52848 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION publication of this regulation in the v. Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), AGENCY Federal Register, the Record, including Modified, 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979). copies of the development document II. Scope of This Rulemaking 40 CFR Part 425 and economic analysis, and responses to public comments will be available for This regulation applies to the leather [WH-FRL 2231-5] public review in EPA's Public 'tanning and finishing point source Information Reference Unit, Room 2404 category which is included within the and Finishing Leather Tanning (Rear) (EPA Library), 401 M Street, SW., Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Industry Point Source Category; D.C. The EPA information Major Group 3100, Leather and Leather Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Washington, regulation (40 CFR Part 2) allows the Products. That part of the industry Preteatment Standards and New Agency to charge a reasonable fee for covered by this regulation is the Source Performance Standards copying. Copies of the development subgroup SIC 3111. AGENCY: Environmental Protection document and the economic analysis The regulation promulgated today Agency. may also be obtained from the National establishes effluent limitations and ACTION: Final rule. Technical Information Service, standards to control specific toxic, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (703/487- nonconventional and conventional SUMMARY: This regulation limits the 6000). pollutants for nine subcategories in the discharge of pollutants into navigable FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: leather tanning and finishing category: publicly owned waters and into Technical information: Donald F. (1) Hair pulp, chrome tan, retan-wet treatment works by existing and new Anderson, (202) 382-7189; economic finish; (2) hair save, chrome tan, retan- wet finish; (3) hair save, non-chrome sources that are leather tanning and information: Joseph V. Yance, (202) 382- finishing facilities. The Clean Water Act 5379. tan, retan-wet finish; (4) retan-wet finish and a consent decree require EPA to (sides); (5) no beamhouse; (6) through- issue this regulation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the-blue; (7) shearling; (8) pigskin; and The purpose of this regulation is to Organization of this Notice (9) retan-wet finish (splits). specify effluent limitations for "best I. Legal Authority. Best practicable control technology practicable technology", "best available II.Scope of this Rulemaking. currently available (BPT) effluent technology'., "best conventional III. Summary of Legal Background. limitations are established for all technology", and "new source IV. Prior Regulations. subcategories. The technology basis of performance standards" for direct V. Methodology and Data Gathering the BPT limitations is biological dischargers and to establish Efforts. treatment, specifically high solids pretreatment standards for indirect VI. Subcategorization and Water Use. extended aeration activated sludge. dischargers. A. Subcategorization They include mass based limitations B. Water Use (kg/kkg or lb/1,000 lb of raw material) DATES: In accordance with 40 CFR VII. Summary of Promulgated Regulations. 100.01 (45 FR 26048), these regulations A. BPT for one toxic pollutant (total chromium), will be considered issued for purposes B. BAT and four conventional pollutants (BOD5, of judicial review at 1:00 P.M. Eastern C. BCT TSS, oil and grease, and pH). These BPT time on (two weeks after Federal D. NSPS mass limitations are derived utilizing Register publication date). They will E. PSES subcategory median water use ratios become effective January 6, 1983, except F. PSNS and BPT effluent concentrations sections 425.04 (b)- and (c) which contain VI. Costs and Economic Impact. described later in appropriate sections information collection requirements IX. Non-water Quality Environmental of this preamble, and variability factors review at OMB. The Impacts. described in the Development which are under X. Pollutants and Subcategories Not compliance date for Pretreatment Regulated. Document. Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) is BAT and BCT limitations also are 1 XI. Best Management Practices. November 25, 1985. XII. Upset and Bypass Provisions. established for all nine subcategories in Under Section 509(b](1) of the Clean XII, Variances and Modifications. the leather tanning and finishing point Water Act, any petition for judicial XIV. Relationship to NPDES Permits. source category. For this regulation the review of this regulation must be filed in XV. Public Participation. technology basis of and mass based the United States Court of Appeals XVI. Small Business Administration (SBA] effluent limitations for BCT and BAT are within 90 days after the regulation is Financial Assistance. the same as the promulgated BPT considered issued for purposes of XVII. List of Subjects In 40 CFR Part 425. limitations. The BCT effluent limitations XVIII. OMB Review. judicial review. Under Section 509(b)(2) XIX. Appendices. control four conventional pollutants of the Clean Water Act, the regulation A. Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Other (BOD, TSS, oil and grease, and pH]. The may not be challenged later in civil or Terms Used in This Notice BAT limitations control one toxic criminal proceedings brought by EPA to B. Toxic Pollutants Excluded pollutant, total chromium. enforce its requirements. NSPS are mass based and are I. Legal Authority ADDRESSES: Technical information nay established for all nine subcategories be obtained by writing to Donald F. This regulation is promulgated under and limit one toxic pollutant (total Anderson, Effluent Guidelines Division, the authority of Sections 301, 304, 306, chromium), and four conventional (WH-552), EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., 307, 308 and 501 of the Clean Water Act pollutants (BOD, TSS, oil and grease, Washington, D.C. 20460 or through (the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and pH). NSPS are based on the same calling (202) 382-7189. Economic Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et technology and effluent concentrations information may be obtained from seq., as amended by the Clean Water and the same variability factors as BAT, Joseph V. Yance, Office of Analysis and Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-217)), also called but the mass based limitations for NSPS Evaluation (WH-586), at the same the "Act." It also is promulgated in are different from those for BAT address, or through calling (202) 382- response to the Settlement Agreement in because the NSPS limitations are based 5379. Three weeks after the date of NaturalResources Defense Council, Inc. on reduced water use. Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52849

Finally, this regulation establishes Agreement, the Act stressed control of defined by the Administrator as categorical pretreatment standards for the 65 classes of toxic pollutants. In "conventional," i.e., oil and grease. (See one toxic pollutant, total chromium, for addition, to strengthen the toxic control 44 FR 44501; July 30, 1979.) all subcategories. These standards are program, Section 304(e) of the Act BCT is not an additional limitation but concentration based and apply to authorizes the Administrator to replaces BAT for the control of existing and new source indirect prescribe "best management practices" conventional pollutants. In addition to dischargers. The categorical (BMP) to prevent the release of toxic other factors specified in section pretreatment standards for total and hazardous pollutants from plant site 304(b)(4)(B), the Act requires that BCT chromium contained in this regulation runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste limitations be assessed in light of a two do not apply to indirect dischargers in disposal and drainage from raw material part "cost-reasonableness" test. subcategory I processing less than 275 storage associated with, or ancillary to, American PaperInstitute v. EPA, 660 hides per day, in subcategory 3 the manufacturing or treatment process. F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1981). The first test processing less than 350 hides per day Under the Act, the EPA program is to compares the cost for private industry or in subcategory 9 processing less than set a number of different kinds of to reduce its conventionalpollutants 3600 splits per day. Categorical effluent limitations. These are discussed with the cost to publicly owned pretreatment standards also are in detail in the proposed regulation and treatment works (POTWs) for similar established for the control of sulfides in development document. The following is levels of reduction in their dischargeof subcategories 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8 where a brief summary: these pollutants. The second test unhairing operations are included. 1. Best PracticableControl examines the cost-effectiveness of However, this regulation includes a Technology CurrentlyAvailable (BPT). additionalindustrial treatment beyond provision which allows the POTW to BPT limitations generally are based on BPT EPA must find that limitationsare certify that discharge of sulfide from a the average of the best existing "reasonable"under both tests before particular facility does not interfere with performance at plants of various sizes, ages and unit processes establishing them as BCT. In no case its treatment works. If this certification within the may BCT be less stringent than BPT. is made and EPA determines that the industry or subcategory. In establishing EPA published its methodology for submission is adequate, it will publish a BPT limitations, the Agency considers carrying out the BCT analysis on August notice in the Federal Register identifying the total cost of applying the technology 29, 1979 (44 FR 50732). In the case those facilities to which the sulfide in relation to the effluent reduction mentioned above, the Court of Appeals pretreatment standard would not apply. derived, the age of equipment and ordered EPA to correct data errors Finally, the Agency is adopting a new facilities involved, the process underlying EPA's calculation of the first format to make the regulations more employed, the engineering aspects of the readily usable and test, and to apply the second cost test. understood by control technologies, process changes (EPA had argued that a second cost test -regulating authorities, the industry, and and nonwater-quality environmental was not required.) The Agency has the public. impacts (including energy rdquirements). corrected data errors and applied a III. Summary The total cost of applying the technology of Legal Background is balanced against the effluent second cost test. A revised BCT The Federal Water Pollution Control reduction. methodology was proposed in the Act Amendments of 1972 established a 2. Best Available Technology Federal Register on October 29, 1982 (47 comprehensive program to "restore and Economically Achievable (BAT). BAT FR 49176). maintain the chemical, physical and limitations, in general, represent the best EPA identified no economically biological integrity of the Nation's existing performance in the industrial achievable technology beyond BPT waters" (Section 101(a)). To implement subcategory or category. The Act (biological treatment) capable of the Act, EPA was required to issue establishes BAT as the principal removing significant amounts of effluent limitations guidelines, national means of controlling the direct conventional pollutants from leather pretreatment standards and new source discharge of toxic and nonconventional tanning and finishing wastewaters. performance standards for industrial pollutants to navigable waters. In Therefore, BCT is being set equal to dischargers. arriving at BAT, the Agency considers BPT, and is not subject to the "cost- The Act included a timetable for the age of the equipment and facilities reasonableness" test. issuing these standards. However, EPA involved, the process employed, the 4. New Source Performance Standards was unable to meet many of the engineering aspects of the control (NSPS). NSPS are based on. the best deadlines and, as a result, in 1976,- it was technologies, process changes, the cost available demonstrated technology. sued by several environmental groups. of achieving such effluent reduction and New plants have the opportunity and In settling this lawsuit, EPA and the nonwater-quality environmental are required to install the best and most plaintiffs executed a court-approved impacts. The Administrator retains efficient production processes and "Settlement Agreement." This considerable discretion in assigning the wastewater treatment technologies. Agreement required EPA to develop a weight to be accorded these factors. 5. PretreatmentStandards for Existing program and adhere to a schedule in 3. Best ConventionalPollutant Control Sources (PSES). PSES are designed to promulgating effluent limitations Technology (BCT. The 1977 control the discharge of pollutants that guidelines and pretreatment standards Amendments added Section 301(b)(2)(E) pass through, interfere with, or are for 65 "priority" pollutants and classes to the Act establishing "best otherwise incompatible with the of pollutants, for 21 major industries. conventional pollutant control operation of a publicly owned treatment [See NaturalResources Defense technology" (BCT) for discharges of works (POTW). They must be achieved Council, Inc. v. Trai, 8 ERC 2120 conventional pollutants from existing within three years of promulgation. The (D.D.C. 1976), modified, 12 ERC 1833 industrial point sources. Conventional Clean Water Act of 1977 requires (D.D.C. 1979)]. pollutants are those defined in Section pretreatment for pollutants that pass Many of the basic elements of this 304(a)(4) [biochemical oxygen through the POTWs in amounts that Settlement Agreement were demanding pollutants (e.g., BOD5), total would violate direct discharger effluent incorporated into the Clean Water Act suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform limitations or interfere with the POTWs of 1977 ("the Act"). Like the Settlement and pH] and any additional pollutants treatment process or chosen sludge 52850 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

disposal method. The legislative history On July 2, 1979 (44 FR 38746), EPA reliabilities and constraints, (iii of the 1977 Act indicates that proposed BPT, BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSNS, considered the nonwater quality pretreatment standards are to be and PSES regulations EPA accepted impacts (includtng impacts on air technology-based analogous to the best comments on the proposed regulations quality, solid waste generation and available technology. EPA. has generally until April 10, 1980. In their comments energy requirements), and (iv) estimated determined that there is pass through of on the proposed regulations, the leather the costs and economic impacts of pollutants if the percent of pollutants tanning industry claimed that the data applying it as a treatment and control removed by a well-operated POTW and other supporting record material system. Costs and economic impacts of achieving secondary treatment is less relied upon by EPA in proposing these the technology options considered are than the percent removed by the BAT regulations contained a large number of discussed in detail in Economic Impact model treatment system. The general errors. The Agency has responded by Analysis of Effluent Limitations and pretreatment regulations, which served not only completely reviewing the entire Standardsfor tie Leather Tanning and as the framework for the categorical data base and all documentation FinishingIndustry (EPA 440/11-82-001, pretreatment regulations, are found- at 40 supporting this rulemaking, but also by November 1982). A more complete CFR Part 403 [43 FR 27736 (June 26, conducting a program to acquire description of the Agency's study 1978); 46 FR 9462 (January 28, 1981)]. supplemental data during and after the methodology, data gathering efforts and 6. PretreatmentStandards for New comment period. analytical procedures supporting the Sources (PSNS). Like PSES, PSNS In the Federal Register for June 2, 1982 regulation can be found in the Final .control the discharge of pollutants to (47 FR 23958), EPA made available for Development Documentfor Effluent POTWs that pass through, interfere public review and comment Limitations Guidelines New Source with, or are otherwise incompatible with supplementary technical and economic PerformanceStandards and the operation of POTW9. PSNS. are data and related documentation PretreatmentStandards for the Leather issued at the tame time as NSPS. New received after proposal of the Tanning and Finishing Industry Point indirect dischargers, like new direct regulations. The Agency also Source Category (EPA 440/11-82-016 dischargers, have the opportunity to summarized the preliminary findings of November 1982). how these supplementary record incorporate the best available VI. Subcategorization and Water Use demonstrated technologies. The Agency materials might influence final considers the same factors in rulemaking. A. Subcategarization.In 1979, the promulgating PSNS as it considers in V. Methodology and Data Gathering Agency proposed seven subcategories promulgating PSES. Efforts for the leather tanning and finishing industry on the basis of hide or skin IV. Prior Regulations The methodology and data gathering type, and process employed. The seven efforts used in developing the proposed EPA promulgated BPT, BAT, NSPS, subcategories were as follows:. regulation were discussed in the 1. Hair Pulp, Chrome Tan, Retanr-Wet and PSNS for the Leather Tanning and preamble to the proposal (44 FR 38749.- Finishing Point Source Category on Finish 38751, July 2, 1979). The notice of Save, Chrome Tan; Retan-Wet April 9, 1974 (39 FR 12958; 40 CFR Part availablity of supplementary record 2. Hair Finish 425, Subparts A-F). The Tanners' materials (47 FR 23958, iune 2, 1982) also Council of America (TCA) challenged discussed data gathering and review 3. Hair Save or Pulp, Non-Chrome these regulations, and the U.S. Court of efforts. In summary, before publishing Tan, Retan-Wet Finish Appeals for the Fourth Circuit left BAT the proposed regulation in 1979, the 4. Retan-Wet Finish and PSNS undisturbed, but remanded Agency conducted a data collection, 5. No Beamhouse the BPT and NSPS regulations for analytical screening; and analytical 6. Through-The-Blue several reasons (see Tanners' Councilof verification program for the leather 7. Shearling America vs Train, 540 F.2d 1188 [4th.Cir. tanning and finishing industry. This Upon further review of the industry 1976.1). EPA promulgated pretreatment program stressed the acquisition of data and in response to public comment, EPA standards for existing sources (PSES) on the presence and treatability of the is establishing two additional within the Leather Tanning and 65 toxic pollutants and classes of toxic subcategories, pigskins (subcategory 8) Finishing Point Source Category on pollutants discussed previously. The 65 and retan-wet-finish-splits [subcategory March 23, 1977 [42 FR 15696; 40 CFR Part toxic pollutants and classes of 9). In the 1979 proposal, the processing 425, Subparts A-G). These regulations pollutants potentially includes of pigskins was included in subcategory established general pretreatment thousands of specific pollutants. EPA 1. However, the nature of pigskin is prohibitions and specific pH-standards selected 129 specific toxic pollutants for different from that of cattlehide (the for indirect dischargers. These PSES study in this rulemaking and other predominant raw material in regulations were not challenged and are industry rulemakings. (Analytical subcategory 1), and the subprocesses currently in effect. methods are discussed in Sampling and utilized to produce finished leather are Previously promulgated best Analysis Proceduresfor Screening of different. Given proper water practicable control technology currently IndustrialEffluents for Priority conservation and recycle and reuse available (BPT) and best available Pollutants (U.S. EPA, April 1977)). Based techniques, the processing of pigskins technology economically achievable on the results of that pragmra, EPA results in different water use and (BAT) limitations, new source identified several distinct treatment pollutant loads from the processing of performance standards (NSPS), technologies, including both end-of-pipe cattlehides. Accordingly, a sepafate pretreatment standards for existing and in-plant technologies, that are or subcategory, pigskins (subcategory 8), sources (PSES) and pretreatment can be used to treat leather tanning and was required. In the 1979 -proposal, the standards for new sources (PSNS) are finishing industry wastewaters. retanning and wet finishing of splits was superseded by this regulaton. This For each of these technologies, the included in subcategory 4 However, a regulation also establishes best Agency (i) compiled and analyzed split is a different raw material than conventional pollutant control histdrical and newly-generated data on grain sides, and the subprocesses technology limitations (BCT). effluent quality, (iU)identified its utilized to produce finished leather are Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52851

different. Given proper water percent of chromium content by weight, subcategory. Reduced water use was conservation and reuse and recycle the "boil" test, and other tests of not used in deriving BAT mass based techniques, the retan-wet finishing of mechanical properties, provide effluent limitations because the BAT splits results in different water use and standardized bases for determining Option I included BPT in plant and end- pollutant loads from the processing of whether final leather products are of-pipe technology. Water use reduction grain sides. Accordingly, a separate acceptable for their intended use. The waq incorporated into mass based subcategory, retan-wet finish-splits qualitative measures of final product effluent limitations for the two BAT (subcategory 9), was added. These two quality are subjective factors, such as options which were not selected. PSES new subcategories were discussed in the the "feel" of leathers. The Agency has are concentration based rather than June 2, 1982 notice of availability. not used either the quantitative or mass based, and therefore median water Subcategorization in this industry is qualitative measures of final product use ratios are not a part of PSES. based primarily upon the raw materials quality as a basis for subcategorization and the three major groups of because industry has not produced any TABLE 1 subprocesses utilized at a plant data and, as discussed below, the Number Number (beamhouse [hair removall, tanyard Agency does not have any data showing of ants Median of plants a correlation between water used and on flow ratio in data [tanning] and retan-wet finish [further Subcategory n (gallon base tanning, coloring, oil replenishment, pollutants discharged, and final product subcate- per operating 9%se ound) below surface coating]). These factors have the quality. Furthermore, the Agency feels flow ratio most significant influence on water use that it would be difficult if not and pollutant generation. These two impossible to quantify the subjective ...... 28 6.5 15 2 ...... 4 5.8 3 factors are interdependent because the and variable qualitative measures of 3 ...... 12 4,9 8 subprocesses utilized depend upon the final product quality, such as the "feel" 4 ...... 8 4.8 4 of leathers, and that such data would be 5 ...... 13 5.8 7 nature of the raw materials and their 6 ...... 3 2.1 2 state of preprocessing. For example, impossible to procure. The data utilized 7 ...... 1 9.4 1 cattlehides to be processed into "crust" by the Agency does, however, represent 8 ...... 2 5.0 1 9 ...... 4 3.0 2 leather (largely finished leather, except leather products of commercially salable for any special surface coating or color) qualities. require all three major groups of B. Water Use. The two primary Reduced flow ratios"for new sources subprocesses: (1) Hair removal (hair subcategorization factors, the nature of in eight of the nine subcategories were dissolving or pulping, (2) tanning with the raw materials and the subprocesses established by the Agency. A reduced trivalent chromium, and (3) retanning, utilized to produce a product, impact water use ratio was not identified in coloring, oil replenishment. (fatliquoring), upon the volume of water needed for subcategory 7 because representative and surface coating (subcategory one]. processing (water use). Therefore, the and verifiable data was available from Cattlehides and sheepskins without hair Agency has calculated typical water use only one plant. New sources can select (wool] and acid preserved (pickled) ratios (gallons of water per pound of very efficient processing methods and require only chromium tanning, raw material processed for each equipment which achieve further water retanning, and wet finishing subcategory. use reductions identified for the eight (subcategory five). Pigskins require In 1979, the Agency proposed to use subcategories. The Agency looked at all some hair (stubble) removal, chromium an average subcategory value, based plants below the median and chose the tanning, retanning, and wet finishing upon individual-data points, in order to flow ratio for the plant which (subcategory 8]. determine water use for each demonstrated the most efficient Subcategorization in this industry is subcategory. In response to commenters' processing methods available to new incidentally related to the final products concerns over the highly variable nature sources. produced because as a result of the of the data, the Agency, in its June 2, At least one plant in every subcategorization factors i.e., the raw 1982 notice of availability, applied a subcategory has demonstrated these materials and subprocesses used, there different methodology. First, EPA new source flow ratios. Table 2 presents is a typical mix of final products for computed the arithmetic mean of every a summary of flow ratios achievable 6y each subcategory. For example, facility's data. Subcategory water use new sources. The number of plants predominant final products are shoe was then determined by using the achieving these ratios also are uppers, upholstery and garment leather median value of the mean plant values presented. These new source water use for subcategory one; they are shoe for each subcategory. The Agency ratios were used in deriving the mass uppers, (cattlehides] garments, work believes that this methodology provides based NSPS effluent limitations. gloves, and lining material for the most reasonable measurement of However, as for PSES, these water use subcategory five; and shoe uppers typical water use for each subcategory. ratios were not used for the (suede or grain) and work gloves for This method gives equal weight to each concentration based PSNS limitations. subcategory 8. facility's data, and provides a better Commenters suggested that the estimate of central tendency since the TABLE 2 Agency also should base median is less sensitive to extreme New Number subcategorization upon the quality of values in the data than the mean. The source of plants final products produced. The quality of median water use ratios for plants in flow ratio in data (gallon based final products is related both to each of the subcategories are presented par achieving quantitative and qualitative measures. in Table 1, together with the total pound) flowratio Quantitative measures include standard number of plants included in the data I ...... 4.3 5 tests utilized in industry laboratories by base and the number of plants operating 2.. 4.9 I tanners and buyers (e.g., shoe below the median water use. 3 ...... 4.2 4 The BPT, 4 ...... 4.5 3 manufacturers) to determine leather BCT, and BAT mass based effluent 5 ...... 3.8 3 properties germane to their intended limitations were derived using the 6 ...... 1.4 1 7 ...... 9.4 1 ise. For example, determinations of the median water ratios identified for each 8 ...... 4.1 1 52852 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 2-Continued Upon review of these criteria and in within a subcategory in order to arrive response to several commenters, at the flow ratios specified in Tables 1 Now Number Examples of plants which have source of plants adjustments were made in the number and 2. flow ratio in data of plants included in the data base for utilized these techniques are addressed Subcategory (gallon based per achieving subcategories one, three, four, five, and in Chapter VII of the Development pound) flow ratio seven. Specifically, nine plants in Document. Since water conservation techniques are 9...... 2.5 2 subcategory one were dropped, seven and recycle and reuse because they were mixed subcategory available for all three groups of plants which did not meet the criterion subprocesses and, therefore, applicable In response to the notice of discussed above, one plant included in for each of the subcategories for this availability, several commenters this subcategory by mistake, and one industry, those techniques also are expressed serious concerns regarding because of lack of documentation for available for mixed subcategory plants. the lack of homogeneity in raw water use estimates. In subcategory Examples of how mixed subcategory materials, processing methods, and final three, one plant was dropped because it plants could achieve prorated water use product mix within subcategories as was a mixed subcategory plant which ratios are addressed in Chapter VII of these relate to the validity and did not meet the criterion discussed the Development Document. achievability of water use ratios for above. Three plants were deleted from In response to-several commenters' existing and new sources. The Agency the subcategory four data base, one concerns about the ability of plants again reviewed, and revised where plant due to undocumented water use which manufacture certain final appropriate, the data presented in the estimates, one plant Included in this products to meet the subcategory water June 2, 1982 Federal Register (see 47 FR subcategory by mistake, and one plant use ratios, the Agency examined and 23959) underlying the median and due to a limited and unverified period of analyzed all available water use data. reduced water use ratios for all water use data. In addition, the raw The Agency attempted to separate subcategories. material weight basis for one plant was further some subcategories by In reviewing the water use (and corrected and the plant's water use ratio predominarit final products and wastewater pollutant load) data, the recalculated. One plant in subcategory developed median water use ratios for Agency applied the same criteria as it five was deleted due to undocumented these products. These water use ratios employed in developing the water Use water use estimates. One plant in were not significantly different from the ratios published in the June 2, 1982 subcategory seven was eliminated due median water use ratios established for notice of availability. These criteria are to lack of documentation for the the subcategories from which these as follows: attempted separations were made. The (1) For a plants' data to be included in accuracy of the flow data. These the data base utilized to characterize changes are reflected in the median flow data available to the Agency indicate water use and waste loads for any ratios represented in Table I and in the that different plants making the same subcategory, at least 80 percent of the adjustments for new source flow ratios mix of salable final products have plants' production must be in one in four subcategories, as represented in different water use ratios depending or data for each processing Table 2. Mixed subcategory plants upon the extent to which they subcategory, which were deleted from the data base and operation representing a separate implement water conservation a plant must be for a (Tables 1 and 2) used to characterize recycle or reuse methods. Accordingly, subcategory at analysis segregated and measurable wastewater water use and waste loads for each the Agency has concluded from stream. Mixed subcategory plants which subcategory would, however, still of available data that there is no products did not meet this criteria would not be receive prorated mass limitations. relationship between final included in the data base because water Examples of how prorated mass manufactured and water used which use ratios and pollutant loads derived limitations are calculated for mixed supports further separation of from these plants would not be accurate subcategory plants can be found in the subcategories. A comparison of water for a single subcategory. Development Document. use data and final product mixes is (2) The location at which the From an examination and analysis of discussed in the Development wastewater was sampled (i.e., before or all available flow and pollutant data, the Document. after treatment and type of treatment) Agency has determined that there is a Several commenters criticized the direct relationship between the primary data base underlying flow ratios in and the sampling technique (grab, of raw composite, flow proportional) must be subcategorization factors certain subcategories as being meager. reported so that the data could be used materials and groups of subprocesses For example, in subcategory seven properly to characterize raw waste and utilized and water use and pollutant water use ratios were based on data, the performance of various treatment loadings. Accordingly, the Agency has from one plant out of the universe of system components. developed water use ratios for each eight plants. The Agency recognizes that (3) Production and flow values must subcategory which are achievable for in some instances the data base was be reported for the days of sampling so each plant within that subcategory. limited. The Agency actively solicited that pollutant concentrations could be Since the raw materials and data from the industry. Three data converted to mass and normalized to subprocesses utilized by individual collection questionnaires were production. Average or estimated values plants within a subcategory are very developed in cooperation with and were used only with the approval of the similar, it is the Agency's judgment that mailed directly to member tanneries by individual tannery and upon verification water use for individual plants within a the Tanners' Council of America. These of the data source and validity of the subcategory can also be similar. The cooperative data gathering efforts averages or estimates. water use for plants within a resulted in the bulk of the data used in (4) Production data (ii pounds) must -subcategory are, however, often this rulemaking. The Agency also visited be reported on the basis specified for different. The Agency believes that plants, sampled wastewaters, and each type of raw material to allow flow water conservation, recycling and reuse conducted related specific data and pollutant loads to be normalized for of water and/or good housekeeping gathering efforts to supplement these each subcategory. practices can be used by each plant industry supplied data. All data Federal Register / Val. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52853 gathering efforts were described in the 8), and the second group are those from the meat packing industry to the proposal (44 FR 38749), the notice of without unhairing operations -leather tanning and finishing industry availability (47 FR 23958), and detailed (subcategories 4, 5, 7, and 9). was not supported in the record, and (2) in the Development Document. It is the PSES for the first group of EPA's consideration of seasonal Agency's belief, as confirmed by subcategories includes concentration variability in effluent concentrations comment from the Tanners' Council of based standards for both sulfide and and the need for cold climate America, that all available data that total chromium. As discussed below, the adjustments was inadequate. exist have been acquired by EPA. In sulfide standard will not apply if the In 1979, the Agency proposed BPT several instances, the industry receiving POTW certifies, after regulations based upon equalization, submitted only a limited amount of consideration af all relevant factors, that primary coagulation-sedimentation, and accurate and verifiable flow data. For the sulfide discharged by a particular biological treatment in the form of high those subcategories, the Agency facility does not interfere with the solids extended aeration activated reviewed the manufacturing and raw treatment works. If this certification is sludge. The same technology was the material data for each plant in the made and EPA determines that the basis for tentative effluent limitations subcategory. Since there were no submission is adequate, it will publish a included in the June 2, 1982 notice of significant differences in manufacturing notice in the Federal Register identifying availability, and the BPT effluent and raw material data for plants within those facilities to which the sulfide limitations now being pr6mulgated. the subcategory, the available flow data pretreatment standard would not apply. Technology transfer from the meat was judged representative of the plants The chromium standard does not apply packing industry is not the basis for this within the subcategory. to small plants in subcategory 1 or regulation. The use of this BPT VII. Summary of Promulgated subcategory 3. technology has been demonstrated by Regulations PSES for the second group of plants in subcategories 1, 3, and 4, but it subcategories includes only total has not been applied in all remaining The final regulations reflect the chromium concentration based changes discussed above and other subcategories where wastewater standards, which do not apply to small treatment is uniformly inadequate. Most changes made in consideration of public plants in subcategory 9. The PSNS comments provided in response to the of the existing biological treatment proposal and the notice of'availability, model treatment technology and systems in the industry are inadequate. pretreatment standards are the same as For example, some of the plants: (1) Do and further evaluation of the those for PSES. Pretreatment standards information upon which the notice of not have the equipment necessary to be availability was based. Following are a for ammonia have been deleted for all operated as high solids extended review of the proposed regulation and subcategories. aeration activated sludge; (2) have the notice of availability, a summary of The 30 day average limitations and overloaded activated sludge systems; (3) the changes from proposal to standards that were proposed have been have simple lagoons with inadequate or promulgation, and an explanation of the replaced with monthly averages based no aeration facilities; (4) are poorly reasons for the changes. upon eight days of sampling, or operated; or (5) suffer some combination A brief summary of the technology approximately twice per week, during of all of these inadequacies. EPA has bases for each of the final regulations any calendar month. Eight day monthly documented these inadequacies on a also is presented below. A more averages were used in developing the plant-by-plant basis and evaluated the detailed summary is presented in the monthly limitations and standards, equipment and costs necessary to Development Document for Effluent because this sampling frequency is achieve extended aeration activated Limitations Guidelines and Standards expected to be typical for compliance sludge treatment and the BPT effluent for the Leather Tanning andFinishing monitoring in this industry. concentrations. The Agency believes Point Source Category.The BPT, BAT, NPDES authorities may adopt more that, given the similarity in the and NSPS technologies outlined below frequent monitoring requirements as treatability of wastewaters in all are the same and apply to all may be necessary on a case-by-case subcategories, this technology will subcategories, and the final effluent basis. Moreover, individual plants in the remove effectively pollutants from concentrations resulting from the industry may choose to sample more wastewaters of all subcategories and application of the technology are frequently than twice per week, for will remove them to the same final identical for all subcategories. However, example to improve process control for effluent concentrations in each the BPT, BCT, and BAT mass limitations biological. treatment systems. subcategory. The basis for this for each subcategory vary due to Compliance by a given discharger with conclusion is discussed in the different median water use ratios (see these (eight day] limitations would be Development Document. Consequently, Table 1) among the subcategories. The bases on the arithmetic average of the the Agency has transferred this NSPS mass limitations for each actual-number of measurements taken technology and the achievable final subcategory vary due to different during a calendar month, regardless of effluent concentrations, from reduced water use ratios achievable by their frequency. subcategories 1, 3, and 4 in which this new sources (see Table 2). A. BPT. In these regulations, EPA is technology has been demonstrated, to The Agency proposed PSES promulgating BPT effluent limitations the remaining subcategories. To ensure regulations which controlled sulfide and guidelines for all nine subcategories of that these effluent limitations are chromium to the same concentrations in the leather tanning and finishing achievable by plants in all all subcategories. The proposal also industry, subcategories, differences among included control for ammonia. The The BPT regulations promulgated by subcategories in wastewater volumes promulgated PSES and PSNS regulations EPA on April 9, 1974 (39FR 12958] were and pollutant loads resulted in different are based on different technologies, remanded by the United States Court of unit process designs and associated outlined below. These standards apply Appeals for the Fouth Circuit in costs. Most importantly, adjustments to two groups of subcategories. The first Tanners' Councilof American v. Train, were made in the sizing of primary group are those with unhairing supra. The court held that: (1) The coagulation-sedimentation tanks and the operationis (subcategories 1, 2, 3, 6, and Agency's basis for technology transfer aeration capacity and hydraulic 52854 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52854 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 I Rules and Regulations detention time required for activated to present their views on these new comprehensive analysis of supplemental sludge aeration basins. The Agency's subcategories and that separate notice data and documentation gathered after design and costing procedures have and comment is not necessary. proposal, the Agency indicated in the been tailored further to each individual The Development Document presents June 2, 1982 notice of availability (47 FR direct discharger. the methodology for developing these 23961] that it had reviewed the options As described previously in the June 2, BPT effluent limitations, the engineering previously set forth in the BAT proposal, 1982 notice of availability (47 FR 23960- aspects of achieving these effluent and redefined those options. Proposed 61), EPA is adopting final effluent limitations, a description of the OPTION I had been based on the concentrations, as follows: BOD5-40 technology, the costs and effluent addition of in-plant controls and mg/l; TSS-60 mg/l; Oil and Grease-20 reduction benefits, and the non-water segregated stream pretreatment to BPT mg/l; Chromium (Total)-1 mg/l. The quality environmental impact of these technology. However, in view of the variability factors listed in Appendix A effluent limitations. increase in cost for this control technology and the economic posture of of that notice (47 FR 23984), together The Agency's analysis indicates with median flow ratios presented in the industry, EPA announced that it implementation of BPT will require would consider BAT OPTION I to be Table 1 of this preamble, have been investment costs of $10.5 million, and applied to the above long term final equal to BPT. In addition, EPA total annualized cost of $5.7 million (first announced that it would combine the effluent concentrations to establish quarter 1982 dollars) in order to upgrade monthly average and maximum day effluent limitations and costs of existing treatment facilities for the 17 proposed OPTION II, based on activated mass based effluent limitations for all direct dischargers. Final effluent sludge upgraded primarily by powdered nine subcategories. are expected to result in concentrations and variability factors These costs activated carbon (PAC) addition, with of 2 plants causing can be combined with median water use closure those of proposed OPTION I, primarily approximately 155 people to become based on in-plant control and segregated ratios derived separately to develop This is approximately 1.3 mass limitations because the Agency has unemployed. stream pretreatment. This combination percent of the plants and 0.8 percent of would be considered BAT OPTION II. found that the wastewaters from all in the industry. subcategories can be treated to the same the total employment The addition of multimedia filtration, The cost of production is estimated to concentrations, while the median water (previously OPTION III) which was the increase by 0.6 to 2.3 percent. The total basis for the proposed BAT regulation, use ratios have been demonstrated pollutants removed separately by plants in each mass of regulated remained as OPTION III. The Agency from existing discharge to BPT would be also indicated that it was no longer subcategory. In support of this 5.3 million pounds per year of methodology, the Agency found that seriously considering proposed OPTION these mass based BPT effluent conventional pollutants (BOD5, TSS, IV, which was based on the end-of-pipe limitations, or the effluent and Oil and Grease), and 44,000 pounds addition of granular activated carbon per year of total (trivalent] chromium columns, because such technology concentrations, or both, were achieved discharges (547,000 pounds by the three representative plants (two from current would be too expensive and lacked POTWs, nos. 50 and 55, and one direct per year from raw waste). EPA has demonstrated use in this industry. BAT determined that the effluent reduction discharger, plant no. 47). The two OPTION II, as amended, would require POTWs are considered representative benefits of this regulation justify its an incremental investment cost beyond of direct dischargers because they both costs. BPT of $17.6 million, with total receive more than 95 percent of their B. BAT. The technology basis of the annualized cost of $7.5 million. This wastewaters from tanneries, and proposed BAT effluent limitations (see OPTION would remove 4.2 million because they both use the BPT model 44 FR 38753-38755; July 2,1979] was BPT pounds per year of nonconventional treatment technology, i.e., primary biological treatment, preceded by in- pollutants (COD, TKN, ammonia, treatment followed by activated sludge plant control, water conservation, sulfide, and total phenol [4AAP]), and- biological treatment. Data from these stream segregation, and pretreatment of 2,000 pounds per year of total chromium. plants includes periods of winter the segregated beamhouse stream by Incidentally, this OPTION would operation by the two POTWs, both catalytic sulfide oxidation and flue gas remove 0.84 million pounds per year of located in Maine. Review of data in the coagulation-sedimentation, and conventional pollutants (BOD5, TSS, Oil record for these two POTWs reveals followed by upgraded biological and Grease]. The Agency's economic consistent effluent quality for winter treatment through powdered activated analysis indicated that of the 13 plants periods. This finding demonstrates that carbon (PAC) addition, and multimedia analyzed, five may close if this OPTION periods of winter operation and cold filtration. The proposed BAT effluent were selected. climate locations do not warrant higher limitations would have controlled one In reviewing all available engineering effluent limitations. toxic pollutant (total chromium). Five and economic data and information, the As noted previously, BPT effluent nonconventional pollutants also would Agency concluded that attainment of limitations are being promulgated for have been controlled (chemical oxygen BAT limitations based on BAT OPTION two new subcategories (no. 8; pigskins demand (COD), TKN, ammonia, sulfide, II would not be economically achievable and no. 9; retan-wet finish, splits). and total phenols (as measured by the for this industry. In addition, this However, the BPT limitations for these 4AAP procedure listed in 40 CFR Part technology has not been demonstrated two new subcategories are based on the 136, StandardMethods)). All of the in this industry at this time. Based on use of the same technology, biological pollutants controlled by BAT, including these findings, the Agency has treatement, as for the BPT limitations for the conventional pollutants BOD, TSS, determined that more stringent all of the remaining seven subcategories Oil and Grease, and pH, were proposed regulation of toxic pollutant discharges proposed originally in 1979. The June 2, as indicators for the control of toxic from the leather tanning industry is not 1982 notice of availability included organic pollutants discharged from justified at this time and that BAT tentative effluent limitations for all nine leather tanning and finishing plants. effluent limitations should be subcategories. Thus the Agency believes As a result of comments on the established equal to BPT limitations. that all commenters had an opportunity proposed regulations, and Therefore, review of BAT OPTION III Federal- Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52855

was not necessary because it was even The Agency is promulgating NSPS based As noted in the June 2,1982 notice of more costly and would result in even upon the same end-of-pipe technology availability (47 FR 23962-23963), EPA more plant closures. Moreover, BAT and effluent concentration limitations as reviewed the entire basis for the OPTION III also has not been utilized in the promulgated BAT (BPT) proposed PSES concentration limitations demonstrated in this industry. with reduced flows because this is the for ammonia, sulfide, and chromium. As The nonconventional pollutants TKN, best available demonstrated technology. part of that review and in response to ammonia, COD, sulfide, and total phenol The Agency received comments on comments, EPA developed two (4AAP) were not controlled by BPT the basis for and the achievability of additional technology options technology; these pollutants were new source water use ratios. As noted (TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS I and II) controlled by BAT OPTIONS I and III. previously in this preamble, the Agency which are less costly and.require less However, because BAT OPTIONS II and reviewed the data base in response to space for installation than the III were neither demonstrated nor those comments and adjustments were technology option (TECHNOLOGY economically achievable, EPA is not made in new source water use ratios for OPTION III) which served as the basis incorporating limitations for these four subcategories. These new source. for the proposed PSES regulations. nonconventional pollutants in the BAT ratios (see Table 2), identified in eight of These two new technology options were (BPT) limitations. the nine subcategories, have been described, along with their costs and State and local regulatory authorities demonstrated by at least one plant in projected economic impacts, in the may find it necessary to establish each of these eight subcategories, and notice of availability. Details on these pollutant limitations in addition to and/ have been incorporated in the mass technology options are presented in the or more stringent than those established based NSPS standards. Development Document. Discussion of by these regulations, where needed to The cost of NSPS would be less than the regulatory option selected by EPA achieve or maintain the appropriate BAT for an existing source in eight of for the promulgated regulations follows. receiving water quality. In these the nine subcategories because new Ammonia. In-process substitution of instances, the development document plants can use more efficient processing epsom salts for ammonia in the deliming includes guidance on the range of methods which require less water use process served as the basis for the anticipated performance of further (see Tables 1 and 2). Because the cost of proposed pretreatment standard for control technologies. Specific effluent treatment technology is most dependent ammonia. In their comments on the concentrations have not been included upon wastewater volume, new sources proposed regulations, industry supplied for BAT OPTIONS II and III because would be able to build smaller and less data and information on side-by-side these technologies are not demonstrated costly treatment systems. Similarly, the pilot processing tests with and without in this industry at this time.. mass of pollutants discharged by these in-process substitution. Based on that C. BCT. The proposed regulations had data and information, the Agency agrees set BCT effluent limitations equal to new source systems would be less than those proposed for BAT (44 FR 38755). the mass of pollutants discharged by with the industry that the substitution of existing sources. This is true because epsom salts for ammonia may adversely However, after review of the affect finished leather quality and supplemented record, EPA indicated in new sources can achieve the same final the June 2, 1982 notice of availability (47 effluent concentrations as existing increase costs because of its operational FR 23961-23962) that no economically sources. In the sheafling subcategory, difficulty. There are no other available achievable conventional pollutant the new source water use ratio was the pretreatment technologies which afford control technology beyond BPT could be same as the median water use ratio. substantial removal of animonia. identified. Accordingly, EPA is Therefore, the costs of end-of-pipe Accordingly, EPA has decided that promulgating BCT effluent limitations technology and the mass of pollutants pretreatment standards for ammonia equal to BPT effluent limitations for all discharged by new sources would be the will not be promulgated. subcategories. same as for existing sources. Examples Sulfide. EPA proposed (44 FR 38756- D. NSPS. The basis for new source of costs and pollutant removals for 38757) a pretreatment standard for performance standards (NSPS) under selected model plants are presented in sulfide of "zero discharge" (not Section 308 of the Act is the best the Development Document. The detectable by the 304(h) analytical available demonstrated technology. economic analysis indicates that these method) based upon catalytic oxidation New plants have the opportunity to NSPS regulations are not expected to of segregated unhairing wastewaters. design the best and most efficient significantly discourage entry into the The standard would have been leather tanning processes and industry or result in any differential applicable to all subcategories. Sulfides wastewater treatment technologies, and, economic impacts to new plants. were controlled by PSES because of the therefore, Congress directed EPA to E. PSES. The Clean Water Act of 1977 potential for interference resulting from consider the best demonstrated process requires pretreatment for pollutants that release of massive quantities of changes, in-plant controls, and end-of- pass through POTWs in amounts that hydrogen sulfide gas in sewers, pipe treatment technologies which would violate direct discharger effluent headworks, and sludge management reduce pollution to the maximum extent limitations or interfere with the POTW's facilities at POTWs. Fatalities feasible. treatment process or chosen sludge attributable to release of hydrogen The technology basis of proposed disposal method. The legislative history sulfide gas have been documented. In NSPS was the same as the technology of the 1977 Act indicates that response to the proposal, the industry basis for the proposed BAT limitations. pretreatment standards are to be commented that the standard (0.0 rg/) The proposed NSPS standards (44 FR technology-based, analogous to the best was not achievable, and that the 38755), were therefore the same as the available technology. EPA has generally standard would not improve treatment proposed BAT effluent limitations. determined that there is pass through of efficiency or water quality. The June 2, 1982 notice of availability pollutants if the percent of pollutants The June 2, 1982 notice of availability (47 FR 23962) indicated that the Agency removed by a well-operated POTW (47 FR 23963) indicated that the severity was considering adopting BAT (BPT) achieving secondary treatment is less of these problem varies by pH and time technology with reduced flows as the than the percent removed by the BAT (slug loading), and by POTW basis for NSPS mass based standards. model treatment system. (comingling of varying quantities of 52856 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations municipal and industrial wastewaters in unhairing wastewaters from tanneries The Agency recognizes that it is collection sewers). Review of the and would be based upon evaluation of virtually impossible to cover all possible supplemented data base regarding the site specific factors which determine the combinations of factors which could performance of catalytic sulfide degree of interference (hazard to human occur at individual POTWs. Therefore, oxidation technology revealed that a life) attributable to the high sulfide the Agency has elected to include in the long term average effluent concentraition concentrations. regulations a list of general factors of 9 mg/l could be achieved in total Those state and local authorities which, at a minimum, must be sewer discharges, with a maximum day which commented generally agreed with considered by POTWs when certifying variability factor of 2.7. EPA further the need for sulfide control. However, that there is no interference caused by indicated that only a maximum day site specific factors were cited as sulfide in their treatment works. These limitation would be effective, because important in determining the degree of factors are: the most severe hazard posed by interference that would exist. Most (1) The presence and characteristics hydrogen sulfide occurs during rapid tanners either rejected totally the need of other industrial wastewaters which fluctuations in pH caused by for sulfide control or recommended that can change sulfide concentrations, pH, unequalized slug loading. The maximum waivers be allowed for individual or both. day concentration would reduce the POTWs. Some commenters indicated POTWs that serve few if any potential for interference problems to that a waiver process would impose industrial indirect dischargers, other the maximum extent feasible by unnecessary procedural burdens, and than tanneries which employ unhairing available technology. The Agency that some POTWs would choose not to operations, have little or no wastewater indicated that it was considering applying the maximum day pretreatment invoke the waiver process even if to contribute either to sulfide sulfide control were not necessary, concentration changes, or to pH standard (24 mg/I) to plants in changes, especially decreases in pH subcategories (nos. EPA is promulgating a categorical 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8) which tend which incorporate sulfide unhairing sulfide pretreatment standard applicable to liberate hydrogen sulfide gas. operations and discharge high to subcategories with unhairing concentrations of sulfides. Sulfides are operations (nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8) based POTWs that have significant discharged by plants in the remaining on catalytic sulfide oxidation technology industrial wastewater contributions, subcategories, but at concentrations in order to prevent interference to the especially wastewaters that are not typical of domestic sewage, thus not maximum extent feasible by available equalized and may include sludge loads imposing any additional interference or technology. EPA estimates that the or consistently low pH wastewater, may operational costs than would be investment cost of sulfide pretreatment experience substantial difficulty in experienced without these wastewaters. and wastewater neutralization alone maintaining very high concentrations of Pretreatment Technology OPTIONS I, II, would be as high as $54 million with sulfide in'solution and are likely to have and III, discussed in the June 2,1982 total annual costs of $18 million if all interference. notice of availability, all include sulfide plants in these five subcategories are (2) The characteristics of the sewer/ control for these five subcategories. required to comply with the standard. interceptor collection system which The Agency has included in this No closures were anticipated for this either minimize or enhance regulation a sulfide analytical method cost. This cost would effect removal of opportunities for release of hydrogen different from that promulgated under 5.3 million pounds/year of sulfide. sulfide gas. Section 304(h) of the Act. This was Hydrogen sulfide at POTWs presents Leather tanneries with unhairing necessary because the 304(h) sulfide serious fatal hazards to life. operations connected to POTWs by analytical method was subject to Occurrences of hydrogen sulfide related short pressure mains will experience interferences. The method included in deaths have been noted at POTWs little or no difficulty in maintaining this regulation is that utilized by the receiving tannery wastewater. However, sulfides in alkaline solution during Society of Leather Trades' Chemists, .because the degree of interference will wastewater transit from the indirect Method SLM 4/2. The sulfide. vary, EPA is adopting a waiver discharger to the POTW headworks. In pretreatment standard is based upon procedure which would allow affected this instance, the pressurized sewer this method. Although this method has POTWs to certify that uncontrolled system contributes to maintaining not been formally proposed by the discharge of sulfide does not interfere dissolved sulfides, thus decreasing the Agency, it served as the basis for the with their particular treatment works. likelihood of interference. tentative sulfide pretreatment standards The POTW would make this finding POTWs with long gravity interceptor announced in the June 2,1982 notice of based upon an evaluation of a sewers, with "dead spots" and other availability, and it was referenced in the nonexclusive list of criteria set out in the discontinuities in hydraulic profile supplemented record. Therefore, the regulations. After makinig these findings probably will have difficulty Agency has determined that there has the POTW would be required to allow maintaining sulfides in solution, and been adequate opportunity for comment. for public comment by notice in a local interference is likely. In this case, The Agency indicated in the June 2, newspaper, and by public hearing if reducing the sulfide concentration 1982 notice of availability that it was requested. The POTW would then entering the sewer by sulfide considering two regulatory options for forward its findings and results of public pretreatment will minimize the potential sulfide control. The first option was to comments and certify in writing to the for release of massive quantities of promulgate a categorical pretreatment Water Management Divisioni Director in hydrogen sulfide gas during wastewater standard applicable to all plants in the the appropriate EPA regional office that 'transit to the POTW. above noted five subcategories. The local circumstances do not require a (3) The characteristics of the receiving second option was to promulgate a categorical pretreatment standard for POTWs headworks, preliminary and categorical pretreatment standard which sulfide. The regulations also include a primary treatment systems, and sludge would include a provision for waivers procedure with appropriate deadlines management facilities which either from this standard. A waiver could be for POTWs to follow for invoking this minimize or enhance opportunities for requested by the POTWs receiving waiver. release of hydrogen sulfide gas. Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52857

POTWs with facilities that have very Comments submitted by the industry Information in the record indicates that short hydraulic detention times and are focused on three major issues. First, the while trivalent chromium is not as toxic enclosed in well ventilated buildings industry claimed that the Agency's as hexavalent chromium from the have reduced opportunities for release finding of chromium pass through based human health standpoint, trivalent of hydrogen sulfide gas. on the POTW study was erroneous. The chromium exhibits chronic aquatic POTWs with facilities that are industry cited the low POTW effluent 4 toxicity (24 hr toxicity value enclosed in very confined and poorly concentrations as the significant finding approximately 50 j.g/l), as confirmed by ventilated buildings and have long of the POTW study, not the percent ongoing EPA studies to develop a water hydraulic detention times have removals. Second, the industry asserted. quality criteria for trivalent chromium. enhanced opportunities for release of that trivalent chromium is not Therefore, both forms of chromium hydrogen sulfide gas and substantial significantly harmful to the environment, (trivalent and hexavalent) are risk to human life. citing as supporting evidence the EPA environmentally significant and are (4) The history of any sulfide related Office of Solid Waste action that appropriate to be regulated under the interference problems at affected removed all tannery wastes (process Clean Water Act. The commenters POTWs is of major importance in solid wastes and wastewater treatment submitted no information which would determining the need for a pretreatment sludges) from the list of hazardous justify excluding chromium from these standard for sulfide. wastes because they did not contain reguations. hexavalent chromium. Third, the Five years is the suggested minimum The basis for the chromium period of historical review of any industry commented that the number of plants which do not have adequate pretreatment standard is Technology interference incidents as they relate to Option II with two different the presence of elevated sulfide space to install pretreatment technology was greater than estimated by EPA. concentration limitations depending concentrations from leather tanneries upon subcategory. The achievable long with unhairing operations, and to the Parts of the industry further objected to the Agency's assumption that parking term effluent concentration for first three factors relating to the POTW chromium (total) is 8 mg/l for those noted above. lot space was available for treatment facilities. subcategories (nos. 4, 5, 7, and 9) which The Agency considered relying solely do not have beamhouse operations. The on the prohibited discharge standards The Agency has decided to promulgate a categorical pretreatment achievable long term effluent (Section 403.5) of the general concentration for chromium (total) is 5 pretreatment regulations in.place of a standard for chromium (total). Categorical pretreatment standards are mg/l for those subcategories (nos. 1, 2, 3, categorical pretreatment standard for 6, and 8) which do have beamhouse sulfide. However, the Agency rejected necessary in this case because the this approach because of the special percent of chromium removed by'well operations. -interference problems presented by the operated POTWs achieving secondary EPA's economic analysis projected very high concentrations of sulfides in treatment requirements is less than that the cost of chromium control would required by BAT for direct dischargers. the unhairing wastewaters generated by result in disproportionate economic This definition of pass through satisfies this industry, the very serious nature of impacts on small plants in subcategories two competing objectives the problem, and the availability of set by 1, 3 and 9. 4-5 of 6 small plants in Congress: control technology. (1) That standards for indirect subcategory 1, 1-2 of the 3 small plants dischargers be analogous to standards Chromium. The proposed regulation in subcategory 3, and 4-5 of 9 small for direct dischargers, while, at the same plants in subcategory 9 were projected (44 FR 38756-57) included a time, (2) that the treatment capability pretreatment standard (concentration to close. No less costly chromium and performance of the POTW be limitation) for chromium (total), 2 mg/l, control technology options or less recognized and taken into account in stringent chromium standards could be applicable to all plants and based upon regulating the discharge of pollutants coagulation-sedimentation of combined identified for these plants. Therefore, from indirect dischargers. The Agency the PSES regulations for chromium do wastewater streams. The June 2,1982 compares percentage removal rather notice of availability (47 FR 23963) not apply to small plants which process than the mass or concentration of less than 275 hides/day in subcategory reasserted the Agency's concern for pollutants discharged from the POTW pass through of chromium (trivalent) 1, less than 350 hides/day in because the former would not take into subcategory 3, and less than 3600 splits/ based on the performance of well account the mass of pollutants operated POTWs. For the cities studied, day in subcategory 9. However, small discharged to the POTW from non- plants in chromium removal by well operated industrial sources subcategories 1 and 3 would and the latter would still be subject to sulfide pretreatment POTWs achieving secondary treatment credit the indirect discharger with the averaged 65 percent. This is standards, and small plants in dilution of the pollutants in the POTW subcategories 1, 3 and 9 would still be substantially lower than the removals effluent to lower concentrations due to required by BAT level treatment (95-98 the addition of large amounts of non- required to comply with general percent), and therefore the Agency industrial wastewater. pretreatment regulations. indicated that it was considering a EPA has decided to regulate trivalent Pretreatment Technology Option II categorical pretreatment standard for chromium in these pretreatment includes both sulfide and chromium chromium. The Agency indicated that its standards because the total quantity of control. The total investment cost of basis for the standard was pretreatment trivalent chromium generated by chromium control alone could be as high Technology Option II, which included indirect dischargers in this industry is as $105 million with total annualized coagulation-sedimentation of segregated nationally significant (5.7 million lbs/yr) costs of as high as $28 million if all and equalized tanyard and retan-wet when compared to other industrial plants not exempted from these finish wastewaters. It also was noted categories, such as the metal finishing regulations were required to install this that from 5-10 percent of the plants industry (8.9 million lbs/yr) and technology. This cost may result in the might not have adequate interior space inorganic chemicals industry-chrome closure of one to three plants among all or adjacent land to install this pigments subcategory (1.4 million lbs/ plants covered by these chromium technology. yr), where chromium also is regulated. pretreatment standards. The total mass 52858 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52858 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations of trivalent chromium removed would be reallocation of that portion of available water use is not necessary to achieve 5.2 million pounds per year. interior plant space and adjacent land these concentration based standards. Constraints on the availability of (including parking lots) necessary to It must be noted that because new interior plant space and adjacent land install pretreatment technology to be an sources can select among the most were considered by EPA, and an appropriate requirement. Reallocation of efficient processing methods and the attempt was made to develop further all or a portion of parking lots for most advantageous sites at which to separations within subcategories or treatment facilities has been locate, variances based upon alternative effluent limitations to take implemented by a few plants in this fundamentally different factors (FDF) this factor into account. The Agency industry and by plants in other (Section 403.13) are not available. specifically solicited comment in the industrial categories. However, if a POTW certifies that the notice of availability as to whether any It must be noted that the Agency has .discharge of a new facility (operating in plants would have inadequate space to promulgated concentration based any of subcategories 1, 2, 3, 6, or 8) install the recommended chromium pretreatment standards for sulfide and would not interfere with its treatment control technology. However, EPA did chromium. The amount of water used at works, the sulfide pretreatment not receive and does not have the any plant is not germane to the standards would not apply as noted for detailed information and data needed to achievability of these standards. PSES. EPA does not consider the sulfide define the total population of indirect Therefore, indirect dischargers will have waiver to be an FDF variance because discharging plants that do not have added flexibility because water use the waiver relates to conditions at the adequate space to install the model reduction is not necessary to achieve POTW, not conditions at the new chromium treatment technology. these standards. The Agency believes source. Therefore, the Agency believes that the that the cost of pretreatment technology VIII. Costs and Economic Impact more appropriate approach is to grant can be minimized by first reducing to variances from the chromium the maximum extent feasible the volume Executive Order 12291 requires EPA pretreatment standard based upon a of wastewater to be treated. For this and other agencies to perform regulatory specific demonstration by the indirect reason, the Agency has utilized reduced impact analyses of major regulations. discharger, as provided by the general water use ratios (see Section V of the Major rules ere defined as those which pretreatment regulation (§ 403.13), of the Development Document) achieved by result in an annual cost of $100 million fundamentally different factor (FDF) of existing sources only in calculating the or more, or meet other economic impact inadequate interior plant space or costs of PSES. criteria, such as cause major increase in adjacent land. In the event that costs or prices, or significant adverse sufficient detailed submissions are The Agency has considered the time effects on the ability of domestic received within 180 days of the effective for compliance for PSES. Few leather producers to compete with foreign date of these regulations, as required by tanning and finishing plants have enterprises, or on competition, § 403.13, to precisely define those plants installed and are properly operating the investment, productivity, or innovations. which do not have adequate space for treatment technology for PSES. The promulgated regulation for leather chromium removal technology, an Additionally, many plants in. this and tanning is not a major rule according to amendment of PSES regulations may be other industries will be installing the the definition and therefore does not possible. Such submissions would have treatment equipment suggested as model require a formal regulatory impact to conform to the requirements of technologies for this regulation at about analysis. This rulemaking satisfies the § 403.13, and include at a minimum: (1) the same time, and this may result in requirements of the Executive Order for Detailed information and data on delays in engineering, ordering, a non-major rule. interior plant layout and adjacent land installing, and operating this equipment. The complete economic impact (diagrams noting all areas with current For these reasons, the Agency has assessment is presented in Economic uses and dimensions); (2) details on the decided to set the PSES compliance date Impact Analysis of Effluent Limitation least costly pretreatment system at three years after publication of this Guidelines and Standards for the including all unit processes to be used to r.egulation. Leather Tanning Industry. EPA 440/11- meet the chromium standard and the F. PSNS. The Agency proposed 82-001. This report details the area required, as well as pertinent pretreatment standards for new sources investment and annual costs for the details of any pretreatment facilities (PSNS) which were based on the same industry as a.whole and for typical already in place; (3) the itemized cost of technology required for PSES, plus plants covered by the proposed each of the additional treatment system physical-chemical treatment by the regulation. Compliance costs are based unit processes which must be added, Chappell Process. One of the comments on engineering estimates of capital and the cost of any additional land received by the Agency was that the requirements and annual costs for the which must be obtained, or other plant Chappell Process was not reliably effluent control systems described modifications that would be necessary demonstrated. EPA agreed that this earlier in this preamble, and include to accommodate the additional facilities; process has not been demonstrated for cost estimates for waste treatment (4) process flow diagram and production immediate use in all subcategories. sludge disposal. The report assesses the rates; and (5) the pretreatment Therefore, in the June 2, 1982 notice of impact of effluent control costs in terms standards which could be achieved if availability (47 FR 23963), EPA indicated of price changes, production changes, the discharger were to spend an amount that it was considering establishing plant closures, employment effects, and equal to the Agency's model PSNS based on the same pretreatment balance of trade effects. The impacts of pretreatment Technology Option II (that technology option chosen for existing each regulatory option are discussed in portion not required to achieve the sources (PSES). The Agency has decided the report. sulfide pretreatment standard). to adopt Technology Option II and the EPA has identified 158 facilities In reviewing the information and data same concentration based pretreatments engaged in wet tanning which are submitted by plants in support of their standards for sulfide and chromium covered by this regulation. Total request for FDF variances, it must be (total) as promulgated for PSES. As investment costs for BPT, BCT, BAT, noted that the Agency considers noted in the discussion of PSES, reduced and PSES are estimated to be as high as Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52859

$170 million, with total annual costs of uses a five-year repayment period for model plants are marginally profitable, $51 million, including depreciation and loans, instead of the 15 years assumed and the model plants were projected interest. These costs are expressed in previously. In addition, costs were closures, the chromium pretreatment first quarter 1982 dollars and are based added for sludge disposal. These standards do not apply to any of these on the determination that plants will changes are discussed further in the 18 small plants. No less costly move from existing treatment to BAT, comments section of this preamble. technology to control chromium could be and from no assumed pretreatment to BPT/BAT/BCT. As stated previously, identifed for these plants. However, all PSES. They are considered an estimate . the Agency is promulgating BAT and of these plants remain subject to general of the upper limit of actual costs that BCT limitations which are the same as pretreatment regulations, and the six will be incurred because the sulfide BPT limitations. These regulations will small plants in subcategory 1 and pretreatment standards may not apply affect 17 existing plants. Investment subcategory 3 may still be required to to all indirect dischargers in the affected beyond the pollution control equipment comply with the sulfide pretreatment subcategories, some POTWs may grant already in place is estimated at $10.5 standards. credits for chromium removal and million, with total annualized costs of NSPS and PSNS. While the industry in reduce substantially (if not totally) the $5.7 million.. general has been declining in terms of cost to individual plants of chromium These costs are estimated to-increase production and number of plants, some pretreatment, and some plants may be the cost of production at the tanneries new tanneries granted FDF variances from chromium have been established by 0.6 to 2.3 percent. This regulation near cattle slaughtering facilities away pretreatment standards because of lack may result in the closure of 2 plants from the traditional centers. Since NSPS of available space for installation of causing approximately 155 people to technology. Furthermore, some plants and PSNS are essdntially the same as become unemployed. This is BPT and PSES, these regulations for new may find less expensive technologies, approximately 1.3 percent of the plants than used by EPA in this analysis, to sources have no incremental economic and 0.8 percent of the employment in the effect. In fact. cost to new sources may comply with the regulations. Finally, industry. while EPA assumed no treatment in be less than costs for existing sources PSES. Investments to implement the because new sources can utilize the place at indirect discharging plants for promulgated pretreatment standards are purposes of economic impact analysis, most efficient processing methods which estimated to incur costs of as high as generate less wastewater and, therefore, as many as 25 percent of the plants $159 million, with an annualized cost of actually have in place portions of the install smaller sized control $45 million if all 141 plants were covered technologies. technology needed to comply with PSES. by these standards. These costs could In addition. EPA The major economic impact projected increase the cost of production of 0.5 to has conducted an analysis as a result of compliance costs for this 3.3 percent over the life of the of the incremental removal cost per pound equivalent regulation is the potential closure of 3 to investment. This regulation may result for each of the - 5 tanneries employing 255-460 persons. in the closure of 1 to 3 plants causing proposed technology-based options. A Closure estimates are those projected to approximately 100 to 305 people to pound equivalent is calculated by result from the regulation after become unemployed. This is multiplying the number of pounds of estimating baseline closures. Leather approximately 1 to 2 percent of the toxic pollutant discharged by a price increases are expected to reduce plants and 0.5 to 1.6 percent of the weighting factor for that pollutant. The the demand for domestically produced employees in the industry. These weighting factor is equal to the water leather by 1.5 to 2.0 percent, as a result economic effects take into account that quality criterion for a standard pollutant of somewhat increased imports of small plants in the retan-wet finish, (copper), divided by the water quality leather and leather products. EPA has splits subcategory, and small plants in criterion for the pollutant being determined that these costs are justified the hair save or pulp, nonchrome tan. evaluated. The use of "pound in light of the effluent reduction benefits. retan-wet finish subcategory and extra- equivalent" gives relatively more weight In order to evaluate the potential small plants in the hair pulp, chrome, to removal of more toxic pollutants. impacts, economic model plants were tan. retan-wet finish subcategory are not Thus, for a given expenditure, the cost developed to represent plants according covered by the chromium pretreatment per pound equivalent removed would be to industry subcategory, size and type of standards. This exclusion is necessary lower when a highly toxic pollutant is discharge (direct or indirect). The major in order to avoid any disproportionate removed than if a less toxic pollutant is decision criteria for plant closure are economic impacts on this segment of the removed. This analysis, entitled, "Cost- based on net present values (NPMT and industry. Without the exclusion, the Effectiveness Analysis for the Leather cash flows. The cash-flow analysis analysis of compliance costs indicates Tanning Industry," is included in the projects revenues and expenditures for significant impacts for these small record of this rulemaking. each year over the life of the investment, plants. The 6 extra small plants in Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis. and indicates whether the firm could subcategory 1. 3 small plants in Public Law 96-354 requires that a meet debt repayments. The NPV subcategory 3, and 9 small plants in Regulatory Flexibility Analysis be analysis discounts the cash flows of the subcategory 9, would have incurred an prepared for regulations proposed after plant over the life of the investment to additional investment cost of $9.4 January L 1981 that have a significant estimate whether the owners would million, and total annual costs of $2.4 impact on a substantial number of small choose to close rather than comply with million. Plants corresponding to the entities. Although this regulation was the regulation. small model plants are the least proposed before January 1981 and all In response to comments on the profitable and are currently operating at significant impacts on small entities proposal and the notice of availability, marginal levels. EPA estimates that if have been eliminated by exempting changes were made in the Agency's these plants were subject to the some small leather tanners from analysis. The profitability of the model chromium pretreatment standards, 9-12 chromium standards required by the plants were reduced by about 40 percent of these 18 small plants may have closed PSES regulation the Agency has to reflect average conditions over the rather than install treatment technology. prepared a Regulatory Flexibility past 12 years. The cash flow test now Since all 18 plants represented by the Analysis. This analysis must: 52860, Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52860. Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 I Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations * Describe the reasons, objectives, small subcategory 9 model plant from solid wastes and wastewater treatment and legal basis for the final rule; the requirements of PSES Technology sludges from the list of hazardous e Describe, and where feasible, Option II (chromium removal. These wastes under RCRA, thus facilitating estimate the number of small entities, as small plants are required to comply with disposal at substantially lower cost than (in most cases) defined by Small the general pretreatment regulations. for hazardous wastes. Implementation Business Administration (SBA) affected Moreover, the small plants in of PSES by Technology Option II will by the final rule; subcategory 1 and subcategory 3 are generate 116,000 kkg (metric tons) per 9 Describe the reporting, required to meet the PSES sulfide year [wet basis, 20 percent solids) of recordkeeping, and other compliance pretreatment standard. It is not sludge. Implementation of BAT (BPT) requirements; expected that the plants excluded from will generate 30,000 kkg (metric tons) * Identify any Federal rules that may the chromium requirement would close per year (wet basis, 20 percent solids) of duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the as a result of the remaining sludge. The Agency has assumed that final rule; requirements of this regulation. These these sludges will be disposed in 9 Describe any significant exclusions would not provide relief for available off-site landfills. The cost of alternatives that would accomplish the one to three small plants in two off-site landfill disposal of these sludges stated objectives, and minimize any subcategories; however, no further was assumed to be $20 per wet ton, or significant economic impacts of the final exclusions were made because the total $100 per dry ton (20 percent solids). The rules on small entities. number of plants corresponding to the, This analysis may be done in resulting total annual 0 & M cost for affected size groups in the applicable sludge disposal is $2.5 million for all conjunction with or as a part of any subcategories is 24-27; hence a large other analysis conducted by the Agency. indirect dischargers, and $0.7 million for number would receive relief compared all direct dischargers. This final rulemaking and the economic to the few projected to require relief. impact analysis supporting the final rule At the selected option for BAT (BPT), The sludge generation rates and unit satisfy the requirements of the 2 out of the 14 small direct discharge disposal costs associated with PSES and Regulatory Flexibility Act. plants would close. The Agency believes BAT (BPT) are projected to be the same Many of the provisions of the Initial that this technologyis economically for PSNS and NSPS. The mass of sludge Regulatory Flexibility Analysis have achievable despite these closures in and disposal costs for selected model been addressed in detail in other light of the significant pollutant removal. plants are presented in the Development sections of this preamble. Sections I and Document. II discuss the legal authority and IX. Nonwater Quality Environmental C. Consumptive Water Loss. objectives of the proposed rule. Section Impacts Treatment and control technologies XV of this preamble discusses public Eliminating or reducing one form of which require extensive recycling and participation. The Agency is not aware pollution may cause other reuse of water may, in some cases, of any other Federal rules that may environmental problems. Sections 304(b) require cooling mechanisms. Where overlap or conflict with this final rule. and 306 of the Act require EPA to evaporative cooling mechanisms are The economic analysis underlying the consider the nonwater quality used, water loss may result and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was environmental impacts (including energy contribute to water scarcity problems, of included in the Economic Impact requirements) of certain regulations. In concern primarily in arid and semi-arid Analysis of the proposed regulations, compliance with these provisions, the regions. These regulations do not and in the Economic Impact Analysis Agency considered the effect of this envision recycling requiring evaporative and the Leather Tanning Economic regulation on air pollution, solid waste cooling mechanisms and, therefore, will Summary which accompanied the June generation, water scarcity, and energy create no additional consumptive water 2, 1982 notice of availability. The consumption. This regulation was loss. accompanying economic impact circulated to and reviewed by EPA analysis includes a revised assessment personnel responsible for nonwater D. Energy Consumption. of the impacts associated with this rule quality programs. While it is difficult to Implementation of PSES by Technology and outlines the other regulatory options balance pollution problems against each Option II will require 53 million kwh/yr the Agency considered. other and against energy use, the of electric power. Implementation of Approximately 60 percent of this Agency believes that this regulation will BAT (BPT) will require 17 million kwh/ industry or 94 plants, have 200 or fewer best serve often competing national yr of electric power. This represents an employees per facility. (The SBA has goals. The Administrator has increase of approximately I percent proposed to define small businesses in determined that the impacts identified above power usage for production to the leather tanning industry as entities below are justified by the benefits achieve PSES, and an increase of with 200 or fewer employees. See 47 FR associated with compliance with the approximately 3 percent above power 18993, May 3, 1982). The Agency limitations and standards. usage for production to achieve BAT estimated initially that application of A. Air Pollution. Implementation of (BPT). Similar percent increases in PSES Technology Option II, chromium PSES, PSNS, BAT (BPT), BCT, and NSPS energy usage would be expected for new removal, to all indirect dischargers are not expected to have any significant sources. would cause closures of 10-15 small air pollution impacts. However, minimal plants. Nine to twelve estimated X. Pollutants and Subcategories Not amounts of volatile organic compounds Regulated closures were concentrated in the may be released to the atmosphere by smallest size groups in subcategories 1, aeration systems in activated sludge Paragraph 8 of the modified 3, and 9, with one to three projected treatment facilities at direct dischargers. Settlement Agreement, approved by the closures in other size groups and B. Solid Waste. Implementation of District Court for the District of subcategories. To reduce the economic these regulations by existing and new Columbia on March 9, 1979 (12 ERC impact, the Agency excluded 18 existing sources will generate sludges from 1833], contains provisions authorizing plants corresponding to the extra-small wastewater treatment which must be the exclusion from regulation, in certain subcategory 1 model plant, the small disposed. As noted previously, separate circumstances, of toxic pollutants and subcategory 3 model plant, and the Agency action removed both process industry categories and subcategories. Federal Register ] Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52861

A. Exclusion of Pollutants. On Miscellaneous (SIC 3151-3199) under the an upset as an affirmative defense to December 18, 1980, EPA submitted an authority of Paragraph 8(a)(iv) of the prosecution for violation of technology- affidavit explaining that the Agency Settlement Agreement. The Agency is based effluent limitations. The bypass decided not to rtgulate certain of the 129 not regulating this portion of SIC major provision authorizes bypassing to toxic pollutants under the authority of group 3100 because the amount and prevent loss of life, personal injury, or Paragraph 8(a)(iii) of the modified toxicity of each pollutant in the severe property damage. Consequently, Settlement Agreement Since that time, discharges do not justify the although permittees will be entitled to the Agency acted to remove three development of national regulations. upset and bypass provisions in NPDES organic compounds from the list of toxic XI. Best Management Practices permits, this final regulation does not pollutants. All three of these pollutants address these issues. were among those excluded from Section 304(e) of the Clean Water Act regulation because "they are not gives the Administrator authority to XIIL Variances and Modifications detectable by Section 304(h) analytical prescribe "best management practices" methods or other state-of-the-art (BMPs). EPA. through its Office of Water Upon the promulgation of this methods." Enforcement, is offering guidance to regulation, the effluent limitations for The Agency has gathered additional permit authorities in establishing BMPs the appropriate subcategory must be data since these regulations were required by unique circumstances for a applied in all Federal and State NPDES proposed, as described previously in the given plant. BMPs are not addressed in permits, thereafter issued to direct Methodology and Data Gathering Efforts this regulation. dischargers in the leather tanning and finishing industry. For the BPT effluent section of this preamble. Based upon XII. Upset and Bypass Provisions analysis of this additional data, together limitations, the only exception to the with the data used in the proposal, the A recurring issue is wheher industry binding limitations is EPA's Agency is revising its exclusion of guidelines should include provisions "fundamentally different factors" pollutants. Of the 126 toxic pollutants, authorizing noncompliance with effluent variance. [See E.L du Pont de Nemours 71 are excluded from regulation under limitations during periods of "upset" or & Co. v. Train 430 U.S. 112 (1977); the authority of Paragraph 8(a)(iii) of the "bypass." An upset, sometimes called Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, supra.] modified Settlement Agreement because an "excursion," is an unintentional This variance recognizes factors "they are not detectable by Section noncompliance occurring for reasons concerning a particular discharger that 304(h) analytical methods or other state- beyond the reasonable control of the are fundamentally different from the of-the-art methods." permittee. It has been argued that an factors considered in this rulemaking. Among indirect dischargers, 54 of the upset provision in EPA's effluent Although this variance clause was set remaining pollutants are excluded from limitations is necessary because such upsets will inevitably occur even in forth in EPA's 1973-1976 industry regulation because there is no available regulations, it is now included in the pretreatment technology which is properly operated control equipment. Because technology-based limitations NPDES regulations and will not be economically achievable that will included in the leather tanning and remove these.pollutants prior to require only what technology can discharge to POTWs. Pretreatment achieve, it is claimed that liability for finishing or other industry regulations. standards for existing sources (PSES) such situations is improper. When (See the NPDES regulations at 40 CFR and new sources (PSNS) are included in confronted with this issue, courts have Part 125, Subpart D.) these regulations to control the disagreed on whether an explicit upset The BAT limitations in this regulation remaining toxic pollutant, chromium. or excursion exemption is necessary, or are also subject to EPA's Among direct dischargers, 34 whether upset or excursion incidents "fundamentally different factors" pollutants are excluded from regulation may be handled through EPA's exercise variance. BAT limitations for because "they are detected in treated of enforcement discretion. Compare nonconventional pollutants are subject effluents in trace amounts and neither Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F 2d 1253 to modifications under Sections 301(c) cause nor are likely to cause toxic (9th Cir. 1977) with Weyerhaeuser v. and 301(g) of the Act. These statutory effects;" 7 pollutants are excluded from Costle, 590 F. 2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978) modifications do not apply to toxic or regulation because "they are detected at and Corn Refiners Assn., et al. v. Costle, conventional pollutants. To apply for only a small number of sources within a 594 F. 2d 1223 (8th Cir. 1979]. See also these modifications a discharger must subcategory and are uniquely-related to American Petroleum Institute v. EPA be in compliance with BPT. Because this those sources;" and 13 pollutants are 540 F. 2d 1023 (10th Cir. 1976); CPC "present rule will make BAT equal to BPT, EPA in amounts too small to be International,Inc. v. Train, 540 F. 2d does not expect any applications for effectively reduced by technologies 1320 (8th Cir. 1976); FMC Corp. v. Train, Section 301(c) or 301(g) modifications. known to the Administrator." These 539 F. 2d 973 (4th Cir. 1976). [See 43 FR 40895 (September 13, 1978).] pollutants are excluded under authority An upset is an unintentional episode during which effluent limits are Pretreatment standards for existing of Paragraph 8(a)(iii). The pollutants and sources are subject to the the specific reasons for their exclusion exceeded; a bypass, however, is an act are presented in Appendix B. The of intentional noncompliance during "fundamentally different factors" pollutant (total) chromium is controlled which waste treatment facilities are variance and credits for pollutants by BPT; because BAT is being circumvented in emergency situations. removed by POTWs. (See 40 CFR 403.7, promulgated equal to BPT, total We have, in the past, included bypass 403.13; 43 FR 27736 (June 26, 1978)). chromium is controlled. provisions in NPDES permits. Pretreatment standards for new sources. B. Exclusion of Subcategories and We determined that both upset and are subject only to the credits provision PointSources. On May 10, 1979, the bypass provisions should be included in in 40 CFR 403.7. Agency submitted an affidavit excluding NPDES permits and have promulgated NSPS are not subject to EPA's from regulation leather products Consolidated Permit Regulations that "fundamentally different factors" manufacturing, including Shoes and include upset and bypass provisions. variance or any statutory or regulatory Related Footwear (SIC 3131-3149), and [See 40 CFR 122.60, 45 FR 33290 (May 19, modifications. (See E. I. du Pont de Gloves, Luggage, Personal Goods, and 1980).] The upset provision establishes Nemours and Co. v. Train. supra.) 52862 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52862 Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 226 I Tuesday, November 23, 1982 I Rules and Regulations XIV. Relationship to NPDES Permits proposed pretreatment standards for the "reliable performance." The commenters leather tanning and finishing industry. believed that the limitations and The BPT limitations and NSPS in this Individual public comments received standards should be based on "reliable regulation will be applied to individual on the proposed regulation and the performance." leather tanning and finishing plants notice of availability, and the Agency's Response: As stated in the June 2, through NPDES permits issued by EPA responses, are presented in two reports, 1982 notice of availability (47 FR 23958- or approved State agencies, under "Responses to Public Comments, 23965), the Agency has reviewed and Section 402 of the Act. As discussed in Proposed Leather Tanning and Finishing revised its basis for evaluation of the preceding section of this preamble, Industry Effluent Guidelines and effluent limitation and standards. The these limitations must be applied in all Standards," and "Responses to Public Agency recognizes that levels of Federal and State NPDES permits Comments, Notice of Availability," "reliable performance" may not be as except to the extent that variances and which are part of the public record for stringent as the "capability to achieve," modifications are expressly authorized. this regulation. and has established the limitations and Other aspects of the interaction between A summary of the Agency's responses standards in this regulation based upon these limitations and NPDES permits are to major comments follows: performance which can be reliably discussed below. 1. Comment: In their comments, .achieved. The review and analysis of One issue that warrants consideration members of the leather tanning industry the updated data base also included is the effect of this regulation on the claimed that the data and other recalculation of variability factors for powers of NPDES permit-issuing supporting record material relied upon regulated pollutants. The resulting long authorities. The promulgation of this by EPA in proposing these regulations term average performance and the regulation does not restrict the power of contained a large number of errors. normal variability which describe the any permitting authority to act in any Instances of repetitive data, effluent reduction achievable by BPT manner consistent with law or these or unsupported data, and misuse of data and PSES technologies are any other EPA regulations, guidelines, or were noted. representative of "reliable performance" policy. For example, even if this Response: In response to this by full scale operating data submitted regulation does not control a particular comment, the Agency reviewed the by tanneries. More stringent long term pollutant, the permit issuer may still entire data base and all documentation average effluent concentrations and limit such pollutant on a case-by-case supporting this rulemaking. All historical variability factors as proposed and as basis when limitafions are necessary to data points were examined for represented by non-selected BAT and carry out the purposes of the Act. Where background documentation, accuracy, PSES options were capable of being manufacturing practices or treatment and applicability. In its review of the achieved but did not represent "reliable circumstances warrant additional data base, the Agency has corrected performance." controls, such limitations may be errors relating to data previously 3. Comment: Several tanneries technology-based in conformance with submitted by the industry, including presented data documenting previous the legislative history of the Act. production levels, water use ratios, and efforts to reduce water consumption. However, such limitations are subject to technology cost. As discussed in detail The commenters said they had taken all administrative and judicial'review as in the Subcategorization and Water Use of the feasible water conservation steps part of the permit issuance process. In section of this preamble and the and that further reduction in water use addition, to the extent that State water Development Document, data points which would be necessary to meet mass quality standards or other provisions of from a number of plants were eliminated based limitations and standards would State or Federal law require limitation from the data base utilized to develop result in adverse changes in finished of pollutants not covered by this water use ratios. leather quality. regulation (or require more stringent EPA also conducted a program to Response: As discussed previously in limitations on covered pollutants), such acquire new data during the comment this preamble, the Agency does not have limitations must be applied by the period. This program involved sending any data showing a correlation between permit-issuing authority. 56 information requests (developed in subcategorization and final product A second topic that warrants cooperation with and distributed by the quality. The reduced flow rates for discussion is the operation of EPA's Tanners' Council of America), 43 site existing and new sources were derived NPDES enforcement program, many visits, and 10 wastewater sampling from data which show these values can aspects of which were considered in visits. The Agency acquired a significant be achieved and are being achieved or developing this regulation. The Agency amount of additional information and surpassed in every subcategory by at emphasizes that although the Clean data on production levels, wastewater least one plant which utilizes raw Water Act is a strict liability statute, the flow, as well as control and treatment materials and processing methods initiation of enforcement proceedings by technology performance and cost. The typical of each subcategory to produce EPA is discretionary. The Agency has Agency is confident that the available salable final products of commercially exercised and intends to exercise that data base accurately reflects the nature acceptable qualities. A more detailed discretion in a manner that recognizes - of the leather tanning industry, its water discussion of final product quality and and promotes good-faith compliance use and pollutant loads. subcategorization is presented in the efforts. 2. Comment: A number of industry Subcategorization and Water Use representatives, the TCA, and several section of this preamble and in the XV. Public Participation consultants questioned the pollutant Development Document. The Agency solicited public comment removal efficiencies stated by the 4. Comment: Several commenters on the proposed rules and the notice of Agency for the recommended treatment claimed that the medidn and reduced availability of additional information technologies. The commenters said that water use ratios utilized by the Agency published in the Federal Register on July there was a difference between were not representative for a 2, 1979, and June 2, 1982. Also, on "capability to achieve" the specified subcategory because the data did not February 15, 1980, in Washington, D.C., removal efficiencies and the level of represent homogeneous processing the Agency held a public hearing on the removal efficiency achievable with methods and final products. For this Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52863

reason several industry members indicate that different plants making the where subcategory flow ratios claimed that establishing mass based same mix of salable final products of increased, costs were recalculated limitations and standards, utilizing commercially acceptable quality have completely (PSES costs for specific water consumption values different water use ratios depending subcategories 4 and 7). For those related to production levels, upon the extent to which they subcategories where flows decreased, significantly reduces the tanners' ability implement water conservation and costs remained the same (PSES costs for to alter processes to accommodate recycle or reuse methods. Accordingly, subcategories 1, 3, [small changes] and 5 varying raw material and final product the Agency has concluded from analysis [large change]). mixes. of available data that there is no The number of plants included in the Response: The Agency concludes that relationship between final products data base utilized to define water use the tanners ability to alter processes to manufactured and water used which for each subcategory closely reflects the accommodate varying raw materials supports further subcategory total number of plants in each and final product mixes will not be separations. subcategory of the industry; some of the constrained by application of these Those plants with unique mixes of subcategories do not have many plants regulations. Moreover, the Agency processing methods and final products in them. Therefore, the Agency found a believes that the water use ratios are covering more than one subcategory commensurately limited amount of representative for each subcategory. The would have mass based NPDES permits accurate and verifiable data in the revised median water use ratios or mass based pretreatment standards if following subcategories: hair save, developed by the Agency, and the local P.OTW elected to do so, chrome tan, retan-wet finish summarized in Table 1 of-the June 2, developed in a prorated basis to provide (subcategory 2)-4 plants; through-the- 1982 notice of availability (47 FR 23959), discharge allowances for each product blue (subcategory 6--3 plants; shearling were based upon extensive data or process utilized at a given plant. (subcategory 7)-i plant; pigskin supplied by 90 plants in the industry. In Since water conservation and recycle (subcategory 8)-2 plants; and retan-wet utilizing these data, the Agency and reuse techniques are available for finish (splits) (subcategory 9)--4 plants. considered a broad range of differences all three groups of subprocess and, The Agency has actively solicited data in raw materials (cattlehide, sheepskin, therefore, applicable for each of the from the industry. In several instances, pigskin, shearling, blue splits and grain subcategories for this industry, those the industry submitted only a limited sides, etc.) and three major groups of techniques also are available for mixed amount of accurate and verifiable flow subprocesses (beamhouse, tanyard, and subcategory plants. Examples of how data. For those subcategories the retan-wet finish]. The Agency mixed subcategory plants could achieve Agency reviewed the manufacturing and subcategorized the leather tanning reduced water use are addressed in the raw material data for each plant in the industry based on these factors because Development Document. subcategory. Since there were no they had significant influence on water 5. Comment: In response the notice of significant differences in manufacturing use and waste load generation. availability, the Tanners' Council of and raw material data for plants in the Subcategorization was found to be America provided examples for each same subcategory, the available data related incidentally to the final products subcategory of plant water use data was judged representative for all plants produced because, as a result of the which they claimed were misused or not within the subcategory. primary subcategorization factors i.e., representative of that subcategory. The 6. Comment: A number of commenters the raw materials and groups of Tanners' Council of America criticized claimed that trivalent chromium is not subprocesses used, there is a typical mix the Agency's data base as being meager significantly harmful to the environment, of final products for each subcategory. in some subcategories and provided and should not be regulated. As Day to day variations in raw materials, examples of subcategories with supporting evidence that trivalent final product mixes, and attendant inadequate data bases. chromium is non-toxic, these water consumption are reflected by the Response: The Agency has reviewed commenters cited actions taken by the individual data points which underlie each individual example of alleged data ^EPA Office of Solid Waste (OSW) to these median flow ratio values. verification from contributing plants. delist all tannery wastes (from Since the raw materials and While the Agency believes that major - processing and wastewater treatment) subprocesses utilized by individual changes in subcategorization are not which contain trivalent chromium, and plants within a subcategory are very necessary, minor adjustments have been to specify hexavalent chromium in the similar, it is the Agency's judgment that made in the data bases for four hazardous waste listing criteria. water use for individual plants within a subcategories and are summarized Response: Since chromium (total) is a subcategory also can be similar. The previously in this preamble. These toxic pollutant as defined by the Clean Agency believes that water adjustments are discussed in the Water Water Act and occurs in nationally conservation, recycling and reuse of Use section of this preamble, and significant amounts (6.3 million lbs/yr), water and/or good housekeeping detailed in the Development Document. the Agency must set effluent limitations practices can be used by plants, within a Most notably, seven plants were deleted for chromium. Moreover, as discussed subcategory in order to arrive at the from subcategory one because they below, there is pass through of flow ratios specified in Tables 1 and 2. were mixed subcategory plants. Three chromium at POTWs and the Agency is In response to comments, the Agency plants were deleted from subcategory required to set pretreatment standards attempted to separate further some four, two because of inadequate for chromium. Information and data subcategories by predominant final documentation and one because of an available indicate that trivalent products and developed a median water error in subcategory placement, and a chromium is not nearly as toxic as use ratio for these predominant final fourth p;ant had its raw material weight hexavalent chromium from the human products. These water use ratios were basis corrected and flow ratio health standpoint, which was the basis not significantly different from the recalculated; all resulting in an used by OSW in delisting all tannery median water use ratios established for increased median flow ratio and wastewater treatment sludges and the applicable subcategory. Therefore, substantially increased reduced flow process solid wastes. However, trivalent the data available to the Agency ratios for subcategory four. In cases chromium does exhibit chronic aquatic 52864 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations toxicity. Ongoing EPA efforts to develop Since domestic sewage contains sulfide comments that in-process substitution water quality criteria for trivalent in measurable quantities, requiring an for ammonia with epsom salts would not chromium confirm chronic aquatic industrial discharger to a POTW to be feasible in light of its adverse effect toxicity (24 hr. toxicity value remove all sulfide would place a burden on the properties of leather, and that its approximately 50 p;g/I). Therefore, the on the industry which would not result costs were substantial. Agency believes that it is appropriate to in any improvement in either water EPA recognizes, however, that site regulate trivalent chromium. quality, treatment efficiency, or specific water quality problems may 7. Comment: A number of commenters personnel safety. require more stringent permit indicated that chromium pass through at Response: In response to comments, requirements for ammonia on a case-by- POTWs receiving tannery waste has not the Agency has reviewed data in the case basis. Accordingly, the Agency has been properly evaluated. They believe supplemented record on the retained the cost, in BAT OPTION If,of that the significant finding in the POTW performance of sulfide oxidation and technology to achieve nitrogen control study interim report is that very low finds that, for indirect dischargers with by biological nitrification (i.e., chromium concentrations were found. unhairing (beamhousel operations, a pretreatment of segregated streams to They believe that chromium long-term average total sulfide reduce TKN in raw wastewater, and pretreatment is not necessary because concentration of 9.0 mg/I can be additional aeration and chemical the POTWs discharge low achieved in total sewer discharge. addition to control pH in activated concentrations even through the study Accordingly, the Agency has revised the sludge systems). EPA engineering also showed POTW removal rates to be basis for the sulfide pretreatment evaluation of end-of-pipe technologies lower than those required of direct standard from 0.0 mg/I to 9.0 mg/i for (i.e., BAT OPTION 11)indicates that dischargers with BAT limitations. indirect dischargers with unhairing consistently low TKN and ammonia Response: Section 307(b) of the Act operations which discharge very high effluent concentrations can be achieved requires that categorical pretreatment sulfide concentrations. Sulfide with proper design and diligent standards be established if EPA limitations are not necessary for indirect operation of wastewater treatment determines that the introduction of dischargers in the "no beamhouse" systems. However, these concentrations pollutants from a point source category subcategories (subcategory numbers 4, have not been demonstrated in this would interfere with, pass through, or 5, 7, and 9) because the sulfide industry. otherwise be incompatible with a concentrations in raw wastewaters from 11. Comment: Several commenters POTW. Pursuant to the general plants in these subcategories typically were concerned that the Chappell pretreatment regulations, categorical are less than 9.0 mg/L Achievement of process, the basis for the proposed, pretreatment standards are necessary the sulfide pretreatment standard will where the percent removal by POTWs is minimize sulfide PSNS, is not proven and should be interference to the investigated further before less than required by BAT for direct extent feasible by existing technology, it is accepted dischargers (i.e., pass through). Because including the very serious sulfide-related as providing pollutant removals equal to there is pass through of chromium at risks to human life in sewage collection' proposed BAT end-of-pipe treatment POTWs, chromium pretreatment and treatment systems at affected technology (extended aeration activated standards for indirect dischargers were POTWs. A more stringent technology sludge upgraded with powdered established by the Agency. At POTWs based sulfide pretreatment standard. activated carbon addition followed by where chromium does not pass through, which would relate to human safety multimedia filtration). removal credits may be granted to criteria, cannot be supported at this Response: The Chappell process was tanneries to reduce the amount of time. The preliminary treatment step of operated for only a short time at a small pretreatment necessary. If the POTWs sulfide oxidation for beamhouse (25,000-gallons per day of wastewater) achieve chromium removals comparable subcategories has the added benefit of tannery which did not operate a to those required by BAT, the POTW reducing the oxygen demand in beamhouse. The Agency has decided would grant removal credits to the subsequent aerobic treatment processes that, due to a lack of operating data indirect dischargers which would at POTWs. from sustained, full-scale operation increase the standards to concentrations 10: Comment. Industry representatives including treatment of unhairing typical of raw wastewaters, thus commented on the lack of a proven wastewaters, the process cannot be eliminating the need for pretreatment. substitute for ammonia in the deliming recommended as an alternative to 8. Comment: Several commenters process and indicated that ammonia biological treatment by extended cited the increased costs associated substitutes do not produce leather of aeration activated sludge, and will not with disposal of tannery sludges if they acceptable quality. be used as the basis for PSNS. are classified as a hazardous waste due Response: As indicated in the June 2, 12. Comment: Several direct to the presence of chromium. The 1982 notice of availability, EPA has dischargers commented that their commenters contend that trivalent withdrawn the proposed ammonia present discharge does not have any chromium does not interfere with land pretreatment standards and effluent adverse effects.on the receiving water application of sludge and therefore limitations and eliminated all associated and therefore no additional treatment should not be used as a limiting factor in costs for in-process ammonia processes should be required. sludge disposal. substitution previously included in BAT Response: The Clean Water Act Response: Chromium bearing wastes and PSES technology options. EPA also requires existing industrial dischargers are no longer listed as hazardous by the is no longer considering regulation of to achieve "effluent limitations requiring Resource Recovery and Conservation. ammonia as part of the BAT, discharge the application of the best practicable Act (RCRA). This action should limitations. Although the Agency did not control technology currently available" facilitate the disposal of sludges from find final product quality to be a factor (BPTI (Section 301(b)(1)(A)), and treatment of tannery wastewater. requiring further subcategorization, the "effluent limitations requiring the 9. Comment- Tanners and their Agency did consider leather quality in application of the best available consultants commented on the proposed eliminating in process substitution for technology economically achievable" sulfide limit of 0.0 mg/I as being ammonia as a recommended technology. (BAT) (Section 301(b}(2](A)). The impossible to meet and unnecessary. This decision was based upon the Agency has found that the best Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52865

included in the economic impact operating life of the equipment. The produced leather of 3 to 6 percent, as analysis of the proposed regulations. industry study concluded that the five- suggested by the 1979 EPA report, would Response: In developing revised costs, year period it incorporated was more cause a reduction in the demand for EPA developed credits for in place appropriate for the calculation of impact domestic leather production of 4.5 to 9 control technology for direct because it better reflected the percent. dischargers. These credits were uncertainty in the industry. EPA Response: The 1979 EPA economic estimated on a plant specific basis by believes that the uncertainty factor was report did not assume that costs would the following methodology. First, adequately reflected in its assumption be passed through in higher prices for estimates were prepared for the cost of that the loan for pollution control finished leather goods. In response to upgrading each plant to BPT technology equipment must be repaid in five years. comments received on the notice of utilizing as much aspossible of in place By using a five year period, industry availability, the Agency has done a technology. Second, estimates were appears to have placed little value on detailed analysis of the relationship prepared for the total cost of BPT the years of useful economic life between costs and increased prices and technology assuming that no technology remaining in the plant and pollution the consequent effects on imports and was in place at any of the plants. control equipment at the end of five exports. Finally, the plant specific credit was the years. In effect, the cost Of pollution The Agency now agrees that there difference between these two costs. control and producing leather over the would be some increase in the price of These credits were utilized in the five year period were overstated, domestically produced leather, and that economic impact analysis for each leading to an overestimate of closure this would cause some increase in the plant. impacts. imports of leather and leather products, 22. Comment: The industry sponsored Subsequent to the proposal, the resulting in a reduction in the demand economic analysis stated that the Agency revised its discount rate to 11 for domestically produced leather by 1.5 economic effects of the proposed percent. The Agency believes that this to 2.0 percent. The industry regulations were understated for three study was a reasonable estimate of the after- overestimated the likely leather price major reasons, as follows: tax cost of capital to the tanning increase, as well as its effect on demand e The compliance costs estimated by industry. This discount rate was based EPA were too low; therefore the for leather. The relationship between on industry data for recent years which price increases and demand for leather consultants' sensitivity analysis indicates a pre-tax cost of debt of 17 calculated closures also using is discussed in the economic analysis of percent and a pre-tax rate of return on these regulations. compliance costs which were two and equity of 17.5 percent. 24. Comment: The notice of avilability three times those estimated by EPA; In net present value analsis, a higher assumed that pollution 0 The 21-year time period over which cost of capital increases the likelihood control EPA calculated the economic impacts of that a company's earnings would be expenditures would be financed in large pollution control expenditures was too judged an inadequate return on part by 15 year loans. The Tanners' long; the study concluded that a five- investment and that the company would Council stated that probably no more year period was appropriate; and. be a closure prospect. The Agency than 10 percent of the firms would * The interest rate used by the EPA to carried out analyses using the industry's qualify for long-term borrowing without discount cash flows to obtain the net assumption of a 16 percent cost of guarantee and that the economic present value after pollution controls capital, and found that closure was implications for industry members (9.9 percent) was too low; the analysis predicted, even with no pollution control would be very serious if loans were concluded that a higher discount rate of expenditures, for six out of 22 model made for shorter periods, even up to five 15.9 percent, representing the years. The commenter noted that many "opportunity plants. Because this is a higher cost of capital," should incidence of closure than would be companies would simply be unable to have been used. expected under average conditions (and obtain the required financing. The industry consultant said that the with no pollution control costs), the closure Response: In response to this proposed regulation would cause many estimates resulting from the 16 percent comment, the Agency conducted a more tanneries to close than EPA's data discount rate were inconsistent with the telephone survey of tanners and bankers or studies indicated. The study known rate of industry closure since on the terms of financing that would be concluded that as many as half the proposal (1979). Therefore, the available for pollution control current total number of tanneries would equipment. Based on the survey, the 0 industry closure estimates close. were overstated. The Agency believes Agency found that loans for pollution- Response: Since the proposal, and as that these three factors taken together control equipment would likely be for noted previously in this preamble, EPA overstated substantially the likely shorter periods than 15 years-three to has reviewed carefully and revised closures resulting from the cost of these seven years. The Agency then revised where appropriate the compliance costs regulations. its economic analysis to use a 5 year of all control technologies. As a result, 23. Comment: The industry sponsored repayment period. A cash flow analysis capital costs have increased economic study questioned the was then carried out incorporating the considerably. However, annual costs, assumption that costs would not be assumption of a five year repayment which were used in the net present passed through in higher prices. It was period. value analysis and which considered stated that many tanners would attempt Regarding the comment that loans both capital as we'll as operation and to pass on cost increases, although would not be available at all, the impact maintenance costs, have increased only probably only those in a strong analysis assumes that if the plant would modestly. Accordingly, EPA believes competitive position would be able to do be viable by the net present value test, that the TCA consultant's estimates of so. and it could cover the loan repayment, costs two and three times the Agency's Further, it was stated that the added loans would be available. estimates were overstated. costs would weaken the position of U.S. 25. Comment: The Tanners' Council of The 21 year period over which the tanners with respect to foreign America stated that EPA had apparently EPA economic models were calculated manufacturers. It was estimated that an determined not to conduct a Regulatory covers the construction period and the increas6 in the price of domestically Flexibility Analysis to assess the impact 52866 Federal Register / Val. 47z,'No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52866 Federal Re2ister / Vol. 47 No. 226 I Tuesday, November 23, 1982 I Rules and Regulations 17. Comment: Numerous commenters industry, unrelated to the recession, regulations. The Agency has revised the indicated that the use of indicator have occurred since proposal of the subcategory median water use ratios, pollutants for BAT to reflect removal of regulations in 1979. Since the last half of which generally increased, and the cost toxics in a failure of EPA to set specific 1981 and the first half of the 1982, the curves. Moreover, the Agency has numerical standards as required by the long-term decline, of the industry has revised the cost estimates by now NRDC Settlement Agreement. The taken a sharply accelerated pace due to including a 23 percent allowance for industry preferred specific toxic accelerated decline in the U.S. engineering and contingency costs, and pollutant limitations. production of shoes and other leather for interest during construction. In Response: EPA examined carefully products; increased foreign competition addition, the Agency has revised its the presence and level of toxic in leather markets; failure of negotiated costs by assuming that all construction pollutants in the industry's wastewaters. agreements with leather exporting work is to be done by contract labor As explained previously, EPA has countries; rise of unfavorable fashion instead of tarnery workers. In reference established a specific limitation for the trends; and rebound in expoA of U.S. to this last item, EPA's cost estimates one toxic pollutant, chromium, which it hides. The TCA claimed that the capital may now be higher than what actual found at treatable levels. No other toxic investment and operating expenses installed costs would be, since pollutants or indicators will be necessary to implement the technical historically tanners have used in-house controlled by BAT because no options being considered will ha ,e labor extensively for installation of economically achievable technology greater impact on the industry than treatment systems. Taken together, beyond BPT was identified which also perceived by EPA. these changes have resulted in afforded treatment specifically for toxic Response: The Agency agrees that the profit rates for the madel plants were substantial increases in the cost of pollutants found in these effluents. The control and treatment technologies. The 12 toxic pollutants, other than based on a period which was cost estimates submitted by TCA were found in treated effluents nonrepresentative for the industry. The chromium, three to five times higher than the (see Table 4, 47 FR 23959) are not profit rates were largely based on a projected to be at concentrations which plant survey taken in 1976 and primarily estimates used by the Agency to are effectively treatable by any reflect profit rates for 1974 and 1975 evaluate the economic impact of the available technology known to the when profits were the highest over the proposed regulation. The Agency's Administrator, and therefore these 12 past 12 years. In response to this revisions in cost have served to reduce toxic pollutants have been excluded comment, the Agency revised the profit the discrepancies between the TCA and from regulation as provided by rates by using an average profit rate for Agency estimates. Paragraph 8(a)(iii) of the reyised the period of 1969-1981 instead of a There are, however, remainin Settlement Agreement. profit rate based on the years 1974 and differences between the TCA and 18. Comment: Commenters noted that 1975. Accordingly, the profitability of the Agency estimates. A portion of the the conditions in the leather tanning model plants has been reduced by remaining differences were attributed tG industry deteriorated substantially approximately 40 percent. This charge the fact that the TCA model plant costs between the time economic data was increased the number of potential plant included items that EPA believes were collected [19761 for the proposal and closures resulting from installing the not justified. For instance, the TCA their publishing [1W979. treatment equipment. included the cost of recovery and reuse Response: In response to these The factors cited for the decline in the systems for vegetable tanning comments, EPA completed a leather tanning industry, however, were (Subcategory Three), brine (Subcateg-ery reassessment of the economic not unique to the end. of 198i and 1982. Five), and degreasing solvent conditions of the industry, with the The factors cited were cyclical and their (Subcategory Five]. These systems are assistance of summary data provided by effect on the decline in the industry is used extensively in the industry and the TCA, financial data provided by a captured in the long-term data used in provide return on investment. Therefore, number of individual firms, and other the economic analysis. The current the Agency believes these costs should data collected by the Agency. The basis sharp decline is due predominately to not be included as wastewater for the economic analysis was updated the generally weak economic conditions, treatment costs. In addition, the TCA to reflect conditions through 1979, not an underlying change in the factors did not take into account the reduced including hide prices, demand for and cited by the TCA. chemical purchase requirements for prices of finished leather, plant 20. Comment: Many commenters production purposes which occur due to utilization rates, international stated that the capital, as well as operation of chemical reuse and competition, and related factors, with operation and maintenance costs, used recovery systems. The TCA model plant control technology cost data expressed for the recommended technologies were To costs also include expenditures for in first quarter 1980 dollars. As part of significantly underestimated. reconstructing process equipment to this reassessment, EPA evaluated seven document this the TCA prepared their facilitate waste stream segregation and model plants for indirect own model plant costs for tanneries in additional chemical recovery and reuse. As an dischargers, in addition to the 15 model subcategories 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. example, the cost of constructing a new plants evaluated for the proposed Response: EPA performed a beamhouse was included for regulations. Plant specific analyses were comprehensive review and revision of performed again for 13 of the 20 direct the entire engineering design and cost Subcategories One and Two. The dischargers, including consideration of development procedure. All the cost Agency believes that these measures are an allowance for previous expenditures estimates appearing in the June 2, 1982 not required by this regulation and must on in-place control technologies. notice were updated to first quarter 1980 be justified to improve production 19 Comment: The Tanners' Council of values. Design factors of the unit efficiency. America criticized EPA's use of data processes for all treatment technologies 21. Comment Several commenters from 1976 and 1976 noting that this were found generally to be correct, stated that capital expenditures made period was not representative for the while a number of inadequacies were for wastewater treatment and industry. The TCA noted that significant found in the cost development pretreatment in contemplation of changes in the economic condition of the. procedure used for the proposed complying with the 1972 Act should be Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52867 practicable control technology currently necessary for the leather tanning 16. Comment: Several tanners cited available that also is economically industry because trivalent chromium the lack of available space for achievable and cost effective is passes through POTWs and because construction of wastewater equalization, primary coagulation- sulfide can interfere with POTWs. pretreatment facilities as a constraint on sedimentation, and biological treatment Where chromium does not pass through the industry's ability to comply with the in the form of extended aeration the POTW, removal credits are proposed PSES. The Tanners' Council of activated sludge. This technology available to reduce the need for America, in responding to the notice of achieves significant reduction in all pretreatment. POTWs also may certify availability, also objected to the use of pollutants, toxic as well as conventional that the sulfide pretreatment standard employee parking space for and nonconventional pollutants. should not apply to certain contributing pretreatment facilities. Accordingly, this technology serves as indirect dischargers if site specific Response: During the comment period the basis for BPT effluent limitations. evaluation indicates that sulfide for the proposed regulations, the The Agency's review of the direct interference is not a problem. Agency's representatives visited a total dischargers indicated that the existing 14. Comment: Several tanneries and of 59 of the 141 indirect discharging effluent quality generally was very poor, POTW's commented that the tanneries including tanneries in the in a small number of cases final effluent pretreatment standards in the proposed urban areas of Chicago, IL; Milwaukee, concentrations were found to be only regulations could require duplicate WI; Peabody-Salem, MA; and marginally lower than raw waste treatment in instances where the POTW Gloversville-Johnstown, NY. Based on concentrations either periodically or has facilities specifically constructed for the findings of these visits the Agency consistently. Environmental analysis of the treatment of tannery wastewater. predicted that 5 to 10 percent of the existing discharges indicated that Furthermore, in some cases construction leather tanning industry does not have aquatic and human health toxicity of these facilities has been financed by space available for construction of values for certain toxic pollutants (e.g., the tannery while ownership and wastewater pretreatment facilities. pentachlorophenol, trivalent chromium, operation is the responsibility of the The Agency did not have sufficient naphthalene) were exceeded under low POTW. data to identify all indirect discharging flow conditions. In light of these Response: As noted in the tanneries with inadequate space to findings, the Agency has found it to be response to the previous comment, install chromium pretreatment environmentally necessary and cost- categorical pretreatment standards are technology, and could not establish effective to require upgrading of existing necessary where pass through has been specific exemptions or alternative treatment facilities in order to improve demonstrated. However, § 403.7 of the effluent limitations for these plants.- the general level of effluent quality of general pretreatment regulations Therefore, in the notice of availability, most plants, and to improve the provides for granting of removal credits the Agency solicited comment and consistency of effluent quality of other achieved at POTWs. In cases where additional data concerning plants with plants. It must be noted, however, that POTW facilities have been specifically inadequate space to install the the Agency has not found additional designed to treat leather tanning and recommended pretreatment technology technology options and associated finishing wastewaters, it is likely that (47 FR 23962). However, additional effluent limitations more stringent than the POTW would be able to grant a substantive input was not received, BPT to be economically achievable for credit for chromium removal to the even though EPA extended the comment the category as a whole at this time. indirect discharger. Where the POTW period to facilitate receipt of such Therefore, the Agency has decided BAT achieves removals comparable to BAT, comments. EPA does not have sufficient should be no more stringent than BPT. credits probably would eliminate the detailed information regarding space However, the Agency also recognizes need for pretreatment. availability to define the population of that in certain instances site specific 15. Comment: The Tanners' Council plants which have less than adequate water quality considerations may of America commented that the space to install the recommended require permit requirements more proposed pretreatment regulation pretreatment technology for chromium. stringent than BPT effluent limitations discouraged the use of POTWs by The Agency believes that the more based on case-by-case analysis. industry by requiring new sources to appropriate approach is to grant waivers 13. Comment: Several tanneries and provide pretreatment equivalent to BAT, based upon a specific demonstration by POTW's stated that indirect dischargers and thereby contravened the intent of the indirect discharger, as provided by located in large metropolitan areas may the Act to encourage joint treatment. the general pretreatment regulation contribute only a small percentage to Response: The proposed- pretreatment (§ 403.13), of the fundamentally different the total waste stream. Application of standards for new sources (PSNS] were factor of inadequate interior plant space national pretreatment standards to these based upon technology equivalent to or adjacent land. Should sufficient tanneries therefore is not necessary to BAT. The proposed PSNS contained detailed data be received to identify assure proper operation of the POTW. limitations equal to BAT for ammonia, those plants which do not have Response: The Agency recognizes that sulfide, and chromium, which were more adequate space for chromium some indirect dischargers located in stringent than those proposed for PSES, pretreatment technology, an amendment large metropolitan areas may contribute as well as limitations for BOD5, COD, of PSES regulations may be possible. only a small percentage to the total TSS, Oil and Grease, Total Kjeldahl The Agency considers reallocation of wastestream. Under the Clean Water Nitrogen, and Phenol. A specific range that portion of available interior plant Act and the general pretreatment was included for pH; After review of the space and adjacent land (including regulations, pretreatment standards for entire technology, performance, and cost parking lots) necessary to install indirect dischargers are required if the basis for the proposed PSNS, EPA pretreatment technology to be an introduction of pollutants would result revised PSNS. The PSNS being appropriate requirement. Reallocation of in pass through, interference, or promulgated today is based on the same all or a portion of parking lots for otherwise would be incompatible with technology and regulates the same treatment facilities has been POTWs. The Agency has determined pollutants to the same concentrations as implemented by plants in other that pretreatment standards are PSES, not BAT. industrial categories. 52868 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations of the regulation on small business. As The criterion referring to adverse concentrations for the BAT options not part of its comment, the Tanners' scale diseconomies holds for all sizes of selected [BAT OPTIONS II and III] very Council reviewed the criteria of the model plants, except for the largest stringent and not demonstrated within Regulatory Flexibility Act, as well as the model plant in each subcategory. Hence, the industry. They expressed the EPA guidelines for implementing the for the tanning industry, this criterion concern that these concentrations could Act, and provided such an assessment was not useful for distinguishing be misused by premitting authorities. for indirect dischargers. Defining small impacts on small plants. Response: The Agency agrees that the businesses as those with 200 or fewer In assessing impacts in terms of the concentrations projected for 13AT employees, the TCA found 68 percent of third criterion, capital requirements and OPTIONS II and III have not been the 140 indirect dischargees would be capital availability, the Tanners' Council demonstrated, and therefore could be classified as small business. For these commented that most of the small misused by permitting authorities. tanneries, the TCA noted that the tanneries would not qualify for 15-year Accordingly, the Agency has deleted criteria for a significant impact would be loans. However, as the TCA also stated, these concentrations from the met, in varying degrees, for three of the this also appeared to be true for tanners Development Document. The final four criteria suggested in the EPA in general. Hence, on this criterion Development Document, however, Regulatory Flexibility guidelines: alone, there was not a basis for includes the range of expected * Compliance costs more than 5 distinguishing impacts on small plants. performance for these technologies, in percent of production cost; The Agency believed that more stress place of concentrations because the e Compliance costs as a percent of should be placed on the fourth specific concentrations included in the sales for small entities more than 10 regulatory flexibility criterion, not notice of availability have nof been percent higher than for large entities mentioned by the TCA in this context, demonstrated in this industry at this (diseconomies of small scale); the likelihood of closures. EPA believed time. - Capital costs a significant portion of that the economic effects of concern 28. Comment: In response to the notice capital available. would best be assessed in terms of The TCA concluded it was therefore of availability, most industry members closure analysis. For the notice of commented that sulfide pretreatment imperative for EPA to give availability, no closures were projected consideration, under the terms of the standards were not necessary and for indirect dischargers (and only one should be used as guidance. Some Regulatory Flexibility Act, to the for the direct dischargei's). However, as commenters were concerned that the dramatic impact that the regulation a result of comments received, the waiver process suggested in the notice would have on small business. Agency revised its economic analysis. of availability Response: While the draft economic The initial result was that a substantial would impose report did not contain a separate section number of closures were projected unnecessary procedural burdens, and that some POTWs would choose not to on small business analysis, Chapter VIII among small plants with indirect invoke the waiver process even of the draft report, which presents discharge. In order to reduce the if sulfide control estimates of impacts on model plants of economic impacts, PSES was revised so was not necessary. State various sizes, provides the information that the smallest plants in subcategories and local authorities generally agreed for such an analysis. A regulatory 1, 3 and 9 would not be covered by the with the need for sulfide pretreatment flexibility analysis is included in the chromium removal requirement. The standards, and some considered the final report. details of this analysis, and the limitations under consideration too EPA believes that, in terms of the exclusions, are given in this Regulatory lenient. three criteria considered by the TCA, Flexibility Analysis portion of this Response: Under Section 307 of the either the impacts were not as dramatic preamble. - Clean Water Act and the general as indicated by the Council, or that the 26. Comment: In response to the notice pretreatment regulations, pretreatment impacts were not confined t6 small of availability, one commenter standards for indirect dischargers are plants. questioned EPA's operation and required if the introduction of pollutants TCA estimated a significant impact in maintenance costs as understated would result in interference with terms of compliance cost as a percent of because of omission of sludge disposal POTWs. The Agency believes that a production cost based on data in the and effluent monitoring costs. pretreatment standard for sulfide is economic report on annualized cost for Response: EPA has reviewed its necessary to minimize the potential for the first year of operation. This figure operation and maintenance costs interference, such as the hazard to overstated compliance cost because it carefully, compared to those provided human life associated with very high did not take into account the tax by the commenter. The Agency has sulfide concentrations in wastewaters implications of pollution control found that sludge disposal costs, while from plants with unhairing operations. expenditures and because the economic included in preliminary costs and Accordingly, EPA has decided to adopt model estimated the highest costs in the economic analysis, were inadvertently a sulfide pretreatment standard, but will first year of operation, and lower costs omitted from the costs summarized in allow POTWs to certify to EPA that for subsequent years. A better measure the June 2, 1982 notice of availability. these standards should not apply to of compliance cost was provided by the The cost of treatment system sludge specified indirect dischargers upon statistic on price increase required to disposal now has been added. The cost consideration of factors discussed maintain a company's rate of return on of installing and operating effluent previously in this preamble. The Agency investment equal to its baseline value. monitoring facilities were included in will require POTWs to certify that these Averaged over the years of operation of the notice of availability for all plants. factors have been considered and that the pollution control equipment, this did However, the cost of sample analysis for waivers are warranted. The Agency has not exceed five percent for any of the sulfide and total chromium was omitted streamlined the procedural process for model plants. Over the first five years of for indirect dischargers; these costs now sulfide waivers and believes that the operation, which were of most have been included. procedural burden will be minimized. immediate concern, the rquired price 27. Comment: The Tanners' Council of The concentration limitation is increase exceeded five percent for only America and other commenters achievable by the catalytic sulfide one model plant (small nonchrome tan). considered the long term average oxidation technology, affords Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52869 substantial reduction in sulfide XVIII. OMB Review Appendix B-Toxic Pollutants Excluded concentrations, and minimizes the The regulation was submitted to the (1) Toxic pollutants not detectable with the. attendant risk to the extent feasible. As use of analytical methods approved pursuant discuised above, a more stringent Office of Management and Budget for to section 304(h) of the Act: pretreatment standard cannot be review as required by Executive Order Acenaphthene supported at this time. 12291. Any comments from OMB to EPA Acrolein and any EPA response to those Acrylonitrile XVI. Small Business Administration comments are available for public* 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (SBA) Financial Assistance inspection at Room M2404, U.S. EPA, Hexachloroethane The Agency is continuing to 401 M St., SW., Washington, D.C. 20460 1,1-Dichloroethane from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday Chloroethane encourage small manufacturers to use Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether Small Business Administration (SBA) through Friday excluding federal holidays. 2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether financing as needed for pollution control 2-Chloronaphthalene equipment. Three basic programs are in In accordance with the Paperwork Parachlorometa Cresol effect: the Guaranteed Pollution Control Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511), 2-Chlorophenol Program, the Section 503 Program, and the reporting or recordkeeping 1,3-Dichlorobenzene the Regular Guarantee Program. All the provisions that are included in this 1,2-Dichloropropane SBA loan programs are only open to regulation will be submitted for 1,3-Dichloropropylene businesses with net assets less than $6 approval to thd Office of Management 2,4-Dinitrotoluene and Budget (0MB). They are not 2,6-Dinitrotoluene million, with an average annual after- Fluoranthene tax income of less than $2 million and effective until OMB approval has been obtained 4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether with fewer than 250 employees. and the public notified to that 4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether The guaranteed pollution control effect through a technical amendment to Bisf2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether program authorizes the SBA to this regulation. Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) Methane guarantee the payments on qualified Dated: November 7, 1982. Methyl Chloride contracts intered into by eligible small Anne M. Gorsuch, Methyl Bromide Bromoform businesses to acquire needed pollution Administrator. control facilities when the financing is Dibromochloromethane XIX. Appendices Hexachlorobutadiene provided through pollution control Hexachlorocyclopentadiene bonds, bank loans and debentures. Appendix A.-Abbreviations, Acronyms and 2,4-Dinitrophenol Finoncing with SBA's guarantee of Other Terms Used in This Notice 4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol payment makes available long-term AGENCY-The U.S. Environmental N-Nitrosodimethylamine financing comparable with market rates. Protection Agency. N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine The program applies to projects that BAT-The best available technology Butylbenzyl Phthalate cost from $150,000 to $200,000. economically achievable, under section Di-N-Octyl Phthalate The Section 503 Program, as amended 301(b)(2)(A) of the Act. Dimethyl Phthalate in July 1980, allows for long-term loans BCT-The best conventional pollutant 1,2-Benzanthracene to small and medium-sized businesses. control technology, under section 301(b)(2](E) 3,4-Benzopyrene of the Act. 3,4-Benzofluoranthene These loans are made by SBA-approved BMPs-Best management practices, under 11,12-Benzofluoranthene local development companies, which for section 304(e) of the Act. Acenaphthylene the first time are authorized to issue BPT-The best practicable control 1,12-Benzoperylene Government-backed debenturers that technology currently available, under section 1,2,5,6-Dibenzanthracene are bought by the Federal Financing 301(b)(1)(A] of the Act. Indeno (1,2,3-CD) Pyrene Bank, an arm of the U.S. Treasury. Clean Water Act-The Federal Water Pyrene Through SBA's Regular Guarantee Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 Vinyl Chloride Program, loans are made available by (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended by the Aldrin Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217). Dieldrin commercial banks and are guaranteed Direct discharger-A facility where Chlordane by the SBA. This program has interest wastewaters are discharged or may be 4,4'-DDT rates equivalent to market rates. discharged into waters of the United States. 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDX) For additional information on the Indirect discharger-A facility where 4,4'-DDD (P,P'-TDE) Regular Guarantee and Section 503 wastewaters are discharged or may be Alpha-Endosulfan Programs contact your district or local discharged into a publicly owned treatment Beta-Endosulfan SBA Office. The SBA coordinator at works. Endosulfan Sulfate EPA headquarters is Ms. Frances I NPDES PERMIT-A National Pollutant Endrin Desselle who may be reached at (202) Discharge Elimination System permit issued Endrin Aldehyde under section 402 of the Act. Heptachlor 426-7874. NSPS-New source performance standards Heptachlor Epoxide For further information and specifics under section 306 of the Act. Alpha-BHC on the Guaranteed Pollution Control POTW (POTWs)-Publicly owned Beta-BHC Program contact: U.S. Small Business treatment works. Gamma-BHC (Lindane) Administration, Office of Pollution PSES-Pretreatment standards for existing Delta-BHC Control Financing, 4040 North Fairfax sources of indirect discharges, under section PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242) Drive, Rosslyn, Virginia 22203, (703) 235- 307(b) of the Act. PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254) 2902. PSNS-Pretreatment standards for new PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221) sources of indirect discharges, under section PCB-1232 [Arochlor 1232) XVII. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 425 307(c) of the Act. PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248) RCRA-Resource Conservation and PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260) Leather and leather products industry, Recovery Act of 1976 (Pub. L 94-580), PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016) Water pollution control, Waste Amendments to Solid Waste Disposal Act. Toxaphene treatment and disposal. The Act-Thb Clean Water Act of 1977. 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-Dioxin 52870 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 /. Rules and Regulations

(2) Toxic pollutants detected at only a 1,2-Dichloroethane Sec. small number of sources within a 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 425.12 Effluent limitations representing the subcategory and uniquely related to the 1,1,2-Trichloroethane degree of effluent reduction attainable by source: 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane the application of the best conventional Benzene Chloroform pollutant control technology (BCT). Benzidene 2,4-Dichlorophenol 425.13 Effluent limitations representing the 11,1-Trichloroethane 2,4-Dimethylphenol degree of effluent reduction attainable by 2.4-Dichlorophenol 1,4-Dichlorobenzene the application of the best available 2.4-Dimethylphenol 3,3-Dichlorobenzidene technology economically achievable Naphthalene 1,1-Dichloroethylene (BAT). Toluene 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene 425.14 New source performance standards (3) Tqxic pollutants detected in treated 1,2-biphenylhydrazine (NSPS). effluents in trace amounts and neither cause Dichlorobromomethane Isophorone 425.15 Pretreatment standards for existing nor are likely to cause toxic effects: source (PSES). Tetrachloromethane Nitrobenzene 2-Nitrophenol 425.16 Pretreatment standards for new Chlorobenzene sources (PSNS). Hexachlorobenzene N-Nitrosodiphenylamine Subpart B-Hair 1.2-Dichloroethane Di-N-Butyl Phthalate Save, Chrome Tan, Retan- 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Diethyl Phthalate Wet Finish Subcategory 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Naphthalene 425.20 Applicability; description of the hair Chloroform Toluene save chrome tan. retan-wet finish Chrysene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene subcategory. Anthracene/Phenanthrene 3,3-Dichlorobenzidene 425.21 Effluent limitations representing the 1,1-Dichloroethylene Fluorene Tetrachloroethylene degree of effluent reduction attainable by 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene the application of the best practicable 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine Trichloroethylene Antimony control technology currently available Dichlorobromomethane Arsenic (BPT). Isophorone Asbestos 425.22 Effluent limitations representing the Nitrobenzene Beryllium degree of effluent reduction attainable by 2-Nitrophenol Cadmium the application of the best conventional N-Nitrosodiphenylamine Copper. pollutant control technology (BCT). Di-N-Butyl Phthalate Lead 425.23 Effluent limitations representing the Diethyl Phthalate Mercury degree of effluent reduction attainable by Chrysene Nickel the application of the best available Anthracene/Phenanthrene Selenium technology economically achievable Fluorene Silver (BAT). Tetrachloroethylene Thallium 425.24 New source performance standards Trichloroethylene Zinc (NSPS). Antimony Cyanide 425.25 Pretreatment standards for existing Arsenic 1,2-Dichlorobenzene sources (PSES). Asbestos 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 425.26 Pretreatment standards for new Beryllium Ethylbenzene sources (PSNS). Cadmium Methylene Chloride Mercury 4-Nitrophenol Subpart C-Hair Save or Pulp, Non-Chrome Selenium Pentachlorophenol Tan, Retan-Wet Finish Subcategory Silver Phenol 425.30 Applicability; description of the hair Thallium Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate save or pulp, non-chrome tan, retan-wet subcategory. (4) Toxic pollutants in treated effluents Part 425 of Title 40 is revised to read finish 425.31 Effluent limitations representing the present in amounts too small' to be effectively as follows: reduced by technologies known to the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable Administrator: PART 425-LEATHER TANNING AND control technology currently available Copper FINISHING POINT SOURCE Lead (BPT). CATEGORY Nickel 425.32 Effluent limitations representing the Zinc General Provisions degree of effluent reduction attainable by Cyanide the application of the best conventional 1,2-Dichlorobenzene Sec. pollutant control technology (BCT). 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 425.01 Applicability. 425.33 Effluent limitations representing the Ethylbenzene 425.02 General definitions. degree of effluent reduction attainable by Methylene Chloride 425.03 Sulfide analytical method. the application of the best available 4-Nitrophenol 425.04 Applicability of sulfide pretreatment technology economically achievable Pentachlorophenol standards. (BAT). Phenol 425.05 Compliance date for pretreatment 425.34 New source performance standards Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate standards for existing sources (PSES). (NSPS). 425.06 Monitoring requirements. (5) Toxic pollutants excluded from 425.35 Pretreatment standards for existing regulation because there is no available Subpart A-Hair Pulp, Chrome Tan, Retan- sources (PSES). pretreatment technology which is Wet Finish Subcategory 425.36 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNSJ. economically achievable that will remove 425.10 *Applicability; description of the hair these pollutants prior to discharge to POTWs: pulp, chrome tan, retan-wet finish Subpart D-Retan-Wet Finish-Sides subcategory. Subcategory Benzene 425.11 Effluent limitations representing the 425.40 Applicability; description of the Benzidene degree of effluent reduction attainable by retan-wet finish-sides subcategory. Tetrachloromethane the application of the best practicable 425.41 Effluent limitations representing the Chlorobenzene control technology currently available degree of effluent reduction attainable by Hexachlorobenzene (BPT). the application of the best practicable Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52871

Sec. Sec. discharges or may discharge process control technology currently available the application of the best conventional wastewater pollutants to the Waters of (BPT). pollutant control technology (BCT). the United States, or which introduces 425.42 Effluent limitations representing the 425.73 Effluent limitations representing the or may introduce process wastewater degree of effluent reduction attainable by degree of effluent reduction attainable by pollutants into a publicly owned the application of the best conventional the application of the best available pollutant control technology (BCT). technology economically achievable treatment works. 425.43 Effluent limitations representing the (BAT). § 425.02 General definitions. degree of effluent reduction attainable by 425.74 New source performance standards the application of the best available (NSPS). In addition to the definitions set forth technology economically achievable 425.75 Pretreatment standards for existing in 40 CFR Part 401, the following (BAT). sources (PSES). definitions apply to this part: 425.44 New source performance standards 425.76 Pretreatment standards for new (a) "Sulfide" shall mean total sulfide (NSPS). sources (PSNS). as measured by the Society of Leather 425.45 Pretreatment standards for existing Subpart H-Pigskin Subcategory Trades' Chemists method SLM 4/2 as sources (PSES). 425.80 Applicability; description of the described in § 425.03. 425.46 Pretreatment standards for new pigskin subcategory. (b) "Hide" means any animal pelt or sources (PSNS). 425.81 Effluent limitations representing the skin as received by a tannery as raw Subpart E-No Beamhouse Subcategory degree of effluent reduction attainable by material to be processed. 425.50 Applicability; description of the no the application of the best practicable control technology currently available (c) "Retan-wet finish" means the final beamhouse subcategory. processing steps performed on a tanned 425.51 Effluent limitations representing the (BPT). degree of effluent reduction attainable by 425.82 Effluent limitations representing the hide including, but not limited to, the the application of the best practicable degree of effluent reduction attainable by following wet processes: retan, bleach, control technology currently available the application of the best conventional color, and fatliquor. (BPT). pollutant control technology (BCT). (d) "Hair pulp" means the removal of 425.83 Effluent limitations representing the 425.52 Effluent limitations representing the hair by chemical dissolution. degree of effluent reduction attainable by degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available (e) "Hair save" means the physical or the application of the best conventional technology economically achievable mechanical removal of hair which has pollutant control technology (BCT). (BAT). not been chemically dissolved, and 425.53 Effluent limitations representing the 425.84 New source performance standards either selling the hair as a by-product or degree of effluent reduction attainable by (NSPS). the application of the best available disposing of it as a solid waste. 425.85 Pretreatment standards for existing (f) "Chrome tan" means the process of technology economically achievable sources (PSES). (BAT). 425.86 Pretreatment standards for new converting hide into leather using a form 425.54 New source performance standards sources (PSNS).. of chromium. (NSPS). (g) "Vegetable tan" means the process 425.55 Pretreatment standards for existing Subpart I-Retan-Wet Finish.Splits Subcategory of converting hides into leather using sources (PSES). chemicals either derived from vegetable 425.56 Pretreatment standards for new 425.90 Applicability; description of the matter or synthesized to produce sources (PSNS). retan-wet finish-splits subcategory; effects Subpart F-Through-the-Blue Subcategory 425.91 Effluent limitations representing the similar to those chemicals. degree of effluent reduction attainable by (h) "Raw material" means the hides 425.60 Applicability; description of the received by the tannery except for through-the-blue subcategory. the application of the best practicable 425.61 Effluent limitations representing the control technology currently available facilities covered by Subpart D and degree of effluent reduction attainable by (BPT). Subpart I where "raw material" means 425.92 Effluent limitations representing the the application of the best practicable the hide or split in the condition in degree of effluent reduction attainable by Which it is first placed into a Wet control technology currently available the application of the best conventional (BPT). pollutant control technology (BCT). process. 425.62 Effluent limitations representing the 425.93 Effluent limitations representing the (i) "Monthly average" means the degree of effluent reduction attainable by degree of effluent reduction attainable by arithmetic average of eight (8) individual the application of the best conventional the application of the best available data points from effluent sampling and pollutant control technology (BCT). technology economically achievable analysis during any calendar month. 425.63 Effluent limitations representing the (BAT). degree of effluent reduction attainable by (j) "Interference" means the discharge 425.94 New source performance standards of sulfides in quantities which can result the application of the best available (NSPS). technology economically achievable 425.95 Pretreatment standards for existing in human health hazards and/or risks to (BAT). sources (PSES). human life, and an inhibition or 425.64 New source performance standards 425.96 Pretreatment standards for new disruption of POTW as defined in 40 (NSPS). sources (PSNS). CFR 403.3(i). 425.65 Pretreatment staidards for existing Authority: Sections 301, 304 (b), (c], (a), and sources (PSES). (g], 306 (b) and (c), 307 (b) and (c), and 501 of § 425.03 Sulfide analytical method. 425.66 Pretreatment standards for new the Clean Water Act (the Federal Water The following method is to be used for sources (PSNS). Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, the determination of sulfide in alkaline Subpart G-Shearling Subcategory as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977) wastewaters. 425.70 Applicability; description of the (die "Act"); 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314 (b), (a) Outline of Method. The sulfide (c), (e), and (g), 1316 (b) and (c), 1337 (b) and shearling subcategory. solution is titrated with standard 425.71 Effluent limitations representing the (c), and 1361; 86 Stat. 816 et seq., Pub. L. 92- 500; 91 Stat. 1567, Pub. L. 95-217. potassium ferricyanide solution in the degree of effluent reduction attainable by presence of a ferrous dimethylglyoxime the application of the best practicable General Provisions control technology currently available ammonia complex. The sulfide is (BPT). § 425.01 Applicability. oxidized to sulfur. Sulfite interferes and 425.72 Effluent limitations representing the This part applies to any leather must be precipitated with barium degree of effluent reduction attainable by tanning and finishing facility which chloride. Thiosulfate is not titrated 52872 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations under the conditions of the (b) The pretreatment standards for this secion, EPA shall publish a notice in determination. (Chariot, Ann. chim. sulfide established by this Part will not the Federal Register identifying those anal., 1945, 27, 153; Booth, 1. Soc. Leather apply if the POTW receiving facilities to which the sulfide Trades' Chemists, 1956, 40, 238). wastewater from a facility subject to pretreatment standards of this part shall (b) Reagents. (1) 0.1N potassium this Part certifies in writing with not apply. ferricyanide--32.925 g. per liter-this explanation of relevant factors (5) A POTW may certify that the solution must be kept in the dark. considered, in accordance with the sulfide pretreatment standards of this (2) Buffer. 200 g. N1C1 200 mL. provisions of paragraph (c) of this part should not apply to a new source ammonia (Sp. g. 0.880) per liter section, that the discharge of sulfide from the facility does not interfere with planning to discharge into the POTW. (3) Barium Chloride Solution-12.5 g. This certification must be submitted per liter 10 ml. of this solution will the operation of the POTW. In making this determination, the POTW shall prior to the commencement of discharge, precipitate the equivalent of about 0.3 g. and must conform at a minimum with sodium sulfite. consider all relevant factors including but not limited to the following: criteria in paragraph (b) of this section (4) Indicator-10 ml. 0.6% FeSo4 50 ml. and the general procedures and 1%dimethylglyoxime in ethanol 0.5 ml. (1) The presence and characteristics, of other industrial wastewaters which intervals of time contained in conc. H2S0 4. can increase or decrease sulfide paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) (c) Procedure.(1) The liquor is filtered concentrations, pH, or both. of this section. . rapidly through glass wool or a coarse (2) The characteristics of the sewer/ filter paper to remove suspended matter. interceptor collection system which § 425.05 Compliance date for (2) 20 ml. buffer, I ml. indicator and either minimize or enhance pretreatment standards for existing excess barium chloride solution up to a opportunities for release of hydrogen sources (PSES). maximum of 25 ml. are placed in a 250 sulfide gas. Existing sources subject to PSES shall ml. stoppered flask. (3) The characteristics of the receiving comply by November 25, 1985. The (3) A suitable sample of the sulfide POTWs headworks, preliminary and Consent Decree in NRDC v. Train, 12 solution containing, if possible between primary treatment systems, and sludge ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979) specifies a 0.04 and 0.08 g. sodium sulfide is added. holding and dewatering facilities which compliance date for PSES of no later The flask is stoppered and left for one either minimize or enhance than June 30,1984. EPA will be moving minute to precipitate the sulfite. opportunities for release of hydrogen for a modification of that provision of (4) The solution is then titrated with sulfide gas. the Decree. Should the Court deny that the standard ferricyanide solution until (4) The occurrence of any prior sulfide the pink color is destroyed. During related interference as defined in motion, EPA will be required to modify titration the solution sometimes goes a § 425.020). this compliance date accordingly. dirty color but near completion the pink (c)(1) On March 7, 1983, a POTW § 425.06 Monitoring requirements. color becomes more definite and which intends to certify that the sulfide disappears momentarily before the final pretreatment standard should not apply Compliance with monthly average end point is reached. The solution is must publish, in a local newspaper with discharge limitations is required titrated until there is no reappearance of the largest circulation, a notice that regardless of the number of samples the pink color after 30 seconds. presents the findings supporting this analyzed and averaged. I ml. O.1N ferricyanide =0.00390 g. Na2S. determination consistent with paragraph (a) of this section. Allowance for public Subpart A-Hair Pulp, Chrome Tan, (i) In order to reduce loss of sulfide hearing of these findings also. must be Retan-Wet Finish Subcategory the determination should be carried out provided. The POTW shall identify all as rapidly § 425.10 Applicability; description of the as possible and the solution existing facilities to which the sulfide hair pulp, chrome tan, retan-wet finishing titrated with the minimum of agitation. It pretreatment standard otherwise subcategory. is recommended that a rough titration be established by this part would not made and then in further titrations the apply. The provisions of this subpart are ferricyanide added rapidly to within I (2) On June 5, 1983, a POTW which applicable to process wastewater ml. of the expected value. intends to certify that the sulfide discharges resulting from any tannery (ii) If it is suspected that the pretreatment standard should not apply which, either exclusively or in addition concentration of sulfite is high, and must file a written certification with the to other unhairing and tanning approaches that of the sulfide, the Regional Water Management Division operation, processes raw or cured cattle waiting time after the addition of barium Director, Environmental Protection or cattle-like hides into finished leather chloride should be extended to ten Agency, in the appropriate Regional by chemically dissolving the hide hair, minutes, to allow for complete Office. This certification shall include chrome tanning, and retan-wet finishing. precipitation of the barium sulfite. the findings supporting this § 425.11 Effluent limitations representing Source: Official Methods of Analysis, determination and the results of public comments, and public hearing(s) if held. the degree of effluent reduction attainable Society of Leather Trades' Chemists, Fourth by the application of the best practicable Revised Edition, Redboum, Herts., England, (3) On July 5, 1983, EPA shall 1905. acknowledge to the POTW receipt of control technology currently available any certification submitted under (BPT). § 425.04 Applicability of sulfide paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- pretreatment standards. section, and shall indicate to the POTW 125.32, any existing point source subject (a) A POTW receiving wastewater the adequacy of the submission based to this subpart must achieve the from a facility subject to this part may upon a review of the factors set forth in following effluent limitations require more stringent pretreatment paragraph (b) of this section. representing the degree of effluent standards for sulfide than those (4) Within 30 days of the date of reduction attainable by the application established by this part without EPA receipt of adequate submissions under of the best practicable control approval. paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of technology currently available (BPT): Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52873

OPT limitations 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing BPT limitations M Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for I Maximum T source subject to this subpart which Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for MaxImum for introduces process wastewater 1 day mony y1dy average any average pollutants into a publicly owned Kg/kkg (or pounds per treatment works must comply with 40 Kg/kkg (or pound per 1,000 1000 Ib) of raw material CFR Part 403, and achieve the following Ib) of raw material BOD5 ...... 9.1 4.1 pretreatment standards: BOD5 ...... 8.2 3.7 TSS ...... 13.2 6.0 TSS ...... 11.8 5.4 Oil and Grease ...... 3.8 1.7 Oil and grease ...... 3.4 1.5 Total Chromium ...... 0.23 0.09 Total chromium ...... 0.21 0.08 pH ...... (') (') pH ...... (1) (') PSES Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0. Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum Maximum for any 1 for monthly day average §425.22 Effluent limitations representing § 425.12 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable the degree of effluent reduction attainable Milligrams per liter (mg/I) by the application of the best conventional by the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). pollutant control technology (BCT). Sulfide ...... 24...... Total chromiunt ...... 12 8 Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- pH ...... (') () 125.32, any existing point source subject 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the 'Within the range 7.0 to 10.0. to this subpart must achieve the following effluent limitations following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent (b) Any existing source subject to this representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application reduction attainable by the application subpart which processes less than 275 of the best conventional pollutant of the best conventional pollutant hides/day shall comply with § 425.15(a), control technology (BCT): The effluent control technology (BCT): The effluent except that the Total Chromium limitations are those for BOD5, TSS, Oil limitations are those for BOD5, TSS, Oil limitations contained in § 425.15(a) do and Grease, and pH contained in and Grease, and pH contained in not apply. § 425.21. § 425.11. § 425.16 Pretreatment standards for new §425.23 Effluent limitations representing § 425.13 Effluent limitations representing sources (PSNS). the degree of effluent reduction attainable the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 by the application of the best available technology economically achievable (BAT). and 425.04, any new source subject to technology economically achievable (BAT). Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- this subpart that introduces process Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- 125.32, any existing point source subject wastewater pollutants into a publicly 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the owned treatment works must comply to this subpart must achieve the following effluent limitations with 40 CFR Part 403, and achieve the following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent pretreatment standards contained in representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application § 425.15. reduction attainable by the application of the best available technology of the best available technology economically achievable (BAT): The Subpart B-Hair Save, Chrome Tan- economically achievable (BAT): The effluent limitations are those for Total Retan-Wet Finish Subcategory effluent limitations are those for Total Chromium contained in § 425.11. Chromium contained in § 425.21. § 425.20 Applicability; description of the §425.14 New source performance hair save, chrome tan, retan-wet finish § 425.24 New source performance standards (NSPS). subcategory. standards (NSPS). Any new source subject to this The provisions of this subpart are Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following new applicable to process wastewater subpart must achieve the following new source performance standards (NSPS): discharges resulting from any tannery source performance standards (NSPS): which processes raw or cured cattle or cattle-like hides into finished leather by NSPS NSPS hair save unhairing, chrome tanning, Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum f Maximum for any 1 day monthly Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Maximum for and refan-wet finishing. average any I1 day monthly I average §425.21 Effluent limitations representing Kg/kkg (or pound per 1,000 the degree of effluent reduction attainable Ib) of raw material Kg/kkg (or pounds per by the application of the best practicable 1000 lb) of raw material BOD ,...... 6.9 3.1 control technology currently available TSS ...... 0.9 4.5 0o 5 ...... 5.3 2.4 (BPT). Oil and grease ...... 2.9 1.3 TSS ...... 7.7 3.5 Total chromium ...... 0.18 0.08 Oil and Grea e...... 2.2 1.0 Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- pH ...... (') (') Total Chromium ...... 0.14 0.05 125.32, any existing point source subject pH ...... (') () to this subpart must achieve the 'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 following effluent limitations § 425.25 Pretreatment standards for representing the degree of effluent existing sources (PSES). - § 425.15 Pretreatment standards for reduction attainable by the application Except as provided in § 425.04 and 40 existing sources (PSES). of the best practicable control CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing (a) Except as provided in § 425.04 and technology currently available (BPT): source subject to this subpart that 52874 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Reizulations 527Ieea eitr/Vl 7 o 2 usdy oebr2,18 ue n euain

introduces process wastewater §425.32 Effluent limitations representing PSES pollutants into a publicly owned the degree of effluent reduction attainable Pollutant or pollutart property Maximum Maximum treatment works must comply with 40 by the application of the best conventional for any 1 for monthly CFR Part 403, and achieve the following pollutant control technology (BCT). day average pretreatment standards: Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- Miligrams per liter (mg/I) PSES 125.32, any existing point source subject Sulfide ...... 24...... to this subpart must achieve the Total Chromium...... 12 8 Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum Maximum pH ...... ( 1) for any 1 for monthly following effluent limitations day average representing the degree of effluent 'Within the range 7.0 to 10.0. Milligrams per liter (mg/I) reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant (b)Any existing source subject to this Sulfide...... 24...... control technology (BCT): The effluent subpart which processes less than 350 Total Chromium ...... 12 8 limitations are those for BOD5, TSS, Oil hides/day shall comply with § 425.35(a), PH ...... (1) n and Grease, and pH contained in except that the Total Chromium 'Within the range 7.0 to 10.0 § 425.31. limitations contained in § 425.35(a) do § 425.26 Pretreatment standards for new not apply. sources (PSNS) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 §425.33 Effluent limitations representing § 425.36 Pretreatment standards for new the degree of effluent reduction attainable sources (PSNS). and 425.04, any new source subject to by the application of the best available this subpart that introduces process technology economically achievable (BAT). Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 wastewater pollutants into a publicly and 425.04, any new source subject to owned treatment works must comply Except this subpart that introduces process as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- wastewater with 40 CFR Part 403, and achieve the 125.32, any existing point source subject pollutants into a publicly pretreatment standards contained in to this subpart must achieve the owned treatment works must comply § 425.25. following effluent limitations with 40 CFR Part 403, and achieve the representing the degree pretreatment standards contained in Subpart C-Hair Save or Pulp, Non- of effluent § 425.35. Chrome Tan, Retan-Wet Finish reduction attainable by the application Subcategory of the best available technology economically achievable (BAT): The § 425.30 Applicability; description of the Subpart D-Retan-Wet Finish-Sides effluent limitations are hair save or pulp, non-chrome tan, retan- those for Total Subcategory wet finish subcategory. Chromium contained in § 425.31. The provisions of this subpart are § 425.40 Applicability; description of the applicable to process wastewater §425.34 New source performance standards (NSPS). retan-wet finish-sides subcategory. discharges resulting from any tannery The provisions of this subpart are which processes raw or cured cattle or Any new source subject to this applicable to process wastewater cattle-like hides into finished leather by subpart must achieve the following new discharges resulting from any tannery hair save or pulp unhairing, vegetable source performance standards (NSPS): which processes previously tanned tanning or alum, syntans, oils and other hides and skins (grain side only) into agents for tanning, and retan-wet finished leather by retan-wet finishing. finishing. §425.31 Effluent limitations representing § 425.41 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable NSPS the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum f MaximummonmP for by the control technology currently any 1 a othly control technology currently available average available (BPT). (BPT). Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- Except as Kg/kg (or pound per 1,000 provided in 40 CFR 125.30- Ib) of raw material 125.32, any existing point source subject 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the to this subpart BOD5 ...... 5.9 2.7 following effluent limitations must achieve the TSS ...... 8.5 3.9 following effluent limitations Oiland grease ...... 2.4 I 1.1 representing the degree of effluent representing the degree of effluent Total chromium ...... 0.15 0.06 reduction attainable by the application . (' I (') reduction attainable by the application pH ...... of the best practicable control of the best practicable control 'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0. technology currently available (BPT): technology currently available (BPT):

BPT limitations §425.35 Pretreatment standards for BPT lmitatlons Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Maximum for Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum Maximum 1Iday monthly existing sources (PSES). any y average for any 1 for monthly day average (a) Except as provided in § 425.04 and Kg/kkg (or pound per 1,000 Kg/kkg (or pounds per Ib) of raw material 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing 1,000Ib) of raw material sources subject to this subpart that O OD5 ...... --. ----. . U 3 0 8005 ...... 6.9 31 introduces process wastewater TSS . ... 9.9 4.5 TSS ...... 9,7 4.4 Ol and grease ...... 2.9 1.3 pollutants into a publicly owned 001 &mrase. 2.8 1.3 Total chromium ...... 0.18 0.06 treatment works must comply with 40 Total Chromrnlat. 0.17 0.06 pH ...... ( I) CFR Part 403, and achieve the following Pi ...... ( (1 IWithin the range 6.0 to 9.0. pretreatment standards: 'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0. Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52875

§ 425.42 Effluent limitations representing §425.46 Pretreatment standards for new § 425.53 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable sources (PSNS). the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, by the application of the best available technology economically achievable (BAT). pollutant control technology (BCT). any new source subject to this subpart Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- that introduces process wastewater Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- 125.32, any existing point source subject pollutants into a publicly owned 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the treatment works must comply with 40 to this subpart must achieve the following effluent limitations CFR 403, and achieve the pretreatment following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent standards contained in § 425.45. representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the applicatton reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant Subpart E-No Beamhouse of the best available technology control technology (BCT): The effluent Subcategory economically achievable (BAT): The limitations are those for BOD5, TSS, § 425.50 Applicability; descriptionIof the effluent limitations are those for Total Oil and Grease, and pH contained in Chromium contained in § 425.51 § 425.41. no beamhouse subcategory. The provisions of this subpart are § 425.54 New source performance § 410.43 Effluent limitations representing applicable to process wastewater standards (NSPS). the degree of effluent reduction attainable discharges resulting from any tannery Any new source subject to this by the application of the best available which processes cattle hides, technology economically achievable (BAT). subpart must achieve thb following new sheepskins, or splits (hair previously source performance standards (NSPS): Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- removed and pickled) into finished 125.32,, any existing point source subject leather by chrome or non-chrome to this subpart must achieve the tanning, and retan-wet finishing. following effluent limitations NSPS representing the degree of effluent § 425.51 Effluent limitations representing Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Maximum for reduction attainable by the application the degree of effluent reduction attainable y 1 a umonthly of the best available technology by the application of the best practicable ay1dyIaverage economically achievable (BAT):.The control technology currently available (BPT). Kg/kkg (or pounds per effluent limitations are those for Total 1,000 Ib) of raw material Chromium contained in § 425.41. Except as provided in 40 CFR 12530- 125.32, any existing point source subject BOD5 ...... 5.3 2.4 § 425.44 New source performance TOss...... 7.7 3.5 to this subpart must achieve the Oil & Grease ...... 2.2 1.0 standards (NSPS). following effluent limitations Total Chromium ...... 0.14 0.05 . Any new source subject to this representing the. degree of effluent pH ...... (') (') subpart must achieve the following new reduction attainable by the application 'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0. source performance standards (NSPS): of the best practicable control technology currently, available (BPT): NSPS 3 425.55 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES). Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum Maximum for any I for monthly Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 day average OPT limitations and 403.13, any existing source subject Kg/kkg (or pounds per Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for imtmonthy fl to this subpart that introduces process 1,000tb) of raw material any 1 day average wastewater pollutants into a publicly BOO5 ...... 6.3 2.8 owned treatment works must comply TSS ...... 9.1 4.2 Kg/kkg (or pounds per with 40 CFR Part 403, and achieve the Oil & Grease ...... 2.7 1.2 1,000 Ib) of raw material following pretreatment standards: Total Chromium ...... 0.16 0.06 PH ...... (1) (i) BO D5 ...... 8.2 3.7 TSS ...... 11.8 5.4 IWithin the range 6.0 to 9.0. Oil & Grease ...... 3.4 1.5 Total Chromium ...... 0.21 0.08 PSES pH ...... (') (') § 425.45 Pretreatment standards for Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum Maximum existing sources (PSES). for any 1 for monthly 'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0. day average Except as provided in 40CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source subject Milligrams per liter (mg/I) § 425.52 Effluent limitations representing to this subpart that introduces process Total chromium ...... 19 12 wastewater the degree of effluent reduction attainable pollutants into a publicly by the application of the best conventional pH ...... (') (') owned treatment works must comply pollutant control technology (BCT). 'Within with 40 CFR Part 403, and achieve the the range 6.0 to 10.0. following pretreatment standards: Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- 125.32, any existing point source subject §425.56 Pretreatment standards for new PSES to this subpart must achieve the following effluent limitations sources (PSNS). Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum Maximum forany I for monthly representing the degree of effluent Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, day average reduction attainable by the application any new source subject to this subpart Milligrams per liter(mg/I) of the best conventional control that introduces process wastewater Total Chromium ...... 19 12 technology (BCT): The effluent pollutants into a publicly owned limitations are those for BOD5, TSS, Oil treatment works must comply with 40 pH ...... (( ) and Grease, and pH contained in CFR 403, and achieve the pretreatment 'Within the range 6.0to 10.0. § 425.51. standards contained in § 425.55. 52876 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

Subpart F-Through-the-Blue of the best available technology sheep-like skins with the wool or hair Subcategory economically achievable (BAT]: The retained into finished leather by chrome effluent limitations are those for Total § 425.60 Applicability; description of the tanning, and retan-wet finishing. Chromium contained in § 425.61. through-the-blue subcategory. § 425.71 Effluent limitations representing The provisions of this subpart are § 425.64 New source performance the degree of effluent reduction attainable applicable to process wastewater standards (NSPS). by the application of the best practicable discharges resulting from any tannery Any new source subject to this control technology currently available which processes raw or cured cattle or subpart must achieve the following new (BPT). cattle-like hides through the blue tanned source performance standards (NSPS): Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- state by hair pulp unhairing and chrome 125.32, any existing point source subject tanning; no retan-wet finishing is to this subpart must achieve the performed. NSPS following effluent limitations Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Maximum for representing the degree of effluent § 425.61 Effluent limitations representing Iaverage reduction attainable by the application the degree of effluent reduction attainable any I day motl by the application of the best practicable of the best practicable control control technology currently available Kg/kkg (or pounds per technology currently available (BPT): (BPT). 1,000 Ib) of raw material Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- BOD5 ...... 2.0 0.88 125.32, any existing point source subject TSS ;...... 2.8 1.3 8PT Limitations Oil and grease ...... 0.8 0.4 Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for I Maximum for to this subpart must achieve the Total chromium ...... 0.05 0.02 1 day monthly following effluent limitations pH ...... ( ) (') any average

representing the degree of effluent 'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0. reduction attainable by the application Kg/kkg (or pound per 1,000 Ib) of raw material of the best practicable control § 425.65 Pretreatment standards for technology currently available (BPT): BOD5 ...... 13.2 5.9 existing sources (PSES). TSS ...... 19.1 8.7 Except as provided in § 425.04 and 40 Oil and grease ...... 5.6 2,5 Total chromium ...... 0.34 0.12 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing pH ...... ') (') BPT limitations source subject to this subpart that Pollutant or-pollutant property Maximum for Maximum for introduces process wastewater 'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0. any 1 day monthly pollutants into a publicly owned I average treatment works must comply with 40 § 425.72 Effluent limitations representing Kg/kkg (or pounds per CFR Part 403, and achieve the following the degree of effluent reduction attainable 1,000 Ib) of raw material by the application of the best conventional pretreatment standards: pollutant control technology (BCT). BOD5 ...... 3.0 1.3 TSS...... 43 1.9 Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- Oil & Grease ...... 1.2 0.6 Total Chromium ...... 0.08 0.03 125.32, any existing point source subject pH ...... ( ) (C) PSES to this subpart must achieve-the Pollutant or pollutant property Maximm for Maximum following effluent limitations 'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0. for any 1 daya I averagemonthly representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application § 425.62 Effluent limitations representing Milligrams per liter (mg/1) of the best conventional pollutant the degree of effluent reduction attainable control technology (BCT): The effluent by the application of the best conventional Sulfide...... pollutant control technology (BCT). Total chromium ...... 12 8 limitations are those for BOD5, TSS, Oil pH ...... (') and Grease, and pH contained Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- in § 425.71. 125.32, any existing point source subject 'Within the range 7.0 to 10.0. to this subpart must achieve the § 425.73 Effluent limitations representing following effluent limitations § 425.66 Pretreatment standards for new the degree of effluent reduction attainable representing the degree of effluent sources (PSNS). by the application of the best available reduction attainable by the application Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 technology economically achievable (BAT). of the best conventional pollutant and 425.04, any new source subject to Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- control technology (BCT]: The effluent this subpart that introduces process 125.32, any existing point source subject limitations are those for BOD5, TSS, Oil wastewater pollutants into a publicly to this subpart must achieve the and Grease, and pH contained in owned treatment must comply with 40 following effluent limitations § 425.61. CFR Part 403, and must achieve the representing the degree of effluent reduction § 425.63 Effluent limitations representing pretreatment standards contained in attainable by the application the degree of effluent reduction attainable § 425.65. of the best available technology by the application of the best available economically achievable (BAT): The technology economically achievable (BAT). Subpart G-Shearling Subcategory effluent limitations are those for Total Chromium contained in § 425.71. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- § 425.70 Applicability; description of the 125.32, any existing point source subject shearling subcategory. § 425.74 New source performance to this subpart must achieve the The provisions of this subpart are standards (NSPS). following effluent limitations applicable to process wastewater Any new source subject to this representing the degree of effluent discharges resulting from any tannery subpart must achieve the following new reduction attainable by the application which processes raw or cured sheep or source performance standards (NSPS): Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52877

NSPS of the best practicable control § 425.85 Pretreatment standards for Pollutant or pollutant property Maxmum for Maximum for technology currently available (BPT): existing sources (PSES). 1 day monthly any I average Except as provided in § 425.04 and 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing Kg/kkg (or pound per 1,000 BP limitations source subject to this subpart that Ib) of raw material Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Maximum for introduces process wastewater SOD5 1 day monthly ...... 13.2 5.9 any average pollutants into a publicly owned TSS ...... :...... 19.1 8.7 treatment works must comply with 40 Oil and grease ...... -...... 5.6 Z5 Total chromium ...... 0.34 0.12 Kg/kkg (or pounds per CFR Part 403, and achieve the following pH ...... (1) (') 1,000 Ib) of raw material pretreatment standards: 'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0. 005 ...... 7:0 3.2 TSS ...... 10.1 4.6 Oil and grease ...... 3.0 1.3 § 425.75 Pretreatment standards for Total chromium ...... 0.18 0.07 PSES existing sources (PSES). pH ...... (') (') Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum Maximum Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 for any 1 for monthly 'Within the range 6.0 to 6.9. day I average and 403.13, any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces process § 425.82 Effluent limitations representing Milligrams per liter (mg/I), wastewater pollutants into a publicly the degree, of effluent reduction attainable Sulfide ...... 24 1...... owned treatment works must comply by the application of the best conventional Total chromium...... 12 6 with 40 CFR Part 403, and achieve the pollutant control technology (BCT). pH ...... (')I ('i following pretreatment standards: Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- 'Within the range 7.0 to 10.0. 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the § 425.86 Pretreatment standards for new PSES following effluent limitations sources (PSNS). Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum Maximum representing the degree of effluent Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 for any I for monthly, day average reduction attainable by the application and 425.04, any new source subject to of the best conventional pollutant this subpart that introduces process Milligrams per liter (mg/I) control technology (BCT): The effluent wastewater pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must comply Total chromium ...... 19 12 limitations are those for BOD5; TSS, Oil pH ...... (') (') and Grease and pH contained in with 40 CFR Part 403, and achieve the § 425.81. pretreatment standards contained in 'Within the range 6.0 to 10.0. § 425.85. § 425.83 Effluent limitations representing §425.76 Pretreatment standards for new the degree of effluent reduction attainable Subpart I-Retan-Wet Finish-Splits sources (PSNS). by the application of the best available Subcategory Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, technology economically achievable (BAT). § 425.90 Applicability; description-of the any new source subject to this subpart Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- retan-wet finish-splits subcategory. that introduces process wastewater 125.32, any existing point source subject pollutants into a publicly owned The provisions of this subpart are to this subpart must achieve the applicable to process wastewater treatment works must comply with 40 following effluent limitations CFR Part discharges resulting from any tannery 403, and must achieve the representing the degree of effluent pretreatment standards contained in which processes previously unhaired reduction attainable by the application § 425.75. 6 and tanned splits into finished leather of the best available technology - by retan-wet finishing. Subpart H-Pigskin Subcategory economically achievable (BAT): The effluent limitations are those for Total § 425.91 Effluent limitations representing § 425.80 Applicability; description of the Chromium contained in § 425.81. the degree of effluent reduction attainable pigskin subcategory. by the application of the best practicable The §425.84 New source performance control technology currently available provisions of this subpart are (BPT). applicable to process wastewater standards (NSPS). Except discharges resulting from any tannery Any new source subject to this as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- 125.32, any existing point source subject which processes raw or cured pigskins subpart must achieve the following new to this subpart must achieve the into finished leather by chemically source performance standards (NSPS]: dissolving or pulping the hair and following effluent limitations tanning with chrome, then retan-wet representing the degree of effluent finishing. reduction attainable by the application NSPS of the best practicable control § 425.81 Effluent limitations representing Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Maximum for technology currently available'(BPT]: the degree of effluent reduction attainable ay dyI averagemonthly by the application of the best practicable control technology currently available Kg/kkg (or pounds per BPT Limitations (BPT). 1,000 Ib) of raw material Pollutant or pollutant property MaxImumanyu1 ,daf Maximummonthly for Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- BOD5 ...... 5.8 2.6 Inday average 125.32, aniexisting point source subject TSS ...... 8.3 3.8 to this subpart must achieve the Oil and grease ...... 2.4 1.1 Total chromium ...... 0.15 0.05 Kg/kkg (or pounds par following effluent limitations pH ...... (') (') 1,000 Ib) of raw material representing the degree of effluent 'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0. BoD5 ...... 4.2 19 reduction attainable by the application TSS ...... 6.11 2.8 52878 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 23, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

BPT Limitations representing the degree of effluent wastewater pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must comply Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum Maximum for reduction attainable by the application day monthly any ay average of the best available technology with 40 CFR Part 403, and must achieve economically achievable (BAT): The the following pretreatment standards: Oil & Grease ...... 1.8 0.79 effluent limitations are those for Total Total Chromium ...... 0.11 0.04 Chromium contained in § 425.91. • pH ...... () (1) § 425.94 New source performance PSES Within the range 6.0 to 9.0. standards (NSPS). Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum Maximum for any 1 for monthly day average §425.92 Effluent limitations representing Any new source subject to this the degree of effluent reduction attainable subpart must achieve the following new Milligrams per liter (mg/I) by the application of the best conventional source performance standards (NSPS): pollutant control technology (BCT). Total Chromium ...... 19 12 pH ...... (') () Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- 'Within the range 6.0 to 10.0. 125.32, any existing point source subject NSPS source subject to this to this subpart must achieve the Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Maximum for (b) Any existing following effluent limitations 1aiuday monthly subpart which processes less than 3,600 any, day I average representing the degree of effluent splits/day shall comply with § 425.95(a), rtduction attainable by the application Kg/kkg (or pounds per except that the Total Chromium of the best conventional pollutant 1,000 Ib) of raw material limitations contained in § 425.95(a) do not apply. control technology (BCT): The effluent BOD5 ...... 3.5 1.6 limitations are those for BOD5, TSS, Oil TSS ...... 5.1 2.3 § 425.96 Pretreatment standards for new and Grease, and pH contained in Oil & Grease ...... 1.5 0.66 Total Chromium ...... 0.09 0.03 sources (PSNS). § 425.91. pH ...... ( ) (1) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this subpart § 425.93 Effluent limitations representing I Within the range'6.0 to 9.0. the degree of effluent reduction attainable that introduces process wastewater pollutants into a publicly owned by the application of the best available § 425.95 Pretreatment standards for technology economically achievable (BAT). treatment works mist comply with 40 existing sources (PSES). CFR Part 403, and achieve the Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30- (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 pretreatment standards contained in 125.32, any existing point source subject and 403.13, any existing source subject § 425.95. to this subpart must achieve the to this subpart that introduces process [FR Doc. 82-31139 Filed 11-22-82 8:45 am] following effluent limitations BILLING CODE 6580-50-M