Federal Register I VoL 46, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 1981 / Proposed RulesENVRONENTL.POTETIO

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 465

[WH-FRL 1671-6]

Coil Coating Point Source Category;Effluent Limitations Guidelines,Pretreatment Standards, and New

'Source Performance Standards

AGENCY: Enviionmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Proposed regulation.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes regulations tolimit effluent -discharges to waters of theUnited States and introductions ofpollutants into publicly owned treatmentworks from facilities engaged in coilcoating. The purpose of this proposal isto provide effluent limitations guidelinesfor "best practicable techfiology," "bestavailable technology," and "bestconventional technology," and toestablish new source performancestandards and pretreatmernt standardsunder the Clean Water Act. Afterconsidering comments received inresionse to this proposal, EPA willpromulgate a final rule.DATES: Comments on this proposal mustbe submitted on or before March 13,1981.ADDRESS: Send comments to: Mr. ErnstP. Hall, Effluent Guidelines Division(WH-552]. Environmental ProtectionAgency, 401 M St., S.W., Washington,D.C. 20460, Attention: EGD DocketClerk, Proposed Coil Coating Rules(WH-552). The supporting informationand all comments on this proposal willbe available for inspection and copyingat the EPA Public Information ReferenceUnit, Room 2404 (EPA Library Rear)PM-213. The EPA information regulation(40 CFR Part 2) provides that areasonable fee may be charged forcopying.FOR FURTHER INFORP.AATION CONTACT:-Technical information and copies oftechnical documents may be obtainedfrom Mr. Ernst P. Hall, at the addresslisted above, or call (202) 426-2726. Theeconomic analysis may be obtainedfrom Ms. Renee Rico, EconomicAnalysis Staff (WH-586), EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 401 M St. S.W.,Washington, D.C. 20460, or call (202)755-2484.SUFPLEMENTARV INFORMATION:

Overview

The Supplementary Informationsection of this preamble describes thelegal authority and background, thetechnical and economic bases, and otheraspects of the proposed regulations.

That-section also summarizes commentson a draft technical document circulatedon September 20, 1979, and solicitscomments on specific areas of interest.The abbreviations, acronyms, and otherterms used in the SupplementaryInformation section are defined inAppendix A to this notice.

This proposed regulation is supportedby three major documents availablefrom EPA. Analytical methods arediscussed in Sampling and AnalysisProcedures for Screening of IndustrialEffluents for Priority Pollutants. EPA'stechnical conclusions are detailed in theDevelopment Document for ProposedEffluent Limitations Guidelines, New.Source Performance Standards andPretreatment Standards for the CoilCoating Point Source Category. TheAgency's economic analysis is found inEconomic Analysis of Proposed EffluentStandards and Limitations for the CoilCoating Industry.Organization of This NoticeI. Legal AuthorityII. Background

A. The Clean Water ActB. Prior EPA RegulationsC. Overview of the Industry

Ill. Scope of'this Rulemaking and Summary ofMethodology

IV. Data Gathering EffortsV. Sampling and Analytical ProgramVI. Industry SubcategorizationVII. Available Wastewater Control and

Treatment TechnologyA. Status of In-Place TechnologyB. Control Technologies Considered

VIII.Best Practicable Technology (BPTEffluent Limitations

IX. Best Available Technology (BAT) EffluentLimitations

X. New Source Performance Standards(NSPS)

X. Pretreatment Standards for ExistingSources (PSES)

XII. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources(PSNS)

XIII. Best Conventional Technology (BCT)Effluent Limitations

XIV. Regulated PollutantsXV. Pollutants and Subcategories Not

RegulatedXVI. Monitoring RequirementsXVII. Costs, Effluent Reduction Benefits, and

Economic ImpactsXVIII. Non-Water Quality Aspects of

Pollution ControlXIX. Best Management Practices (BMPs)XX. Upset and Bypass ProvisionsXXI Variances and ModificationsXXII. Relationship to NPDES PermitsXXI1I. Summary of Public ParticipationXXIV. Solicitation of CommentsXXV. Appendices:

A-Abbreviations, Acronyms and OtherTerms Used in this Notice

B-Toxic Pollutants Considered for SpecificLimitations

C-Toxic Pollutants Not DetectedD-Toxic Pollutants Detected Below the

Nominal Quantification-Limit -

E-Toxic Pollutants Detected inEnvironmentally Insignificant Amounts

1. Legal Authority

The regulations described in thisnotice are proposed under authority ofSections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501of the Clean Water Act (the FederalWater Pollution Control ActAmendments of 1972, 33 USC 1251 etseq., as amended by the Clean WaterAct of 1977, P.L. 95-217) (the "Act")'These regulations are also proposed inresponse to the Settlement Agreement inNatural Resources Defense Council,Inc., v. Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976),modified March 9, 1979, 12 ERC 1833.

H. Background

A. The Clean Water Act.

The Federal Water Pollution ControlAct Amendments of 1972 established acomprehensive program to "restore andmaintain the chemical, physical, andbiological integrity of the Nation'swaters." Section 101(a). By July 1, 1977,existing industrial dischargers wererequired to achieve "effluent limitationsrequiring the application of the bestpractical control technology currentlyavailable" ("BPT"), Section 301(b](1)(A);and by July 1,1983, these dischargerswere required to achieve "effluentlimitations requiring the application ofthe best available technologyeconomically achievable * * * whichwill fesult in reasonable further progresstoward the national goal of eliminatingthe discharge of all pollutants" ("BAT"'],Section 301(b)(2)(A). New industrialdirect dischargers were required tocomply with Section 306 new sourceperformance standards ("NSPS"), basedon best available demonstratedtechnology; and new and existingdischargers to publicly Owned treatmentworks ("POTWs") were subject topretreatment standards under Sections307(b) and (c) of the Act. While therequirements for direct dischargers wereto be incorporated into NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES] permits issued under Section402 of the Act, pretreatment standardswere made enforceable directly againstdischargers to POTWs (indirectdischargers).

Although section 402(a)(1) of the 1972Act authorized the setting ofrequirements for direct-dischargers on acase-by-case basis, Congress intendedthat, for the most part, controlrequirements would be based onregulations promulgated by theAdministrator of EPA. Section 304(b) ofthe Act required the Administrator topromulgate regulations providinggidelines for effluent limitations setting'

2934

Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules

forth the degree of effluent reductionattainable through the application ofBPT and Bat. Moreover, Sections 304(c)and 306 of the Act requiredpromulgation of regulations for NSPS,and Sections 304(f), 307(b), and 307(c)required promulgation of regulations forpretreatment standards. In addition tothese regulations for designated industrycategories, Section 307(a) of the Actrequired the Administrator topromulgate effluent standardsapplicable to all dischargers of toxicpollutants. Finally, Section 501(a) of theAct authorized the Administrator toprescribe any additional regulations"necessary to carry out his functions"under the Act.

The EPA was unable to promulgatemany of these regulations by the datescontained in the Act. In 1976, EPA wassued by several environmental groups,and in settlement of this lawsuit EPAand the plaintiffs executed a"Settlement Agreement" which wasapproved by the Court. This Agreementrequired EPA to develop a program andadhere to a schedule for promulgatingfor 21 major industries BAT effluentlimitations guidelines, pretreatmentstandards, and new source performancestandards for 65 "priority" pollutantsand classes of pollutants. See NaturalResources Defense Council, Inc. v.Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976),modified March 9,1979.

On December 27, 1977, the Presidentsigned into law the Clean Water Act of1977. Although this law makes severalimportant changes in the Federal waterpollution control program, its mostsignificant feature is its incorporationinto the Act of several of the basicelements of the Settlement Agreementprogram for toxic pollution control.Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 301(b)(2)(C) ofthe Act now require- the achievement byJuly 1, 1984 of effluent limitationsrequiring application of BAT for "toxic"pollutants, including the 65 "priority"pollutants and classes of pollutantswhich Congress declared "toxic" underSection 307(a) of the Act. Likewise,EPA's programs for new sourceperformance standards andpretreatment standards are now aimedprincipally at toxic pollutant controls.Moreover, to strengthen the toxicscontrol program, Section 304(e) of theAct authorizes the Administrator toprescribe "best management practices"("BMPs") to prevent the release of toxicand hazardous pollutants from plant siterunoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or wastedisposal, and drainage from rawmaterial storage associated with, orancillary to, the manufacturing ortreatment process.

In keeping with it emphasis on toxicpollutants, the Clean Water Act of 1977also revises the control program for non-toxic pollutants. Instead of BAT for"conventional" pollutants identifiedunder Section 304(a)(4) (includingbiochemical oxygen demand, suspendedsolids, fecal coliform and pHi, the newSection 301(b)(2)(E) requiresachievement by July 1, 1984, of "effluentlimitations requiring the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology" ("BCT"). The factorsconsidered in assessing BCT for anindustry include the costs of attaining areduction in effluents and the effluentreduction benefits derived compared tothe costs and effluent reduction benefitsfrom the discharge from publicly ownedtreatment works (Section 304(b)(4)(B)).For non-toxic, nonconventionalpollutants, Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and(b)(2)(F) require achievement of BATeffluent limitations within three yearsafter their establishment or July 1, 1984,whichever is later, but not later thanJuly 1, 1987.

The purpose of these proposedregulations is to provide effluentlimitations guidelines for BPT, BAT andBCT, and to establish NSPS,pretreatment standards for existingsources (PSES], and pretreatmentstandards for new sources (PSNS),under Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, and 501-of the Clean Water Act.

B. Prior EPA Regulations

EPA has not previously promulgatedregulations for the coil coating pointsource category.

C. Overview of the Industry

The coil coating industry is notspecifically included within any of theU.Si Department of Commerce CensusStandard Industrial Classifications;however, it could possibly beconsidered as part of SIC 3479.

"Coil coating" is a term generally usedto describe the combination ofprocessing steps involved in convertinga coil-a long thin strip of metal rolledinto a coil-into a coil of painted metalready for further industrial use. Threebasis materials are commonly used forcoil coating: steel, galvanized (steel),and aluminum. Additionally, there issome minor coating of other materialsuch as -brass, galvalum and coatedsteels, There are three major groups orstandard process steps used inmanufacturing coated coils: (1) cleaningto remove soil, oil, corrosion, andsimilar dirt; (2) chemical conversioncoating in which a coating of chromate,phosphate or complex oxide materials ischemically formed in the surface of themetal; and (3) the application and drying

of one or more coats of organicpolymeric material such as paint.

Water is used throughout the coilcoating processes. The cleaningprocesses for removing oil and dirtusually employ water-based alkalinecleaners, and acid pickling solutions aresometimes used to remove oxides andcorrosion. Water is used to rinse thestrip after it has been cleaned. Most ofthe chemical conversion coatingprocesses are water based and water isused to rinse excess and spent solutionsfrom the strip. After painting, the strip isbaked in an oven to dry the paint andthen chilled with water to preventburning or charring of the organiccoating. The characteristics of thewasterwater generated by coil coatingmay vary depending on the basismaterial and the process optionsselected for cleaning and chemicalconversion coating.

The most important resultingpollutants or pollutant parameters are:(1) toxic pollutants-chromium, zinc.nickel, lead, copper, cyanide; (2)conventional pollutants-suspendedsolids, pH, and oil and grease, and (3)unconventional pollutants-iron,aluminum, phosphorous, and fluoride.Toxic organic pollutants were not foundin large quantities. Because of theamount of toxic metals present, thesludges generated during wastewatertreatment generally contain substantialamounts of toxic metals.

EPA estimates that there are morethan 75 coil coating plants in the UnitedStates, operating over 125 coil coatinglines. Sixty-five percent of the coilcoating lines are located in six states:Alabama, California, Illinois, Michigan,Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The remainingplants are distributed geographicallythroughout the United States. Coilcoating as a process ofiginated in themid-1930's and has shown substantialand rapid progress since that time.Because it is an efficient and low costway of applying a high quality coating tosheet metal, its use is continuing toincrease, and there appears to be a highprobability of new and enlarged plantsin both the merchant and captivesegments of the industry.III. Scope of This Rulemaking andSummary of Methodology

This proposed regulation is a part of anew chapter in water pollution controlrequirements. For most industries the1973-1976 round of rulemakingemphasized the achievement of bestpracticable technology (BPT) by July 1,1977. In general, that technology levelrepresented the average of the bestexisting performances of well known

2935

Federal Register /Vol. 46, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules

technologies for control of familiar (i.e.,"classical") pollutants.

In this round of rulemaking EPA'semphasis is directed toward insuring theachievement by July 1, 1984, of the bestavailable technology economically •achievable (BAT) which will result inreasonable further progress toward the-national goal of eliminating thedischarge of all pollutants. In general,this technology level represents the veryvery best economically achievableperformance in any industrial categoryor subcategory. Moreover, as a result ofthe Clean Water Act of 1977, theemphasis of EPA's program has shiftedfrom "classical" pollutants to the controlof a lengthy list of toxic substances.

In its 1977 legislation, Congressrecognized that it was dealing withareas of scientific uncertainly-when itdeclared the 65 "priority" pollutants- andclasses of pollutants "toxic" underSection 307(a) of the Act. The "priority"pollutants have been relativelyunknown outside of the scientificcommunity, and those engaged in'wastewater sampling and control havehad little experience dealing with thesepollutants. Additionally, thesepollutants ofter appear (and have toxiceffects) at concentrations whichseverely tax current analyticaltechniques. Even though Congress wasaware of the state-of-the-art difficultiesand expense of "toics" control anddetection, It directed EPA to act quicklyand decisively to detect, measure andregulate these substances.

In developing this regulation, EPAstudied the coil coating category todetermine whether differences in rawmaterials, final products, manufacturingprocesses, equipment, age and size ofplants, water use, wastewaterconstituents, or other factors requiredthe development of separate effluentlimitations and standards for differentsegments (or subcategories] of theindustry. This study included theidentification of raw waste and treatedeffluent characteristics, including thesources and volume of water used, theprocesses employed, and the sources ofpollutants and wastewaters. Suchanalysis enabled EPA to determine thepresence and concentration of prioritypollutants in wastewater discharges.

EPA also identified both actual andpotential control and treatmenttechnologies (including both in-plantand end-of-process technologies]. TheAgency analyzed both historical andnewly generated data on theperformance of these technologies, -including the performance, operationallimitations, and reliability. In addition,EPA considered the non-water qualityenvironmental impacts of these -,

technologies on air quality, solid wastegeneration, water scarcity, and energyrequirements.

The Agency then estimated the costsof each control and treatmenttechnology using a computer programdcveloped using standard engineeringcost analysis. EPA derived unit processcosts for each of 58 plants using dataand characteristics (production andflow) applied to each treatment process(i.e., hexavalent chromium reduction,metals precipitation, sedimentation,multi-media filtration, etc.). These unitprocess costs were added to yield totalcost-at each treatment level. Afterconfirming the reasonableness of thismethodology by comparing EPA costestimates to treatment system costssupplied by the industry, the Agencyevaluated the economic impacts of thesecosts.

On the basis of these factors, EPAidentified various control and treatmenttechnologies as BPT, BAT, BCT, NSPS,PSES and PSNS. The proposed*regulation, however, does not requirethe installation of any particulartechnology. Rather, it requiresachievement of effluent limiatationsequivalent to those achieved by theproper operation of these or equivalenttechnologies.

Except for pH requirements, theeffluent limitations for BPT, BAT, BCTand NSPS are expressed as masslimitations--a'mass of pollutant per unitof production (mg/m2). They werecalculated by combining three figures:(1) treated effluent concentrationsdetermined from analysis of controltechnology performance data; (2)wastewater flow for each subcategory,and (3] any relevant process ortreatment variability factor (e.g., meanvs. maximum day). This basiccalculation was performed for eachregulated pollutant or pollutantparameter and for each subcategory ofthe industry.

Pretreatment standards-PSES andPSNS-are also expressed as masslimitations rather than concentrationlimits to assure achieving the benefits ofquantification of pollutant reduction.

IV. Data Gathering Efforts -

The data gathering program isdescribed in brief summary in Section IIIand in substantial detail in Section V ofthe Development Document. At the startof the study, the National Coil CoatersAssociation was contacted andmeetings were held with their technicalcommittee and others to review the datacollection program and gain from theexperience and insight of the industry. Adata collection portfolio (dcp) wasdeveloped to collect information about

the industry and was mailed, under theauthority of section 308, to eachcompany known or believed to performcoil coating in the United States. The listof companies was developed from Dunn& Bradstreet listings, from a previousunpublished study done for the Agency,and from discussionswith the industry-association. Data were received from 73plants representing about 125 coilcoating lines. In addition to previousstudies and the data collection effort forthis study, supplemental data wereobtained from NPDES permit files andengineering studies on treatmenttechnologies used in coil coating andother categories with similarwastewater characteristics. The datagathering effort solicited all knownsources of data and all availablepertinent data were used in developingthese limitations.

V. Sampling and Analytical ProgramAs Congress recognized in enacting

the Clean Water Act of 1977, the state-of-the-art ability to monitor and detecttoxic pollutants is limited. Most of thetoxic pollutants were relativelyunknown until a few years ago, and onlyon rare occasions had these unusualpollutants been regulated. Nor'hadndustry monitored or developed

methods to monitor most of thesepollutants. As a result, analyticalmethods for many of the toxic pollutantsunder section 304(h) of the Act are notcommonly available and the toxicorganics can be monitored only usingstate-of-the-art analytical procedures.

Faced with these problems, EPAdeveloped a sampling and analyticalprotocol. This protocol is set forth in"Sampling and Analysis Procedures forScreening of Industrial Effluents forPriority Pollutants" revised April, 1977.,Methods promulgated under section304(h) (40 CFR Part 136) were availableand were used to analyze most toxicmetals, pesticides, cyanides, andphenols. Thus the new and relativelyuntried chemical analysis methodsapplied largely to toxic organics. At theoutset of the study EPA expected thatthe pollutants of greatest concern in coil

-coating would be toxic metals ratherthan organics. This has been boine oufby the findings of the study.

The sampling and analysis programwas" carried out in two stages. First,screen sampling was performed at oneplant in each subcategory, and thissample was analyzed (screened) for thepresence and magnitude of each of the-129 specific toxic pollutants plusconventional and selected non-conventional pollutants. Second,additional (or verification) samples atthe same and other plants were

........ I2936

Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules 2

analyzed to determine more preciselythe magnitude, presence and processsource of pollutants determined to bepresent or believed to be present on thebasis of screening analysis andengineering evaluations. Three plantswere analyzed for screening and a totalof 13 plants were sampled and analyzedduring verification. Full details of thesampling and analysis program and thewater and wastewater data derivedfrom that program are presented inSection V of the DevelopmentDocument.

Analysis for the toxic pollutants isboth expensive-and time consuming,costing between $650 and $1,000 persample for a complete analysis. The costin dollars and time tended to limit theamount of sampling and chemicalanalysis performed. Although EPA fullybelieves that the available data supportthe limitations proposed, the Agencywould, of course, have preferred a largerdata base and will continue to seekadditional data. EPA will periodicallyreview these limitations as required bythe Act and make any revisionssupported by new data.

VI. Industry Subcategorization

In developing-this regulation, it wasnecessary to determine whetherdifferent effluent limitations andstandards were appropriate for differentsegments (subcategories) of the industry.The major factors considered inidentifying subcategories included:waste characteristics, basis materialused, manufacturing processes, productsmanufactured, water use, waterpollution control technology, treatmentcosts, solid waste generation, size ofplant, age of plant, number ofemployees, total energy requirements,non-water quality characteristics, andunique plant characterists. Section IV ofthe Development Document contains adetailed discussion of the factorsconsidered and the rationale forsubcategorization

EPA has subcategorized the coilcoating industry based on the basismaterial coated. The subategories aredefined as coil coating on: (1) steel, (2)galvanized (zinc-coated steel either hotdipped or electrolytically coated), and(3) aluminum (including aluminumcoated steel). The galvanizedsubcategory includes copper, (includingcopper alloys such as brass) andgalvalum, a zinc-aluminum alloy. Thesteel subcategory includes chromium,nickel and tin-coated steels.

In addition to the direct coil coatingsubcategories, the Agency is consideringincluding limitations and standards forcan making as a separate subcategory ofcoil coating. The reason for this

consideration is the very substantialsimilarity of processes and wastewatergeneration between coil coating and theproduction of large volumes of drawnbeverage containers. Comments arerequested on this possibility.

VII. Available Wastewater Control andTreatment Technology

A. Status of In-Place Technology

Current wastewater treatmentpractices in the coil coating categoryrange from no treatment to a high levelof physical chemical treatmentcombined with water conservationpractices. Of the 73 plants for whichdata is available, about 15 percent of theplants employ no treatment, 56 percentemploy some from of chemicalreduction, 59 percent havesedimentation or clarification devices,54 percent have alkaline pH adjustsystems, and 35 percent have acid pHadjust systems. There ip no apparentdifference between direct or indirectdischargers in the nature or degree oftreatment employed.

B. Control Technologies Considered

The control and treatmenttechnologies available for this categoryinclude both in-process and end-of-pipetreatments. In-process treatmentincludes a variety of watei flowreduction steps and major processchanges such as: cascade rinsing (toreduce the amount of water used toremove unwanted materials from theproduct surface); cooling and recyclingof quench water;, and substitution ofnon-wastewater generating conversioncoating processes (no-rinse conversioncoating). End-of-pipe treatment includes:cyanide oxidation or precipitation;hexavalent chromium reduction;chemical precipitation of metals usinghydroxides, carbonates, or sulfides; andremoval of precipitated metals and othermaterials using settling, sedimentation.filtration, and combinations of thesetechnologies. Because the amount ofpriority organic materials in thewastewater is small, no specific organicremoval wastewater treatment exceptoil removal has been considered.Similarly, because of high energy costsand low product recovery values,distillation has not been seriouslyconsidered as an end-of-pipe treatment.

The effectiveness of these treatmenttechnologies has been evaluated andestablished by examining theperformance of these technologies oncoil coating and other similarwastewaters. The data base forhydroxide precipitation-sedimentationtechnology is a composite of data drawnfrom EPA sampling and analysis of

copper and aluminum forming, batterymanufacturing, porcelain enameling,electroplating, metal finishing and coilcoating. These wastewaters are judgedto be similar in all material respects fortreatment because they contain a rangeof dissolved metals which can beremoved by precipitation and solidsremoval. Similarly precipitation-sedimentation and filtration te6hnologyperformance is based on theperformance of full scale commercialsystems treating multicategorywastewaters which also are essentiallysimilar to coil coating wastewaters. Thisis discussed fully in Section VII of thedevelopment document.

VIII. Best Practicable-Technology (BPT)Effluent Limitations

The factors considered in definingbest practicable control technologycurrently available (BPT include thetotal cost of applying technology inrelation to the effluent reductionbenefits derived, the age of equipmentand facilities involved, the processemployed, non-water qualityenvironmental impacts (including energyrequirements) and other factors theAdministrator considers appropriate. Ingeneral, the BPT level represents theaverage of the best existingperformances of plants of various ages,sizes, processes or other commoncharacteristics. Where existingperformance is uniformly inadequate,BPT may be transferred from a differentsubcategory or category. Limitationsbased on transfer technology must besupported by a conclusion that thetechnology is, indeed, transferable and areasonable prediction that it will becapable of achieving the prescribedeffluent limits. See Tanners' Council ofAmerica v. Train (540 F.2d 1188, 4thCirc. 1976). BPT focuses on end-of-pipetreatment rather than process changesor internal controls, except where suchare common industry practice.

The cost-benefit inquiry for BPT is alimited balancing, committed to EPA'sdiscretion, which does not require theAgency to quantify benefits in monetaryterms. See, e.g., American Iron and SteelInstitute v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027 (3rd Cir.1975). In balancing costs in relation toeffluent reduction benefits, EPAconsiders the volume and nature ofexisting discharges, the volume andnature of discharges expected afterapplication of BPT, the generalenvironmental effects of the pollutants,and the cost and economic impacts ofthe required pollution control level. TheAct does not require or permitconsideration of water quality problemsattributable to particular point sourcesor industries, or water quality

2937

Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules

improvements in particular waterbodies. Therefore, EPA has notconsidered these factors. SeeWeyerhaeuser Company v. Castle, 11ERC 2149 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

In developing the proposed BPTlimitations, the Agency first consideredthe amount of water used per unit areaof material coated by each plant whichsupplied usable dcp data. This data wasused to determine the median water usefor pach subcategory. Next, thetreatment technology which appeared tobe appropriate for BPT level treatmentand which was practiced in some plantsthroughout the industry was selected.This treatment consists of: hexavalentchromium reduction; oil skimming; pHadjustment; sedimentation to remove theresultant precipitate and othersuspended solids and cyaridedestruction where cyanides are used.Sludge from the settling tank isconcentrated to facilitate landfilldisposal. The effluent which would beexpected to result from the applicationof these technologies was evaluatedagainst the known performance of someof the best plants in the subcategory.From this examination, the Agencyfound that there is uniformly inadequateperformance due to improper operatingpractices throughout the industry. Thisfinding is detailed in Sections 7 and 9 ofthe development document.

the BPT technology outlined aboveapplies to all of the coil coatingsubcategories and the final effluentconcentrations resulting from theapplication of the technology areidentical for all three subcategories.However, the mass limitations for eachsubrateogry vary due to different wateruses among the subcategories and-theabsence of some pollutants in iomesubcategories. Also, certain treatmenttechnologies and limitations such ascyanide oxidation may not be requiredin all subcategories since cyanides areused in only one subcategory.

Thirty-two plants would incuradditional costs to comply with the BPTlimitations. EPA estimates that totalcapital investment would be $3.5 millionand that annual costs would be $1.6million, including interest anddepreciation. EPA expects no plantclosures, unemployment, or changes inindustry production capacity as a resultof this effluent limitation.IX. Best Available Technology (BAT)Effluent Limitations

The factors considered in assessingbest available technology economicallyachievable (BAT) include the age ofequipment and facilities involved, theprocess employed, process changes,non-water quality environmental

impacts (including energy requirements)and the costs of applying such

technology (Section 304(b)(2)(B). At aminimum, the BAT technology levelrepresents the best economicallyachievable performance of plants ofvarious ages, sizes, processes or othershared characteristics. As with BPT,where existing performance is uniformlyinadequate, BAT may be transferredfrom a different subcategory or category.BAT may include feasible processchanges or internal controls, even whennot common industry practice.- The required assessment of BAT

"considers" costs, but does not require abalancing of costs against effluentreduction benefits (see Weyerhaeuser v.Costle, supra). In developing theproposed BAT, however, EPA has givensubstantial weight to the reasonablenessof costs. The Agency has considered thevolume and nature of discharges, the

- volume ind nature of dischargesexpected after application of BAT, thegeneral environmental effects of thepollutants, and the costs and economicimpacts of the required pollution controllevels.

Despite this consideration of costs,the primary determinant of BAT iseffluent reduction capability. As a resultof the Clean Water Act of 1977, theachievement of BAT has become theprincipal national means of controllingtoxic water pollution. The coil coating-process discharges over twenty differenttoxic pollutants and EPA has selectedamong three available BAT technologyoptions which will reduce this toxicpollution by a significant amount.

The Agency has considered threemajor sets of technology options whichmight be applied at the BAT level. Eachof these options would substantiallyreduce the discharge of toxic pollutants.These options, were set forth in a draftdevelopment document and presented tothe technically interested public forpreliminary comment. They are-described in detail in Section X of theDevelopment Document and areoutlined below.

Option 1-BAT Option I utilizes thesame in-process wastewater flowcontrol and all of the end-of-pipetreatment technology required for BPT.In addition, a polishing filter such as amixed media filter is added to removeadditional metals and incidentallyremove more suspended solids from theclarifier overflow.

Thirty-two direct dischargeis wouldincur additional costs to comply withthis option. EPA estimates that totalcapital investment would be $6.2 millionand that annual costs would be $2.5million, including interest anddepreciation. Nine plants responded that

they had both direct and indirectdischarged status and are included inthe above total investment and annualcosts. EPA expects no plant closures,unemployment, or changes in productioncapacity as a result of this option.

Option 2-BAT Option 2 as originallyoutlined would combine the end-of-pipetreatment system of BAT Option 1 within-process control technology tosubstantially reduce the flow ofwastewater and reduce the generationof pollutants. These in-processtechnology changes would include:

1. recirculation and reuse of quenchwater;

2. counter-current rinsing to reducethe amount of process wastewatergenerated by rinsing the coil; and

3. substitution of no rinse conversioncoating for the present phosphate orchromate coatings; or

4. the use of cyanide-free treatment.chemical systems.

Thirty-two direct dischargers wouldincur additional costs to comply withthis option. EPA estimates that totalcapital investment (above equipmentnow in place) would be $5.9 million andthat annual costs would be $2.4milion,including interest and depreciation. Nineplants responded that they had bothdirect and indirect discharge status andare included in the above totalinvestment and annual costs. EPAexpects no plant closures,unemployment or changes in industfyproduction capacity as a result of thisoption.

The capital costs of BAT Option 2 areless than BAT Option 1. This is causedby the savings in reduced treatmentequipment size when wastewater flowsare substantially reduced. This is adirect economic benefit from waterreuse.

Option 3-BAT Option 3 builds onBAT Option 2, substituting an ultrafiltersystem in place of the end-of-pipe mixedmedia filter to enhance the removal ofmetals and incidentally remove moresuspended solids.

Thirty-two dischargers would incuradditional costs to comply with thisoption. EPA estimates that total capitalinvestment would be $14.9 million andthat annual costs would be $6.3 million,including interest and depreciation. Nineplants responded that they had b6thdirect and indirect discharge status, andare included in the above totalinvestment and annual costs. EPAexpects no plant closures,unemployment, or changes in industryproduction capacity as a result of thisoption. I

The effectiveiless and costs of theBAT options were evaluated andconsidered in making a selection of

2938

Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules

BAT. BAT-2 reduces ivastewatergeneration from an estimated 7,647million liters per year (raw waste basis)(2,020 million gal) to 2,814 million 1/yr(743 million gal/yr), and removessubstantial amounts of toxic metals.With no treatment (raw waste) 361metric tons of toxic metals would bereleased (annually) from coil coating.BPT would remove 352.7 metric tons oftoxic metals per year and the BATOptions 1, 2 (as modified, see below)and 3 would remove 357.9, 359.7 and360.0 metric tons, respectively.

The development of these costs isdetailed in Section VIII of thedevelopment document and treatmenteffectiveness is displayed in Section X.The high cost of BAT Option 3 plus thelow additional removal of toxic metalscontributed to the EPA decision thatBAT Option 3 was inappropriate.

BAT SELECTION AND DECISIONCRITERIA-EPA has selected amodified Option 2 as the basis forproposed BAT effluent limitations. Thisoption was selected because it removessignificant amounts of the toxicpollutants of concern in this category(primarily toxic metals) by in-plantcontrol, pretreatment, and end-of-pipetreatment. Although the Act does notrequire a balancing of costs againsteffluent reduction benefits, the Agencyconsidered the costs of the technologyoptions (see Section X of theDevelopment Document for detaileddiscussibn). A modified version of BATOption 2 was selected for technicalreasons. This choice was confirmed byindustry comments and further Agencyanalysis indicating that Option I doesnot achieve as high a level of effluentcontrol as is achievable at a reasonablecost through Option 2.

A careful examination of Option 2indicates that some aspects of it maynot be implementable at this time.Specifically, the total cost of installingeither counter current rinsing or no rinseconversion coating cannot beadequately estimated. The cost ofequipment and mechanical work can beestimated; however, the installation ofthis equipment would require almost acomplete rebuilding of each process lineand would require each line to be shutdown for substantial periods Withresultant production loss and costs. Thisloss of production and related costscannot, in the Agency's opinion, beadequately estimated for existing plantsat this time. Thus these technologyoptions are ot further considered forexisting sources.

The Agency considered a requirementwhich would essentially ban the use ofcyanide chemical systems forprocessing. This was reconsidered,

however, because of comment that thenon-cyanide coating systems operate atsubstantially reduced production speedsand produced reduced quality products.The Agency cannot adequately evaluatethese claims at this time. For thesereasons, the Agency has revised Option2 to allow the continued use of cyanidecontaining metal treatment chemicalsystems. The Agency believes that thislimitation can best be met by changingto non-cyanide chemical systems andexpects most if not all coil coatingestablishments to meet the cyaniderequirement by changing chemicalsystems rather than by effluenttreatment.

The Agency is also establishinglimitations on oil and grease as anindicator to control polynucleararomatic hydrocarbons and certainorganic solvents. The use of indicators isdiscussed below under regulatedpollutants and in Section X of thedevelopment document.

The Agency rejected Option 3 becauseit is relatively unproven and because ithas a far greater cost with littleenvironmental gain. Furtherdevelopment of this kind of processwater treatment to remove metals andto promote recycle could possibly allowits requirement at some later revision ofthis regulation.

X. New Source Performance Standards(NSPS)

The basis for new source performancestandards (NSPS) under Section 306 ofthe Act is the best availabledemonstrated technology. New plantshave the opportunity to design the bestand most efficient coil coating processesand wastewater treatment technologies,and, therefore, Congress directed EPA toconsider the best demonstrated processchanges, inplant controls, and end-of-pipe treatment technologies whichreduce pollution to the maximum extentfeasible. EPA considered three optionsfor selection of NSPS technology.

Originally, NSPS Options 1 and 2were identical toBAT options 2 and 3and NSPS option 3 added moresophisticated final filtration. Asdiscussed under BAT Option 2, some ofthe requirements appear to be infeasibleas BAT because of the costs of requiredmajor modifications and downtime toexisting plants. These costs are not afactor in a new plant under construction,The greater benefits and operability ofNSPS options 2 and 3 have not beenadequately demonstrated. Hence, theAgency has selected NSPS Option 1(equivalent to unmodified BAT Option2) as the best available demonstratedtechnology. This option relies upon theachievement of no discharge of process

wastewater pollutants from conversioncoating through the use of no rinseconversion coating technique.

EPA estimates that for NSPS Option 1,the average-plant investment cost is

•$200,000. This level of cost comprises 1.3,percent of the estimated equipmentcosts for one new coil coating line. Thisproportion of capacity expansion costsaccounted for by NSPS Option 1 is noton the order of magnitude that shouldcause significant adverse impact on theaddition of new lines. For NSPS Option2. the average plant investment cost is$450,000. This level of cost comprises 3.0percent of the estimated equipmentcosts for one new coil coating line.

Xl. Pretreatment Standards for ExistingSources (PSES) .

Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPAto promulgate pretreatment standardsfor existing indirect dischargers (PSES),which must be achieved within threeyears of promulgation. PSES aredesigned to prevent the discharge ofpollutants which pass through, interferewith, or are otherwise incompatible withthe operation of POTWs. The CleanWater Act of 1977 adds a newdimension by requiring pretreatment forpollutants, such as toxic metals, thatpass through the POTW in amounts thatwould violate direct discharge effluentlimitations or limit POTW sludgemanagement alternatives, including thebeneficial use of sludges on agriculturallands. The legislative history of the 1977Act indicates that pretreatmentstandards are to be technology-basedand analogous to the best availabletechnology for removal of toxicpollutants. The general pretreatmentregulations (40 CFR Part 403), whichserved as the framework for theseproposed pretreatment standards forcoil coating, can be found at 43 FR 27736(June 26, 1978).

The four pretreatment optionsconsidered are parallel to BPT and tothe BAT 1, 2, and 3 options previouslydescribed. Most of the pollutantsregulated are toxic metals wich are notdegraded in POTW. These metals eitherpass through a POTW or areconcentrated in the sludge, therebylimiting sludge managementalternatives. The small amount of toxicorganic pollutants present are notregulated. The combination of incidentaloil and grease removal in the treatmenttrain for metals and further oil andgrease removal in the POTW, provideseffluent loadings equal to or less thanBAT. Pretreatment Option 0 (BPT) doesnot provide reasonable protection of theenvironment. The rationale for rejectionof BAT Option I as preteatment, themodification of BAT Option 2 which

2939

Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules

was seleced as pretreatment, and therejection of BAT Option 3 aspretreatment are identical to therationale set forth in the BAT Optionsdiscussion.

The equipment required for theselected preteatment option is ofreasonable-size, appropriate forinstallation within an urban plant whichdischarges to POTW. The masslimitations set forth for BAT Option 2have been presented here as the onlymethod of designating pretreatmentstandards because the water flowreductions specified at BAT are majorfeatures of the treatment and controlsystem. To regulate on the basis ofconcentration only is hot adequatebecause it will not adequately controlthe release of persistent toxics toPOTW. The Agency has considered thepossible complications which massbased limitations might cause whenapplied as pretreatment standards.Since coil coating facilities are usuallyseparate rather than part of a largercomplex and since production recordsare routinely maintained thecomplications of applying a mass basedstandard appear to be minimal.

Therefore, the policy thdt concentrationbe used to express pretreatmentstandards (40 CFR Part 403.6(c); and •Appendix A, B.2.e) as it applies to PSESin this part is set aside. The Agency isconsidering establishing minimumrequirements for monitoring to insurecompliance with the standards, but norequirements are proposed at this time.

Thirty-eight indirect dischargerswould incur additional costs to complywith the preteatment options. EPAestimates that for the pretreatmentoption parallel to BPT (pretreatmentOption 0), total capital investmentwould be $5.7 million and that annualcosts would be $1.7 million, includinginterest and depreciation. EPA estimatesthat for pretreatment Option 1, totalcapital investment would be $9.3 millionand that annual costs would be $2.5million, including interest anddepreciation. For pretreatment Option 2,the additional total investment andannual costs would be $9.0 million and$2.5 million, respectively: EPA estimatesthat for pretreatment Option 3, totalcapital investment-would be $17.9million and that annual costs would be$5.1 million. EPA expects no plantclosures, unemployment, or changes inindustry production capacity as a resultof any of the pretreatment options.

XII. Pretreatment Standards For NewSources (PSNS)

Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPAto promulgate pretreatment standardsfor new sources (PSNS) at'the same time

that it promulgates NSPS. New indirectdischarges will produce wastes havingthe same pass through problems thatexisting discharge have. New indirectdischargers, like new direct dischargers,have the opportunity to incorporate thebest available demonstratedtechnologies including process changes,in-plant controls, and end-of-pipetreatment technologies, and to use plantsite selection to ensure adequatetreatment system installation.

The PSNS treatment optionsconsidered are identical to the NSPSoptions. As in the case of existingsources, the majority of pollutantsregulated are toxic metals which are notdegraded in a POTW. The small amountof toxic organic pollutants present arenot regulated. The combination ofincidental oil and grease removal in the-treatment train for metals, and further-oil and grease removal in the POTW,provides effluent loadings equal to orless than BAT. Option 1 of NSPS isselected as the most appropriatepretreatment technoloy option for PSNS.This option encourages new plants to,treat their own wastewaters, therebyreducing the hydraulic loading onPOTW aid limiting the amount of toxicmetals which would be introduced to-aPOTW.

The mass limitations set forth asNSPS Option 1 are presented here as theonly method of designating pretreatmentstandards. The water flow reductionsspecificed at NSPS are the majorfeatures of the treatment and controlsystem. Therefore, to regulate on thebasis of coicentration only is notadequate because it will not adequatelycontrol the release of persistent toxics toPOTW. The requirement thatconcentration'be'used to expresspretreatment standards (40 CFR Part403.6(c); and Appendix A, B.2.e) as itapplies to PSNS in this part is set asidefor the reasons discussed in Section XI,above. The Agency is consideringestablishing minimum requirements for'monitoring to insure compliance withthe standards, but no requirements areproposed at this, time.

EPA estimates that for PSNS Option 1,the average plant investment cost is$200,000, which comprises 1.3 percent ofthe estimated equipment cost for onenew coil coating line. This order ofmagnitude should not create significantnegative impact on the construction ofnew lines. For PSNS Option 2, theaverage plant investment cost is $45,000.This level of cost comprises 3.0 percentof the estimated equipmenf costs for onenew coil coating line.

XIII. Best Conventional Technology(BCT) Effluent Limitations

The 1977 amendments added Section301(b)(4](E) to the Act, establishing"best conventional pollutant controltechnology' (BCT) for discharges ofconventional pollutants from existingindustrial point sources. Conventionalpollutants are those defined in Section304(b](4)-BOD, TSS, fecal coliform andpH-and any additional pollutantsdefined by the Administrator as"conventional." On July 30, 1979, EPAadded oil and grease to the conventionalpollutant list (44 FR 44501).

BCT is not an additonal limitation, butreplaces BAT for the control ofconventional pollutants. BCT requiresthat each limitation for conventionalpollutants be assessed in light of a new"cost reasonableness" test, whichinvolves a comparison of the cost andlevel of reduction of conventionalpollutants from the discharge of publiclyowned treatment works with the costand level of reduction of such pollutantsfrom a class or category of industrialsource. In its review of BAT for"secondary'Lindustries, the Agencypromulgated BCT levels based on amethodology described at 44 FR 50732(Aug. 29,1979). A BCT option will beconsidered "cost reasonable" under thismethodology if its incremental cost(dollars per pound of pollutantmeasuring BPT to BCT) is less than orequal to the costs for an average POTW.In 1978 dollars the POTW comparisonfigure is $1.27 per pound.

Only three conventional pollutantparameters-pH, TSS and oil andgrease-were considered under the BCTlimitation. They were assessed at levels

,,that are achievable through the use oftechnology analyzed for modified BATOption 2. The limitation on oil andgrease has been established as anindicator at BAT to limit the amount ofPAH's discharged and is considered tobe an indicator of the probableeffectivenesss of technology in removingpolynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon(PAH) compounds. The pH limitations atBCT is the same as at BPT.

Inasmuch as the tdchnology would beinstalled and operated to meet otherrequirements, it can be argued that BCTlimitations in fact have no cost.However, EPA has taken a moregenerous approach in its BCTmethodology. The total cost of addingtechnology beyond BPT to meet BCT iscalculated and assessed against theamount of suspended solids and oil andgrease r emoved by that technology.When this is done, the CCT costs for thesteel subcategory are $0.54 per pound ofconventional pollutant removed. $0.05

.S , ........... .... _ .... .............. . I Id-

2940

Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules

for the galvanized subcategory, and$1.43 for the aluminum subcategory.These apparently erratic costs arenumerically correct. The unusual patternis caused by the effect of the BAT flowreductions on the size of equipmentneeded for the end-of-pipe part of thetreatment technology.

The cost of removal of conventionalpollutants by BCT does meet the costtest for the steel and galvanizedsubcategories. Therefore, the BCTlimitations for the steel and galvanizedsubcategories will be equal to BAT.Since the aluminum subcategory failsthe cost test the BCT limitations basedon BAT technology will not be applied.Since the intermediate technologystandards assessed as BAT Option 1 areeven less cost-efficient, they too cannotbe applied. EPA therefore will set theBCT limit for the aluminum subcategoryat performance standards achievablewith BPT technology. However the oiland grease limitation for the alumunimsubcategory is independently set underBAT since it is used as an indicator ofcontrol for organic toxics regulatedunder BAT.

XIV. Regulated Pollutants

The basis upon which the controlledpollutants were selected, as well as thegeneral nature and environmentaleffects of these pollutants, is set out inSections V, VI, IX and X of theDevelopment Document. Some of thesepollutants are designated toxic underSection 307(a) of the Act, and no'evidence has been found to warrantremoval of any pollutant from the toxicslist.

A. BPT-The pollutants controlled bythe BPT limitations are aluminum,cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide,iron, lead, nickel, zinc, TSS, oil andgrease, and pH. Not all of thesepollutants are controlled in allsubcategories; regulation is establishedonly where the pollutant appears insignificant concentration in the rawwaste. The discharge is controlled bymaximum daily and monthly averagemass effluent limitations stated inmilligrams of each pollutant per squaremeter of metal processed (lbs/1,000,000sq ft).

B. BAT and NSPS-The pollutantsspecifically limited by BAT and NSPSare the same as those limited by BPT.There are, however, different rationalesfor limiting these pollutants.

C. BCT-The pollutants specificallylimited by BCT are pH, TSS and oil andgrease.

D. PSES and PSNS-The pollutantsregulated at PSES and PSNS are thesame as those limited by BAT and NSPSrespectively except that iron, aluminum,

TSS, and oil and grease are not limitedin pretreatment.

1. Toxic Pollutants-The toxicpollutants expressly controlled for directdischargers in each subcategory arecadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide,lead, nickel and zinc. These toxicpollutants represent the highestconcentrations of toxic materials in eachof the subcategories. There are anumber of other pollutants in the rawwaste which are present at lowconcentrations but which might beconsidered for control through the use ofother pollutants used as indicators. TheAgency is soliciting comments on themonitoring of selected pollutants toindicate compliance or thedetermination of requiring plants tomonitor each pollutant. Should each -plant be able to make its own choiceabout this?

2. Indicator Pollutants-Thedifficulties of analyses for many toxicorganic pollutants have prompted EPAto propose a new method of regulating

.certain toxic pollutants. For toxicpollutants for which historical data islimited and relatively inexpensiveanalytical methods are not welldeveloped, EPA is proposing numericallimitations on an "indicator" pollutant-oil and grease. The coil coating dataavailable to EPA generally show thatwhen this "indicator" pollutant iscontrolled, the concentrations of toxicorganic pollutants is significantly loweithan when the "indicator" pollutant ispresent in high concentrations. This maybe due to the preferential solubility ofmany toxic organics in oil and grease.Whil, the relationships between

""indicator" pollutants and toxicpollutants are not quantifiable on a one-to-one basis, control of an "indicator"will reasonably assure control of toxicswith similar physical and chemicalproperties responsive to similartreatment mechanisms. This method oftoxics regulation obviates thedifficulties, high costs, and delays ofmonitoring and analyses that wouldresult from limitations solely on thetoxic pollutants.

Appendix B to this notice contains atabulation for each subcategory of thetoxic pollutants which were consideredfor specific limitation. EPA concludesthat the not-specifically regulated groupof these toxic organic pollutants will beeffectively controlled by limitation ofthe "indicator" pollutant even thoughthese toxics are not expressly regulatedby numerical limitations.

The toxic pollutants regulated byindicator pollutants include volatile(purgeable] organics and polynucleararomatic hydrocarbon (PAH] -compounds. Toxic pollutants such as

PAH compounds and phthalate estersare partially treated by oil-waterseparation because they are immisciblein water. Thus, control of oil and greaseas an "indicator" will provide control ofthese toxic pollutants.

The Agency also considered usingTSS as an indicator for the control oflow levels of toxic metals but is notproposing this at this time. Instead,limits have been proposed on.all toxicmetals not eligible for exclusion under-Paragraph 8. The use of TSS as anindicator would eliminate the need foranalysis of some metals in eachsubcategory. Also the use of TSS plussome metals rather than all of themetals listed of control has beenconsidered for possible use as analternate control procedure on a permitby permit basis. EPA invites commentson this issue.

XV. Pollutants and Subcategories Not.Regulated

The Settlement Agreement containedprovisions authorizing the exclusionfrom regulation, in certain instances, oftoxic pollutants and industrysubcategories. These provisions havebeen re-written in a Revised SettlementAgreement which was approved by the,District Court for the District ofColumbia on March 9, 1979.

Paragraph 8(a)(iii) of the RevisedSettlement Agreement allows theAdministrator to exclude fromregulation toxic pollutants notdetectable by Section 304(h) analyticalmethods of other state-of-the-artmethods. The toxic pollutants notdetected and therefore, excluded fromregulation are listed for eachsubcategory in Appendix C to thisnotice.

Paragrap5h 8(a)(iii) of the RevisedSettlement Agreement allows theAdministrator to exclude fromregulation toxic pollutants detected inthe effluent in only trace quantities andnot likely to cause toxic effects.Appendix D to this notice lists the toxicpollutants in each subcategory whichwere detected in the effluent in traceamounts, at or below the nominal limitof analytical quantification, which arenot likely to cause' toxic effects andwhich, therefore, are excluded fromregulation.

Paragraph 8(a)(iii) of the RevisedSettlement Agreement allows theAdministrator to exclude fromregulation toxic pollutants detected inthe effluent in only trace amounts andnot likely to cause toxic effects.Appendix E to this notice lists for eachsubcategory the toxic pollutants whichwere detected in the effluents of onlyone plant, and are uniquely related to

29,-tl

Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules

that plant, are not related to themanufacturing process under study, are-not treatable using technologiesconsidered or which were found inenvironmentally insignificant amountsand which therefore are excluded from.regulation.

No subcategories or subsets of the coilcoating industry meet these criteria forthe absence of toxic pollutants. Thusnone are excluded from this regulation.

XVII. Costs, Effluent Reduction Benefits,and Economic Impacts

Executive Order 12044 requires EPAand other agencies to performRegulatory Analyses of certainregulations. 43,FR 12661 (March 23,1978). EPA's proposed regulations forimplementing Executive Order 12044require a Regulatory Analysis for majorsignificant regulations involvingannualized compliance costs of $100million or meeting'other specified_criteria. 44 FR 30988 (May 29, 1979).Where these criteria are met, theproposed regulations require EPA toprepare a formal Regulatory Analysis,including an economic impact analysisand an evaluation of regulatoryalternatives. The proposed regulationsfpr the coil coating industry do not meetthese criteria and thus do not require aformal Regulatory Analysis.Nonetheless, this proposed rulemakingsatisfies the formal Regulatory Analysisrequirements.

EPA's economicimpact assessment isset forth in Economic Impact Analysis ofProposed Effluent Standards andLimitations for the Coil CoatingIndustry, May 1980, EPA. This reportdetails the capital investment andannual costs for the industry as a wholeand for the subcategories covered by theproposed coil coating regulation. Thereport also assesses the impact ofcompliance costs in terms of plant .closures, production changes, pricechange, employment effects, communityimpacts and balance of trade effects.

EPA estimates that the total capitalinvestment costs for the coil coatingindustry will be $14.9 million and thatthe annual compliance costs will be $4.9million. This level of annual compliancecosts is 0.7 percent of industry revenuesand will be responsible for minimalindustry-wide price and quantitychanges of 0.8 percent and 0.4 percent,respectively. No plant closures areprojected for either the baseline(without this regulation) or for theproposed regulation. Other impacts onthe coil coating industry such as productsubstitution, foreign trade effects andchanges in discharge status arenegligible. Also, secondary impacts on

employment and the community are notanticipated.

The economic analysis basicallyutilizes plant-specific production dataand compliance costs estimated by EPAfor 58 sample plants to determine theimpact of the proposed regulation.However, the first step of the analyticalprqcedure was to determine theindustry-wide price change and resultingquantity change at each compliancelevel. Those estimates served as the

.basis for the screening analysis whichidentified plants that may potentiallyincur significant costs and economicimpacts. The criterion for determininghigh impact potential plants was asignificant decrease in their profitiargins after compliance with theregulation. The screening analysisidentified fifteen coil coating plants(twenty-six percent of the sample) aspotentially facing adverse economicimpact.

The potentially vulnerable plantswere then subjected to further financialanalysis to quantify the level ofanticipated impact and to assess thelikelihood of plant closure. Financialprofiles were developed andsubsequently used to calculate financialratios in order to analyze plantprofitability and the magnitude ofcapital investment requirements. Theplant-specific ratios were compared tothreshold values established at levels atwhich closures became likely. The plantclosure threshold values differed amongthree categories developed for theeconomic analysis: (1) toll coaters,which coat customer-owned metal on aservice basis; (2)-captive operations,which coat metal as part of aproprietary product manufacturingprocess; and (3) adjunct operations,which are performed in plants withrolling mills on the plant site. Thedifferences in-the threshold levels wereestablished to account for differences inthe financial characteristics of theplants within the three sectors.However, in general, the conclusions ofthe study are relatively insensitive tothe economic categorization.

BPT-EPA estimates that the BPTeffluent limitationwill cause the coilcoating industry to incur additional totalcapital investment and annualcompliance costs (includirfg interest anddepreciation) of $3.5 million and $1.6million, respectively. The economicanalysis based on' the profitability andcapital investment requirement ratios,indicates that the plants will not facenoticeable reductions in profitability,therefore no plant closures areestimated.

BAT-EPA estimates that the coilcoating industry will incur additional

capital investment and annualcompliance costs of $5.9 million and $2.4million, respectively. These figures wereextrapolated from the plant-specific costdata for 27 direct dischargers to theprojected universe of 32 plants. The,costs reflect the original treatment level,not the revised proposed regulation. Theproposed regulation requires fewer in-process technology changes than theBAT Option 2 studied in the economicreport. The compliance costs for theproposed regulation will beapproximately 20 to 25 percent less thanthe figures cited above. These lowercosts will be analyzed for economicimpacts during the period betweenproposal and promulgation of theregulation.

The economic analysis based on theprofitability and capital investmentrequirement ratios indicates that a fewcoil coating plants may incur noticeabledecreases in profitability but will notface closure. The projected priceincreases resulting from compliancecosts were found to be minimal fordirect dischargig coil coating plants.Therefore, other impacts upon thissegment of the industry such as productsubstitution, foreign trade effects andchanges in discharge status will benegligible.

PSES-EPA estimates that the indirectdischarging segment of the coil coatingindustry will incui additional capital 'investment and annual compliance costsof $9.0 million and $2.5 million,respectively. These figures wereextrapolated from the plant-specific costdata for 31 indirect dischargers to theprojected universe of 38 plants. As withthe costs for the BAT limitations, theabove figures reflect the originaltreatment level, not the modifiedtreatment option. The proposed -regulation requires fewer in-processtechnology changes than the optionanalyzed in the economic study. Thecompliance costs will be approximately20 to 25 percent less than the figurescited above. These lower costs will beassessed for economic impacts duringthe period between proposal andpromulgation.

The economic analysis based on theprofitability and capital investmentrequirement ratios indicates that threeindirect discharging plants may incurnoticeable decreases in profitability butwill not face closure. The projected priceincreases resulting from compliancecosts were found to be minimal for thissegment of the industry. Therefore, otherimpacts such as product substitution,foreign trade effects and changes indischarge status will be negligible.

NSPS-PSNS-The coil coating.industry experienced strong growth in

.... m r r2942

Federal Re ister / Vol. 46, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules

the period from 1962 to 1978 and thistrend is forecast to continue through1985. EPA estimates that the industrywill require $400 million to $600 millionof capital investment in coil coating .equipment (not including the plant siteor building construction costs] toprovide the expected increase inproduction from 1980 through 1985. Forcomparison, the average plantinvestment cost for complying with theproposed regulation will be $200,000.This amount represents 1.3 percent ofthe estimated equipment costs for onenew line. Because of this high growthrate and the relatively low capitalinvestment required by the NSPS andPSNS regulation, the construction ofnew coil coating lines is not expected tobe adversely impacted. The competitiveadvantages of coated coil over otherproducts combined with the forecastedgrowth and expanded end-product usesthrough 1985 shoud allow the plants toearn a level of profits sufficient toattract needed capital funding.

Economic Impact: The Agencyestimates that total capital investmentto bring 70 existing coil coating plantsinto compliance with the proposed BATlimitations will be $14.9 million. Theannual costs of compliance may reach$4.9 million, including depreciation andinterest. This level of annual costsrepresents 0.7 percent of industryrevenues and may be responsible forminimal industry-wide price andquantity changes of 0.8 percent and 0.4percent, respectively. No plant closuresare projected as a result of complyingwith proposed regulation. Other impactson the coil coating industry status arenegligible. Also, secondary impacts onemployment and the community are notanticipated.

This proposed regulation does notrequire a regulatory analysis becauseannual compliance costs are less $100million and the other criteria forperforming a regulatory analysis are notmet. This determination is in accordancewith the Agency's procedures forimproving environmental regulations,published in 44 FR 30988 (May 29,1979).Nevertheless, this proposed regulationsatisfies the formal regulatory analysisrequirements.XVIII. Non-Water Quality Aspects ofPollution Control

The elimination or reduction of oneform of pollution may aggravate otherenvironmental problems. Therefore,Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Actrequire EPA to consider the non-waterquality environmental impacts(including energy requirements) ofcertain regulations. In compliance withthese provisions, EPA has considered

the effect of this regulation on airpollution, solid waste generation, waterscarcity, and energy consumption. Thisproposal was circulated to and reviewedby EPA personnel responsible for non-water quality environmental programs.While it is always difficult to balancepollution problems against each otherand against energy utilization, EPA isproposing regulations which it believesbest serve often competing nationalgoals.

The following are the non-waterquality environmental impacts(including energy requirements)associated with the proposedregulations:

A. Air Pollution-Imposition of BPT,BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS willnot create any substantial air pollutionproblems.

B. Solid Waste-EPA estimates thatcoil coating facilities generate 43,900metric tons of solid wastes (wet basis)per year (1976). These wastes werecomprised of treatment system sludgescontaining toxic metals, includingchromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc.

EPA estimates that the proposed BPTlimitations will contribute an additional45,700 metric tons per year of solidwastes. Proposed BAT and PSES willincrease these wastes by approximately8,100 metric tons per year beyond BPTlevels. These sludges will necessarilycontain additional quantities (andconcentrations) of toxic metalpollutants.

On the other hand, EPA estimates thatimplementation of proposedpretreatment standards will result inPOTW sludges having commensuratelylesser quantities and concentrations oftoxic pollutants. POTW sludges willbecome more amenable to a wider rangeof disposal alternatives, possiblyincluding beneficial use on agriculturallands. Moreover, disposal of thesevastly greater quaitities of adulteratedPOTW sludges wpuld be significantlymore difficult and costly than disposalof smaller quantities of wastesgenerated at individual plant sites.

These wastewater treatment sludgesmay furthermore be identified ashazardous under the regulationsimplementing subtitle C of the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act(RCRA). Under those regulations,generators of these wastes must test thewastes to determine if the wastes meetany of the characteristics of hazardouswaste (see 40 CFR § 262.11, 45 FR 33142-33143 (May 19, 1980]). The Agency mayalso list these sludges as hazardouspursuant to 40 CFR § 261.11 (45 FR at33121 (May 19, 1980), and is likely to doso based upon high concentrations of

cadmium in these wastes and the largequantity of wastes generated.

If these wastes are identified ashazardous, they come within the scopeof RCRA's "cradle to grave" hazardouswaste management program, requiringregulations from the point of generationto point of final disposition. EPA'sgenerator standards would requiregenerators of coil coating wastes tomeet containerization, labeling,recordkeeping and reportingrequirements; if they dispose of wastesoff-site, coil coaters would have toprepare a manifest which will track themovement of the wastes from thegenerator's premises to a permitted off-site treatment, storage, or disposalfacility. See 45 FR 33143 (May 19, 1980).The transporter regulations requiretransporters of coil coating wastes tocomply with the manifest system toassure that the wastes are delivered to apermitted facility. See 45 FR 33151-33152(May 19,1980]. Finally, RCRAregulations establish standards forhazardous waste treatment, storage anddisposal facilities allowed to receivesuch wastes. Final standards forpermitted hazardous waste disposal areexpected to be promulgated during thefall of 1980. See 45 FR 33154 (May 19,1980].

Even if these wastes are not identifiedas hazardous, they still must bedisposed of in compliance with thesubtitle D open dumping standards,implementing § 4004 of RCRA. See 44 FR53438 (Sept. 13, 1979).

EPA's Office of Solid Waste recentlycompleted a pilot analysis of the solidwaste management and disposal costrequired for coil coating to comply withRCRA. The costs of compliance withprolosed RCRA regulations were notspecifically included in the economicimpact analysis for these proposedregulations. However, EPA consideredestimated RCRA compliance costs forcoil coating when it selected thetechnology options for these proposedregulations.

C. Consumptive Water Loss-Treatment and control technologieswhich require extensive recycling andreuse of water may, in some cases,require cooling mechanisms. Whereevaporative cooling mechanisms areused, water loss may result andcontribute to water scarcity problems, aconcern primarily in arid and semi-aridregions. This proposed regulationenvisions the evaporative cooling andrecycling of relatively small quantitiesof cooling water. For the average sizecoil coating plant, this could result inevaporative loss of about 2000 gal/dayof water. This is an insignificantquantity of water which does not

2943

Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules

constitute a significant consumptivewater loss.

D. Energy Requirements--EPAestimates that the achievement ofproposed BPT effluent limitations willresult in a net increase in electricalenergy consumption of approximately0.55 million kilowatt-hour per year.Proposed BCT and BAT limitations areprojected to add another 2.84 millionkilowatt-hours-to electrical energyconsumption. To achieve the proposedBPT, BCT and BAT effluent limitations,a typical direct discharger will increasetotal inergy consumption by less thanone percent of the energy consumedforproduction purposes.

The Agency estimates that proposedPSES will result in a net increase inelectrical energy consumption ofapproximately 3.5,4 million kilowatt-hours per year. To achieve proposed-PSES, a typical existing indirectdischarger will increase energyconsumption less than one percent ofthe total energy consumed.forproduction purposes.

The energy requirements for NSPSand PSNS are estimated to.be similar toenergy requirements for BAT. However,this can only be quantified in kwh/yearafter projections are made for new plantconstruction.

XIX. Best Management Practices (BMP)Section 304(e) of the Clean Water Act

authorizes the Administrator toprescribe "best management practices"("BMP"), described under Authority andBackground. EPA intends to developBMPs which: 1) are applicable to allindustrial sites; 2] are applicable to adesignated industrial category, and 3]offer guidance to permit authorities inestablishing MBMPs required by uniquecircumstances at a given plant.

EPA is not now consideringpromulgating BMP specific to coil

.coating.

XX. Upset and Bypass ProvisionsAn issue of recurrent concern has

been whether industry guidelines shouldinclude provisions authorizingnoncompliance with effluent limitationsduring periods of "upset" or "bypass."An upset, sometimes called an"excursion," is unintentionalnoncompliance occurring for reasonsbeyond the reasonable control of thepermittee. It has been argued that anupset provision in EPA's effluentlimitations guidelines is necessarybecause such upsets will inevitablyoccur due to limitations in even properlyoperated control equipment. Becausetechnology-based limitations are to'require only what technology canachieve, it is claimed that liability for

such situations is improper. Whenconfronted with this issue, courts havebeen divided on the question of whetheran explicit upset or excursion exemptionis necessary or whether upset orexcursion incidents may be handledthrough EPA's exercise of enforcementdiscretion. Compare Marathon Oil Co. v.EPA, 564 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir. 1977) withWeyerhaeuser v. Costle, supra, andCorinRefiners Association, et al. -v.Costle, No. 78-1069 (8th Cir., April 2,1979). See also American PetroleumInstitute v. EPA, 540 F.2d 1023 (10th Cir.1976); CPC International, Inc. v. Train,.540 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1976); FMC Corp.v. Train, 539 F.2d 973 (4th Cir. 1976).

While an upset is an unintentionalepisode during which effluent limits areexceeded, a bypass is an act ofintentional noncompliance during whichwaste treatment facilities arecircumvented in emergency situations.Bypass provisions have, in the past,been included in NPDES permits.

EPA has determined that both upsetand bypass provisions should beincluded in NPDES permits, and hasrecently promulgated NPDES regulationswhich include upset and bypass permitprovisions. See-40 CFR 122.60.45 FR33290 (May 19, 1980). The upsetprovision establishes anupset as anaffirmative defense to prosecution forviolation of technology-based effluentlimitations. The bypass provisionauthorizes bypassing to prevent loss oflife, personal injury or severe propertydamage. Permittees in coil coating willbe entitled to the general upset andbypass provisions in NPDES permits.Thus these proposed regulations do notaddress these issues.XXI. Variances and Modifications

Upon the promulgation of finalregulations, the numerical effluentlimitations for the appropriatesubcategory must be applied in allfederal and state NPDES permitsthereafter issued to coil coating directdischargers. In addition, onpromulgation, the pretreatmentlimitations are directly applicable toindirect dischargers.

For the BPT and BCT effluentlimitations, the only exception to thebinding limitations is EPA's"fundamentally different factors"variance. See E. I duPont de Nemoursand Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112 (1977];Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, supra; EPAv. National Crushed Stone Association,et al. U.S. - (No. 79-770,decided Dec. 2, 1980). This variancerecognizes that there may be factorsconcerning a particular discharger

. which are fundamentally different fromthe factors considered in this

rulemaking. This variance clause wasoriginally set forth in EPA's 1973-1976industry regulations. It now will beincluded in the general NPDESregulations and will not be incltded inthe coil coating or other specificindustry regulations. See the NPDESregulation. 40 CFR 125, Supart D, 44 FR32854, 32893 'June 7, 1979 and 45 FR33512 (May 19, 1980] for the text and-explanation of the "fundamentallydifferent factors" variance.

The BAT limitations in this regulationalso are subject to EPA's"fundamentally different factors"variance. In addition, BAT limitationsfor non-toxic and nonconventionalpollutants are subject to modificationsunder Sections 301(c) and 301(g) of theAct. According toSection 3010)(1)(B),applications for these modificationsmust be filed within 270 days afterpromulgation of final effluent limitationsguidelines. See 43 FR 40859 (Sept. 13,1978). Under Section 301(1) of the Act,these statutory-modifications are notapplicable to "toxic" pollutants.Likewise, limitations onnonconventional pollutants used as"indicators" for toxic pollutants are notsubject to Section 301(c) or Section301(g) modifications.

Pretreatment standards for existingsources are subject to the"fundamentally different factors"variance and credits for pollutantsremoved by POTWs. See 40 CFR§ § 403.7. 403.13; 43 FR 27736 (June 26,1978). Pretreatment'standards for newsources are subject only to the creditsprovision in 40 CFR § 403.7. New sourceperformance standards are not subjectto EPA's "fundamentally differentfactors" variance or any statutory orregulatory modifications. See duPont v.Train, supra.'

XXII. Relationship to NPDES PermitsThe BPT,*BAT, BCT, and NSPS

limitations in this regulation will beapplied to individual coil coating plantsthrough NPDES permits issued by EPAor approved state agencies underSection 402 of the Act. The precedingsection of this preamble discussed the"binding effect of this regulation onNPDES permits, except to the extentthat variances and modifications areexpressly authorized. This sectiondescribes several other aspects of theinteraction of these regulations andNPDES permits.

One matter which has been subject todifferent judicial views is thb scope ofNlVDES permit proceedings in theabsence of effluent-limitations,guidelines and standards Undercurrently applicable EPA regulations,states and EPA Regions issuing NPDES

V= - __2944-

Federal Renoister I Vol. 46. No. 7 I Monday, January 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules 2~

permits prior to promulgation of thisregulation and before June 30,1981 mustinclude a "re-opener clause," providingfor permits to be modified to incorporate"toxics" regulations when they arepromulgated. Permits issued after June30, 1981 must meet the requirements ofSection 301(b](2) of the Clean Water Actwhether or not applicable effluentlimitations guidelines have beenpromulgated. See 40 CFR 122.62(c), 45FR 33290, 33339. May 19, 1980. At onetime EPA had a policy of issuing short-term permits, with a view towardissuing long-term permits only afterpromulgation of these and other BATregulations. While EPA continues toencourage EPA and state permit writersto issue short term permits to primaryindustry dischargers until June 30, 1981.EPA has changed its policy to allowmore flexibility. See 45 FR 33340, May19, 1980. EPA permit writers may issuelong-term permits to primary industrieseven if guidelines have not yet beenpromulgated provided that the permitsrequire BAT and BCT and containreopener clauses. The appropriatetechnology levels and limitations will beassessed by the permit issuer on a case-by-case basis on consideration of thestatutory factors. See U.S. Steel Corp. v.Train, 556 F. 2d 822, 844, 854 (7th Cir.1977). In these situations, EPAdocuments-and draft documents(including these proposed regulationsand supporting documents] are relevantevidence, but not binding, in NPDESpermit proceedings. See 44 FR 32854,June 7, 1979).

Another noteworthy topic is the effectof this regulation on the powers ofNPDES permit issuing authorities. Thepromulgation of this regulation does notrestrict the power of any permit-issuingauthority to act in any manner notinconsistent with law or these or anyother EPA regulations, guidelines orpolicy. For example, the fact that thisregulation does not control a particularpollutant does not preclude the permitissuer from limiting such pollutant on acase-by-case basis, when necessary tocarry out the purposes of the Act. Inaddition, to the extent that state waterquality standards or other provisions ofstate or Federal law require limitation ofpollutants not covered by this regulation(or require more stringent limitations oncovered pollutants], such limitationsmust be applied by the permit-issuingauthority.

One additional topic that warrantsdiscussion is the operation of EPA'sNPDES enforcement program, manyaspects of which have been consideredin developing this regulation. TheAgency wishes to emphasize that,

although the Clean Water Act is a strictliability statute, the intiation ofenforcement proceedings by EPA isdiscretionary (Sierra Club vs Train, 557F 2nd 485, 5th Circ. 1977). EPA hasexercised and intends to exercise thatdiscretion in a manner which recognizesand promotes good faith complianceefforts and conserves enforcementresources for those who fail to makegood faith efforts to comply with theAct.

XXIII. Summary of Public Participation

On September 7,1979, EPA circulateda draft technical development documentto a number of interested parties,including the National Coil CoatersAssociation and several member firms,the Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC), and affected state andmunicipal authorities. This documentdid not include recommendations foreffluent limitations and standards, butrather presented the technical basis forthis proposed regulation. A meeting washeld in Washington, D.C. on October 23,1979, for public discussion of commentson this document. A brief summary ofthese comments follows.

1. Comment: Numerous commentswere received indicating that manyparts of the draft development documentwere difficult to follow and understand.Many typograplal and minor errorswere pointed out as well.

Response: The Agency hassubstantially modified the developmentdocument to improve its clarity and topresent technical data and informationin a logical and understandable fashion.Many changes were made to correcttypographical and the minor errors, andare not addressed specifically in thissummary of comments.

2. Comments: Commentors indicatedthat the capital costs estimates foreffluent treatment systems weresubstantially below the actual costs forconstructing waste treatment systems.

Response: The Agency has revised thedevelopment document to more clearlystate the costing methodology used.Additionally, the Agency has requesteddetailed information on the exampleinstallation cited by comments so thatcosting allowances and specific costscan be compared to identify specificdifferences.

3. Comment: One commenter pointedout that the cost of land for a treatmentsystem is not included in the costestimates.

Response: The amount of landrequired for treatment systems in theflow range needed for coil coating isquite small and can be made extremelysmall by appropriate engineering design.Because the minimum area required for

treatment is so small, the Agencybelieves that most, if not all, coil coaterswill be able to install the necessaryequipment within their present availablespace.

4. Comment: One commenterquestioned the validity of the Agency'sassumption that higher influent pollutantloading will not alter the effluentconcentration of pollutants achieved bya treatment system.

Response: The Agency examined itsrecords of sampled wastewatertreatment performance and studied long-term data for treatment system effluentfor two industrial plants withwastewater characteristics similar tocoil coating wastewaters. These data,shown in Section VII of the developmentdocument, support the Agency's positionthat achieved effluent concentration formetals is relatively independent ofinfluent concentration.

5. Comment: The practicality of usingultrafiltration and membrane filtrationin advanced treatment systems wasquestioned in view of the reportedoperational difficulties of using thesetechnologies for solids removal.

Response: The Agency is notproposing the use of these technologiesfor BAT or NSPS and the'developmentdocument reflects the changes.

6. Comment: A commenter pointed outthat Figure 10-1, the diagram for BATLevels I and II, did not indicateprovision for return of backwash fromthe polishing filter to the system. Thecommenter asked if provisions foradditional capacity for the backwashhad been made in the cost of the system.

Response: The errant diagram for theproposed BAT treatment system hasbeen corrected to show proper handlingof backwash. The need to allowadditional treatment capacity forbackwash is recognized and anallowance for handling backwash isincluded in costing of the system.

7. Comment: One commenter statedthat the discussion of environmentalhazards of cyanide does not apbly to thecoil coating industry because the formused is a complex ferricyanide. Also itwas stated that "free" cyanide ratherthan total cyanide, should be the controlparameter for cyanide, based on theWaterQuality Criteria publicationwhich selects free cyanide as thecriteria pollutant.

Response: EPA recognizes thatcyanide complexed as ferricyanide isthe form used in soine conversioncoating formulations for coil coatingaluminum.-Under exposure to ultravioletlight (i.e. sunlight) the complex cyanideforms decompose to release cyanide ion.Such a process occurring in open watersreceiving complexed cyanides will

Feder Register / Vol. 46, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules291.5

Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 7 / Mdnday, January 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules

produce the environmentally hazardouscyanide ion. Therefore, the Agency isproposing regulation of total cyanide.

Comment: Two commenters notedthat the discussion of polishing filters tobe used in BAT Levels I and II, calledfor achieving 3.8 mg/1 TSS for polishingfilters, without statisfactoryjustification.

Response: EPA's response isincorporated in Section VII of therevised Development Document. TheTSS concentrations upon whichproposed BAT, TSS mass dischargelimitations.are based, have been set at10 mg/1 average and 20 mg/1 maximum.

9. Comment: Commenters questioned-the median predicted level of 3.8 mg/1for suspended solids which was setforth at page 340 of the draftdevelopment document.

Response: Section VII of thedevelopment document to support thisproposed regulation contains data onthe operation of five industrialwastewater filtration systems. Thesedata have a mean TSS concentration of2.6 mg/i and form the basis of :technology performance for the BATlimitations.

10. Comment- One commentercontended that the effluent predictedquality is "ideal" and not predictablyachieved.

Response: The limitations proposed inthis regulation are based primarily onempirical performance data for thetechnologies suggested. This empiricaldata and the variation of regulatorylevels is displayed in section VII of thedevelopment document.11. Comment: One commenter

qudstioned the'requirement for no-rinseconversion coating at BAT Level II onthe grounds that retrofitting existingplants for this process will requireextensive replacement of existingequipment at very high capital cost.

Response: The Agency recognizedthat undetermined production losseswould be incurred during retrofitting ofthe no-rinse system to existing lines.Therefore, this pollutant reductiontechnology has been eliminated from theproposed BAT system. It is retained inthe proposed BDT (NSPS) system fornew sources where installation asoriginal design equipmenf will notimpose the burden of production loss.

12. Commenters stated that complexcyanides are used oiply in conversioncoating formulations applied to somealuminum strip and no cyanide is usedin cleaning or treating steel or"galvanized strip. A commenter statedthat the presence of cyanide in rawwastewaters from steel and galvanizedlines must be due to analytical methods.

Response: Analytical data fromthirteen different laboratoriesestablished the presence of cyandie insamples from coil coating facilities. Inonly one coil coating facility wascyanide detected in inlet water. Thepresence of cyanide in other facilities isattributed to crossover or carryover ofcyanides from aluminum processingsolutions to rinse waters used incommon for steel and alumiunm orgalvanized and aluminum processing.Therefore, provision for cyanidetreatment is made only for the aluminumsubcategory, but cyanide is regulated inall subcategories to assure thatdischarges of cyanide from multiplesubcategory facilities are limited.

13. Comment: One commenterquestioned the impact of no-rinseconversion coating on industrial hygiene-contending that it introduces thepotential of toxic, fugitive dust in thework place, pointed out that the processhas not been FDA approved for use insanitary coating containers; and Icontended that the process is not provenand must be further developed..

Response: The Agency has reviewedthe chemicals used in no-rinseconversion coating formulations andfinds that ihey are essentially identicalto the kinds of chemicals used inconventional conversion coatingformulations. Hence it appears thatthere is no more likelihood of potential,toxic, fugitive dust in the work placefrom no-rinse conversion coating thanfrom conventional conversion coatingsolutions. EPA does not expect thatthere will be problems in obtaining FDAapproval when application is made forsuch approval. The no-rinse process isbeing used in three commercial plants inthe United States leaving little doubtabout its commercial availability anddevelopment.

14. Comment: Commenters stated thatmany technologies discussed such asstarch xanthate, ion exchange,evaporation and chromium regenerationare not usable technologies in coilcoating.

Response: Although these (andseveral other technologies] arediscussed the Agency has not reliedupon them as a basis for this proposedregulations even though they are,discussed in the development document.These technologies are discussed in thedevelopment document because theymay have some merif and applicabilityin specific or special situations.

15. Comment: One comiiientercontended that the oil removaltechniques, as described, are incompleteand that they do not include thetechniques of acid cracking and

polyelectrolite addition to removeemulsified oils.

Response: On the bases of samplingdata collected from coil coating plants itappears that oil skimming in conjunctionwith other chemical treatments willadequately remove oil to meet thelimitations. If however a particular plantchooses to use a special or unusual oil,appropriate technology, such asdeemulsification, may need to beapplied at the-plant to meet the effluentstandards.

16. Comment: Industry commentscontend that the application of waterconserving techniques do not achievethe water rates used as a basis forlimitations.

I

Response: As discussed in Sections IXand X the water use rates on whichthese limitations are based are themedian water flows for eachsubcategory as taken from the industrysupplied data. This means that half ofthe plants in the industry are presentlymeeting the overallwater use on whichBPT is based. Further th6 BAT waterflow is based on recirculation and reuseof the quench water stream. Thisreduces the wastewater dischargepotential by 60 to 70 percent withoutreducing the amount of water which isused for cleaning and conversion coatrinses.

17. Comment: One commenter statedthat dissolved metals should beregulated rather than total metals. Thebasis for this statement was that alldiscussions in the report deal withdissolved salts of the metals rather thanthe metals themselves.

Response: The Agency recognizes thatdissolved metal ions areenvironmentally hazardous entities.However, the metallic elements and theundissolved compounds of theseelements are subject to different sets ofconditions after they leave the treatmentsystem. Most metallic particles readilyoxidize in the oxygen-containing watersof receiving water bodies. In receivingwaters, the oxidized metal'particles andundissolved metal compounds dissolveto produce the more environmentallyhazardous ionic species. Only a fewmetals, such as gold, would not oxidizein usual receiving water bodies, buteven gold compounds could dissolve.Thus, total metals are regulated. -

18. Comment: It was suggested thatspecial (presumably less stringent)limitations be established to facilitatetreatment of coil coating wastewaterswith other process wastewaters in largeintegrated facilities.

Response: The Agency does not objectto the joint treatment of compatiblewastewaters when appropriate. TheAgency does insist that the treatment

29-16

FAArRI Redter I Vol. 46. No. 7 I Monday, lanuary 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules 24

afford wastewaters treated jointly besuch that the amount of pollutantsdischarged from joint treatment be notgreater than allowed by the sum of theindividual discharge limitations.

XXIV. Solicitation of CommentsEPA invites and encourages public

participation in this rulemaking. TheAgency asks that any deficiencies in therecord of this proposal be specificallyaddressed and particularly asks thatsuggested revisions or corrections besupported by data.

EPA is particularly interested inreceiving additional comments andinformation on the following issues:

The Agency is now consideringregulating the production of two piecebeverage type cans (either aluminum orsteel) as a subcategory of the coilcoating category. Some can makingprocesses were originally projected tobe part of the aluminum formingcategory. Information gathered underthe aluminum forming data collectioneffort indicated that can making doesnot correspond to any other aluminumforming operation. However, the canmaking process is very similar to thecoil coating process and would fit inbetter as a subcategory in the coilcoating category. Both industriesprepare the metal by cleaning baths andrinsing, apply a chemical conversioncoat, and each may paint the product.Both processes are done on a continuousmotion basis. Coil coating uses acontinuous strip moving through theprocess steps, while can making uses acontinuous web of cans. Similartreatment of the wastewaters would beprobable due to the similarities in theprocesses. The Agency recognizes thatfactors are somewhat different in canmaking than in coil coating and issoliciting comments on the general issueof adding can making to the coil coatingcategory and on the applicability ofthree specific items: the coil coatingregulatory methodology, the treatmentmethods recommended, and theproduction normalizing factor.

The Agency is continuing to seekadditional data to support theseproposed limitations. The Agencyspecifically solicits long term samplingdata which will help to better define theoperability of the treatment technologiesrelied upon for regulation.

In order to determine the economicimpact of this regulation, the Agencyhas calculated the cost of installing BPT,BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS for eachcoil coating facility for which data wasavailable. The cost of BCT for the steeland galvanized subcategories is thesame as BAT; the cost for aluminum isthe same as BPT. The details of the cost

estimations are outlined in the TechnicalDevelopment Document. Based on theseestimates, the Agency has determinedthat no adverse economic burden willresult from these regulations. Informalreview of the Draft TechnicalDevelopment Document by industryrevealed that industry considers the costestimates are too low. The Agencyinvites comments on this issue andrequests that commenters submit anyrelevant cost data to the Agency.

The treatment effectiveness data setforth in the Technical DevelopmentDocument is based on results of Agencysampling of the raw wastewaters andtreated effluents from a broad range ofplants generating similar wastewaters.The Agency invites comments on thetreatment effectiveness, and requestsdata (especially paired raw wastewater-effluent data) from plants having welloperated BPT or BAT treatmentsystems.

The Agency considered regulatingTSS as an indicator for removal of smallamounts of metals, and oil and grease asan indicator for removal of smallamounts of organics. As proposed, theregulation will use oil and grease as anindicator, but will not use TSS as anindicator. The Agency invites commentson this approach and suggestions foralternative approaches.

The Agency is considering adding analternative regulatory strategy. Theproposed regulatory strategy calls formeeting numerical limits for each ofseveral specific metals and otherpollutants. The additional alternativewould require control of a few (two orthree) metals plus close control of pHand total suspended solids (TSS). Suchan alternative could reduce analyticalcosts of monitoring. The Agency invitescomments on the inclusion of suchoptional alternative in the regulations.

Dated: December 31,1980.Douglas M. Castle,Administrator.

Appendix A.-Abbreviations, Acronyms and,Other Terms Used in This Notice

Act-The Clean Water ActAgency-The U.S. Environmental Protection

AgencyBAT-The best available technology

economically achievable under Section304(b)(2)(B) of the Act

BCT-The best conventional pollutantcontrol technology, under Section 304b)(4)of the Act

BDT-The best available demonstratedcontrol technology processes, operatingmethods, or other alternatives, includingwhere practicable, a standard permittingno discharge of pollutants under section306(a)(1) of the Act.

BMP-Best management practices underSection 304(e) of the Act

BPT-The best practicable control technologycurrently available under Section 304(b)(1)of the Act

Clean Water Act-The Federal WiterPollution Control Act Amendments of 19.72(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended by theClean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law. 95-217)

Direct discharger-A facility whichdischarges pollutants into waters of theUnited States

Indirect discharger-A facility whichintroduces pollutants into a publicly ownedtreatment works

NPDES permit-A National PollutantDischarge Elimination System permitissued under Section 402 of the Act

NSPS-New source performance standardsunder Section 3C6 of the Act

POTW-Publicly owned treatment worksPSES-Pretreatment standards for existing

sources of indirect discharges underSection 307(b) of the Act

PSNS-Pretreatment standards for newsources of direct discharges under Section307 (b) and (c) of the Act

RCRA-Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (Pub. L 94-580) of 1976, asamended.

Appendix B.-Toxic Pollutants Consideredfor Specific Limitation

(a) Subpart A-Steel Basis MaterialSubcategory

039 Fluoranthene072 1,2-benzanthracene

(benzo(a)anthracene)073 Benzo(a]pyrene (3,4-benzo-pyrene)074 3-4Benzofluoranthene

(benzo(b~fluoranthene075 11,12-benzofluoranthene

(benzo(b)fluoranthene076 Chrysene077 Acenaphthylene078 Anthracene079 1,12-benzoperylene (benzo(ghi~perylene)080 Fluorene081 Phenanthrene082 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene

dibenzo(,h)anthracene)083 Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene (2,3,-o-

pheynylene pyrene)084 Pyrene087 Trichloroethylene118 Cadmium119 Chromium121 Cyanide, Total122 Lead124 Nickel128 Zinc

(bJ Subpart B-Galvanized Basis MaterialSubcategory

039 Fluoranthene072 1,2,-benzanthracene

(benzo(a)anthracene)078 Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzo-pyrene)074 3,4-Benzofluoranthene

(benzo(b)fluoranthene075 11,12-benzofluoranthene

(benzo(b)fluoranthene)076 Chrysene077 Acenaphthylene078 Anthracene079 1,12-benzoperylene (benzo(ghi)perylene)080 Fluorene

Federal Register / ol. 46, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules2947

Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules

081 Phenanthrene082 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene,

(dibenzo(,h~anthracene)083 Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene 2,3-o-

pheynylene pyrene)084 Pyrene087 Trichloroethylene118 Cadmium119 Chromium120 Copper121 Cyanide, Total122 Leid124 Nickel128 Zinc

(c) Subpart C-Aluminum Basis MaterialSubcategory

118 Cadmium119 Chromium120 Copper121 Cyanide, Total122 Lead128 Zinc

Appendix C.-Toxic Pollutants Not Detected

(a) Subpart A-Steel Basis MaterialSubcategory

001 Acenaphthene002 Acrolein003 Acrylonitrile005 Benzidine005 Carbon tetrachloride

(tetrachloromethane)007 Chlorobenzdne008 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene009 Hexachlorobenzene010 1,2-dichloroethane012 Hexachloroethane014 1,1,2-trichoroethane015 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane016 Chloroethane017 Bis (chloromethyl) ether018 Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether019 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed]020 2-chloronaphthalene021 2,4,6-trichlorophenol022 Parachlorometa cresol023 Chloroform (trichloromethane)024 2-chlorophenol025 1,2-dichorobenzene026 1,3-dichlorobenzene027 1,4-dichlorobenzene028 3,3-dichlorobenzidine029 1,1-dichloroethylene030 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene031 2,4-dichlorophenol032 1,2-dichloropropane033 1,2-dichloropropylene (1,3-

dichloropropene),035 2,4-dinitrotoluene036 2,6-dinitrotoluene037 . 1,2-diphenylhydrazine040 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether041 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether042 Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether043 Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane045 Methyl chloride (dichloromethane)046 Methyl bromide (bromomethane]047 Bromoform (tribromomethane)048 Dichlorobromomethane049 Trichlorofluoromethane050 Dichlorodifluoromethane051 Chlorodibromomethane052 Hexachlorobutadiene053 Hexachloromyclopenta-056 Nitrobenzene

057 2-nitrophenol058 4-nitrophenol059 2,4-dinitrophenol050 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol061 N-nitrosodimethylamine082 N-nitrosodiphenylamine063 N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine064 Pentachlorophenol088 Vinyl chloride {chloroethylene]089 Aldrin090 Dieldrin091 Chlordane (technical mixture and

metabolites)092 4,4-DDT-093 4,4-DDE (p,p-DDX)094 4,4-DDD (p,p-TDE)095 Alpha-endosulfan096 Beta-endosulfan097 Endosulfan sulfate098 Endrin099 Endrin aldehyde100 Heptachlor,101 Heptachlor epoxide (BHC-

hexachlorocyclohexane102 Alpha-BHC103 Beta-BHC104 Gamma-BHC (lindane)105 Delta-BHC (PCB-polychlorinated

biphenyls]108 PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242]107 PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)108 PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)109 PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232]110 PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)111 PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)112 PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)113 Toxaphene116 Asbestos117 Beryllium

'125 Selenium127 Thallium-129 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

(TCDD)

(b) Subpart B-Galvanized Basis MaterialSubcategory

001 Acenaphtherte002 Acrolein003- Acrylonitrile004 Benzene005 Benzidine005 Carbon tetrachloride

(tetrachloromethane]007 Chlorobenzene008 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene009 Hexachlorobenzene010 1,2-dichloroethane012 Hexachloroethane013 1,1-dichloroethane014 1,1,2-trichloroethane015 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane-016 Chloroethane017 Bis (chloromethyl) ether018 Bis (2-chloroethyl] ether019 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)020 2-chloronaphthalene021 2,4,6-trichlorophenol022 'Parachlorometacregol023 Chloroform (trichloromethane)024 2-chlorophenol025 1,2-dichlorobenzene026 1,3-dichlorobenzene027 1,4-dichlorobenzene028 3,3-dichlorobenzidine031 2,4-dichorophenol032 1,2-dichloropropane

033 1,2-dichloropropylene (1,3-dichloropropene)

034 2,4,-demethylphenol -035 2,4-dinitrotoluene036 2,6-dinitrotoluene037 1,2-diphenylhydrazine038 Ethylbenzene040 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether041 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether042 Bis (2-chloroisopropyl] ether043 Bis(2-chloroethoxyj methane044 Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)045 Methyl chloride (dichIoromethane)046 'Methyl bromide (Bromomethane)047 Bromoform (tribromomethane]048 Dichlorobromomethane049 Trichlorofluoromethane050 Dichlorodifluoromethane051 Chlorodibromomethane052 Hexachlorobutadiene053 Hexachloromyclopentadiene056 Nittobenzene057 2-nitrophenol058 4-nitrophenol059 2.4-dinitrophenol060 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol081 N-nitrosodimethylamine062 N-nitrosodiphenylamine063 N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine064 Pentachlorophenol065 Phenol085 Tetrachloroethylene086 Toluene088 Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene]089 Aldrin090 Dieldrin091 Chlordane (technical mixture and

metabolites)092 4,4-DDT093 4,4-DDE (p,p-DDX)094 4,4-DDD (p,p-TDE)-095 Alpha-endosulfan096 Beta-endosulfan097 Endosulfan sulfate098 Endrin099 Endrin aldehyde100 Heptachlor101 Heptachlor epoxide (BHC-

hexachlorocyclohexane)102 Alpha-BHC103 Beta-BHC104 -Gamma-BHC (lindane]105 Delta-BHC (PCB-polychlorinated

biphenyls)106 PCB-1242 (Arochor 1242)167 PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)108 PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)109 PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)110 PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248]111 PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)112 PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)113 Toxaphene114 Antiniony115 Arsenic116 Asbestos117 Beryllium123 Mercury125 Selenium126 Silver127 Thallium129 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

(TCDD)

(c) Subpart C-Aluminum Basis MaterialSubcategory

001 Acenaphthene

m lb

m2948

Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules

002 Acrolein003 Acrylonitrile005 Benzidine006 Carbon tetrachloride

(tetrachIoromethane)007 Chlorobenzene008 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene009 Hexachlorobenzene010 1,2-dichloroethane011 1,1,1-trichlorethane012 Hexachloroethane013 1,1-dichloroethane014 1,1,2-trichloroethane015 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane016 Chloroethane017 Bis (chIoromethyl) ether018 Bis (2-chloroethyl] ether019 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)020 2-chloronaphthalene021 2.4,6-trichlorophenol022 Parachlorometa cresol023 Chloroform (trichIoromethane)024 2-chlorophenol025 1,2-dichIorobenzene026 1,3-dichlorobenzene027 1,4-dichlorobenzene028 3,3-dichlorobenzidine029 1,1-dichloroethylene030 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene031 2,4-dichlorophenol032 1,2-dichloropropane033 1,2-dichloropropylene (1,3-

dichloropropene)034 2,4-dimethylphenol035 2,4-dinitrotoluene036 2,6-dinitrotoluene037 1.2-diphenylhydrazine008 Ethylbenzene040 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether041 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether042 BIs (2-chloroisopropyl] ether043 Bis (2-chloroethoxy] methane045 Methyl chloride (dichloromethane)046 Methyl bromide (bromomethane047 Bromoform (tribromomethane)048 Dichlorobromomethane049 Trichlorofluoromethane060 Dichlorodifluoromethane061 Chlorodibromomethane052 Hexachlorobutadiene053HexachloromycIopentadiene054 Isophorone056 Nitrobenzene057 2-nitrophenol058 4-nitrophenol059 2,4-dinitrophenol060 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol061 N-nitrosodimethylanine062 N-nitrosodiphenyIamine063 N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine064 Pentachlorophenol065 Phenol088 Vinyl chloride (chloroethyIene]089 Aldrin090 Dieldrin091 Chlordane (technical mixture and

metabolites)092 4,4-DDT093 4,4-DDE (p,p-DDX)094 4,4-DDD (p,p-TDE)095 Alpha-endosulfan096 Beta-endosulfan097 Endosulfan sulfate098 Endrin099 Endrin aldehyde100 Heptachlor

101 Heptachlor epoxide (BHC-hexachlorocyclohexane)

102 Alpha-BHC103 Beta-BHC104 Gamma-BHC (lindane)105 Delta-BHC (PCB-poly-chlorinated

biphenyls)106 PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)107 PCB-1254 (ArochIor 1254)'108 PCB-1221 (Arachlor 1221)109 PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)110 PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248]111 PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)112 PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016]113 Toxaphene114 Antimony115 Arsenic116 Asbestos117 Beryllium123 Mercury125 Selenium126 Silver127 Thallium129 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

(TCDD)

Appendix D.-Toxic Pollutants DetectedBelow the Nominal Quantification Limit

(a) Subpart A-Steel Basis MaterialSubcategory

004 Benzene038 Ethylbenzene044 Methylene chloride (dichlorome071 Dimethyl phthalate085 Tetrachloroethylene086 Toluene123 Mercury

.thane)

(b) Subpart B-Galvanized Basis MaterialSubcategory069 Di-n-octyl phthalate071 Dimethyl phthalate

(c) Subpart C-Aluminum Basis MajerialSubcategory

004 Benzene039 Fluoranthene044 Methylene chloride (dichloromethan055 Naphthalene069 Di-n-octyl phthalate085 Tetrachloroethylene086 Toluene087 Trichloroethylene

Appendix E.-Toxic Pollutants Detected inEnvironmentally Insignificant Amounts

(a) Subpart A-Steel Basis MaterialSubcategory

011 1,1,1-trichlorethane013 1,1-dichloroethane034 2,4-dimethylphenol054 Isophorone055 Naphthalene065 Phenol068 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate067 Butyl benzyl phthalate068 Di-N-Butyl Phthalate069 Di-n-octyl phthalate070 Diethyl Phthalate114 Antimony115 Arsenic120 Copper126 Silver

(b) Subpart B-Galvanized Basis MaterialSubcategory

011 1,1,1-trichlorethane029 1,1-dichloroethylene030 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene054 Isophorone055 Naphthalene066 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate067 Butyl benzyl phthalate068 Di-N-Butyl Phthalate070 Diethyl Phthalate

(c) Subpart C-Aluminum Basis MaterialSubcategory

066 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthaIate067 Butyl benzyl phthalate068 Di-N-Butyl Phthalate070 Diethyl Phthalate071 Dimethyl phthalate /072 1,2-benzanthracene

(benzo(a)anthracene) -

073 Benzo(a~pyrene (3,4,benzopyrene074 3,4-Benzofluoranthene

(benzo(b)fluoranthene075 11,12-benzofluoranthene

(benzo(b)fluoranthene076 Chrysene077 Acenaphthylene078 Anthracene079 1,12-benzoperylene (henzofghiperylene)080 Fluorene081 Phenanthrene082 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene

{dibenzo{,h)anthracene)083 Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene (2,3-o-

pheynylene pyrene)084 Pyrene124 Nickel

EPA proposes to add Part 465 to Title40 of the Code of Federal Regulations toread as follows:

PART 465--COIL COATING POINTSOURCE CATEGORY

General Provisions

Sec.465.01 Applicability465.02 General definitions465.03 Monitoring and reporting

requirements [Reserved]

Subpart A-Steel Basis MaterialSubcategory

465.10 Applicability; description of the steelbasis material subcategory.

465.11 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best practicablecontrol technology currently available(rPT).

465.12 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable(BAT).

465.13 New source performance standards(NSPS).'

465.14 Pretreatment standards for existingsources (PSES].

465.15 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS].

465.16 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT).

2949

el

2950 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules

Subpart B-Galvanized Basis MaterialSubcategory465.20 Applicability; description of the

galvanized basis material subcategory.465.21 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best practicablecontrol technology currently available(BPT):

465.22 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable(BAT).

465.23 New source performance standards(NSPS).

465.24 Pretreatment standards for existingsources (PSES].

465.25 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

465.26 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best coriventionalpollutant control technology (BCT).

Subpart C-Aluminum Basis MaterialSubcategory465.30 Applicability; description of the

aluminum basis material subcategory.465.31 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best practicablecontrol technology currently available(BPT).

465.32 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable(BAT).

465.33 New source performance standards(NSPS).

465.34 Pretreatment standards for existingsources (PSES]. -

465.35 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

465.36 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT).

Authority: Sections 301, 304 (b), Cc), (e), and(g), 308 (b) and (c), 307 (b] and (c), and 501-ofthe Clean Water Act (the Federal WaterPollution Control Act Amendments 6f 1972,as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977)(The "Act"); 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314 (b], (c), (e),and (g), 1316 (b) and (c), 1317 (b) and (c), and1361; 86 Stat. 816, Pub. L. 92-500; 91 Stat. 1567,Pub. L. 95-217.

General Provisions

§ 465.01 Applicability.

This part applies to any coil coatingfacility which discharges a pollutant'towaters of the United States or whichintroduces pollutants to a publiclyowned treatment works.

§ 465.02 General definitions.In addition to the definitions set forth

in 40 CFR Part 401, the followingdefinitions apply to this part:

(a) "Coil" means a strip -of basismaterial rolled into a roll for handling.

(b) "Coil coating" means the processof converting basis material strip intocoated stock. Usually cleaning,conversion coating, and painting areperformed on the basis material. Thisregulation covers processes whichperform any two or more of the threeoperations.

(c) "Basis material" means the coiledstrip which is processed.

(d) "Area processed" means the areaactually exposed to process solutions.Usually this includes both sides of themetal strip.

(e) "Steel basis material" means coldrolled steel, hot rolled steel, and chrome,nickel and tin coated steel which areprocessed.

(f) "Galvanized basis material" meanszinc coated steel, galvanized, brass andother copper base strip which isprocessed in coil coating.

(g) "Aluminum basis material" meansaluminum; aluminum alloys andaluminum coated steels which areprocessed in coil coating.

(h) "BPT" means the best practicablecontrol technology currently availableunder Section 304(b)(1) of the Act.

(i) "BAT" means the best availabletechnology economically achievableunder Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act.

(j) "NSPS" means new sourceperformance standards under Section306 of the Act,

(k) "PSES" means pretreatmentstandards for existing sources, under

'Section 306(b) of the Act.(1) "PSNS" means pretreatment

standards for-new sources, underSection 306(c) of the-Act.

(in) "BCT" means the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology, under Section 304(b)(4) ofthe Act.

§ 465.03 [Reserved]

Subpart A-Steel Basis MaterialSubcategory

§ 465.10 Applicability; description of thesteel basis material subcategory.

This subpart applies to discharges towaters of the United States, andintroductions of pollutants into publiclyowned treatment works from coilcoating of steel basis material coils.

§ 465.11 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best practicablecontrol technology currently available(BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR§ § 125.30-.32, any existing point sourcesubject to this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application

of the best practicable controltechnology currently available:

Subpart A

BPT effluent limitations

Pollutant or pollutant Average of

property Maximum for Or vu

any 1 day consecutivesampling days

Mg/mc (b/I,000.000 It-) ofarea processed

Cadm m........ ........... 0.18 (0.036) 0.089 (0.018)5.42(1.11) 1.95 (0.40)

Coppe ....................... 5.78 (1.18) 2.34 (0.48)Cyanide. Total-__........ 0.65 (0.13) 0.27 (0.055)

Lea ................. 0.30 (0.061) 0.15 (0.03)

Nickel . 4.27 (0.87) 3.23 (0.65)Zinc. ................ 4.44 (0.91) 1.93 (0.39)

Iro .. ....... .......... 6.43 (1.32) 2-19(0.45)

Ot and Grease _.......... 59.2 (12.1) 29.6 (6.07)TSS......... .' .... 184. (21.2) 74.1 (15.2)

pH--Within the rahge of 7.5 to 10.0 at all tim.

§ 465.12 Effluent limitations representiongthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR§ §125.30-.32, any existing point sourcesubject to this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applicationof the best available technologyeconomically achievable:

Subpart A

BAT effluent limitations

Pollutant or pollutant Average ofproperty Maximum for for vu

any 1 day consecutive

samplind days

mg/.5

(ib/1,000,000 ft1) ofarea processed

.0.050 (0.010) 0.024 (0.005)Chromum. .................... 33 (.067) .12 (.025)Copper .......... ... 1.59 (.33) 64. (.13)Cyan;de, Total .... :.. .17 (.035) .073 (.015)Lead............ . .12 (.025) .054 (.011)Nickel .............................. .78 (.16) .35 (.072)

.84 (.17) .37 (.075)Iron ........................ . ........ 2.64 (.54) .90 (.18)

C(t and Grease. .................. 12.2 (2.49) 12.2 (2.49)

§ 465.13 New source performancestandards.

Any new source subject to thissubpart must achieve the follvoingperformance standards:

(a) There shall be no discharge ofwastewater pollutants from conversioncoating operations.

(b] The discharge of wastewaterpollutants from all coil coatingoperations other than conversioncoating operations shall not exceed thevalues set forth below:

Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules

Subpart A

NSPS

Pollutant or pollutant Average of

property Maximum for dol vauany I for 30any 1 day consecutive

samplng days

mg/fg (to/1.C00,000 ft) ofarea processed

Cadmium-......... 0.014 (0.003) 0.007 (0.001)Chromium ......... . .094 (.019) .035 (.007)Copper ................ .46 (.094) .19 (.038)Cyni de. Total .... .052 (.01) .021 (.004)

Lead ............... .035 (.007) .015 (.003)Nickel ................ 22 (046) .1 (.021)Zinc ............. . .24 (.049) .11 (.021)Iron ............ . 75 (.15) .26 (.053)Ol and Grea......... 3.49 (.72) 3.49 (.72)TSS. .. ......... 5.24 (1.07) 3.49 (.72)pH--Witfn the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.

§465.14 Pretreatment standards forexisting sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR § 403.13,an existing source subject to thissubpart which introduces pollutants intoa publicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for existing sources. Theprovision of 40 CFR Part 403.6(c) andAppendix A, B.2.e requiring thatpretreatment standards be establishedas concentration is set aside for thissubpart. The mass wastewaterpollutants in coil coating processwastewater introduced into a POTWshall not exceed the following values:

Subpart A

PSES

Polutant or pollutant dM u f vaeproperty Maximum for for 30any 1 day consecutive

samp;ing days

rng/p (th/1,000.000 ft2) ofarea processed

Cadmium.... 0.050 (0.010) 0.022 (0.005)Chrmiurm..... . .33 (.067) .12 (.025)Copper...... 1.59 (.33) .64 (.13)Cyanide, Total.. .18 (.037) .073 (.015)Lead - .12 (.025) .054 (.011)Nid'el .. .. .73 (.16) .35 (.072)Znc_ ... 84 (.17) .37 (,075)

§ 465.15 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

Any new source subject to thissubpart which introduces pollutants intoa publicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CR.Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for new sources. Theprovision of 40 CFR Part 403(c) andAppendix A, B.2.e. requiring thatpretreatment standards be establishedas concentration is set aside for thissubpart. The mass wastewaterpollutants in coil coating process

watewater introduced into a POTWshall not exceed the following values:

Subpart A

PSNS

Pollutant of pollutant Average ofproperty Maximum for daily valuespropertyy for 30

any 1 clay consecutive

sampling days

mg/m2

(lb/1,000000 1t2) of

area processed

Cadmum ............ 0.014 (0.003) 0.007 (0.001)Chromium...............__..... 094 (.019) .035 (.007)Copper ............ .46 (.094) .19 (.004)Cyanide, Total ........ .052 (.01) .021 (.004)

. ..... . 035 (.007) .015 (.003)Nickel_.. .. ....... .22 (.046) .1 (.021)

Zinc . ... .... .24 (.049) .11 (.021)

§ 465.16 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology.

Except as provided in 40 CFR§ § 125.30-32, any existing point sourcesubject to this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresentating the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applicationof the best conventional pollutantcontrol technology:

Subpart A

BCT effluent limitations

Pollutant of polutant Average ofproperty Maximum for dafo values

any day for 30any, 1 day consecutivesampling days

mg/m2

(lb/1,000.000 ft2) of

area processed

Oil and Grease _............ 12.2 (2.49) 12.2 (2.49)TSS .......... ...... 18.2(3.73) 12.2 (2.49)

pl-VWithin of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.

Subpart B-Galvanized Basis MaterialSubcategory§ 465.20 Applicability; description of thegalvanized basis material subcategory.

This subpart applies to discharges towaters of the United States andintroductions of pollutants into publiclyowned treatment works from coilcoating of galvanized basis materialcoils.

§ 465.21 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best practicablecontrol technology currently available(BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR§ § 125.30-.32, any existing point sourcesubject to this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application

of the best practical control technologycurrently available:

Subpart B

BPT effluent limitations

Pollutant of poltutant Average ofproperty Maximum for' daily valuesarry day for 30

ay 1 lay consecutivesampling days

mg/m2

(lb/1,000,000 ft5) of

area processed

Cadmium-.............. 0.2 (0.041) 0.1 (0.021)Chromium............ ........ 6.13 (1.26) 2.21 (.45)Copper ................. 6.53 (1.34) 2.65 (.54)Cyanide. Toal. ....... . .74 (.15) .3 (.062)Lead ._...... . .34 (.069) .17 (.034)Nickel ........ - 4.82 (.99) 3.65 (.75)Zinc.-_ _ _ 5.02 (l.03) 218 (.45)

Iron_. ..... ...... 7.27 (1.49) 2.48 (.51)Oil and Grease.---......... 67.0 (13.7) 33.5 (6.86)

TSS .............. 117.2 (24.) 83.7 (17.1)

pH-Withn of 7.5 to 10.0 at l times.

§ 465.22 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR§ § 125.30-.32, any existing point sourcesubject to this subject must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applicationof the best available technologyeconomically achievable:

Subpart B

BAT effluent limitations

Pollutant of pollutnt - Average ofproperty Maximum for daily vals

enyday or 3any 1 day consecutivesampling days

mg/m2 (lb/1.000,000 ft2) ofarea processed

Cadmium ............. 0.049 (0.010) 0.022 (0.005)Chromium... ......... . .33 (.067) .12 (.025)Copper .................... 1.58 (.32) .64 (.13)Cyanide. Total........... . .17 (.035) .072 (.015)Lead_ .....- _-... .12 (.025) .053 (.011)Nickel ......... .77 (.16) .35 (.072)

Zin .................. .83 (.17) .36 (.074)Iron ..-....... 2.61 (.53) .89 (.18)

Oil and Grease............. 12.1(2.47) 12.1 (2.47)

§ 465.23 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

Any new source subject to thissubpart must achieve the followingperformance standards.

(a) There shall be no discharge ofwastewater pollutants from conversioncoating operations.

(b) The discharge of wastewaterpollutants from all coil coatingoperations other than coversion coatingoperations shall not excceed the valuesset forth below:

2951

Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules

Subpart B

NSPS

Pollutant or pollutant Average ofproperty Maximum for daily v3s

ayIday fo 0ay1dy consecutive

sampling days

mg/m (lb/1,000,000 112) ofarea processed

Cadmium . ... ..... . 0.018 (0.004) 0.009 (0.002)Chromium .......... .12 (.024) , .043 (.009)Copper .............................. .56 (.12) .23 (.047)Cyanide, Total .................. . .06 (.012) .026 (.005)Load ............................... . 043 (.009) .019 (.004)Nickel ................................ .28 (.056) .12 (.026)Zinc ................................... .3 (.061) .13 (.026)Iron ......... ....... .. .93 (.19) .32 (.065)0;I and Grease................ 4.29 (.088) 4.29 (.28)TSS .............................. 6.44 (1.32) 4.29 (.88)pH-Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.

§ 465.24 Pretreatment standards forexisting sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR § 403.13,any existing source subject to thissubpart which introduces pollutants intoa publicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for existing sources. Theprovision of 40 CFR Part 403.6(c) and

-'Appendix A, B.2.e requiring thatpretreatment standards be establishedas concentration is set aside for thissubpart. The mass wastewaterpollutants in coil coating processwastewater introduced into a POTWshall not exceed the following values:

Subpart B

PSES

Pellutant or pollutant Average ofproperty - Maximum for dally valuesfor 30

any I day consecutivesampling days

mg/rfn (tb/i,000,000 Wt) ofarea processed

Cadmium ................................ 0.049 (0.010) 0.022 (0.005)Chromium, .. .................. 33 (.067) - .12 (.025)Copper ................. 1.58 (.32) .64 (.13)Cyanide, Total .. 18-(.035) .072 (.015)Lead .................................. .12(.025) .053 (.011)N:ckel. . . ...................... .77 (.16) .35 (.072)zinc ................................. .83 (.17) .36 (.074)

§ 465.25 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

Any new source subject to thissubpart which introduces pollutants intoa publicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for new sources. Theprovision of 40 CFR Part 403(c) and,Appendix A, B.2.e requiring thatpretreatment standards be establishedas concentration is set aside for thissubject. The-mass wastewaterpollutants in coil coating process waste

waterintroduced into a POTW shall notexceed the following values:

Subpart B

PSNS

Pollutant or pollutant Average ofproperty Maximum for. daiy vaues

any 1 day consecutivesampling days

Mg/m' Ob/1.000.000 f112) ofarea processed

Cadmium ........................... 0.018 (0.004) 0.008 (0.002)Chromium ...................... .12 (.024) .043 (.009)Copper ................... . .56 (.12) .23 (.047)Cyanide. Total .............. .06 (.012) .026 (.005)-Lead .......................... .043 (.00) .019 (.004)Nickel.--__.... .-...... .28 (.056) .12 (.02)

Zin ............ ....... .3(.061) .13 (.026)

§ 465.26 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR§§ 125.30-.32, any existing point source "subject to this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting'the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application-of the best conventional pollutant.control technology:

Subpart B

BCT effluent limitations

Pollutant or peutant- Average ofproperty Maximum for daily values

any da - cofor 30any 1 day. _ onsecutive

sampling daysmg/mii (lb/i.000,000 ft2) of

area processed

Ot and Grease ................. 12.1 (2.47) 12.1 (2.47)Tss ............... ....... .... ........ ... 18.1 (3.74D) 12.1 (2.47)

pH-Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.

Subpart C-Aluminum Basis MaterialSubcategory

§ 465.30 Applicability; description of thealuminum basis material subcategory.

This subpart applies to discharges towaters of the United States andintroductions of pollutants into publiclyowned treatment works from coilcoating of aluminum basis materialcoils.

§ 465.31 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best practicablecontrol technology currently available(BPT)

Except as provided in 40 CFR§ § 125.30-.32, any existing point sourcesubject to this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree .of effluentreduction attainable by the application

of the best practicable controltechnology currently available:

Subpart C

BPT effluent limitations

Pollutant .Or polutant Average ofproperty Maximumn for daily values

arop daym f for 30.any day consecutivesamping days

Mg/m Ob/I,00OO0 t') of thearea processed

Cadmium...................... 0.17 (0.035) 0.088 (0.018"hromium ................. .. - 5.24 (1.07) 1.89 (.39)

Copper.................. 5.58(1.14) 2.26 (.46)Cyanide. Total .................- .63 (.t13) .26 (.053)Lead .......... .29 (.059) .14 (.029)'

Nickel. ................. ' 4.12 (.84) 3.12 (.64).zin ........... L. 4.29 (.88) 1.86 (.38)

Aluminum......... 1.83 (.38) .74 (.1)Iron ............... 6.21 (1.27) 1.86 (.38)

Oil and Grease....... ...... 57.3(11.7) 28.6 (5.86)TSS ...... ........ 100.0 (20.5) 71.6 (14.7)pH--Withln the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.

§ 465.32 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR§§ 125.30-32, any existing point sourcesubject to this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applicationof the best available technologyeconomically achievable:

Subpart C

BAT effluent Average ofPollutant or pollutant limitation daily valuesfor 30

property 2 Maxdmum for consecutiveany 1 day samping days

Mg/m (b/1,000,000 t2) of thearea processed

Cadmru .................... 0.040 (0.008) 0.02 (0,004)Chronium.......... . .26 (.054) .097 (.02)Copper ..................... .. 1.27 (.26) .52 (.11)Cyanide, Total ............. ... 14 (.028) .053 (.012)Lead .......... ................. .097 (.02) .043 (.009)Nickel ... ..... ........... .62 (.13) .28 (.058)Zinc ......... ................ . 67 (.14) .29 (.06)Aluminum....:.............. .44 (.09) .18 (.036)Iron ................................... 2.11 (.43) .72 (.15)Oil and Grease................ 9.73 (1.99) 9.73 (1.99)

§ 465.33 New source performancestandards (NSPS).

Any new source subject to thissubpart must achieve the followingperformance standards.

There shall be no discharge of wastewater pollutants from conversibncoating operations. -

The discharge of wastewaterpollutants from all coal coatingoperations'other than conversioncoating operations shall not exceed thevalues set forth below:

2952

Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 7 / Monday, January 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules

Subpart C

- NSPS

Pollutant or pollutant Average of

property Maidovan for daily valuesany I day conseou;e

sampling days

Mgm' Cb/1,000,000 ftW) ofarea processed

Cadmniu ............ 0.015 (0.003) 0.008 (0.002)Ctromium. ...... . .1 (.021) .038 (.008)Copper .5(.1) .2(.041)Cyanide, Total - - .057 (.012) .023 (.005)Lead ......... 038 (.008) .017 (.003)Nickel ..... .24 (.05) .11 (.023)Zinc .26 (.053) .11 (.023)Alumnum . . .17 (.035) .068 (.014)Iron . .82 (.17) .28 (.06)Oil and Grease-.... 3.78 (.77) .378 (.77)TSS_5.__... .67 (.116) .378 (.77)pH-Whin the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.

§ 465.34 Pretreatment standards forexisting sources (PSES).

Except as provided'in 40 CFR 403.13,any existing source subject to thissubpart which introduces pollutants intoa publicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for existing sources. Theprovision of 40 CFR Part 403.6(c) andAppendix A, B.2.e requiring thatpretreatment standards be establishedas concentration is set aside for thissubpart. The mass wastewaterpollutants in coil coating processwastewater.

Subpart C

PSES

Pollutant or pollutant Average of.property Maximum for -daily values

any I day conseoutivesampling days

Mg/m2

(lb/1,000,000 f12) ofarea processed

Cadmium-.. . 0.040 (0.008) 0.02 (0.004)Chromium... . . .26 (.054) .097 (.02)Copper ......... 1.27 (.26) .52 (.11)Cyanide, Total . .14 (.028) .058 (.012)Lead. . .097 (.02) .043 (.009)Nickel . . .62 (.13) .28 (.058)Zinc .. . . . .67 (.14) .29 (.06)

§ 465.35 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

Any new source subject to thissubpart which introduces pollutants intoa publicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for new sources. Theprovision of 40 CFR Part 403(c] andAppendix A, B.2.e requiring thatpretreatment standards be establishedas concentration is set aside for thissubpart. The mass wastewaterpollutants in coil coating processwastewater introduced into a POTWshall not exceed the following values:

Subpart C

PSNS

Polluant or pollutant Average ofproperty Maximum for ar v0

any 1 day consecutivesampling days

Mg/m2

(Ib11,000.000 ft2) of

area processed

Cadmium-........ .. 0.015 (0.003) 0.008 (0.002)Chxomium. .................. 1 (.021) .038 (.008)Copper. .5 "(.1) .2. 041)

Cyanide, Total_ .............057 (.012) .023 (.005)Lead ................... 038 (.008) .017 (.003)Nickel . .24 "(.05) .11 (.023)~c......................... .28(.053) .11 (.023)

§465.36 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR

§ § 125.30-.32, any existing point sourcesubject to this subpat must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluent"reduction attainable by the applicationof the best conventional pollutantcontrol technology:

Subpart C

BCT effluent limitations

Pollutant or pollutant Average ofproperty Maiu o daiyvaluesproperty ayu o for 30

any 1 day consecutive

sampling days

Mg/M (lbi1.000.000 ft2) ofarea processed

Oil and Grease..... 9.73 (1.99) 9.73 (1.99)pH-Wthin the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.

[FR Doc. 81-891 Filed 1-9-81; 8:45 am)

BILLNG CODE 6560-29-M

.2953