37570 PROPOSED RULES [6560-01] achievable, BCT also requires that the (see appendix A) which were pub. cost associated with the limitations be lished in support of the promulgation ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION reasonable in relation to the effluent of the BAT guidelines for each indus AGENCY reductions. trial category. In the determination of BCT for [40 CFR Parts 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 411, POLLUTANTS COVERED BY THE REvizv 412, 418, 422, 424, 426, 427, 432] each point source subcategory the Act states that EPA must consider the: Section 304(a)(4) of the Act specifies BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL reasonableness of the relationship between that conventional pollutants should TECHNOLOGY the costs of attaining a reduction in ef- Include, but not be limited to, biologi- Reasonableness of Existing Effluent Limitation fluents and the effluent reduction benefits cal oxygen demanding pollutants derived, and the comparison of the cost and Guidelines (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), level of reduction of such pollutants from fecal coliform, and pH, The Agency, in AGENCY: Environmental Protection the discharge of publicly owned treatment works to the cost and level of reduction of a separate action, Is proposing that Agency (EPA). such pollutants from a class or category of chemical oxygen demanding pollut- ACTION: Proposed rules. industrial sources, * * * ants (COD), oil and grease, and total phosphorus be added to the conven- SUMMARY: EPA has reviewed certain The Act also lists other considerations tional pollutant list. This review of existing effluent guideline limitations including, but not limited to, age of BAT effluent guidelines assumes the for best available technology economi- equipment, production processes, addition of these pollutants to the cally achievable (BAT) which have energy requirements, and other appro- conventional pollutant list and in- been promulgated for conventional priate factors. The legislative language cludes them in the analysis of reason- pollutants. These guidelines have been clearly indicates that final BCT efflu- ableness where appropriate. If, at any reviewed to determine if they are not ent guidelines limitations cannot be time, pollutants are added or deleted only economically achievable, but are more stringent than present BAT from the conventional pollutant list, also reasonable. For those guidelines guidelines or less stringent than "best the Agency will reevaluate all effluent which are reasonable, EPA is propos- practicable control technology cur- guidelines affected by such revisions. ing that the BAT control of conven- rently available" (BPT) guidelines. However, in the case of both fecal tional pollutants be redefined as best' In addition, section 73 of the Clean coliform and pH, the BAT regulations conventional pollutant control tech- Water Act of 1977 directs the Agency under review are always equivalent to nology (BCT). For those guidelines to review, immediately, all existing BPT regulations. Therefore, no fur- which are unreasonable, EPA is pro- final or interim final BAT effluent ther analysis has been performed on posing that the existing BAT controls guidelines for conventional pollutants these pollutants, and BCT controls of for conventional pollutants be with- in those industries not covered in the pH and fecal coliform are being pro- drawn, leaving best practicable control consent agreement (NRDC v. Train, 8 posed to be the same as BPT. Conse- technology currently available (BPT) ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976)). These indus- quently, the pollutants considered in in place as the limitation of record tries are often referred to as "second- this review are BOD5, TSS, COD, oil until new BCT limitations are devel- ary industries." This review was to be and grease, and total phosphorus. oped. completed within 90 days of enact- This review of BAT guidelines con- DATE: Comments must be received on ment of the Act (March 27, 1978). centrates only on discharges of process or before October 23, 1978. INDusTRIEs CovERED By Tins REWviw waste water. BAT guidelines which refer to the control rainwater runoff ADDRESS: Send comments on this As directed by Congress, in this proposal (e.g., sizing of a treatment system to to: Mr. David Fege, Environ- review EPA has evaluated all BAT -reg- contain a 25-year storm or catastroph- mental Protection Agency, Office of ulations for conventional pollutants ic event) are not included in the review Analysis and Evaluation (WH-586), which apply to industries not covered because the Agency does not believe 401 M Street SW., Washington, D.C. by the NRDC consent agreement that this was the intent of Congress. 20460. (those not listed in table 2 of Commit- The legislative history specifically in-. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION tee Print No. 95-30 of the Committee dicates that BCT applies to the con- CONTACT: on Public Works and Transportation trol of process waste water as the area Mr. David Fege, Water Economics of the Hosue of Representatives). of concern. Also, runoff regulations Branch (WH-586), 401 M Street Those 13 industries with final or inter- are not amenable to analysis using the SW., Washington, D.C. 20460, phone im final BAT guidelines which were BCT test called for in the legislation. 202-426-2617. studied are listed in tables 1 and 2. However, complete analysis has not METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION been carried out on all of these indus- RASONABLENESS OF BAT REGULATIONS .- try subcategories. If BPT and BAT do BACKGROUND The objective of this review is to not allow a discharge of process waste evaluate existing BAT regulations to Section 304(b)(4) of the Clean Water water, or BAT control is equivalent, to determine whether these regulations Act (the "Act") establishes "best con- BPT, no change in limitations is pro- meet the reasonableness criteria for ventional pollutant control technol- posed. Since BPT is the minimum limi- BCT limitations. ogy" (BCT) for existing industrial tation allowed, no analysis is required The Agency has developed a cost point sources that discharge conven- because BAT represents no further test which it believes Is In keeping tional pollutants. BCT is not an addi- control past BPT. The subcategories with the congressional mandate to es- tional limitation but replaces "best which fell into this group are listed'in tablish BCT effluent limitations. The available technology economically table 1. The 93 subcategories in table 2 Act states that the EPA shall consider achievable" (BAT) for the control of were studied further. the "reasonableness of the relation- conventional pollutants. BAT will Due to the large number of effluent ship between the costs of attaining a remain in force for all nonconven- guidelines under review, and especially reduction in effluents and the effluent tional and toxic pollutants. The pur- due to the congressional directives to reduction benefits derived." The legis pose of BCT is to add an additional perform a brief review, the Agency re- lative history indicates that the intent test to the effluent limitation process. stricted its gathering of data for this of the Congress was to find that point Whereas the Act previously required review to the development documents at which additional levels of control that BAT limitations be economically and the economic analyses -documents resulted in greatly increased costs with FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43 NO. 164-WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1978 PROPOSED RULES 37571 only minor additional reductions in ef- 2. Calculation of industrial Polut- A separate calculation was made for fluents. The history of the legislation ant removal. The Incremental removal removal of phosphorous in POTW's further states that one method of de- of conventional pollutants Is calculat- which Is based on the costs and remov- termining the reasonableness of this ed by determining the difference be- als of a treatment system for phospho- relationship is the comparison of the tween the annual removal of conven- rous removal which is added to second- cost and level of reduction of conven- tional pollutants after compliance ary treatment. Appendix B contains a tional pollutants from the discharge of with BPT and the annual removal of more detailed discussion of the POTW publicly owned treatment works conventional pollutants after compli- cost ratio, while appendix C details (POTW) to the cost and level of reduc- ance with BAT. EPA has grouped con- the cost data used in making these de- tion of the same pollutants by indus- ventional pollutants Into three catego- cisions. trial sources."Although one may inter- ries: Nutrients (phosphorus,), suspend- 5. Comparison of industrial and pret this to mean two cost tests, the ed solids (TSS), and oxygen-demand- POTW ratio&In order to determine legislative history supports the Agen- Ing substances (BODS, COD and oil whether or not the Industria regula- cy's position that only one test is re- and grease). (For those Industries tion under review meets BCT require- quired. The history establishes the under review, no regulation required ments for reasonableness, the ratio for concept of reasonableness as a factor ncreased controls of pH and fecal col- the Industrial subcategory Is compared in the determination of BCT, and then form, and therefore these pollutants to the POTW ratio for a POTW of the states that a POTW comparison is a were not considered In the review.) same flow. In this review, if the indus- proper mechanism for determining For the Industrial subcategory, the In- trial ratio Is less than the POTW ratio, reasonableness. Therefore, the Agency cremental costs of removal attained then the BCT regulation is equated to has developed a POTW cost compari- from BPT to BAT are calculated using BAT, and no further analysis is done. son as a basis for determining the rea- one pollutant from each group. If a 6. Concentration of conventional sonableness of BCT limitations. group is not represented, then it Is not Pollutants.For those BAT regulations In summary, the BCT test compares included In the evaluation.