset impacts are significant, EPA is not only should be authorized but compelled to consider small plants is significantly different and bypass provisions them. from the larger plants because of their included in NPDES permits and has The commenter argues that economic size and therefore appropriate to be promulgated permit regulations that achievability can be considered only on treated as a separate group for include upset and bypass permit an industry category-wide basis, not on regulatory purposes. Statutory provisions. See 40 CFR 122.41. The upset a subcategory basis. EPA disagrees. provisions such as section 301 (c) and provision establishes an upset as an EPA typically has considered a broad (n) limiting the consideration of affirmative defense to prosecution for range of factors as bases for segmenting economic factors in issuing permits to violation of, among other requirements, an industry for regulatory purposes; individual dischargers are irrelevant to technology-based effluent limitations. Section 304(b) of the Act authorizes the the question of appropriate bases for The bypass provision authorizes EPA Administrator to consider a variety segmenting industrial groups for bypassing to prevent loss of life, of enumerated technical factors (mostly regulations. personal injury, or severe property relevant to the "best available although XI. Best Management Practices (BMPs) damage. Consequently, technology" aspect of the BAT permittees in the OCPSF industry will definition), plus "such other factors as Section 304(e) of the Clean Water Act be entitled to upset and bypass the Administrator deems appropriate." authorizes the Administrator to provisions in NPDES permits, this As mentioned previously, the prescribe "best management practices" regulation does not address these issues. Administrator has deemed it fBMPs), described under Legal Authority Upset and Bypass provisions are also appropriate in many effluent guidelines and Background, above. EPA is not contained in the General Pretreatment regulations to consider plant size as a promulgating BMPs for the OCPSF regulation, 40 CFR Parts 125 and 403. factor in considering segmentation/ category at this time. , . gR Federal Reeister / Vol. 52. No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations ATRI Federal Reeister / Vol. 52. XIII. Variances and Modifications to conform to the provisions of the be considered in developing the more Water Quality Act of 1987. The appropriate process wastewater flow: Once the OCPSF regulation is in 1. A review of the component flows to limitations regulation promulgated today refers to effect, the numerical effluent the existing regulatory sections. insure that the claimed flows are, in for the appropriate subcategory must be However, EPA recognizes that the new fact, process wastewater flows as applied in all Federal and State NPDES section 301(n) of the Act overrides the defined by the regulation; permits thereafter issued to OCPSF existing FDF regulation to the extent of 2. A review of plant operations to direct dischargers. The pretreatment any inconsistency, and EPA does intend insure that sound water conservation standards are directly applicable to to modify the FDF regulation to conform practices are being followed. Examples indirect dischargers and become to the new statutory requirements. are: minimization of process water uses; effective as discussed in § 414.12 of the Indirect dischargers subject to PSES cascading or countercurrent washes or regulation. and PSNS are eligible for credits for rinses, where possible; reuse or recycle limitations, the For the BPT effluent toxic pollutants removed by a POTW. of intermediate process waters or only exception to the limitations See section 307(b) of the CWA and 40 treated wastewaters at the process area contained in the regulation is EPA's CFR 403.7. The removal credits and in wastewater treatment operations "fundamentally different factors" regulation was remanded to EPA in (pump seals, equipment and area variance. See E. I. duPont de Nemours NaturalResources Defense Council v. washdowns, etc.). and Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112 (1977); EPA, 790 F.2d 289 (3rd Cir. 1986). The 3. A review of barometric condenser Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Castle, supra. This court held that some of the means by a use at the process level. Often, variance recognizes factors concerning which EPA considered local POTW generate that are barometric condensers will particular discharger removal efficiencies were not relatively large volumes of water fundamentally different from the factors sufficiently stringent and that credits for contaminated at low levels. considered in this rulemaking. However, POTW removals may not be authorized Replacement of barometric condensers the economic ability of the individual until comprehensive regulations for the condensers can reduce for with surface operator to meet the compliance cost use and disposal of sludge are wastewater volumes significantly and BPT standards is not a consideration for promulgated under section 405(d) of the National result in collection of condensates that granting a variance. See However, it should be noted that to the process. v. EPA, 449 CWA. may be returned CrushedStone Association pretreatment standards for the OCPSF The final NPDES permit limitations U.S. 64 (1980). Although this variance industry, like other categorical clause was originally set forth in EPA's will be the sum of the mass effluent pretreatment standards, have been limitations derived as described above 1973-1976 categorical industry promulgated based upon the regulations, it is now included in the and any mass effluent limitations assumptions that indirect dischargers developed on a case-by-case basis using general NPDES regulations and will not will be required to comply with the judgment by the be included in the OCPSF or other best professional standards without removal credits, and permit writer to take into account specific industry regulations. See 40 CFR thus that they are subject to the full D. nonprocess wastewater discharges. Part 125, Subpart costs of complying with PSES. The BAT limitations in this regulation B. Relationshipto NPDES Permits also are subject to EPA's XIV. Implementation of Limitations and "fundamentally different factors" Standards The BPT and BAT limitations and NSPS in this regulation will be applied variance. However, section 306 of the A. Flow Basis a new to individual OCPSF plants through Water Quality Act of 1987 added permits issued by EPA or section 301(n) to the Act which The limitations promulgated today are NPDES somewhat limits the availability of FDF concentration-based and thus do not approved state agencies under section BAT effluent limitations regulate flow. The permit writer must 402 of the Act. As discussed in the variances from section of this preamble, these guidelines. An FDF application must be use a reasonable estimate of process preceding solely on information and wastewater flows and the concentration limitations must be applied in all new, based Federal and State supporting data submitted to EPA during limitations to develop mass limitations *modified and reissued the rulemaking establishing the for the NPDES permit. Process NPDES permits except to the extent that discussed the wastewater discharge is defined in the variances are expressly authorized. limitations that aspects of the interaction between fundamentally different factors, or on regulation (40 CFR 401.11) to include Other wastewaters resulting from manufacture these limitations and NPDES permits are information and supporting data that the below. applicant did not have a reasonable of OCPSF products that come in direct discussed opportunity to submit during the contact with raw materials, intermediate One subject that has received of rulemaking. The alternative requirement products, or final products, and surface different judicial rulings is the scope must be no less stringent than justified runoff from the immediate process area NPDES permit proceedings when by the fundamental difference and must that has the potential to become effluent limitations and standards do not not result in markedly more adverse contaminated. Noncontact cooling exist. Under current EPA regulations, non-water quality environmental waters, utility wastewaters, general site States and EPA regions that issue impacts than those considered by EPA surface runoff, ground waters, and other NPDES permits before regulations are in establishing the guideline. nonprocess waters generated on site are promulgated must establish effluent Indirect dischargers subject to PSES specifically excluded from the definition limitations on a case-by-case basis. This are also eligible for the "fundamentally of process wastewater discharges. In regulation provides a technical and legal different factors" variance. See 40 CFR cases where the process wastewater base for new or modified or reissued 403.13. They are subject to essentially flow claimed by industry may be permits. the same new statutory provisions for excessive, the permit writer may One issue that warrants consideration FDF variances as discussed above for develop a more appropriate process is the effect of this regulation on the BAT. wastewater flow for use in computing powers of NPDES permit-issuing Readers should note that EPA has not the mass effluent or internal plant authorities. EPA has developed the yet amended its FDF variance regulation limitations. The following items should limitations and standards in this Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42567 regulation to cover typical facilities in development of the relevant categorical is detailed in the "Development the OCPSF point source category. In pretreatment standard and that the Document for Effluent Guidelines, New specific cases, the NPDES permitting existence of those factors justifies a Source Performance Standards, and authority may have to establish permit different discharge limit from that Pretreatment Standards for the Organic limits on toxic or nonconventional specified in the categorical standard, Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers pollutants that are not covered by this then they may submit a request to EPA Point Source Category." The Agency's regulation. The promulgation of this for such a variance. See the discussion economic analysis is presented in the regulation will not restrict the power of above in Section XIII of this preamble. "Economic Impact Analysis Report for any permitting authority to act in any See 40 CFR 403.13. the Effluent Guidelines and Standards manner consistent with law or these or A "baseline monitoring report" is the for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and any other EPA regulations, guidelines, or first report an indirect discharger must Synthetic Fibers Industry." A detailed policy. For example, even if this file following promulgation of an response to the public comments regulation does not control a particular applicable standard. The baseline report on the proposed regulation and pollutant, the permit issuer may still includes: An identification of the received limit the pollutant on a case-by-case indirect discharger; a description of its subsequent notices is presented in a basis when such action conforms with operations; a report on the flows of report entitled "Responses to Public the purposes of the Act. In addition, to regulated streams and the results of Comments on the Proposed Organic the extent that State water quality sampling analyses to determine levels' of Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers standards or other provisions of State or regulated pollutants in those streams; a Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Federal law require limits on pollutants statement of the discharger's Standards." Copies of the technical not covered by this regulation (or compliance or noncompliance with the document and economic document may require more stringent limitations on standard; and a description of any be obtained from the National Technical covered pollutants), the permit-issuing additional steps required to achieve Information Service, Springfield, authority must apply those limitations. compliance. See 40 CFR 403.12(b). Virginia 22161, (703) 487-4600. A second topic that warrants A "report on compliance" is required Additional information concerning the discussion is the operation of EPA's of each indirect discharger within 90 economic impact analysis may be NPDES enforcement program, many days following the date for compliance obtained from Ms. Kathleen aspects of which were considered in with an applicable categorical Ehrensberger, Economic Analysis developing this regulation. The Agency pretreatment standard. The report must Branch (WH-586), U.S. Environmental emphasizes that although the Clean indicate the concentration of all Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Water Act is a strict liability statute, the regulated pollutants in the facility's Washington, DC 20460 or by calling regulated process wastestreams; the initiation of enforcement proceedings by (202) 382-5397. Technical information EPA is discretionary. Sierra Club v. average and maximum daily flows of the regulated streams; and a statement of may be obtained from Mr. Elwood H. Train, 557 F.2d 485 (5th Cir. 1977). EPA Forsht, Industrial Technology Division has exercised and intends to exercise whether compliance is consistently (WH-552), U.S. Environmental that discretion in a manner that being achieved, and if not, what recognizes and promotes good-faith additional operation and maintenance Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., compliance efforts. and/or pretreatment is necessary to Washington, DC 20460 or by calling achieve compliance. See 40 CFR (202) 382-7190. C. Indirect Dischargers 403.12(d). XVI. Office of Management and Budget A "periodic compliance report" is a (OMB)Review For indirect dischargers, PSES and report on continuing compliance with all PSNS are implemented under National applicable categorical pretreatment This regulation and the Regulatory Pretreatment Program procedures standards. It is submitted twice per year outlined in 40 CFR Part 403. The brief Impact Analysis were submitted to the (June and December) by indirect glossary below may be of assistance in Office of Management and Budget for dischargers subject to the standards. resolving questions about the operation review as required by Executive Order The report must provide the 12291. The regulation does not contain of that program. concentrations of the regulated A "request for category any information collection requirements. pollutants in its discharge to the POTW; There are information collection determination" is a written request, the average and maximum daily flow submitted by an indirect discharger or requirements associated with the rates of the facility; the methods used by general pretreatment requirements and its POTW, for a determination of which the indirect discharger to sample and permit requirements. These information categorical pretreatment standard analyze the data; and a certification that applies to the indirect discharger. This these methods conform to the methods collection requirements have been assists the indirect discharger in outlined in the regulations. See 40 CFR approved by OMB. knowing which PSES or PSNS limits it 403.12(e). will be required to meet. See 40 CFR List of Subjects 403.6(al. XV. Availability of Technical 40 CFR Part414 A request for "fundamentally different Information Organic chemicals manufacturing, factors variance" is a mechanism by The basis for this regulation is Plastics manufacturing, Synthetic fibers which a categorical pretreatment detailed in four major documents each standard may be adjusted, making it of which in turn is supported by manufacturing, Water pollution control, more or less stringent, on a case-by-case additional information and analyses in Water treatment and disposal. basis. If an indirect discharger, a POTW, the record. Analytical methods are 40 CFR Part416 or any interested person believes that discussed in "Sampling and Analysis factors relating to a specific indirect Procedures for Screening of Industrial Plastics materials and synthetics, discharger are fundamentally different Effluents for Priority Pollutants." EPA's Waste -treatment and disposal, Water from those factors considered during technical foundation for the regulations pollution control. 42568 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 2i4 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42568 Federal Register I Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 I Rules and Regulations Dated: October 2, 1987. N-Nitrosodimethylamine Appendix E-Toxic Pollutants That Do Lee M. Thomas, Aldrin Not Pass Through or Interfere With Administrator. Dieldrin POTWs Appendices Chlordane Benzo(a) anthracene 4,4'-DDT Appendix A-Abbreviations, Benzo(a) pyrene 4,4'-DDE Chrysene Acronymns, and Other Terms Used in 4,4'-DDD Chromium This Notice alpha-Endosulfan Copper Act-The Clean Water Act. beta-Endosulfan Agency-The U.S. Environmental Endosulfansulfate Nickel Protection Agency. Endrin For the reasons set, out in the BAT-The best available technology Endrin aldehyde preamble, 40 CFR Part 414 and 416 are economically achievable under section Heptachlor amended as set forth below. 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act. Heptachlor epoxide 1. 40 CFR Part 414 is revised to read as BCT-The best conventional pollutant alpha-BHC follows: control technology under section beta-BHC PART 414-ORGANIC CHEMICALS, 304(b)(4) of the Act. gamma-BHC BOD-For the purposes of this notice, delta-BHC PLASTICS, AND SYNTHETIC FIBERS BOD refers to 5-day biochemical oxygen Toxaphene demand. PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242) Subpart A-General BMP-Best management practices PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254) Sec. section 304(e) of the Act. under PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221) 414.10 General definitions. BPT-The best practicable control 414.11 Applicability. technology currently available under PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232) PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248) 414.12 Compliance date for Pretreatment section 304(b)(1) of the Act. Standards for Existing Sources (PSES). Clean Water Act-The Federal Water PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260) Subpart B-Rayon Fibers Pollution Control Act Amendments of PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016) 1972, as amended by the Clean Water Asbestos 414.20 Applicability; description of the Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-217) and Water rayon fibers subcategory. Appendix D-Toxic Pollutants(1) 414.21 Effluent limitations representing the Quality Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-4) (33 Detected in Treated Effluents From a degree of effluent reduction attainable by U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). Small Number of DischargeSources and the application of the best practicable Direct Discharger-A facility which Uniquely Related to Those Sources, (2) control technology currently available discharges or may discharge pollutants Present Only in Trace Amounts and (BPT). into waters of the United States. Neither CausingNor Likely to Cause 414.22 Effluent limitations representing the Indirect Discharger-A facility which Toxic Effects, or (3) Sufficiently degree of effluent reduction attainable by discharges or may discharge pollutants Controlledby Existing Technologies the application of the best conventional into a publicly owned treatment works. pollutant control technology (BCT). NPDES Permit-A National Pollutant Acrolein (1) [Reserved] Discharge Elimination System permit Benzidine (1) 414.23 Effluent limitations representing the issued under section 402 of the Act. Bis (2-chloroethyl)ether (2) degree of effluent reduction attainable by NSPS-New source performance 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether (1) the application of best available 2-Chloronaphthalene (1) technology economically achievable standards under section 306 of the Act. (BAT). POTW-Publicly owned treatment Parachlorometa cresol (1) 414.24 • New source performance standards works. 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether (1) (NSPS). PSES-Pretreatment standards for 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether (1) 414.25 Pretreatment standards for existing existing sources of indirect discharges 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine (1) sources (PSES}. under section 307(b) of the Act. Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane (1) 414.26 Pretreatment standards for new PSNS-Pretreatment standards for Methylbromide (1) sources (PSNS). new sources of indirect discharges Bromoform (2) Subpart C-4)ther Fibers under sections 307 (b) and (c) of the Act. Dichlorobromomethane (2) 414.30 Applicability; description of the other RCRA-Solid Waste Disposal Act as Chlorodibromomethane (2) fibers subcategory. amended by the Resource Conservation N-Nitrosodiphenylamine (1) 414.31 Effluent limitations representing the and Recovery Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94- N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine (1) degree of effluent reduction attainable by 580) and as further amended (42 U.S.C. Pentachlorophenol (2) the application of the best practicable 6901 et seq). Butyl benzyl phthalate (1) control technology currently available Di-n-octyl phthalate (2) (BPT). Appendix B-Toxic PollutantsExcluded 414.32 Effluent limitations representing the from PSES and PSNS Because They Are Arsenic (1) degree of effluent reduction attainable by Sufficiently Controlledby Existing Beryllium (1) the application of the best conventional Technologies Cadmium (1) pollutant control technology (BCT). 2,4-Dinitrophenol Mercury (1) [Reserved] Selenium (1) 414.33 Effluent limitations representing the Benzo(k)fluoranthene degree of effluent reduction attainable by Acenaphthylene Silver (1) Thallium (1) the application of the best available Appendix C-Toxic PollutantsNot technology economically achievable Benzo(ghi)perylene (3) (BAT). Detected in the Treated Effluents of Dibenzo(a,h) anthracene (3) Direct Dischargersor in Wastewaters 414.34 New source performance standards Indeno(1,2,3-c,djpyrene (3) (NSPS). from Process Sources Isophorone (2) 414.35 Pretreatment standards for existing Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (2) sources (PSES). Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42569 I

414.36 Pretreatment standards for new 414.66 Pretreatment standards for new Appendix A-Non-Complexed Metal- sources (PSNS). sources (PSNS). Bearing Waste Streams and Cyanide- Bearing Waste Streams Subpart D-Thermoplastlc Resins Subpart G-Bulk Organic Chemicals. 414.40 Applicability: description of the 414.70 Applicability; description of the bulk Appendix B-Complexed-Metal Bearing thermoplastics resins subcategory. organic chemicals subcategory. Waste Streams 414.41 Effluent limitations representing the 414.71 Effluent limitations representing the Authority: Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, and degree of effluent reduction attainable by degree of effluent reduction attainable by 501, Pub. L. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816, Pub. L. 95-217, the application of the best practicable the application of the best practicable 91 Stat. 156, Pub. L. 100-4, 101 Stat. 7 (33 control technology currently available control technology currently available U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, and 1361). (BPT). (BPT). 414.42 Effluent limitations representing the 414.72 Effluent limitations representing the Subpart A-General degree of effluent reduction attainable by degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional the application of the best conventional § 414.10 General definitions. pollutant control technology (BCT). pollutant control technology (BCT). As used in this part: [Reserved] [Reserved] 414.43 Effluent limitations representing the (a) Except as provided in this 414.73 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable regulation, the general definitions, by degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of best available abbreviations and methods of analysis the application of the best available technology economically achievable set forth in Part 401 of this chapter shall technology economically achievable (BAT). (BAT). apply to this part. 414.44 New source performance standards 414.74 New source performance standards (b) "Pretreatment control authority" (NSPS). (NSPS). means: 414.45 Pretreatment standards for existing 414.75 Pretreatment standards for existing (1) The POTW if the POTW's sources (PSES). sources (PSES]. 414.46 Pretreatment standards for new submission for its pretreatment program sources (PSNS). 414.76 Pretreatment standards for new has been approved in accordance with sources (PSNS). the requirements of 40 CFR 403.11, or Subpart E-Thermosetting Resins Subpart H-Specialty Organic Chemicals (2) The Approval Authority if the 414.50 Applicability; description of the submission has not been approved. 414.80 Applicability; description of the thermosetting resins subcategory. (c) "Priority pollutants" means the 414.51 Effluent limitations representing the specialty organic chemicals subcategory. toxic pollutants listed in 40 CFR 401.15. degree of effluent reduction attainable by 414.81 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable § 414.11 Applicability. control technology currently available the application of the best practicable (BPT). control technology currently available (a) The provisions of this part are 414.52 Effluent limitations representing the (BPT). applicable to process wastewater degree of effluent reduction attainable by 414.82 Effluent limitations representing the discharges from all establishments or the application of the best conventional degree of effluent reduction attainable by portions of establishments that pollutant control technology (BCT). the application of the best conventional manufacture the organic chemicals, pollutant control [Reserved] technology (BCT). plastics, and synthetic fibers (OCPSF) [Reserved] 414.53 Effluent limitations representing the products or product groups covered by degree of effluent reduction attainable by 414.83 Effluent limitations representing the Subparts B through H of this regulation the application of the best available degree of effluent reduction attainable by technology economically achievable the application of the best available and are included within the following (BAT). technology economically achievable U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of 414.54 New source performance standards (BAT). the Census Standard Industrial (NSPS). 414.84 New source performance standards Classification (SIC) major groups: 414.55 Pretreatment standards for existing (NSPS). (1) SIC 2821-Plastic Materials, sources (PSES). 414.85 Pretreatment standards for existing Synthetic Resins, and Nonvulcanizable 414.56 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSES). Elastomers, sources (PSNS]. 414.86 Pretreatment standards for new (2] SIC 2823-Cellulosic Man-Made sources (PSNS). Subpart F-Commodity Organic Chemicals Fibers, 414.60 Applicability; description of the Subpart I-Direct Discharge Point Sources (3) SIC 2824-Synthetic Organic commodity organic chemicals That Use End-of-Pipe Biological Treatment Fibers, Except Cellulosic, subcategory. 414.90 Applicability: description of the (4) SIC 2865--Cyclic Crudes and 414.61 Effluent limitations representing the subcategory of direct discharge point Intermediates, Dyes, and Organic degree of effluent reduction attainable by sources that use end-of-pipe biological Pigments, the application of the best practicable treatment. (5) SIC 2869-Industrial Organic control technology currently available 414.91 Toxic pollutant effluent limitations Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified. (BPT). and standards for direct discharge point 414.62 Effluent limitations representing the sources that use end-of-pipe biological (b) The provisions of this part are degree of effluent reduction attainable by treatment. applicable to wastewater discharges the application of the best conventional from OCPSF research and development, Subpart J-Direct pollutant control technology (BCT). Discharge Point Sources pilot plant, technical service and [Reserved] That Do Not Use End-of-Pipe Biological Treatment laboratory bench scale operations if 414.63 Effluent limitations representing the such operations are conducted in degree of effluent reduction attainable by 414.100 Applicability; description of the conjunction with and related to existing the application of best available subcategory of direct discharge point OCPSF manufacturing activities at the technology economically achievable sources that do not use end-of-pipe (BAT). biological treatment. plant site. 414.64 New source performance standards 414.101 Toxic pollutant effluent limitations (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of (NSPS). and standards for direct discharge point this section, the provisions of this part 414.65 Pretreatment standards for existing sources that do not use end-of-pipe are not applicable to discharges sources (PSES). biological treatment. resulting from the manufacture of 42,570 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42570 Federal Register / Vol. 52, N.24/TusaNvme ,18 ue n euain OCPSF products if the products are § 414.21 Effluent limitations representing in accordance with § 414.91 of this part included in the following SIC subgroups the degree of effluent reduction attainable and also must not exceed the quantity by the application of the best practicable and have in the past been reported by (mass) determined by multiplying the control technology currently available process wastewater flow subject to this the establishment under these subgroups (BPT). and not under the SIC groups listed in subpart times the concentrations in the Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 table. paragraph (a) of this section: following through 125.32, any existing point source (b) Any new source that does not.use (1) SIC 2843085-bulk surface active subject to this subpart must achieve end-of-pipe biological treatment and is agents; discharges not exceeding the quantity subject to this subpart must achieve (2) SIC 28914-synthetic resin and (mass) determined by multiplying the discharges in accordance with § 414.101 rubber adhesives; process wastewater flow subject to this of this part and also must not exceed the (3) Chemicals and Chemical subpart times the concentration listed in quantity (mass) determined by Preparations, not Elsewhere Classified: the following table. multiplying the process wastewater flow (i) SIC 2899568-sizes, all types subject to this subpart times the BPT effluent concentrations in the following table. (ii) SIC 2899597-other industrial limitations I chemical specialties, including fluxes, plastic wood preparations, and Maxi- NSPS' Maxi- mum embalming fluids; Effluent characteristics mum for Maxi- (4) SIC 2911058--aromatic for any month- Maxi- mum from one ly hydrocarbons manufactured day aver- Effluent characteristics mum for purchased refinery products; and age for any month- one ly (5) SIC 2911632-aliphatic day aver- hydrocarbons manufactured from -BOD5 ...... 64 24 age purchased refinery products. TSS ...... 130 40 (d) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of pH ...... (2) (2) BOD5 ...... 64 24 this section, the provisions of this part TSS ...... 130 40 1 All units except pH are milligrams per liter. pH ...... (2) (2) are not applicable to any discharges for 2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times. which a different set of previously 1 All units except pH are milligrams per liter. promulgated effluent limitations 2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times. guidelines and standards in this § 414.22 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable subchapter apply, unless the facility by the application of the best conventional reports OCPSF products under SIC § 414.25 Pretreatment standards for pollutant control technology (BCT). existing sources (PSES). codes 2865, 2869, or 2821, and the (Reserved] facility's OCPSF wastewaters are (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 treated in a separate treatment system § 414.23 Effluent limitations representing and 403.13, any existing source subject the degree of effluent reduction attainable or discharged separately to a publicly to this subpart which introduces by the application of the best available owned owned treatment works. pollutants into a publicly technology economically achievable (BAT). treatment works must comply with 40 (e) The provisions of this part do not (a) The Agency has determined that CFR Part 403 and achieve discharges not apply to any process wastewater for existing point sources whose total exceeding the quantity (mass) discharges from the manufacture of OCPSF production defined by § 414.11 is determined by multiplying the process organic chemical compounds solely by less than or equal to five (5) million wastewater flow subject to this subpart extraction from plant and animal raw pounds of OCPSF products per year, the times the concentration listed in the materials or by fermentation processes. BPT level of treatment is the best following table. (0)Discharges of chromium, copper, available technology economically (b) In the case of lead, zinc, and total lead, nickel, and zinc in "complexed achievable. Accordingly, the Agency is cyanide the discharge quantity (mass) metal-bearing waste streams," listed in not promulgating more stringent BAT shall be determined by multiplying the Appendix B of this part, are not subject limitations for these point sources. concentrations listed in the following in paragraph to the requirements of this part. (b) Except as provided table for the metal pollutants times the (a) of this section and in 40 CFR 125.30 flow from metal-bearing waste streams § 414.12 Compliance date for through 125.32, any existing point source for metals and times the flow from the Pretreatment Standards for Existing that uses end-of-pipe biological cyanide-bearing waste streams for total Sources (PSES). treatment and is subject to this subpart cyanide. The metal-bearing waste All dischargers subject to PSES in this must achieve discharges in accordance streams and cyanide-bearing waste part must comply with the standards by with § 414.91 of this part. streams are defined as those waste provided in paragraph (c) Except as streams listed in Appendix A of this no later than three years after date of in 40 CFR 125.30 (a) of this section and part, plus any additional process promulgation in the Federal Register. point source through 125.32, any existing wastewater streams identified by the does not use end-of-pipe biological Subpart B-Rayon Fibers that control authority on a case-by-case this subpart treatment and is subject to basis as metals or cyanide bearing achieve discharges in accordance § 414.20 Applicability; description of the must based upon a determination- fibers subcategory. with § 414.101 of this part. rayon (1) That such streams contain The provisions of this subpart are § 414.24 New source performance significant amounts of the pollutants applicable to process wastewater standards (NSPS). identified above and discharges resulting from the (a) Any new source that uses end-of- (2) That the combination of such manufacture of rayon fiber by the pipe biological treatment and is subject streams, prior to treatment, with the viscose process only. to this subpart must achieve discharges Appendix A waste streams would result Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42571

in substantial reduction of these § 414.26 Pretreatment standards for new § 414.31 Effluent limitations representing pollutants. sources (PSNS). the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicabl This determination must be based upon (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 e any new source subject to this subpart control technology currently available a review of relevant engineering, (BPT). which introduces pollutants into a production, and sampling and analysis Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 information. publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and through 125.32, any existing point source achieve discharges not exceeding the subject to this subpart must achieve Pretreatment quantity (mass) determined by discharges not exceeding the (mass) standards I multiplying the ptocess wastewater flow quantity determined by multiplying the process wastewater flow subject to this Maxi- subject to this subpart times the Effluent characteristics Maxi- MUM concentration listed above in § 414.25. subpart times the concentration listed in mum for (b) In the case of lead, zinc, and total the following table. for any month- cyanide the discharge quantity (mass) one ly day aver- shall be determined by multiplying the BPT effluent , age concentrations listed above in § 414.25 limitations I for the metal pollutants times the flow Effluent i from metal-bearing waste streams and characteristics Maximum Maximum Acenaphthene ...... 47 19 for any monthly Benzene ...... 134 times the flow from the cyanide-bearing 57 one day average Carbon Tetrachloride ...... 380 142 waste streams for total cyanide. The Chlorobenzene ...... 380 142 metal-bearing waste streams and 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ...... 794 196 cyanide-bearing waste streams are BOD5 ...... 48 18 Hexachlorobenzene ...... 794 196 defined as those waste streams listed in TSS ...... 115 36 1,2-Dichloroethane ...... 574 180 Appendix A of this part, plus any pH ...... (2) (2) 1.1,1-Tnchloroethane ...... 59 22 additional process wastewater streams Hexachloroethane ...... 794 196 identified by the control authority on a All units except pH are milligrams per liter. 2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times. 1,1-Dichloroethane ...... 59 22 case-by-case basis as metal or cyanide 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ...... 127 32 bearing based upon a determination- Chloroethane ...... 295 110 (1) That such streams contain § 414.32 Effluent limitations representing Chloroform ...... 325 111 significant amounts of the pollutants the degree of effluent reduction attainable 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ...... 794 196 identified above and by the application of the best conventional 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ...... 380 142 (2) That the combination of such pollutant control technology (BCT). 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ...... 380 142 streams, prior to treatment, with the [Reserved] 1,1 -Dichloroethylene ...... 60 22 1.2-Trans-dichloroethylene.. 66 25 Appendix A waste streams will result in §414.33 Effluent limitations representing 1,2-Dichloropropane ...... 794 196 substantial reduction of these pollutants. the degree of effluent reduction attainable 1,3-Dichloropropylene ...... 794 196 This determination must be based upon by the application of the best available 2,4-Dimethylphenol ...... 47 19 a review of relevant engineering, technology economically achievable (BAT). Ethylbenzene ...... 380 142 production,, and sampling and analysis (a) The Agency has determined that Fluoranthene ...... 54 22 information. for existing point sources whose total Methylene Chloride ...... 170 36 OCPSF production defined by § 414.11 is Methyl Chloride ...... 295 110 Subpart C-Other Fibers less than or equal to five (5) million Hexachlorobutadiene ...... 380 142 pounds of OCPSF products per year, the Naphthalene ...... § 414.30 Applicability; description of the 47 19 BFT level of treatment is the best Nitrobenzene ...... other fibers subcategory. 6,402 2,237 available technology economically 2-Nitrophenol ...... 231 65 The provisions of this subpart are 4-Nitrophenol ...... 576 162 applicable to the process wastewater achievable. Accordingly, the Agency is not promulgating more stringent BAT 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol ...... 277 78 discharges resulting from the limitations for these point sources. Phenol ...... 47 19 manufacture of the following SIC 2823 (b) Except as provided in paragraph Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.. 258 95 cellulosic man-made fibers and fiber Di-n-butyl phthalate ...... 43 20 groups, except Rayon, and SIC 2824 (a) of this section and in 40 CFR 125.30 Diethyl phthalate ...... 113 46 synthetic organic fibers and fiber through 125.32, any existing point source Dimethyl phthalate ...... 47 19 groups. Product groups are indicated that uses end-of-pipe biological Anthracene ...... 47 19 with an asterisk (*). treatment and is subject to this subpart Fluorene ...... 47 19 *Acrylic Fibers (85% Polyacrylonitrile) must achieve discharges in accordance Phenanthrene ...... 47 19 *Cellulose Acetate Fibers with § 414.91 of this part. Pyrene ...... 48 20 (c) Except as provided in paragraph Tetrachloroethylene ...... *Fluorocarbon (Teflon) Fibers 164 52 (a) of this section and in 40 CFR 125.30 Toluene ...... 74 *Modacrylic Fibers 28 through 125.32, any existing point source Trichloroethylene ...... 69 26 *Nylon 6 Fibers that does not use end-of-pipe biological Vinyl Chloride ...... 172 97 Nylon 6 Monofilament Total Cyanide ...... 1,200 420 treatment and is subject to this subpart *Nylon 66 Fibers must achieve discharges in accordance Total Lead ...... 690 320 Nylon 66 Monofilament Total Zinc 2 ...... 2,610 1,050 *Polyamide Fibers (Quiana) with § 414.101 of this part. *Polyaramid (Kevlar) Resin-Fibers § 414.34 New source performance I All units are micrograms per liter. *Polyaramid (Nomex) Resin-Fibers 2 Total Zinc for Rayon Fiber Manufacture standards (NSPS). that uses the viscose process is 6,796 /±g/I *Polyester Fibers (a) Any new source that uses end-0f- and 3,325 Lg/l for maximum for any one day *Polyethylene Fibers pipe biological treatment and is subject and maximum for monthly average, respec- *Polypropylene Fibers tively. to this subpart must achieve discharges *Polyurethane Fibers (Spandex) in accordance with § 414.91 of this part, 42572. Federal' Regiter / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987' Rules and Regulations 42572 Federal Register / VOL 52, No. 214 / Thursday; November 5, 1987' 1 Rules and: Regulations and also must not exceed, the quantity, production, and sampling and analysfs publicly owned treatment works, must (mass:I determined by multiplying the, information. comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and- process wastewater flow subject to.this achieve discharges not exceeding the subpart times the concentrations in the. Pretreatment quantity (mass}.determined by following table. standards multiplying the, process wastewater flow; I (bli Any new source that does not use Effluent subject to this subpart times the, end-of-pipe biological treatment and is- characteristics MaWmum Mfor concentration listed above in § 414.35. subject to,this subpart must achieve for any' monthly, (bJ In the case of lead, zinc, and total discharges. in accordance with t 414.101. one day average cyanide the discharge quantity (mass) of this part., and. also. must not exceed' shall be determined by multiplying the the quantity massj determined by Acenaphthene ...... 47' 19 concentrations listed above in § 414.35 multiplying the process wastewater, flow Benzene,_...... --... 134 57 for the metal pollutants times.the flow Carbon, Tetrachleride;.. 142 subject to this subpart times the, 380, 14 from metal-bearing waste streams for concentrations in the following table. Chlombenzene ...... 380 metals and tines the flow from the 1,2,4- 19 cyanide-bearing waste streams for total Trichlorobenzene 794 The metal-bearing waste NSPS1 Hexachlorobenzene 794 196 cyanide. 1.2-Dichloroethane ...... 574' 180 streams and cyanide-bearing waste Effluent Maximum Maximum 1,1,1-Trichloroethane.. 59 22' streams are defined as those waste, characteristics y for Hexachloroethane ...... 794 196lee, streams listed in Appendix A of this, for any monthly 22 one day verage 1,1 -Dichloroethane.-... 59. part plus any additional process 1,1,2-Trichloroethane.. 127 32' wastewater streams identified by the Chloroethane,...... 295 control authority on a case-by-case, BOD5 ...... 48 18 Chloroform ...... 325. 196 basis as metal or cyanide bearing based TSS ...... '5 36, 1,2-Oichlorobenzene.- 794 142 upon a determination- pH ...... (-, (2) 1,3-Dichlorobenzene .... 380 142 (1) That such streams contain 1,4-Dichlorobenzene.... 380' 22 'All units except pH are milligrams per liter. 1,1-Dichloroethylene .... 60 significant amounts of the pollutants vWithin the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at ar times. 1,2-trans- 28. identified above and, that Dichloroethylene ...... 6, 196 (;) The combination of such streams, 1,2-Dichloropropane... 794 prior to treatment, with the Appendix A § 44.35 Pretreatmentstandardsfor 1,3- existing sources (PSES). waste streams wilt result in substantial Dichloropropylene.... 794 19 reduction of these pollutants. as; 2,4-Dimethylphenol,..... 47 [a) Except provided in,40 CFR 4017 142 This determination must be based upon and 403.13, any existing source subject Ethylbenzene ...... 380 22 to this subpart which introduces Fluoranthene ...... 54 36 a review of'relevant engineering, pollutants into a,publicly- owned Methylene Chlbride ...... 170 110 production, and sampling and analysis, Methyt Chloride ...... 295 information,. treatment works must comply with 40 142 Hexachlorobutadiene.. 380 19 CFR Part 403 and achieve discharges not Naphthalene ...... Subpart D-ThermoplastlC Resifs exceeding the quantity 47 2.237 (mass) Nitrobenzene ...... 6,402. 65, determined by' multiplying the' process 2-Nitrophenol ...... 231 162 § 414.40 Appllcabillty; description of tw, wastewater flow subject to this subpart 4-Nitrophenol ...... 576 thermoplastic resins subcategory. 78 times the concentration listed in the 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 277 19 The provisions of this subpart are following table. Phenol ...... 47 applicable to the process wastewater (bf In the case of lead, zinc,, and total Bis(2-ethylhexyl) 965 discharges resulting from the cyanide the discharge quantity ('massi phthalate ...... 251 20 manufacture of the following SIC 28213 Di-n-butyl phthalate ...... 43 shall be determined'. by multiplying the Diethyl phthalate ...... 11,3 46 thermoplastic resins and thermoplastic concentrationr listed in the following 79 groups are Dimethyl, phthalate ...... 47' 19 resin groups. Product table for the metals pollutants times the Anthracene ...... 47 19 indicate&with an asterisk (*I. flow from metal-bearing waste streams Fluorene...... *Abietic Acid--Derivatives: 47 1:9. for metals and!times the flow from. the Phenanthrene ...... 47' 20 *ABSResins cyanide-bearing waste streams for total Pyrene ...... 48; *ABS-SAN Resins; Tetrachloroethytene.... 164 52' *Acrylate-Methacrylate cyanide. The- metal-bearing waste 28 Latexes streams and cyanide-bearing, waste Toluene ...... 74. 26 *Acrylic Latex streams are defined as those waste Trichloroethylene ...... 69 97 *Acrylic Resins streams listed in-Appendix A of this Vinyl Chloride ...... 172 420 *Cellulose Acetate Butyrates Total Cyanide...... 1,200 320 part, plus any additional process Total Lead ...... 690' Cellulose Acetate Resin wastewater streams identified by the Total Zinc 2 ...... 2,610; 1,050 *Cellulose Acetates control authority oft a case-by-case *Cellulose Acetates Propionates basis as metal or cyanide bearing based I All units are micrograms per liter. Cellulose Nitrate upon, a determination- 2 Total zinc for the manufacture. of acrylic fibers using the zinc chloride/solvent process Cellulose Sponge (1)J That such streams contain is 6,796 pg/l and 3,325 /g/l for maximum for *Ethylene-Methacrylic Acid Copolymers significant amounts of the pollutants any one day and maximum for monthly aver *Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate Copolymers identified above and that age, respectively.. *Fatty Acid Resins (2) The combination of such streams., *Fluorocarbon Polymers prior to treatment, with the Appendix A § 414.36 Pretreatment standards fornew Nylon 11.Resin waste. streams will result in substantial sources (PSNS). *Nylon &-% Copolymers reduction, of these pollutants, (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 *Nylon 6-Nylon. I Blends This determination must be-based. upon any new source subject to this subpart Nylon 6 Resin a. review of' relevant engineering , which introduces pollutants into a Nylon 612 Resin Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday. November 5. 1987 / Rules and Regulations A9_.7.Q

Nylon 66 Resin *Nylons *Styrene-Butadiene Resins not promulgating more stringent BAT *Styrene-Butadiene Resins (<50% *Petroleum Hydrocarbon Resins limitations for these point sources. *Polyvinyl Pyrrolidone-Copolymers Butadiene) (b) Except as provided in paragraph *Poly(Alpha)Olefins *Styrene-Butadiene Resins (latex) *Styrene-Divinyl Benzene Resins (Ion (a) of this section and in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point source Polyacrylic Acid Exchange) *Polyamides *Styrene-Methacrylate Terpolymer that uses end-of-pipe biological *Polyarylamides Resins treatment and is subject to this subpart Polybutadiene *Styrene-Methyl Methacrylate must achieve discharges in accordance *Polybutenes Copolymers with § 414.91 of this part. Polybutenyl Succinic Anhydride *Styrene, Butadiene, Vinyl Toluene *Polycarbonates (c) Except as provided in paragraph *Polyester Resins Terpolymers (a) of this section and in 40 CFR 125.30 *Polyester Resins, Polybutylene *Sulfonated Styrene-Maleic Anhydride through 125.32, any existing point source Resins that does not use end-of-pipe biological Terephthalate *Unsaturated Polyester Resins *Polyester Resins, Polyoxybenzoate treatment and is subject to this subpart *Vinyl Toluene Resins must achieve discharges in accordance Polyethylene *Vinyl Toluene-Acrylate Resins with § 414.101 of this part. *Polyethylene-Ethyl Acrylate Resins *Vinyl Toluene-Butadiene Resins *Polyethylene-Polyvinyl Acetate *Vinyl Toluene-Methacrylate Resins § 414.44 New source performance Copolymers *Vinylacetate-N-Butylacrylate standards (NSPS). Polyethylene Resin (HDPE) Copolymers (a) Any new source that uses end-of- Polyethylene Resin (LPDE) pipe biological Polyethylene Resin, Scrap § 414.41 Effluent limitations representing treatment and is subject to this subpart Polyethylene Resin, Wax (Low M.W.) the degree of effluent reduction attainable must achieve discharges Polyethylene Resin, Latex by the application of the best practicable in accordance with § 414.91 of this part, Polyethylene Resins control technology currently available and also must not exceed the quantity *Polyethylene Resins, Compounded (BPT). (mass) determined by multiplying the *Polyethylene, Chlorinated Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 process wastewater flow subject to this *Polyimides through 125.32, any existing point source subpart times the concentrations in the *Polypropylene Resins subject to this subpart must achieve following table. Polystyrene (Crystal) discharges not exceeding the quantity (b) Any new source that does not use Polystyrene (Crystal) Modified (mass) determined by multiplying end-of-pipe biological *Polystyrene-Copolymers the treatment and is process wastewater flow subject to this subject to this subpart must achieve *Polystyrene-Acrylic Latexes subpart times the concentration listed in discharges in accordance with § 414.101 Polystyrene Impact Resins the following table. of this part, and also must not exceed Polystyrene Latex the quantity (mass) determined by Polystyrene, Expandable BPT Effluent multiplying the process wastewater flow Polystyrene, Expanded Umitations subject to this subpart times the *Polysulfone Resins concentrations in the following table. Polyvinyl Acetate Maxi- *Polyvinyl Acetate-PVC Copolymers Effluent characteristics Maxi-mum Iformum *Polyvinyl Acetate Copolymers NSPS I *Polyvinyl Acetate Resins for any month- one ly aver- Maxi- Polyvinyl Alcohol Resin day Maxi- mum Polyvinyl Chloride age Effluent characteristics mum for Polyvinyl Chloride, Chlorinated for any month- *Polyvinyl Ether-Maleic Anhydride BO D5 ...... 64 24 one ly *Polyvinyl Formal TSS ...... 130 40 day aver- Resins age *Polyvinylacetate-Methacrylic pH ...... (2) (2) Copolymers *Polyvinylacetate Acrylic Copolymers 1 All units except pH are milligrams per liter. 800 5 ...... 64 24 *Polyvinylacetate-2-Ethylhexylacrylate 2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times. TSS ...... 130 40 pH ...... Copolymers (2) (2) Polyvinylidene Chloride § 414.42 Effluent limitations representing *Polyvinylidene Chloride Copolymers the degree of effluent reduction ' All units except pH are milligrams per liter. attainable 2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times. *Polyvinylidene-Vinyl Chloride Resins by the-application of the best conventional *PVC Copolymers, Acrylates (Latex) pollutant control technology (BCT). *PVC Copolymers, Ethylene-Vinyl [Reserved] §414.45 Pretreatment standards for Chloride § 414.43 existing sources (PSES). *Rosin Derivative Resins Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent (a) *Rosin Modified Resins reduction attainable Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 by the application of the best available and 403.13, any existing source subject *Rosin Resins technology economically achievable (BAT). *SAN Resins to this subpart which introduces *Silicones: Silicone Resins (a) The Agency has determined that pollutants into a publicly owned *Silicones: Silicone Rubbers for existing point sources whose total treatment works must comply with 40 *Styrene Maleic Anhydride Resins OCPSF production defined by § 414.11 is CFR Part 403 and achieve discharges not less than or equal to five (5) million exceeding the quantity (mass) Styrene Polymeric Residue *Styrene-Acrylic Copolymer Resins pounds of OCPSF products per year, the determined by multiplying the process *Styrene-Acrylonitrile-Acrylates BPT level of treatment is the best wastewater flow subject to this subpart available technology economically times the concentration listed in the Copolymers achievable. Accordingly, the Agency is following table. 2.r74 Fede al',Re istex VoL 52. No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / RulTes and Regulations a42-74 Federal' Register / Vol 52.,o 1 hrdy oebr5,18 ue n euain (b) In- the case of lead, zinc, and total Pretreatment This determination must be based' upon cyanide the discharge quantity (mass) standards ' a review of relevant engineering,, shall be determined by multiplying the, production, and sampling and analysis, concentrations listed in the following Maxi,- information. table for the metal pollutants times the Effluent characteristics mumurm mu.form Subpart E-Thermosetting Resins flow from metal-bearing waste. streams for any month- for metals and times the flow from the one ly day aver- §414.50 Applicability; description of the cyanide-bearing waste streams for tQtal age thermosetting resins subcategory. The metal-bearing waste cyanide. The provisions of this subpart are streams are defined as those. waste applicable to the process wastewater streams listed in.Appendix A of this Phenol ...... 47' 19 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.. 258. 95 from the. part,, plus any additional process discharges resulting Di-n-butyt phthalate ...... 43 20 manufacture of the following SIC 28214 wastewater streams identified by the. Diethyl phthalate ...... 113 46 control authority on a.case-by-case thermosetting resins and thermosetting Dimethyl phthalate_.. 47 19, resin groups. Product groups are basis as metal or cyanide bearing based ...... -47 119 Anthracene indicated with an asterisk {*}. upon a determination- Fluorene ...... 47 1.9 (1)That such streams contain Phenanthrene ...... 47 1.9 *Alkyd Resins significant amounts of the pollutants, Pyrene ...... 48 20 Dicyanodiamfde Resin identified above and that Tetrachloroethylene ...... 1:64 52 *Epoxy Resins (2), The combination of such streams, Toluene ...... 74 2S *Fumaric Acid Polyesters prior to treatment, With the Appendix A Trichloroethylene ...... 69 26 Vinyl Chloride ...... 172 97 *Furan Resins waste. streams will result in substantial ...... 1,200 420 reduction of these pollutants. Total Cyanide Glyoxal-Urea Formaldehyde Textile Total Lead! ...... 690 320 Resin This determination must be based upon Total Zinc: ...... 2,610 1,050 a review of'relevant engineering,. *Ketone-Formaldehyde Resins produition, and sampling and analysis 1 All units are micrograms per liter. *Melamine Resins information. *Phenolic Resins *Polyacetal Resins Pretreatment § 414.46 Pretreatmentstandards for new sources (PSNS). Polyacrylamide standards *Polyurethane Prepolymers (a) Except as provided in 4G CFR 4037 Maxd- any new, source subject to this subpart *Polyurethane Resins Maxii mum, Effluent characteristics mum for, which introduces pollutants into a *Urea Formaldehyde Resins for any month- publicly owned treatment works must *Urea Resins one. ly with 40 CFR Part 403 and day aver- comp].y age achieve: discharges not exceeding the § 414.51 Effluent limitatlonsrepresenting quantity (mass) determined by the degree of effluent reduction attainable, multiplying the process wastewater flow by the application of the best practicable Acenaphthene ...... 47 19 control technology currently availabte Benzene ...... 134 57 subject to this, subpart times the (aPT). Carbon. Tetrachloride ...... 380 142 concentration listed above in § 414.45. Chlorobezene ...... 380 142 (b) Inthe case of lead, zinc, and total Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ...... 794 196 cyanide the discharge quantity (mass) through 125.32, any exfsting, point source Hexachlbrobenzene ...... 794 196, shall be determined, by-multiplying the subject to this subpart must achieve 1,2-Dichloroethane ...... 574 180 concentrations listed above in § 414.45 discharges not exceeding the quantity 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane ...... 59 22 the, Hexachloroethane...... 794 196 for the metal pollutants times the flow (mass) determined by multiplying 1,1-Dichlbroethane ...... 59 22. from metal-bearing waste, streams for process wastewater flow subject to, this, ...... 127 32 metals and times the flow from the subpart times the concentration listed in 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1.0 Chloroethane ...... - 295 Ito cyanide-bearing waste streams for total the following table. Chloroform ...... 325 1.98 cyanide. The metal bearing waste 1,2-Dichloroberizene.-_ 794 streams and cyanide-bearing waste 1,3-Diclorobenzena 380 142 streams are defined as those waste BPT effluent 1,4-Dichlorobenene ...... 380 142 limitations' 1,1 -Dichloroethyfene. 6ar 22 streams listed in Appendix A of this part, plus any additional process Max& 1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene.. 66 25 Maxi- mum 1,2-Dichloropropane ...... 794 196 wastewater streams identified by the Effluent characteristics mum: for 1,3-Dichloropropylene ...... 794 196 control authority on a case-by-case for any month- 2,4-Dimethylphenol ...... 47' basis as metal or cyanide bearing based one ly Ethylbenzne ...... 380 142 upon a determination- day, I aver- Fluoranthene... _...... 54. 22 ags. Methylene Chloride ...... 170 36 (11 That such streams contain Methyl Chloride ...... 295 Tl10, significant amounts of the pollutants 1102142' BOD5 ...... 163' 61 Hexachlorobutadlene ...... 380 identified above and that TSS ...... 216 67' Naphthalene...__...... 47 19 (2), The combination of such streams, pH ...... ( ,) (2) Nitrobenzene ...... 6,4021 2,237 prior to treatment, with the, Appendix A 2-Nitrophenol ...... 231, 65 waste streams will result in substantial All units except pH are milligrams per liter. 4-Nitrophenot ...... 576 1.62 2Withir the range of 6.0 to 9_0 at all times 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol ...... 277 78 reduction of these pollutants.. Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42575

§ 414.52 Effluent limitations representing § 414.55 Pretreatment standards for Pretreatment the degree of effluent reduction attainable existing sources (PSES). standards I by the application of the best conventional (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 Effluent Maximum pollutant control technology (BCT). and 403.13, any existing source subject characteristics Maximum for [Reserved] to this subpart which introduces for any monthly one day average § 414.53 Effluent limitations representing pollutants into a publicly owned the degree of effluent reduction attainable treatment works must comply with 40 by the application of the best available CFR Part 403 and achieve discharges not 1,2-Dichloropropane .... 794 196 technology economically achievable (BAT). exceeding the quantity (mass) 1,3- 196 (a) The Agency has determined that determined by multiplying the process Dichloropropylene .... 794 2,4-Dimethylphenol ...... 47 19 for existing point sources whose total wastewater flow subject to this subpart the concentration listed in the Ethylbenzene ...... 380 142 OCPSF production defined by § 414.11 is times following table. Fluoranthene ...... 54 22 less than or equal to five (5) million (b) In the case of lead, zinc, and total Methylene Chloride ...... 170 36 pounds of OCPSF products per year, the Methyl Chloride ...... 295 110 quantity (mass) BPT level of treatment is the best cyanide the discharge Hexachlorobutadiene... 380 142 available technology economically shall be determined by multiplying the Naphthalene ...... 47 19 concentrations listed in the following achievable. Accordingly, the Agency is Nitrobenzene ...... 6,402 2,237 table for the metal pollutants times the promulgating more stringent BAT 2-Nitrophenol ...... 231 65 not flow from metal-bearing waste streams limitations for these point sources. 4-Nitrophenol ...... 576 162 for metals and times the flow from -the 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol ...... 277 78 (b) Except as provided in paragraph cyanide-bearing waste streams for total Phenol ...... 47 19 (a) of this section and in 40 CFR 1125.30 cyanide. The metal-bearing waste Bis(2-ethylhexyl) through 125.32, any existing point source streams and cyanide-bearing waste phthalate ...... 258 95 that uses end-of-pipe biological streams are defined as those waste Di-n-butyl phthalate ...... 43 20 treatment and is subject to this subpart streams listed in Appendix A of this Diethyl phthalate ...... 113 46 ...... 47 19 must achieve discharges in accordance any additional process Dimethyl phthalate part, plus 47 19 with § 414.91 of this part. by the Anthracene ...... wastewater streams identified Fluorene ...... 47 19 (c) Except as provided in paragraph control authority on a case-by-case Phenanthrene ...... 47 19 (a) of this section and in 40 CFR 125.30 basis as metal or cyanide bearing based Pyrene ...... 48 20 through 125.32, any existing-point source upon a determination- Tetrachloroethylene ..... 164 52 that does not use end-of-pipe biological (1) That such streams contain Toluene ...... 74 28 treatment and is subject to this subpart significant amounts of the pollutants Trichloroethylene ...... 69 26 must achieve discharges in accordance identified above and that Vinyl Chloride ...... 172 97 with § 414.101 of this part. (2) The combination of such streams, Total Cyanide ...... 1,200 420 prior to treatment, with the Appendix A Total Lead ...... 690 320 § 414.54 New source performance Total Zinc ...... 2,610 1,050 standards (NSPS). waste streams will result in substantial reduction of these pollutants. (a) Any new source that uses end-of- 1 All units are micrograms per liter. This determination must be based upon pipe biological treatment and is subject a review of relevant engineering. subpart must achieve discharges to this production, and sampling and analysis § 414.56 Pretreatment Standards for New in accordance with § 414.91 of this part, information. Sources (PSNS). and also must not exceed the quantity (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 '(mass) determined by multiplying the any new source-subject to this subpart process wastewater flow subject to this Pretreatment standards which introduces pollutants into a subpart times the concentrations in the publicly owned treatment works must following table. Effluent characteristics Maximum Maximum comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and (b) Any new source that does not use for any monthly achieve discharges not exceeding the end-of-pipe biological treatment and is one day average quantity (mass) determined by subject to this subpart must achieve multiplying the process wastewater flow discharges in accordance with § 414.101 times the Acenaphthene ...... 47 19 subject to this subpart of this part, and also must not exceed Benzene ...... 134 57 concentration listed above in § 414.55. the quantity (mass) determined by Carbon Tetrachloride... 380 142 (b) In the case of lead, zinc, and total multiplying the process wastewater flow Chlorobenzene ...... 380 142 cyanide the discharge quantity (mass) subject to this subpart times the 1,2,4- shall be-determined by multiplying the concentrations in the following table. Trichlorobenzene ..... 794 196 concentrations listed above in § 414.55 Hexachlorobenzene ..... 794 196 for the metal pollutants times the flow NSPS I 1,2-Dichloroethane ...... 574 180 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane .. 59 22 from metal-bearing waste streams for Effluent Maximum aximum Hexachloroethane ...... 794 196 metals and times the flow from the characteristics for any for 1,1-Dichloroethane ...... 59 22 cyanide-bearing waste streams for total onefore dayay averagemonthly 1,1, 2-Trichloroethane .. 127 32 cyanide. The metal-bearing waste Chloroethane ...... 295 110 streams are defined as those waste Chloroform ...... 325 111 streams listed in Appendix A of this BOD5 ...... 163 61 1,2-Dichlorobenzene .... 794 196 part, plus any additional process TSS ...... 216 67 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 380 142 wastewater streams identified by the pH ...... (2) (P) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene.. 380 142 1,1 -Dichloroethylene.... 60 22 control authority on a case-by-case cyanide bearing based ' All units except pH are milligrams-per liter. 1,2-Trans- basis as metal or 2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times. Dichloroethylene 66 25 upon a determination- 42576 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

(1) That such streams contain § 414.61 Effluent limitations representing (mass) determined by multiplying the significant amounts of the pollutants the degree of effluent reduction attainable process wastewater flow subject to this identified above and that by the application of the best practicable subpart times the concentrations in the control technology currently available following table. (2)The combination of such streams, (BPT). prior to treatment, with the Appendix A (b) Any new source that does not use waste streams will result in substantial Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 end-of-pipe biological treatment and is reduction of these pollutants. through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve subject to this subpart must achieve discharges in accordance with § 414.101 This determination must be based upon discharges not exceeding the quantity a review of relevant engineering, of this part, and also must not exceed (mass) determined by multiplying the the quantity (mass) determined by production, and sampling and analysis process wastewater flow subject to this information. multiplying the process wastewater flow subpart times the concentration listed in subject to this subpart times the the following table. Subpart F-Commodity Organic concentrations in the following table. Chemicals BPT Effluent §414.60 Applicability; description of the limitations 1 NSPS I commodity organic chemicals subcategory. Effluent Maximum Effluent Max Maximum characteristics Maximum for Maximum for The provisions of this subpart are for any monthly characteristics for any monthly applicable to the process wastewater one day average one day average discharges resulting from the manufacture of the following SIC 2865 and 2869 commodity organic chemicals BOD5 ...... 80 30 BOD5 ...... 80 30 and commodity organic chemical TSS ...... 149 46 TSS ...... 149 46 (2) (2) ...... (2) (2) groups. Product groups are indicated pH ...... pH with an asterisk (*). All units except pH are milligrams per liter. All units except pH are milligrams per liter. (a) Aliphatic Organic Chemicals 2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times. 2 Within the'range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times. Acetaldehyde § 414.65 Pretreatment standards for Acetic Acid § 414.62 Effluent limitations representing Acetic Anhydride the degree of effluent reduction attainable existing sources (PSES). Acetone by the application of the best conventional (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 Acrylonitrile pollutant control technology (BCT). and 403.13, any existing source subject [Reserved] Adipic Acid to this subpart which introduces *Butylenes (Butenes)' § 414.63 Effluent limitations representing pollutants into a publicly owned Cyclohexane the degree of effluent reduction attainable treatment works must comply with 40 by the application of the best available CFR Part 403 and achieve discharges not Ethanol technology economically achievable (BAT). Ethylene exceeding the quantity [mass) (a) The Agency has determined that determined by multiplying the process Ethylene Glycol for existing point sources whose total wastewater flow subject to this subpart Ethylene Oxide OCPSF production defined by § 414.11 is times the cdricentration listed in the Formaldehyde less than or equal to five (5) million following table. Isopropanol pounds of OCPSF products per year, the (b) In the case of lead, zinc, and total Methanol BPT level of treatment is the best cyanide the discharge quantity (mass) Polyoxypropylene Glycol available technology economically shall be determined by multiplying the Propylene achievable. Accordingly, the Agency is concentrations listed in the following Propylene Oxide not promulgating more stringent BAT table for the metal pollutants times the Vinyl Acetate limitations for these point sources. flow from metal-bearing waste streams 1,2-Dichloroethane (b) Except as provided in paragraph for metals and times the flow from the (a) of this section and in 40 CFR 125.30 1,3-Butadiene cyanide-bearing waste streams for total through 125.32, any existing point source cyanide. The metal-bearing and (b) Aromatic Organic Chemicals that uses end-of-pipe biological cyanide-bearing waste streams are Benzene treatment and is subject to this subpart defined as those waste streams listed in Cumene must achieve discharges in accordance Appendix A of this part, plus any Dimethyl Terephthalate with § 414.91 of this part. additional process wastewater streams Ethylbenzene (c) Except as provided in paragraph identified by the control authority on a (a) of this section and in 40 CFR 125.30 m-Xylene (impure) case-by-case basis as metal or cyanide through 125.32, any existing point source bearing based upon a determination- p-Xylene that does not use end-of-pipe biological Phenol (1) That such streams contain *Pitch Tar Residues treatment and is subject to this subpart significant amounts of the pollutants must achieve discharges in accordance *Pyrolysis Gasolines identified above and that with § 414.101 of this part. (2) The combination of such streams, Styrene § 414.64 New source performance prior to treatment, with the Appendix A Terephthalic Acid standards (NSPS) waste streams will result in substantial Toluene (a) Any new source that uses end-of- reduction of these pollutants. *Xylenes, Mixed pipe biological treatment and is subject This determination must be based upon o-Xylene to this subpart must achieve discharges a review of relevant engineering, (c). Halogenated Organic Chemicals in accordance with § 414.91 of this part, production, and sampling and analysis Vinyl Chloride and also must not exceed the quantity information. Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations U2577

Pretreatment (b) In the case of lead, zinc, and total Diacetone Alcohol standards I cyanide, the discharge quantity (mass) *Dicarboxylic Acids-Salts Effluent Maximum shall be determined by multiplying the Diethyl Ether characteristics Maximumfor any for concentrations listed above in § 414.65 Diethylene Glycol for any monthly for the metal pollutants times the flow Diethylene Glycol Diethyl Ether one day average from metal-bearing Waste streams for Diethylene Glycol Dimethyl Ether metals and times the flow from the Diethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether Acenaphthene ...... 47 19 cyanide-bearing waste streams for total Diethylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether Benzene ...... 134 57 cyanide. The metal-bearing waste *Dimer Acids Carbon Tetrachloride... 380 142 streams and cyanide-bearing waste Dioxane Chlorobenzene ...... 380 142 streams are defined as those waste Ethane 1,2,4- streams listed in Appendix A of this Ethylene Glycol Monophenyl Ether Trichlorobenzene ..... 794 196 Part, plus any additional process *Ethoxylates, Misc. Hexachlorobenzene ..... 794 196 wastewater streams identified by the 1,2-Dichloroethane ...... 574 180 Ethylene Glycol Dimethyl Ether 1,1.1-Trichloroethane.. 59 22 control authority on a case-by-case Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether Hexachloroethane ...... 794 196 basis as metal or cyanide bearing based Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether 1,1-Dichloroethane ...... 59 22 upon a determination- Ethylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether 1,1,2-Trichloroethane.. 127 32 (1) That such streams contain *Fatty Acids Chloroethane ...... 295 110 significant amounts of the pollutants Glycerine (Synthetic) Chloroform ...... 325 111 identified above and that Glyoxal 1,2-Dichlorobenzene .... 794 196 (2) The combination of such streams, Hexane 1,3-Dichlorobenzene .... 380 142 prior to treatment, with the Appendix A 1,4-Dichlorobenzene .... 380 142 *Hexanes and Other C6 Hydrocarbons 1,1-Dichloroethylene .... 60 22 waste streams will result in substantial Isobutanol 1,2-trans- reduction of these pollutants. Isobutylene Dichloroethylene ...... 66 25 This determination must be based upon Isobutyraldehyde 1,2-Dichloropropane .... 794 196 a review of relevant engineering, Isophorone 1,3- production, and sampling and analysis Isophthalic Acid Dichloropropylene .... 794 196 information. Isoprene 2,4-Dimethylphenol ...... 47 19 Isopropyl Acetate Ethylbenzene ...... 380 142 Subpart G-Bulk Organic Chemicals Fluoranthene ...... 54 22 Ligninsulfonic Acid, Calcium Salt Methylene Chloride ...... 170 36 § 414.70 Applicability; description of the Maleic Anhydride Methyl Chloride ...... 295 110 bulk organic chemicals subcategory. Methacrylic Acid Hexachlorobutadiene... 380 142 The provisions of this subpart are *Methacrylic Acid Esters Naphthalene ...... 47 19 Methane Nitrobenzene ...... 6,402 2,237 applicable to the process wastewater discharges resulting from the Methyl Ethyl Ketone 2-Nitrophenol ...... 231 65 Methyl Methacrylate 4-Nitrophenol ...... 576 162 manufacture of the following SIC 2865 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol ...... and 2869 bulk organic chemicals and Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether 277 78 Methylisobutyl Ketone Phenol ...... 47 19 bulk organic chemical groups. Product *n-Alkanes Bis(2-ethylhexyl) groups are indicated with an asterisk phthalate ...... 258 95 (1. n-Butyl Alcohol Di-n-butyl phthalate ...... 43 20 n-Butylacetate Diethyl phthalate ...... 113 46 (a) Aliphatic Organic Chemicals n-Butyraldehyde Dimethyl phthalate ...... 47 19 *Acetic Acid Esters n-Butyric Acid Anthracene ...... 47 19 *Acetic Acid Salts n-Butyric Anhydride Fluorene ...... 47 19 *n-Paraffins Phenanthrene ...... 47 19 Acetone Cyanohydrin Pyrene ...... 48 20 Acetylene n-Propyl Acetate Tetrachloroethylene ..... 164 52 Acrylic Acid n-Propyl Alcohol Toluene ...... 74 28 *Acrylic Acid Esters Nitrilotriacetic Acid Trichloroethylene ...... 69 26 *Alkoxy Alkanols Nylon Salt Vinyl Chloride ...... 172 97 *Alkylates Oxalic Acid Total Cyanide ...... 1,200 420 *Alpha-Olefins *Oxo Aldehydes-Alcohols Total Lead ...... 690 320 Butane (all forms) Pentaerythritol Total Zinc ...... 2,610 1,050 *C-4 Hydrocarbons (Unsaturated) Pentane Calcium Stearate *Pentenes I All units are micrograms per liter. *Petroleum Sulfonates Caprolactam Carboxymethyl Cellulose Pine Oil § 414.66 Pretreatment standards for new Cellulose Acetate Butyrates Polyoxybutylene Glycol sources (PSNS). *Cellulose Ethers Polyoxyethylene Glycol (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403:7 Citric Acid Propane any new source subject to this subpart Cumene Hydroperoxide Propionaldehyde which introduces pollutants into a Cyclohexanol Propionic Acid publicly owned treatment works must Cyclohexanol, Cyclohexanone (Mixed) Propylene Glycol comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and Cyclohexanone Sec-Butyl Alcohol achieve discharges not exceeding the Cyclohexene Sodium Formate quantity (mass) determined by *C12-C18 Primary Alcohols Sorbitol multiplying the process wastewater flow *C5 Concentrates Stearic Acid, Calcium Salt (Wax) subject to this subpart times the *C9 Concentrates Tert-Butyl Alcohol concentration listed above in § 414.65. Decanol 1-Butene 42578 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42578 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 1-Pentene Dimethyl Phthalate § 414.71 Effluent limitations representing 1,4-Butanediol Dinitrotoluene (Mixed) the degree of effluent reduction attainable Isobutyl Acetate Ditridecyl Phthalate by the application of the best practicable 2-Butene (Cis and Trans) control technology currently available m-Cresol (BPT). 2-Ethyl Hexanol Metanilic Acid 2-Ethylbutyraldehyde Methylenediphenyldiisocyanate Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 2,2,4-Trimethyl-1,3-Pentanediol Naphthalene through 125.32, any existing point source *Naphthas, Solvent subject to this subpart must achieve (b) Amine and Amide Organic discharges not exceeding the quantity Chemicals Nitrobenzene Nitrotoluene (mass) determined by multiplying the 2,4-Diaminotoluene Nonylphenol process wastewater flow subject to this *Alkyl Amines p-Cresol subpart times the concentration listed in Aniline Phthalic Acid the following table. Caprolactam, Aqueous Concentrate Phthalic Anhydride Diethanolamine *Tars-Pitches BPT Effluent Diphenylamine Tert-Butylphenol limitations I *Ethanolamines *Toluene Diisocyanates (Mixture) Effluent Maximum Ethylamine Trimellitic Acid characteristics Maximum for Ethylenediamine o-Cresol for any monthly Ethylenediaminetetracetic Acid one day average 1-Tetralol, 1-Tetralone Mix !Fatty Amines 2,4-Dinitrotoluene Hexamethylene Diamine 2,6-Dinitrotoluene BOD5 ...... 92 34 Isopropylamine TSS ...... 159 49 m-Toluidine (d) Halogenated Organic Chemicals pH ...... (2) (2) Melamine 1,4-Phenylenediamine Dihydrochloride Melamine Crystal All units except pH are milligrams per liter. Allyl Chloride *Methylamines 2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times. Methylene Dianiline Benzyl Chloride Carbon Tetrachloride n-Butylamine § 414.72 Effluent limitations representing N,N-Diethylaniline *Chlorinated Paraffins, 35-464 PCT, Chlorine the degree of effluent reduction attainable N,N-Dimethylformamide by the application of the best conventional *Nitroanilines Chlorobenzene *Chlorobenzenes (Mixed) pollutant control technology (BCT). Polymeric Methylene Dianiline [Reserved] Sec-Butylamine Chlorodifluoroethane Tert-Butylamine Chloroform § 414.73 Effluent limitations representing Toluenediamine (Mixture) *Chloromethanes the degree of effluent reduction attainable *Toluidines 2-Chloro-5-Methylphenol (6-chloro-m- by the application of the best available technology economically achievable (BAT). o-Phenylenediamine cresol) 2,6-Dimethylaniline *Chlorophenols (a) The Agency has determined that 4-(N-Hydroxyethylethylamino)-2- Chloroprene for existing point sources whose total Hydroxyethyl Analine Cyanogen Chloride OCPSF production defined by § 414.11 is 4,4'-Methylenebis (N,N'-dimethyl)- Cyanuric Chloride less than or equal to five (5) million aniline Dichloropropane pounds of OCPSF products per year, the 4,4'Methylenedianiline Epichlorohydrin BPT level of treatment is the best Ethyl Chloride available technology economically (c) Aromatic Organic Chemicals *Fluorocarbons (Freons) achievable. Accordingly, the Agency is Alpha-Methylstyrene Methyl Chloride not promulgating more stringent BAT *Alkyl Benzenes Methylene Chloride limitations for these point sources. *Alkyl Phenols Pentachlorophenol (b) Except as provided in paragraph *Alkylbenzene Sulfonic Acids, Salts Phosgene (a) of this section and in 40 CFR 125.30 Aminobenzoic Acid (Meta and Para) Tetrachloroethylene through 125.32, any existing point source Aspirin Trichloroethylene that uses end-of-pipe biological Beta-Naphthalene Sulfonic Acid Trichlorofluoromethane treatment and is subject to this subpart Benzenedisulfonic Acid Vinylidene Chloride must achieve discharges in accordance Benzoic Acid 1,1-Dichloroethane with § 414.91 of this part. Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (c) Except as provided in paragraph Bisphenol A 2,4-Dichlorophenol (a) of this section and in 40 CFR 125.30 BTX-Benzene, Toluene, Xylene (Mixed) (e) Other Organic Chemicals through 125.32, any existing point source Butyl Octyl Phthalate that does not use end-of-pipe biological Coal Tar Adiponitrile treatment and is subject to this subpart *Coal Tar Products (Misc.) Carbon Disulfide must achieve discharges in accordance Creosote Dithiophosphates, Sodium Salt with § 414.101 of this part. *Cresols, Mixed Fatty Nitriles Cyanuric Acid *Organo-Tin Compounds § 414.74 New source performance *Cyclic Aromatic Sulfonates *Phosphate Esters standards (NSPS) Dibutyl Phthalate Tetraethyl Lead (a) Any new source that uses end-of- Diisobutyl Phthalate Tetramethyl Lead pipe biological treatment and is subject Diisodecyl Phthalate *Urethane Prepolymers to this subpart must achieve discharges Diisooctyl Phthalate *Waxes, Emulsions-Dispersions in accordance with § 414.91 of this part, Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42579 and also must not exceed the quantity production, and sampling and analysis multiplying the process wastewater flow (mass) determined by multiplying the information. subject to this subpart times the process wastewater flow subject to this concentration listed above in § 414.75. subpart times the concentrations in the Pretreatment (b) In the case of lead, zinc, and total following table. standards I cyanide the discharge quantity (mass) (b) Any new source that does not use Effluent Maximum shall be determined by multiplying the end-of-pipe biological treatment and is characteristics Maximum for concentrations listed above in §414.75 for any monthly for the metal pollutants times the flow subject to this subpart must achieve one day average discharges in accordance with § 414.101 from metal-bearing waste streams for of this part, and also must not exceed metals and times the flow from the the quantity (mass) determined by Acenaphthene ...... 47 19 cyanide-bearing waste streams for total multiplying the process wastewater flow Benzene ...... 134 57 cyanide. The metal-bearing waste subject to this subpart times the Carbon Tetrachloride... 380 142 streams and cyanide-bearing waste concentrations in the following table. Chlorobenzene ...... 380 142 streams are defined as those waste 1,2,4- streams listed in Appendix A of this Trichlorobenzene ..... 794 196 part, plus any additional process NSPS I Hexachlorobenzene ..... 794 196 1,2-Dichloroethane ...... 574 180 wastewater streams identified by the control authority on a case-by-case characteristicsEffluent Maximum Maximumfor 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane.. 59 22 for any monthly Hexachloroethane ...... 794 196 basis as metal or cyanide bearing based one day average 1,1-Dichloroethane ...... 59 22 upon a determination- 1,1,2-Trichloroethane.. 127 32 (1) That such streams contain Chloroethane ...... 295 110 significant amounts of the pollutants BOD5 ...... 92 34 Chloroform ...... 325 111 identified above and that TSS ...... 159 49 1,2-Dichlorobenzene .... 794 196 (2) The combination of such streams, pH ...... (2) 1,3-Dichlorobenzene .... 380 142 1,4-Dichlorobenzene .... 380 142 prior to treatment, with the Appendix A 'All units except pH are milligrams per liter. 1,1-Dichloroethylene .... 60 22 waste streams will result in substantial 2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times. 1,2-trans- reduction of these pollutants. Dichloroethylene ...... 66 25 This determination must be based upon 1,2-Dichloropropane .... 794 196 a review of relevant engineering, § 414.75 Pretreatment standards for 1,3- existing sources (PSES). production, and sampling and analysis Dichloropropylene .... 794 196 information. (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 2,4-Dimethylphenol ...... 47 19 and 403.13, any existing source subject Ethylbenzene ...... 380 142 Subpart H-Specialty Organic Fluoranthene ...... 54 22 to this subpart which introduces Chemicals pollutants into a publicly owned Methylene Chloride ...... 170 36 Methyl Chloride ...... treatment works must comply with 40 295 110 § 414.80 Applicability- description of the Hexachlorobutadiene... 380 142 specialty organic chemicals subcategory. CFR Part 403 and achieve discharges not Napthalene ...... 47 19 exceeding the quantity (mass) Nitrobenzene ...... 6,402 2,237 The provisions of this subpart are determined by multiplying the process 2-Nitrophenol ...... 231 65 applicable to the process wastewater wastewater flow subject to this subpart 4-Nitrophenol ...... 576 162 discharges resulting from the times the concentration listed in the 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol ...... 277 78 manufacture of all SIC 2865 and 2869 following table. Phenol ...... 47 19 organic chemicals and organic chemical (b) In the case of lead, zinc, and total Bis(2-ethylhexyl) groups which are not defined as ...... cyanide, the discharge quantity (mass) phthalate 258 95 commodity or bulk organic chemicals in Di-n-butyl phthalate ...... 43 20 § 414.60 and § 414.70, respectively. shall be determined by multiplying the Diethyl phthalate ...... 113 46 concentrations listed in the following Dimethyl phthalate ...... 47 19 § 414.81 Effluent limitations representing table for the metal pollutants times the Anthracene ...... 47 19 the degree of effluent reduction attainable flow from metal-bearing waste streams Fluorene ...... 47 19 by the application of the best practicable for metals and times the flow from the Phenanthrene ...... 47 19 control technology currently available cyanide-bearing waste streams for total Pyrene ...... 48 20 (BPT). cyanide. The metal-bearing waste Tetrachloroethylene .... 164 52 Toluene ...... 74 28 Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 streams and cyanide-bearing waste through 125.32, any existing point source streams are defined as those waste Trichloroethylene ...... 69 26 Vinyl Chloride ...... 172 97 subject to this subpart must achieve streams listed in Appendix A of this Total Cyanide ...... 1,200 420 discharges not exceeding the quantity part, plus any additional process Total Lead ...... 690 320 (mass) determined by multiplying the wastewater streams identified by the Total Zinc ...... 2,610 1,050 process wastewater flow subject to this control authority on a case-by-case subpart times the concentration listed in basis as metal or cyanide bearing based IAll units are micrograms per liter. the following table. upon a determination- (1) That such streams contain § 414.76 Pretreatment standards for new BPT effluent significant amounts of the pollutants sources (PSNS). limitationsI identified above and that (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 Effluent Maximum (2) The combination of such streams, any new source subject to this subpart characteristics Maximum for prior to treatment, with the Appendix A which introduces pollutants into a for any monthly waste streams will result in substantial publicly owned treatment works must one day average reduction of these pollutants. comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and This determination must be based upon achieve discharges not exceeding the BOD5 ...... 120 45 a review of relevant engineering, quantity (mass) determined by TSS ...... 183 57 42580 Federal Register /. Vol. 52, No. 214-/ Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42580 Federal Register I Vol. 52, No. 214 I Thursday, November 5, 1987 I Rules and Regulations

BPT effluent NSPS 1 Pretreatment limitations I standards 1 Effluent Maximum Effluent MaximumMaximum Maximum for Effluent Maximum characteristics Maximum aor characteristics -for any monthly characteristics Maximum for * forfan average for any monthly one day average for any monthly one day average one day average BOD5 ...... 120 45 pH ...... (2) (2) TSS ...... 183 57 1,2,4- pH ...... (2) (2) Trichlorobenzene ... 794 196 'All units except pH are milligrams per liter. Hexachlorobenzene..... 794 196 2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times. 1 All units except pH are milligrams per liter. 1,2-Dichloroethane ...... 574 180 2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times. 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane .. 59 22 Hexachloroethane ...... 794 *196 § 414.82 Effluent limitations representing 1,1-Dichloroethane ...... 59 22 the degree of effluent reduction attainable § 414.85 Pretreatment standards for 1, 1,2-Trichloroethane .. 127 32 by the application of the best conventional existing sources (PSES). Chloroethane ...... 295 110 pollutant control technology (BCT). (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 Chloroform ...... 325 111 [Reserved] 1,2-Dichlorobenzene .... 794 196 and 403.13, any existing source subject 1,3-Dichlorobenzene .... 380 142 § 414.83 Effluent limitations representing to this subpart which introduces 1,4-Dichlorobenzene .... 380 142 the degree of effluent reduction attainable pollutants into a publicly owned 1,1 -Dichloroethylene .... 60 22 by the application of the best available treatment works must comply with 40 1,2-trans- technology economically achievable (BAT). CFR Part 403 and achieve discharges not Dichloroethylene ...... 66 25 (a) The Agency has determined that exceeding the quantity (mass) 1,2-Dichloropropane .... 794 196 determined by multiplying the process 1,3- for existing point sources whose total Dichloropropylene .... 794 196 OCPSF production defined by § 414.11 is wastewater flow subject to this subpart 2,4-Dimethylphenol ...... 47 19 less than or equal to five (5) million times the concentration listed in the Ethylbenzene ...... 380 142 pounds of OCPSF products per year, the following table. Fluoranthene ...... 54 22 BPT level of treatment is the best (b) In the case of lead, zinc, and total Methylene Chloride ...... 170 36 available technology economically cyanide the discharge quantity (mass) Methyl Chloride ...... 295 110 achievable. Accordingly, the Agency is shall be determined by multiplying the Hexachlorobutadiene... 380 142 19 not promulgating more stringent BAT concentrations listed in the following Naphthalene ...... 47 Nitrobenzene ...... 6,402 2,237 limitations for these point sources. table for the metal pollutants times the 2-Nitrophenol ...... 231 65 (b) Except as provided in paragraph flow from metal-bearing waste streams 4-Nitrophenol ...... 576 162 (a) of this section and in 40 CFR 125.30 for metals and times the flow from the 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol ...... 277 78 through 125.32, any existing point source cyanide-bearing waste streams for total Phenol ...... 47 19 that uses end-of-pipe biological cyanide. The metal-bearing waste Bis(2-ethylhexyl) treatment and is subject to this subpart streams and cyanide-bearing waste phthalate ...... 258 95 Di.n-buty phthalate ...... 43 20 must achieve discharges in accordance streams are defined as those waste streams listed in Appendix A of this Diethyl phthalate ...... 113 46 with § 414.91 of this part. 47 19 Part, plus any additional process Dimethyl phthalate ...... (c) Except as provided in paragraph Anthracene ...... 47 19 (a) of this section and in 40 CFR 125.30 wastewater streams identified by the Fluorene ...... 47 19 through 125.32, any existing point source control authority on a case-by-case Phenanthrene ...... 47 19 that does not use end-of-pipe biological basis as metal or cyanide bearing based Pyrene ...... 48 20 upon a determination- Tetrachloroethylene ..... 164 52 treatment and is subject to this subpart Toluene ...... 74 28 must achieve discharges in accordance (1) That such streams contain significant amounts of the pollutants Trichloroethylene ...... 69 26 with § 414.101 of this part. Vinyl Chloride ...... 172 97 identified above and that Total Cyanide ...... 1,200 420 § 414.84 New source performance (2) The combination of such streams, Total Lead ...... 690 320 standards (NSPS). prior to treatment, with the Appendix A Total Zinc ...... 2,610 1,050 ((a) Any new source that uses end-of- waste streams will result in substantial pipe biological treatment and is subject reduction of these pollutants. ' All units are micrograms per liter. to this subpart must achieve discharges This determination.must be based upon in accordance with § 414.91-6f this part, a review of relevant engineering, § 414.86 Pretreatment standards for new and also must not exceed the quantity production, and sampling and analysis sources (PSNS). (mass) determined by multiplying the information. (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 process wastewater flow subject to this any new source subject to this subpart subpart times the concentrations in the which introduces pollutants into a Pretreatment following table. standardsI publicly owned treatment works must (b) Any new source that does not use comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and Effluent Maximum end-of-pipe biological treatment and is characteristics Maximum for achieve discharges not exceeding the subject to this subpart must achieve for any monthly quantity (mass) determined by discharges in accordance with § 414.101 one day average multiplying the process wastewater flow of this part, and also must not exceed subject to this subpart times the the quantity (mass) determined by Acenaphthene ...... 47 19 concentration listed above in § 414.85. multiplying the process wastewater flow Benzene ...... 134 57 (b) In the case of lead, zinc, and total subject to this subpart times the Carbon Tetrachloride... 380 142 cyanide, the discharge quantity (mass) concentrations in the following table. Chlorobenzene ...... 380 142 shall be'determined by multiplying the Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42581 concentrations listed above in § 414.85 a case-by-case basis as metal or cyanide Effluent limitations for the metal pollutants times the flow bearing based upon a determination-. BAT and NSPSI from metal-bearing waste streams for (1) That such streams contain Effluent Maximum metals and times the flow from cyanide- significant amounts of the pollutants characteristics Maximum for bearing waste streams for total cyanide. and that for any monthly identified above one day average The metal-bearing waste streams and (2) The combination of such streams, cyanide-bearing waste streams are prior to treatment, with the Appendix A defined as those waste streams listed in waste streams will result in substantial 3,4- Appendix A of this part, plus any reduction of these pollutants. Benzofluoranthene... 61 23 additional process wastewater streams Benzo(k)fluoranthene.. 59 22 identified by the control authority on a This determination must be based Chrysene ...... 59 22 case-by-case basis as metal or cyanide upon a review of relevant engineering, Acenaphthylene ...... 59 22 bearing based upon a determination- production, and sampling and analysis Anthracene ...... 59 22 information. Fluorene ...... 59 22 (1) That such streams contain Phenanthrene ...... 59 22 significant amounts of the pollutants Pyrene ...... 67 25 identified above and that Effluent limitations Tetrachloroethylene ..... 56 22 (2) The combination of such streams, BAT and NSPS I Toluene ...... 80 26 prior to treatment, with the Appendix A Effluent Maximum Trichloroethylene ...... 54 21 waste streams will result in substantial characteristics Maximum for Vinyl Chloride ...... 268 104 reduction of these pollutants. for any monthly Total Chromium ...... 2,770 1,110 one day average Total Copper ...... 3,380 1,450 This determination must be based upon Total Cyanide ...... 1,200 420 a review of relevant engineering, Total Lead ...... 690 320 production, and sampling and analysis Acenaphthene ...... 59 22 Total Nickel ...... 3,980 1,690 2 ...... information. Acrylonitrile ...... 242 96 Total Zinc ...... 2,610 1,050 Benzene ...... 136 37 Subpart I-Direct Discharge Point Carbon Tetrachloride... 38 18 1All units are micrograms per liter. Sources That Use End-of-Pipe Chlorobenzene ...... 28 15 2 Total Zinc for Rayon Fiber Manufacture 1,2,4- that uses the viscose process and Acrylic Biological Treatment Trichlorobenzene ..... 140 68 Fiber Manufacture that uses the zinc chloride/ § 414.90 Applicability, description of the Hexachlorobenzene ..... 28 15 solvent process is 6,796 l~g/I and 3,325 fg/I 1,2-Dichloroethane ...... 211 68 for maximum for any one day and maximum subcategory of direct discharge point for monthly average, respectively. sources that use end-of-pipe biological 1,1,1-Trichloroethane.. 54 21 treatment Hexachloroethane ...... 54 21 1,2-Dichloroethane ...... 59 22 The provisions of this subpart are 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane .. 54 21 Subpart J-Drect Discharge Point applicable to the process wastewater Chloroethane ...... 268 104 Sources That Do Not Use End-of-Pipe discharges resulting from the Chloroform ...... 46 21 Biological Treatment manufacture of the OCPSF products and 2-Chlorophenol ...... 98 31 product groups defined by § 414.11 from 1,2-Dichlorobenzene.... 163 77 § 414.100 Applicability; description of the subcategory of direct discharge point any point source that uses end-of-pipe 1,3-Dichlorobenzene .... 44 31 1,4-Dichlorobenzene .... 28 15 sources that do not use end-of-pipe biological treatment or installs end-of- biological treatment. pipe biological treatment to comply with 1,1-Dichloroethylene .... 25 16 BPT effluent limitations. 1,2-trans- The provisions of this subpart are Dichloroethylene ...... 54 21 applicable to the process wastewater § 414.91 Toxic pollutant effluent 2,4-Dichlorophenol ...... 112 39 discharges resulting from the limitations and standards for direct 1,2-Dichloropropane .... 230 153 manufacture of the OCPSF products and discharge point sources that use end-of- 1,3- product groups defined by § 414.11 from pipe biological treatment. Dichloropropylene .... 44 29 2,4-Dimethylphenol ...... 36 18 any point source that does not use end- (a) Any point source subject to this 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ...... 285 113 of-pipe biological treatment and does subpart must achieve discharges not 2,6-Dinitrotoluene ...... 641 255 not install end-of-pipe biological exceeding the quantity (mass) Ethylbenzene ...... 108 32 treatment to comply with BPT effluent determined by multiplying the process Fluoranthene ...... 68 25 limitations. wastewater flow subject to this subpart Bis(2- times the concentrations in the following Chloroisopropyl) § 414.101 Toxic pollutant effluent and standards for direct table. ether ...... 757 301 limitations Methylene Chloride ...... 89 40 discharge point sources that do not use (b) In the case of chromium, copper, Methyl Chloride ...... 190 86 end-of-pipe biological treatment. lead, nickel, zinc, and total cyanide, the Hexachlorobutadiene.. 49 2C discharge quantity (mass) shall be (a) Any point source subject to this Naphthalene ...... 59 22 not determined by multiplying the Nitrobenzene ...... 68 27 subpart must achieve discharges concentrations listed in the following 2-Nitrophenol ...... 69 41 exceeding the quantity (mass) table for these pollutants times the flow 4-Nitrophenol ...... 124 72 determined by multiplying the process from metal-bearing waste streams for 2,4-Dinitrophenol ...... 123 71 wastewater flow subject to this subpart the metals and times the flow from 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol ...... 277 7E times the concentrations in the following cyanide-bearing waste streams for total Phenol ...... 26 ill table. cyanide. Metal-bearing waste streams Bis(2-ethylhexyl) (b) In the case of chromium, copper, phthalate ...... 279 101 lead, nickel, zinc, and total cyanide, the and cyanide-bearing waste streams are Di-n-butyl phthalate ...... 57 2- defined as those waste streams listed in Diethyl phthalate ...... 203 81 discharge quantity (mass) shall be Appendix A of this part, plus any Dimethyl phthalate ...... 47 1E determined by multiplying the additional process wastewater streams Benzo(a)anthracene .... 59 2,' concentrations listed in the following identified by the permitting authority on Benzo(a)pyrene ...... 61 2, table for these pollutants times the flow 42582 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 428 eea eitr/Vl 2 o 1 hrsaNvme ,18 ue n euain

n-Propyl alcohol/Hydrogenation of from metal-bearing waste streams for BAT effluent the metals and times the cyanide- limitations and propionaldehyde, Oxo process bearing waste streams for total cyanide. NSPS' SAN resin/Suspension polymerization Metal-bearing waste streams and Effluent Styrene/Dehydrogenation of ethylbenzene characteristics Maximum Maximum Styrene/Dehydration of methyl benzyl cyanide-bearing waste streams are for alcohol (coproduct of propylene oxide) defined as those waste streams listed in for any monthly one day average 1-Tetralol, 1-Tetralone mix/Oxidation of Appendix A of this part, plus any tetralin (1,2,3,4-Tetrahydronaphthalene additional process wastewater streams 3,3,3-Trifluoropropene/Catalyzed hydrogen identified by the permitting authority on Bis(2- fluoride exchange with chlorinated propane a case-by-case basis as metal or cyanide ethylhexyl)phthalate 258 95 Vinyl toluene/Dehydrogenation (thermal] of bearing based upon a determination- Di-n-butyl phthalate ...... 43 20 ethyltoluene (1) That such streams contain Diethyl phthalate ...... 113 46 Dimethyl phthalate ...... 47 19 Copper significant amounts of the pollutants Benzo(a)anthracene .... 47 19 Methylhydroabietate/Esterification of identified above and Benzo(a)pyrene ...... 48 20 hydroabietic acid (rosin) with methanol (2) That the combination of such 3,4- Acetaldehyde/Oxidation of ethylene with streams, prior to treatment, with the Benzofluoranthene.. 48 20 cupric chloride catalyst Appendix A waste streams would result Benzo(k)fluoranthene. 47 19 Acetic acid/Catalytic oxidation of butane in substantial reduction of these Chrysene ...... 47 19 Acetone/Dehydrogenation of isopropanol pollutants. Acenaphthylene ...... 47 19 Acrylamide/Catalytic hydration of Anthracene ...... 47 19 acrylonitrile This determination must be based upon Fluorene ...... 47 19 Acrylic acid/Oxidation of propylene via a review of relevant engineering, Phenanthrene ...... 47 19 acrolein production, and sampling and analysis Pyrene ...... 48 20 Acrylonitrile/Propylene ammoxidation information. Tetrachloroethylene ..... 164 52 Adipic acid/Oxidation of cyclohexanol- Toluene ...... 74 28 cyclohexanone mixture Trichloroethylene ...... 69 26 Adipic acid/Oxidation of cyclohexane via BAT effluent Vinyl Chloride ...... 172 97 cyclohexanol-cyclohexanone mixture limitations and Total Chromium ...... 2,770 1,110 Allynitrile/Allychloride + sodium cyanide NSPS I Total Copper ...... 3,380 1,450 Aniline/Hydrogenation of nitrobenzene Effluent Total Cyanide ...... 1,200 420 characteristics Benzofurans, 2,3-Dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7- Maximum Maximumfor Total Lead ...... 690 320 benzofuranol/ from o-Nitrophenol + for any monthly Total Nickel ...... 3,980 1,690 Methallyl chloride one day average Total Zinc 2 ...... 2,610 1,050 n-Butyl alcohol/Hydrogenation of n- Butyraldehyde, Oxo process 1 All units are micrograms per liter. 1,4-Butanediol/Hydrogenation of 1,4- Acenaphthene ...... 47 19 2 Total Zinc for Rayon Fiber Manufacture butynediol Acrylonitrile ...... 232 94 that uses the viscose process and Acrylic Butryolactone/Dehydrogenation of 1,4- Benzene ...... 134 57 Fibers Manufacture that uses the zinc chlo- butanediol Carbon Tetrachloride... 380 142 ride/solvent process is 6,796 Ag/ and 3,325 Caprolactam/From cyclohexane via Chlorobenzene ...... 380 142 AgIl for maximum for any one day and maxi- 1,2,4- mum for monthly average, respectively. cyclohexanone and its oxime Lilian (hydroxydihydrocitronellal)/Hydration Trichlorobenzene ..... 794 196 Hexachlorobenzene ..... 794 196 and oxidation of citronellol Appendix A to Part 414-Non- 1,2-Dichloroethane/Oxyhydrochlorination of 1,2-Dichloroethane ...... 574 180 Complexed Metal-Bearing Waste -Trichloroethane.. ethylene 1,1,1 59 22 Streams and Cyanide-Bearing Waste Hexachloroethane ...... 794 196 Dialkyldithiocarbamates. metal salts/ Streams 1,1 -Dichloroethane ...... 59 22 Dialkylamines + carbon disulfide 2-Ethylhexanol/from n-Butyraldehyde by 1,1,2-Trichloroethane.. 127 32 Chromium Aldo condensation and hydrogenation Chloroethane ...... 295 110 Methylhydroabietate/Esterification of Chloroform ...... 325 Fatty amines/Hydrogenation of fatty nitriles 111 hydroabietic acid (rosin] with methanol 1,2-Dichlorobenzene.... 794 196 (batch) Acrylic acid/Oxidation of propylene via 1,3-Dichlorobenzene .... 380 142 Geraniol/B-Myrcene + Hydrogen chloride, 1.4-Dichlorobenzene.... 380 142 acrolein esterification of geranyl chloride, 1.1-Dichloroethylene .... 60 22 N-butyl alcohol/Hydrogenation of n- hydrolysis of geranyl acetate 1.2-trans- Butyraldehyde, Oxo process Furfuryl alcohol/Hydrogenation of furfural Dichloroethylene ...... 66 25 Cyclohexanone/From phenol via Geranial (Citral)/Oxidation of geraniol 1,2-Dichloropropane 794 196 cyclohexanol by hydrogenation- (copper catalyst) 1,3. dehydrogenation Glyoxal/Oxidation of ethylene glycol Dichloropropylene .... 794 196 Fatty amines/Hydrogenation of fatty nitriles Isobutanol/Hydrogenation of 2.4-Dimethylphenol ...... 47 19 (batch) isobutyraldehyde, Oxo process Ethylbenzene ...... 380 142 Helioptropin/Oxidation of isosafrole, Isopropanol/Catalytic hydrogenation of Fluoranthene ...... 54 22 chromium catalyst acetone Bis(2- Isobutanol/Hydrogenation of 2-Mercaptobenzothiazoles, copper salt/2- chloroisopropyl)ethei 794 196 isobutyraldehyde, Oxo process Mercaptobenzothiazole + copper salt Methylene Chloride ..... 170 36 Cyclohexyl Mercaptan/Cyclohexanol + Methanol/High pressure synthesis from Methyl Chloride ...... 295 110 Hydrogen sulfide natural gas via synthetic gas Hexachlorobutadiene... 380 142 Ethyl Mercaptan/Ethanol + Hydrogen Methanol/Low pressure synthesis from Naphthalene ...... 47 19 sulfide natural gas via synthetic gas Nitrobenzene ...... 6.402 2,237 Methanol/H.P. Synthesis from natural gas via Methyl ethyl ketone/Dehydrogenation of sec- 2-Nitrophenol ...... 231 65 synthetic gas Butanol 4-Nitrophenol ...... 576 162 Oxo Alcohols, C7-C1I/Carbonatlon & Oxo alcohols. C7-Cli /Carbonation & 2.4-Dinitrophenol ...... 4,291 1,207 hydrogenation of C6-C1O Olefins hydrogenation of C6-C10 olefins 4.6-Dinitro-o-cresol ...... 277 78 Polyoxypropylene diamine/Polypropylene Phenol/Liquid phase oxidation of benzoic Phenol ...... 47 19 glycol + Ammonia acid Federal Register / Vol; 52, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42583

Polyoxyalkylene amines/Polyoxyalkylene Alkyl amines/Amination of alcohols Petroleum hydrocarbon resins, glycol + ammonia 4-Aminoacetanilide/Hydrogenation of 4- hydrogenated/Hydrogenation of petroleum Polyphenylend oxide/Solution polymerization Nitroacetanilide hydrocarbon resin products of 2,6-xylenol by oxidative coupling BTX/Hydrogenation of olefins Pinane/Hydrogenation of A-Pinene (cuprous salt catalyst) (cyclohexenes) 2-Pinanol/Reduction of pinane hydroperoxide Polyoxypropylene diamine/Polypropylene Terphenyls, hydrogenated/Nickel catalyst, Bis-(p-Octylphenol) sulfide, Nickel salt/p- glycol + Ammonia hydrogenation of terphenyl Octylphenol + sulfur chloride (S2C12). Quinaldine (dye intermediate)/Skraup Bisphenol-A, hydrogenated (Biscyclohexanol- neutralize with Nickel base reaction of aniline + crotonaldehyde A)/Hydrogenation of Bisphenol-A Piperazine/Reductive amination of ethanol Silicones, silicone fluids/Hydrolysis and Butadiene (1,3/Extractive distillation of C-4 pyrolyzates amine (ammonia & hydrogenation, metal condensation of chlorosilanes catalyst) Silicones, silicone rubbers/Hydrolysis and n-Butanol/Hydrogenation of n- N,N-Dimethylpiperazine/Condensation condensation of chlorosilanes Butyraldehyde, Oxo process Silicones, silicone specialties (grease, 1,3-Butylene glycol/Hydrogenation of piperazine + formaldehyde, hydrogenation dispersion agents, defoamers & other acetaldol Polyoxylalkylene amines/Polyoxyalkylene products) 1,4-Butanediol/Hydrogenation of 1,4- glycol + Ammonia Silicones: Silicone resins/Hydrolysis & butynediol Polyoxypropylene dia mine/Polypropylene condensation of methyl, phenyl & vinyl Butylenes (mixed)/Distillation pf C4 glycol + Ammonia chlorosilanes pyrolyzates 2-Amino-2-methyl--propanol/Hydrogenation Silicones: Silicone fluids/Hydrolysis of 4-Chloro-2-aminophenol/Hydrogenation of 4- of 2-Nitro 2-methyl-I-propanol chlorosilanes to acyclic & cyclic Chloro-2-nitrophenol 3-Methoxypropyl amine/Reductive aminetion organosiloxanes •Lilial (hydroxydihydrocitronellal)/Hydration of acrylamide with methanol & hydrogen Styrene/Dehydration of a-Methylbenzyl and oxidation of citronellol N-Propylamine/Reductive ammination Cycloparaffins/Catalytic alcohol (coproduct of propylene oxide) hydrogenation of (ammonia + hydrogen) of n-propanol aromatics in kerosene solvent Tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene)/ Sorbitol/Hydrogenation of sugars Cyclohexanol/Hydrogenation of phenol, Oxyhydrochlorination of tetrachloroethane Sulfolane/Condensation butadlene + sulfur distillation Tris(anilino)s-triazine/Cyanuric chloride + dioxide, Hydrogenation Cyclohexanone/From phenol via aniline + cogeners cyclohexanol by hydrogenation- Thionocarbamates, N-Ethyl-o-isopropyl/ Trichloroethylene/Oxyhydrochlorination of dehydrogenation Isopropyl xanthate + Ethylamine tetrachloroethane Dialkyldithiocarbamates, metal salts/ Toluene diamine (mixture)/Catalytic Unsaturated polyester resin/Reaction of Dialkylamines + carbon disulfide hydrogenation of dinitrotoluene maleic anhydride + phthalic anhydride + Ethylamine/Reductive amination of ethanol Methylated urea-formaldehyde resins propylene glycol polyester with styrene or Ethylamines (mono, di, tri)/Reductive (textile)/Methylation of urea-formaldehyde methyl methacrylate ammination (ammonia + hydrogen) of adduct Lead ethanol Methylated urea-formaldehyde glyoxol lsoeugenol, high % trans/Separation of mixed (textile resin)/Reaction of methylated urea. Alkyd resin/Condensation polymerization cis & trans isoeugenols formaldehyde + glyoxal Alkyd resins/Condensation polymerization of 2-Ethylhexanol/from n-Butyraldehyde by Zinc phthalic anhydride + glycerin + vegetable Aldol condensation and hydrogenation oil esters Fatty acids, hydrogenated/tallow & coco Methylhydroabietate, diels-alder adducts/ Anti-knock fuel additive/Blending purchased acids + Hydrogen Derivatives of abietic esters from rosin tetraethyl lead & tetramethyl lead additives Fatty amines/Hydrogenation of fatty nitriles Acrylic resins/Emulsion or solution Dialkydithiocarbamates, metal salts/ (batch) polymerization to coatings Dialkylamines + carbon disulfide Fatty amines/Hydrogenation of tallow & coco Acrylic resins (latex)/Emulsion Thiuram (dimethyldithiocarbamate) nitriles polymerization of acrylonitrile with hexasulfide/Dimethyldithiocarbamate + Glyoxal-urea formaldehyde textile resin/ polybutadiene sulfur condensation to N-bis(hydroxymethyl) Acrylic fibers (85% polyacrylonitrile) by Triphenylmethane dyes (methyl violet)/ ureas & N,N'-(dihydroxyethyl) ureas solution polymerization/Wet spinning Condensation of Formaldehyde + N- 11-hexadecenal/Coupling rxns, low pressure Alkyd Resins/Condensation polymerization Methylaniline + N,N-dimethylaniline, hydrogenation of phthalic anhydride + glycerin + oxidation of reaction product Hexahydrophthalic anhydride/Condensation vegetable oil esters 4,4'-Bis-(N,N-dimethylaniline carbinol, of butadiene & maleic anhydride (Diels- Benzene/By-product of styrene by Michler's hydrol/Oxidation of 4,4'- Alder reaction) + hydrogenation ethylbenzene dehydrogenation Methylene-bis(N,N-dimethylaniline) with Isobutanol/Hydrogenation of lead oxide Benzene/By-product of vinyl toluene (from isobutyraldehyde, Oxo process I ethyltoluene) Naphthenic acid salts Diisobutyl amine/Ammonolysis of isobutanol n-butyl alcohol/Hydrogenation of n- Stearic acid, metal salts/Neutralization with Isopropyl amines (mono, di)/Reductive a metallic base Butyraldehyde, Oxo process ammination (Ammonia + Hydrogen) of Coumarin (benz-a-pyrone)/Salicylaldehyde, Tetraethyl lead/Alkyl halide + sodium-lead isopropanol Oxo process alloy Lnalool/Pyrolysis of 2-Pinanol Tetramethyl lead/Alkyl halide + sodium- Methanol/High pressure synthesis from Cycloparaffins/Catalytic hydrogenation of lead alloy natural gas via synthetic gas aromatics in kerosene solvent Dithiocarbamates, zinc salt/Reaction of zinc Nickel Methanol/Low pressure sythesis fron natural gas via synthetic gas oxide + Sodium dithiocarbamates Acetates, 7,11-Hexadecadien-l-ol Methanol/Butane oxidation Dialkyldithiocarbamates, metal salts/ (gossyplure)/Coupling reactions, low Tris-(hydroxymethyl) methyl amine/ Diakylamines + Carbon disulfide pressure hydrogenation, esterification Hydrogenation of tris(hydroxymethyl) Dithiocarbamates, metal salts/ Acetates, 9-dodecen-l-ol (pheromone)/ nitromethane Dithiocarbamic acid + metal oxide Coupling reactions, low pressure N-Methyl morpholine/Morpholine + Thiuram (dimethyldithiocarbamate) hydrogenation, esterification Methanol hexasulfide/Dimethyldithiocarbamate + Acrylic acid/oxidation of propylene via N-Ethyl morpholine/Morpholine + Ethanol sulfur acrolein 2-Methyl-7,8-epoxy octadecane/Coupling Fluorescent brighteners/Coumarin based Acrylonitrile/Propylene ammoxidation reactions, low pressure hydrogenation, Ethyl acetate/Redox reaction (Tschenko) of n-Alkanes/Hydrogenation of C6-C22.alpha epoxidation acetaldehyde olefins (ethylene oligomers) Alpha-Olefins/Ethylene oligomer, & Zeigler Ethylbenzene/Benzene alkylation in liquid Adiponitrile/Direct cyanation of butadiene Cat. phase 42584 Federd liegist. / Vol."52,,No. "214.'I Thursday,:November 5, .19871 Rules- ania Reuiations-

Ethylbenzyl chloride/ChloromeihylatlOn • SDimttlioxybeuizaldehide/Hydroquinone Sarcosine (N-Methyl glycine), s6dium salt/ (Hydrogeri hloride + .formaldehyde, zinc :dimthyl ether + Hydrogen cyanide, ' Hexamethylene tetraamino + Sodium chloride] of ethylbenzene -. ... .! hydrolysis - :cyanide, hydrolysis. 2-Ethyl hexanol/Aldol condensation- .Benzyl cyanide/Benzyl chloride + Sodium' Thiophene aceticacid/Chloromethylation hydrogenation of n-Butyraldehyde cyanide (Hydrogen chloride + Formaldehyde) + Clyoxal-urea formaldehyde textile resin/ Coal tar products/Distillation of coal tar Sodium cyanide, hydrolysi's Condensation to.N-bis (hydroxymethyl) condensate Tolylene diisocyanate (isomeric mixture)/ ureas + NN'-(Dihydroxyethyl) ureas Cyanoacetic acid/Chloracetic acid + sodium Tolylene diamines + Phosgene IsObutanol/Hydrogenation of cyanide Tris(anilino)S-trazine/Cyanuric chloride + isobutyraldehyde, Oxo process Cyanuric chloride/Catalyzed trimerization of Aniline and its cogeners lsoproanol/Catalytic hydrogenation Of' cyanogen chloride Triethylorthoformate/Ethanol + Hydrogen acetone Vat dyes, Indigo paste as-Vat Blue 1/ cyanide - Methallylidene diacetate/Condensation of 2- Sodamide + potassium N-Phenylglycine, Trimethylorthoformate/Methanol + Methypropenal + acetic anhydride , - fused with caustic/N-phenylglycine + " Hydrogen cyanide Methanol/Low pressure sythesis, from natural. Aniline + Formaldehyde + Sodium gas.via synthetic gas. bisulfite, sodium cyanide, hydrolysis with Appendix B to Part 414--.Complexed Methyl chloride/Hydrochlorination'of potassium hydroxide Metal-Bearing Waste Streams methanol - Disperse dyes, Azo and Vat -Chromium Methylethyl ketone/Deh drogenatiion of sec- .Ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid/ Ethylenediamine + Formaldehyde + Azo dye intermediates/Substituted Butanol . di'azonium salts + coupling compounds Naphthenic acid salts Sodium cyanide Nylon' Diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid/ Vat dyes/Mixing purchased dyestuffs Nylon 6 & 66 copolymers/Polycondensation Diethylenetriamine + Formaldehyde + (Anthraquinones, polycyclic Quinones 'and Indigoids) of Nylon salt + Caprolatam Sodium cyanide Acid dyes' Nylon 6 fiber/Extrusion (melt spinning) N,N'-bis(o- Azo dyes, metallized/Azo dye + metal Oxo alcohols, C12-C15/Hydroformylation & Acetamidophenoljethylenediamine, ferric acetate hydrogenation of C11-C14 olefins complex/ Salicyladehyde + Acid dyes, Azo (including metallized) Phenolic urethan resins/Phenol + excess. Ethylenediamine + Hydrogen cyanide, hydrolysis to amide • Organic pigments, miscellaneous lakes and formaldehyde + Methylene aniline toners diisocyanate Diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid, Polystyrene (crystal) modified/ Polystyrene + pentasodium salt/ Diethylenetriamine Copper pentaacetic acide + .sulfonation, chloromethylation and/or. caustic Ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid, metal Disperse dyes amination Vat dyes/Mixing purchased dyestuffs Rayon/Viscose process salts/Ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid + metal bases (Anthraquinones, polycyclic Quinones and SAN resin/Emulsion polymerization Hydroxyethyl Indigoids) Silicones: Silicone rubbers/Hydrolysis ethylenediamine triacetic acid, and trisodium salt/ Ethylenediamine + Acid dyes condensation of chlorosilanes • Ethylene oxide + Formaldehyde + Sodium Direct dyes Silicones: Silicone specialties (grease. cyanide, hydrolysis Vat dyes' dispersion agents, defoamers &other. •Hexamethylene diisocyanate/' Sulfur dyes products) Hexamethylene diamine (1,6- Disperse dye coupler/N-substitution of 2- Silidones: Silicone resins/Hydrolysis & Diaminohexane) + phosgene * Amino-4.acetamidoanisole - condensation of methyl, phenyl &*vinyl. 5,5-Dimethyl hyantoin/Acetone + ammonia Azo dyes, metallized/Azo dye + metal chlorosilanes + carbon dioxide + hydrogen cyanide acetate Silicones: Silicone fluids/Hydrolysis of Hydrogen cyanide/By-product of acrylonitrile Direct dyes, Azo chlorosilanes.to acyclic & cyclic by ammoxidation of propylene Disperse dyes, Azo and Vat organosiloxanes lminbdiacetic acid/Hexamethylene Organic pigment Green 7/Copper Stearic acid, metal salts/Neutralization with tetraamin.e .+Hydrogen cyanide, phthalocyanine a metallic base hydrolysis of iminoacetonitrile salt Organic pigments Styrene/Dehydrogenation of ethylbenzene Methionine/Acroein + Methyl mercaptan, Organic pigments/Phthalocyanine pigments Styrene-butadiene resin/Emu"lsion with hydrogen cyanide and ammonium Organic pigments/Copper phthalocyanine polymerization carbohate (Blue Crude) Vinyl acetate/Reduction of acetylene '- Methylene Diphenylisocyanate (MDI)/ Organic pigments, miscellaneous lakes and acetic acid Phosgenation of methylene dianiline from toners - Vinyl toluene/Dehydrogenation (thermal) of 'Aniline + Formaldehyde Lead ethyltoluene ' Nitrilotriacetic acid/Hexamethylene Xylenes, mixed/By-product vinyl'toluene tetraamine + Hydrogen cyanide, Organic pigments, Quinacridines ((from ethyltoluene) hydrolysis of nitrilotriacetonitrile salt Organic pigments, Thioindigoids. Cyanide Picolines, mixed/Condensation of. Nickel acetaldehyde + formaldehyde + ammonia Acetone cyanohydrin/Acetone + Hydrogen Organic pigments, Azo/Diazotization of Azo dyes, metallized/Azo dye + metal cyanide • + . .... aniline cogener, coupling to B-Napthol acetate Acetonitrile/By-produ6t of acrylonitrile from Polyurethane resins/Diisocyanate + Zinc • propylene by ammoxidatikn" Polyoxyalkylene glycol Acrylic resins/Solution polymerization Organic pigments/Azo pigments by Polyurethane fibers (Spandex)/ diazOtization and coupling Acrylic fiber (85% acrylonitrile)/Suspension Polyoxyalkylene glycol + Tolylene polymerization, and wet spinning diisocyanate + dialkylamine " PART 416--REMOVED] Acrylic fiber (85% acrylonitrile]/Solution Pyrimidines, 2-lsopropyl-4-methoxy-/ polymerization, and wet spinning Isobutyronitrile + methanol, ammonia and 2. 40 CFR is amended by removing Acrylonitrile/Ammoxidation of propylene methylacetoacetate (ring closure) Part 416. Adiponitrile/Butadiene +.Hydrogen cyanide Pyridine (synthetic)'/Condensation of (direct cyanation) acetaldehyde + ammonia + formaldehyde [FR Doc. 87-23568 Filed 11-4-87; 8:45am] Allylnitrile/Allyl chloride + Sodium cyanide Cyanopyrldine/Ammoxidation of picoline BILLING CODE 6560-50-M