6268 Federal Register Vol. 48, No. 29 Thursday, February ... · Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 29...

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 29 / Thursday, February 10, 1983 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 465

[WH-FRL 2288-8]

Effluent Limitations Guidelines,Pretreatment Standards, and NewSource Performance Standards for theCanmaking Subcategory

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing thisregulation to limit effluent discharges towaters of the United States and theintroduction of pollutants into publiclyowned treatment works from plantsengaged in the manufacturing of cans.The purpose of this proposal is toprovide effluent limitations guidelinesand standards based on "bestpracticable technology," "best availabletechnology," and "best conventionaltechnology," and to establish newsource performance standards andpretreatment standards under the CleanWater Act. After considering commentsreceived in response -to this proposal,EPA will promulgate a final rule.DATES: Comments on this proposal mustbe submitted by April 11, 1983. TheAgency is proposing a compliance datefor pretreatment standards for existingsources to be three years from the dateof promulgation.ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Mary L.Belefski, Effluent Guidelines Division(WH-552), Environmental ProtectionAgency, 401 M St., S.W.; Washington,D.C. 20460, Attention: EGD DocketClerk, Proposed Coil Coating SubpartD-Canmaking Rules (WH-552). Thesupporting information and allcomments received 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. Copies of technical documentsmay be obtained from the DistributionOfficer at the above address. Theeconomic analysis may be obtainedfrom Ms. Josette Bailey, EconomicAnalysis Staff (WH-586), EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 401 M St. S.W.,Washington, D.C. 20460, or call (202)382-5382.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Technical information may be obtainedfrom Mr. Ernst P. Hall, at the addresslisted above, or call (202) 382-7126.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheSupplementary Information section

describes the legal authority andbackground, the technical and economicbases, and other aspects of the proposedregulations. That section also solicitscomments on specific areas of interest.The abbreviations, acronyms, and otherterms used in the SupplementaryInformation section are defined inAppendix A to this preamble.

This proposed regulation is supportedby three major documents availablefrom EPA. Chemical analysis methodsare discussed in "Sampling andAnalysis Procedures for Screening ofIndustrial Effluents for PriorityPollutants." EPA's technical conclusionsare detailed in the "DevelopmentDocument for Effluent LimitationsGuidelines, New Source PerformanceStandards and Pretreatment Standardsfor the Canmaking Subcategory of theCoil Coating Point Source Category"(development document). The Agency'seconomic analysis is found in"Economic Impact Analysis of ProposedEffluent Standards and Limitations forthe Canmaking Subcategory of the CoilCoating Category "(Economic ImpactAnalysis) EPA 440/2-83/003.

Organization of This NoticeI. Legal Authority.II. Background.A. The Clean Water Act.B. Prior EPA Regulations.C. Overview of the Industry.III. Scope of this Rulemaking and Summary

of Methodology.IV. Data Gathering Efforis.V. Sampling and Analytical Program.VI. Industry Subcategorization.VII. Available Wastewater Control and

Treatment Technology.A. Status of In-Place Technology.B. Control Technologies Considered.VIII. Best Practicable Technology (BPT)

Effluent Limitations.IX. Best Available Technology (BAT)

Effluent Limitations.X. New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS).XL. Pretreatment Standards for Existing

Sources (PSES).XII. Pretreatment Standards for New

Sources (PSNS).XIII. Best Conventional Technology (BCT)

Effluent Limitations.XIV. Pollutants and Subcategory Segments

Not Regulated.XV. Cost and Economic Impact

Assessment.XVI. Non-Water Quality Aspects of

Pollution Control.XVII. Best Management Practices (BMPs)XVIII. Upset and Bypass Provisions.XIX. Variances and Modifications.XX. Relationship to NPDES Permits.XXI. Summary of Public Participation.XXII. Solicitation of CommentsXXIII. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 465-

Subpart D.XXIV. Appendices:

A-Abbreviations, Acronyms and Other* Terms Used in thiit Notice.

B-Toxic Pollutants Not Detected.C-Toxic Pollutants Detected Below the

Nominal Quantification Limit.D-Toxic Pollutants Not Treatable Using

Technologies Considered Applicable to theSubcategory.

E-Toxic Pollutants Controlled at BPT;BAT, and NSPS But Not SpecificallyRegulated.

F-Segments Not Regulated.

I. Legal Authority

The regulation described in this noticeis proposed under authority of Sections301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of theClean Water Act (the Federal WaterPollution Control Act Amendments of1972, 33 USC 1251 et seq., as amendedby the Clean Water Act of 1977, Pub. L.95-217) (the "Act"). This regulation isalso proposed in response to theSettlement Agreement in NaturalResources Defense Council, Inc. v.Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976),modified March 9, 1979, 12 ERC 1833(D.D.C. 1979) andl modified by ordersdated August 25, 1982 and October 26,1982.

II. 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 bestpracticable 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 (BAT) * *which will result in reasonable furtherprogress toward the national goal ofeliminating the discharge of allpollutants," Section 301(b)(2](A). Newindustrial direct dischargers wererequired to comply withSection 306 newsource performance standards (NSPS],based on best available demonstratedtechnology; and new and existingdischargers to publicly owned treatmentworks (POTW) were subject topretreathient standards under Sections307 (b) and (c) of the Act. While therequirements for direct dischargers wereto be incorporated into NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination Systems(NPDES) permits issued under Section402 of the Act, pretreatment standardswere made enforceable directly against

6268

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 29 / Thursday,. February 10, 1983 / Proposed Rules

dischargers to POTW (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 the EPAAdministrator. Section 304(b) of the Actrequired the Administrator topromulgate regulations providingguidelines for effluent limitations settingforth the degree of effluent reductionattainable through the application ofBPT and BAT. Moreover, Sections 304(c)and 306 of the Act requiredpromulgation of standards for newsources, and Sections 304(f), 307(b), and307(c) required promulgation ofpretreatment standards. In addition tothese limitations and standards fordesignated industry categories, Section307(a) of the Act required theAdministrator to promulgate effluentstandards applicable to all dischargersof toxic pollutants. Finally, Section501(a) of the Act authorized theAdministrator to prescribe anyadditional regulations "necessary tocarry out his functions" under the Act.

EPA was unable to promulgate manyof these regulations by the datesspecified 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 Cburt. This Agreementrequired EPA to develop a program andadhere to a schedule for promulgatingregulations for 21 major industries,including BAT effluent limitationsguidelines, pretreatment standards, andnew source performance standards for65 "priority" pollutants and classes ofpollutants. See Natural ResourcesDefense Council, Inc. v. Train, 8 ERC2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified 12 ERC 1833(D.D.C. 1979), modified by orders datedAugust 25, 1982 and October 26, 1982.

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"("BMP") 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 its 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, oil and grease and pH), 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, comparedwith the costs and effluent reductionbenefits from the discharge from POTW.(Section 304(b)(4)(B)). For non-toxic,nonconventional pollutants, Sections301 (b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(F) requireachievement of BAT effluent limitationswithin 3 years after their establishmentor July 1, 1984, whichever is later, butnot later than July 1, 1987.

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

B. Prior EPA Regulations

EPA has not previously promulgatedlimitations and standards for thecarimaking subcategory of the coilcoating category. The final coil coatingregulation, applicable to othersubcategories, was promulgated onDecember 1, 1982 (47 FR 54232).

C. Overview of the Industry

The can manufacturing industry isincluded within the U.S. Department ofCommerce Census Standard IndustrialClassification (SIC) 3411-Metal Cansand includes over 400 manufacturingplants.

Canmaking covers all of themanufacturing processes and steps

• involved in the manufacturing of variousshaped metal containers which aresubsequently used for storing foods,beverages and other products. Twomajor types of cans are manufactured:seamed cans and seamless cans.

Seamed cans (primarily three-piececans) are manufactured by forming a flatpiece or sheet of metal into a containerwith a longitudinal or side seam whichis clinched, welded, or soldered, andattaching formed ends to one or bothends of the container body. About 300plants in the United States manufactureseamed cans.

Seamless cans consist of a can bodyformed from a single piece of metal andusually a top, or two ends, that areformed from sheet metal and attached tothe can body. there are several formingmethods which may be used to shapethe can bodies including simpledrawing, drawing and redrawing,drawing and ironing (D&I), extruding,spinning, and others. About 125 plants inthe United States manufacture seamlesscans.

In the manufacture of seamless cans,oil is used frequently as a lubricantduring the forming of the seamless bodyand must be removed before furtherprocessing can be performed. Typically,this is accomplished by washing the canbody in a continuous canwasher usingwater based alkaline cleaners. This step

* is followed by metal surfacing steps toprepare the can for painting.

In the manufacture of seamed cans,can ends, can tops and seamless cansfrom coated (e.g., ,coil coated) stock, nooil is used and the cans do not need tobe washed after forming. Because noprocess Wastewater is generated fromthese canmaking process segments theyare excluded from regulation. (SeeSections VI and XIV of this preamble.)

Pollutants or pollutant parametersgenerated in canmaking wastewatersand regulated are: (1) Toxic metals-chromium, and zinc; (2) toxic organicslisted as total toxic organics (TO)(TTO is the sum of all toxic organiccompounds detected-See Appendix Eof this notice) (3) nonconventionalpollutants-aluminum, fluoride, andphosphorous; and (4) conventionalpollutants-oil and grease, TSS, and pH.'Because of the toxic metals present, thesludges generated during wastewatertreatment generally contain toxicmetals.

EPA estimates that 88 of theapproximately 425 can manufacturingplants in the United States dischargewastewater. Seven of these plants aredirect dischargers and 81 are indirectdischargers. These sites are scattered

• 6269


geographically throughout the UnitedStates

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 knowntechnologies for control of familiar (i.e.,"classical") pollutants. However, for thiscategory, BPT was not proposed orpromulgated; accordingly, EPA isestablishing BPT effluent limitations aspart of this rulemaking.

In this round of rulemaking EPA isalso establishing the best availabletechnology economically achievable(BAT] effluent limitations. These are toresult in reasonable further progresstoward the national goal of eliminatingthe discharge of all pollutants and are tobe achieved by July 1, 1984. In general,this technology level represents the besteconomically achievable performance inany industrial category or subcategory.Moreover, as a result of the Clean WaterAct of 1977, the emphasis of EPA'sprogram has shifted from "classical"pollutants to the control of a lengthy listof toxic pollutants.

In its 1977 legislation, Congressrecognized that it was dealing withareas of scientific uncertainty when itdeclared the 65 "priority" pollutants andclasses of pollutants "toxic" underSection 307(a) of the Act. Many of the".priority" pollutants were relativelyunknown outside of the scientificcommunity, and those engaged inwastewater sampling and control havehad little experience in dealing withthese pollutants. Additionally, thesepollutants often appear (and have toxiceffects) at concentrations that taxcurrent analytical techniques. Eventhough Congress was aware of the state-of-the-art difficulties and expense of"toxics" control and detection, itdirected EPA to act quickly anddecisively to detect, measure andregulate these substances.

In developing this regulation, EPAstudied canmaking to determinewhether differences in raw materials,final products, manufacturing processe§.,equipment, age and size of plants, wateruse, wastewater constituents, or otherfactors required the development ofseparate effluent limitations andstandards for different segments of theindustry. This study included theidentification of raw waste and treatedeffluent characteristics, including the

sources and volume of water used, theprocesses employed, and the sources ofpollutants and wastewaters. Samplingand analysis of specific waste streamsenabled EPA to determine the presenceand concentration of priority pollutantsin wastewater discharges.

EPA also identified both actual andpotential control and treatmenttechnologies (including both in-processand end-of-process technologies). TheAgency analyzed both historical andnewly generated data on theperformance, operational limitations,and reliability of these technologies. Inaddition, EPA considered the impacts ofthese technologies on air quality, solidwaste generation, water scarcity, anenergy requirements.

The Agency then estimated the costsof each control and treatmenttechnology using a computer programbased on standard engineering costanalysis. EPA derived unit process costsby applying canmaking data andcharacteristics (production and flow fora "normal" line) to each treatmentprocess (i.e., metals precipitation,sedimentation, mixed-media filtration,etc.). The costs also consider whattreatment equipment exists at eachplant. These unit process costs wereadded for each plant to yield total costat each treatment level. The Agencythen evaluated the economic impacts ofthese costs.

On the basis of these factors, EPAidentified and classified various controland treatment technologies as BPT,BAT, BCT NSPS, PSES, and PSNS. Theproposed regulation, however, does notrequire the installation of any particulartechnology. Rather, it requiresachievement of effluent limitationsequivalent to those achieved by theproper operation of these or equivalenttechnologies.

Except for pH requirements, theeffluent limitations for BPT, BAT, BCT,and NSPS are expressed as masslimitations-a mass of pollutant per unitof production (number of cans). Theywere calculated by combining threefigures: (1] Treated effluentconcentrations determined by analyzingcontrol technology performance data; (2)production-weighted wastewater flowfor the subcategory; and (3] any relevantprocess or treatment variability factor(e.g., mean versus maximum day). Thisbasic calculation was performed foreach regulated pollutant or pollutantparameter in the subcategory.

Pretreatment standards-PSES andPSNS-are also expressed as masslimitations rather than concentrationlimits to ensure that the effluentreduction in the total quantity of -

pollutant discharges resulting from the

model treatment technology, whichincludes flow reduction, is realized.

IV. Data Gathering EffortsThe technical data gathering program

is described briefly in Section III and insubstantial detail in Section V of thedevelopment document. Data collectionfor this subcategory focused on wetprocesses associated with canmdking.Data were originally collected under thealuminum forming point source categoryin 1978 when data collection portfolios(dcp) were sent to all known aluminumformers under the authority of Section308 of the Clean Water Act. Informationwas returned from about 20 companieswho primarily manufactured aluminumcans and generated wastewater.Subsequently, in 1982, several of thesecompanies were requested to updatetheir dcp for aluminum canmaking andprovide data on steel canmaking. Also,some additional companies (primarilysteel can manufacturers and also thosenot in the 1977 aluminum data base)were requested to complete a dcp oncanmaking. Data on the drymanufacturing processes were obtainedfrom several dcp, literature studies,discussions with industry and plantengineering visits.

The technical data based includesinformation from 21 companiesrepresenting about 100 manufacturingsites. In addition to previous studies andthe data collection effort for this study,supplemental data were obtained fromNPDES permit files and engineeringstudies on treatment technologies usedin this and other cagetories with similarwastewater characteristics. The datagathering effort solicited all knownsources of data and all availablepertinent data were used in developingthis regulation.

V. Sampling and Analytical Program

As Congress recognized in enactingthe Clean Water Act of 1977, the state-of-the-art ability to monitor anddetecttoxic pollutants is limited. Most of thetoxic pollutants were relativelyunknown until a few years ago, and onlyon rare occasions had these pollutantsbeen regulated. Also, industry had notmonitored or developed methods tomo'nitor most of these pollutants.

Faced with these problems, EPAdeveloped a sampling and analyticalprotocol. This protocol is set forth in"Sampling aid Analysis Procedures forScreening of Industrial Effluents forPriority Pollutants" revised in April1977. Methods promulgated underSection 304(h) (40 CFR Part 136) wereavailable and were used to analyzemost toxic metals, pesticides, cyanides,

6270


and phenols. Analysis methods for toxicorganic pollutants are explained in thepreamble to proposed regulation for theLeather Tanning Point Source Category,40 CFR 425, 44 FR 38749, July 2, 1979.

A total of 7 plants were visited forengineering analysis of which five weresampled. An analysis for the full list oftoxic pollutants and other pollutantswas carried out at three plants. Selectedpollutants were analyzed in samplestaken from two additional plants. Fulldetails of the engineering analysis,sampling and analysis program, and thewater and wastewater data derivedfrom sampling are presented in SectionV of the development document.

Analysis for the toxic pollutants isboth expensive and time consuming,costing between $850 and $1,000 persample for a complete analysis. The costin dollars and time limited the amount ofsampling and chemical analysisperformed. Although EPA fully believesthat the available data support thelimitations proposed, the Agency wouldhave preferred a larger data base andcontinues to seek additional data as partof this rulemaking. In addition, EPA willperiodically review these limitations asrequired by the Act and make anyrevisions supported by new data.

VI. Industry SubcategorizationIn developing this regulation, it was

necessary to determine whetherdifferent effluent limitations andstandards are appropriate for differentsegments of the canmaking industry.The major factors considered inidentifying subcategories included:wastewater characteristics, basismaterial used, manufacturing processes,products manufactured, water use,water pollution control technology,treatment costs, solid waste generation,size of plant, age of plant, number ofemployees, total energy requirements,non-water quality characteristics, andunique plant characteristics. Section IV'of the development document contains adetailed discussion of the factorsconsidered and the rationale for thedevelopment of the canmakingsubcategory.

All canmaking manufacturingprocesses were evaluated for thepurpose of subcategorization. Asdiscussed in Sections III and V of thedevelopment document, severalcanmaking process segments generateprocess wastewater and several do not.The manufacture of seamed cans, canends, can tops and seamless cans fromcoil coated stock are inherently dryprocesses and are therefore excludedfrom this regulation.

The manufacture of most seamlesscan bodies generates wastewater from

removing excess lubricants and cleaningthe metal surface. The manufacture ofsome seamless can bodies does notgenerate wastewater because the canbodies are not washed. The distinctionof whether or not the can bodies arewashed provides the initial basis forestablishing subcategorization fordeveloping an effluent regulation forcanmaking. Seamless can bodies whichare not washed are therefore excludedfrom this regulation.

The seamless canmaking processeswere further examined to determinewhether additional segmentation wasnecessary. Seamless can bodies whichare washed are formed by variousprocesses; however 98 percent of theplants washing bodies form cans by thedraw and iron (D&I) process used formanufacturing beverage cans. Thedetermination was made that becauseall bodies were washed to removelubricants and wastewater pollutantswere similar, one D&I segment could beused to characterize all wastewaters inone canmaking subcategory. TheAgency believes that the proposedlimitations and standards can be met bymanufacture of all types of washedseamless can bodies.

D&I can bodies are formed fromaluminum or steel. Forming fromaluminum is practiced by 77 percent of -the D&I plants and wastewater flowsand raw wastewater characteristics forthe canmaking subcategory weredetermined from all D&I aluminum data.Several plants can interchange the basismaterial used for forming D&I bodiesand the industry trend is to convert oradd aluminum lines in previously steelonly plants. Although wastewater flowsand pollutant loadings are somewhatless for steelthan for aluminum bodies,EPA has not further segmented thissubcategory by basis material to avoidunnecessary regulatory complexity. EPAinvites comment on this approach as.stated in Section XXII of this preamble.

Canmaking subcategory wastewaterflows are related to the amount of canbodies produced. For this reason, theproduction normalizing parameter usedfor establishing canmaking limitationsand standards is the number of cansproduced; the production normalizedflow is liters per thousand cans.VII. Available Wastewater Control andTreatment Technology

A. Status of In-Place Technology

Current wastewater treatmentsystems in the subcategory range fromno treatment to a sophisticated physicalchemical treatment combined withwater conservation practices.

No treatment equipment was reportedin-place at B canmaking plants. Oilremoval equipment for skimming,chemical emulsion breaking or dissolvedair flotation is in-place at 50 canmakingplants, 7 plants have chromiumreduction systems, 26 canmaking plantshave pH adjustment systems withoutsettling, 30 plants indicate they haveequipment for chemical precipitationand settling, 8 plants have filtrationequipment in-place, I plant hasultrafiltration, and I plant has reverseosmosis equipment in-place.

The performance of the treatmentsystems in-place at all canmaking plantsis difficult to assess because EPA hasreceived a limited amount of canmakingeffluent data. A request is made inSection XXH of this preamble foradditional data. Additionally, someplants have equipment in-place whichthey are not operating because existingrequirements can be achieved withoutoperation of treatment equipment.Consequently, treatment performance istransferred from other categories andsubcategories which treat similarwastewaters.

For the subcategory, in general, thereis no significant difference between thepollutants generated by direct orindirect dischargers or in the degree oftreatment employed; several indirectdischargers have the same treatmentequipment in-place as the directdischargers. The degree of treatmentequipment operation is primarilydependent upon the existingrequirements. Section.V of thedevelopment document furtherevaluates the treatment systems in-place and the effluent data received.

B. Control Technologies Considered

The control and treatmenttechnologies available for thissubcategory include both in-process andend-of-pipe treatments. Thesetechnologies are described in SectionVII of the development document. In-process treatment includes water flowreduction in the canwasher by usingwater reuse or countercurrent cascaderinsing (to reduce the amount of waterused to remove unwanted materialsfrom cans]. End-of-pipe treatmentincludes: hexavalent chromiumreduction and cyanide precipitationwhen necessary; emulsion breaking anddissolved air flotation to remove oils;chemical precipitation of metals usinghydroxides; removal of precipitatedmetals and other materials using settlingor sedimentation; additional removal ofsolids using polishing filtration; andmembrane filtration to removeadditional oil.

6271


Only 4 plants indicated that cyanideis known to be present in theirwastewaters. For this small number ofplants cyanide removal is only includedin the model technology on an as neededbasis and no limitation for cyanide isproposed. Similarly, no cost has beenincluded for cyanide treatment. Thirty-eight plants reported chromium asknown to be present in theirwastewaters. This is the basis forproposing to regulate chromium. Sevenplants reported having chromiumreduction technology in place. Since theAgency does not know about thevalence state of the chromium at theremaining thirty-one plants no cost hasbeen included for installing chromiumreduction technology; however it may benecessary to reduce hexavalentchromium if present in order to meet thelimitations and standards.

The effectiveness of these treatmenttechnologies has been evaluated andestablished by examining theirperformance on other coil coatingsubcategories and other categorywastewaters containing primarily toxicmetals which are similar to canmakingwastewaters. A brief description of howthe Agency evaluated the performanceof key technologies follows. A morecomplete description appears in SectionVII of the development document andother documents in the rulemakingrecord.

1. Hydroxide Precipitation andSedimentation (Lime and Settle). Inconsidering the performance achievableusing hydroxide (generally lime)precipitation and sedimentation ofmetals, EPA evaluated data on ninepollutants from coil coating andaluminum forming plants and plants inother categories with similarwastewater. The data base the Agencyselected for lime and settle technology iscalled the combined metals data base.This data base is a composite of data forthe nine pollutants from wastewaterstreated by lime and settle technologyobtained from EPA sampling andanalysis of coil coating, copper andaluminum forming, batterymanufacturing, and porcelain enameling.These wastewaters are similar tocanmaking wastewaters because theycontain dissolved metals that can beremoved to the same degree byprecipitation and settling.

The Agency regards the combinedmetals data base as the best availablemeasure for establishing theconcentrations attainable with lime andsettle technology. This determination isbased on the similarity of the rawwastewaters (see Section VII of thedevelopment document), and the larger

number of plants used (21 plants versus,data from 2 canmaking plantsavailable). The larger quantity of data inthe combined metals data base, as wellas a greater variety of influentconcentrations enhances the Agency'sability to estimate long-term levels andvariability through statistical analysis.For the same reasons, this data base isthe best. measure of this treatmentsystem's variability.

For 13 additional pollutants, theAgency used long term data from limeand settle treatment of similarwastewaters from other categories toderive a long term average. One day andmonthly average values were developedfrom the long term average by applyingthe mean variance of the combinedmetals data base analysis. Thederivation of the treatment effectivenessvalues for these thirteen additionalpollutants is fully explained in SectionVII of the developement document.

The treatment effectiveness values foraluminum, fluoride, phosphorous and oiland grease are used as part of the basisfor this regulation. The aluminum valueis derived from aluminum forming andcoil coating data, while fluoride andphosphorous values are from electricaland electronics componentsmanufacturing data. Oil and greasevalues are achieved by coil coating,aluminum forming and copper formingoperations plus other categoriesthroughout industry.

The use of the combined metals database is appropriate for canmakingplants for the following reasons:

(a) Process Chemistry. The Agencybelieves that properly operated lime andsettle treatment systems will result ineffluent concentrations that are directlyrelated to pollutant solubilities.

Untreated wastewater data fromaluminum and steel canmaking facilitiessampled by EPA were compared to datafrom the combined metals data base.Based on this comparison, the Agencyconcluded that chromium, zinc and TSSin canmaking wastewaters requiredtreatment. All canmaking facilitiessampled had raw TSS levels in the rangeof the raw values of the five categorylime and settle data base. Although notall canmakers had chromium or zinclevels in the range that requiredtreatment, some facilities did haveconcentrations of these pollutants intheir raw waste comparable to levelsfound in the combined metals data base.The Agency concluded that lime andsettle treatment of canmakingwastewater will achieve reductions ofthese pollutants similar to thosedemonstrated in the combined metalsdata base. The Agency does not believe

any interfering properties exist incanmaking wastewater that wouldinterfere with treatment performance.

(b) Canmaking Data Base. Processsimilarities exist between canmakingand other categories in the combinedmetals data base which treat chromium,zinc and TSS. An engineering evaluationof the canmaking process shows asubstantial similarity betweencanmaking and aluminum formingprocess steps, and canmaking and coilcoating processing steps. The processesused for forming are similar to aluminumforming. The processes used for cleaningand preparing the metal surface, thechemicals used, and waste productsgenerated are similar for canmaking andcoil coating.

EPA sampled two aluminumcanmaking plants with lime and settletreatment for three days each. Effluentdata from these plants were comparedwith the one day maximum value for thecombined metals data base.

For toxic metals, chromium and zinc,all effluent values were equal to orlower than the combined metals database one day maximum values. For TSS,one plant had values lower than the oneday maximum and the other exceeded it;however both of these plants wereindirect dischargers and were notrequired to control TSS. The Agencyalso compared the combined metalsdata base performance values withavailable NPDES permits. Where TSS ismonitored, the permit limitations are forconcentrations less than those in thecombined metals data base. Additionallong term data on these plants were notavailable to support lower TSSconcentrations for canmaking effluent.The Agency believes that the proposed,toxic metal and TSS Values arereasonable and can be achieved bycanmaking plants.

2. Oil Removal (Skimming, DissolvedAir Flotation, and Chemical EmulsionBreaking). In both canmaking andaluminum forming, lubricants are usedto form the metal into a specified shape.In both coil coating and canmaking, oiland grease are removed from the metalsurface, the metal.surface is usuallychemically coated to improve adherenceof the finish coat, and an organic coatingis applied. Oil and grease levels incanmaking wastewaters aresubstantially higher than other coilcoating subcategories because of theforming operations for can bodies. Onceoil and grease levels are reduced tocomparable levels of other categoriestreating toxic metals and oil and greasethrough the application of oil removaltechnologies such as chemical emulsionbreakifig and dissolved air flotation,

6272


lime and settle technology can removeoil and grease from canmakingwastewaters to the same extent that thetechnology can remove these pollutantsfrom the wastewaters of the othercategories.

The effectiveness of oil removaltechnology has been widelydemonstrated in many industrialcategories and is detailed in Section VIIof the development document. While theconcentration levels are usuallyattainable by the application ofquiescent settling and skimming,emulsion breaking and dissolved airflotation are included in the canmakingmodel treatment train to ensure that theoil removal technology is adequate andto remove the oil found in thesubcategory.

Oil removal technology and lime andsettle technology are considered as thebasis for the proposed regulation. Incanmaking a greater number and varietyof forming lubricants and cleaningformulations may be used than in coilcoating. Many of these formulations areinterchangeable, and changes result indifferences in the toxic pollutants thatmay appear in canmaking wastewaters.The Agency believes that by controllingthe most prevalent toxic metals, someconventional and nonconventionalpollutants, and total toxic organics(TTO) with oil removal and lime andsettle technology, pollutants present as aresult of these variations will also becontrolled.

3. Filtration. EPA established thepollutant concentrations achievablewith lime precipitation, sedimentationand polishing filtration (lime, settle, andfilter) with data from three plants withthe technology 'in-place: one nonferrousmetals manufacturing plant and twoporcelain enameling plants whosewastewater is similar to wastewatergenerated by canmaking plants. Ingenerating long-term average standards,EPA applied variability factors from thecombined metals data base because thecombined data base provided a betterstatistical basis for computingvariability than the data from the threeplants sampled. In fact, the use of thelime and settle combined data basevariability factors is probably aconservative assumption becausefiltration is a less variable technologythan lime and settle, since it is lessoperator dependent.

For pollutants for which there were nodata, long-term concentrations weredeveloped assuming that filtrationwould remove 33 percent morepollutants than lime precipitation. Thisassumption was based upon acomparison of removals of severalpollutants by lime, settle, and filter

technology with the removals ofpollutants from lime and settletechnology.

EPA selected this approach becauseof the extensive long-term dataavailable from these three plants. TheAgency believes that the use ofpolishing filtration data from theseplants is justified because thewastewaters are similar. Since theAgency determined that lime and settletechnology will produce identical resultsfor canmaking as well as the othercategories in the combined metals database, it is reasonable to assume thatpolishing filters treating these wastestreams will produce a comparable finaleffluent.

The Agency solicits comments on theuse of the combined metals data basefor canmaking, and requests submissionof additional data from canmakingplants using properly operated oilremoval, lime and settle, and lime, settleand filter treatment systems. (SeeSection XXII of this preamble).

In addition to end-of-pipe treatmenttechnologies, the limitations andstandards in this proposed regulationare based on process controls to achievereductions in wastewater dischargeflow. Flow-reduction techniques varydepending on the level of control. Thetechniques and the bases for theAgency's estimates of what they canachieve are explained in the relevantsections below.

The treatment performance datadiscussed above are used to obtainmaximum daily and monthly averagepollutant concentrations. Theseconcentrations (mg/l) along with thecanmaking production normalized flows(1/1000 cans) are used to obtain themaximum daily and monthly averagevalues (mg/1000 cans) for effluentlimitations and standards. The monthlyaverage values are based on the averageof ten consecutive sampling days. Theten day average value was selected asthe minimum number of consecutivesamples which need to be averaged toarrive at a stable slope on a statisticallybased curve relating one day and 30 dayaverage values and it approximates themost frequent monitoring requirement ofdirect discharge permits. The monthlyaverage numbers shown in theregulation are to be used by plants withcombined wastestreams that use the"combined wastestream formula" setforth at 40 CFR 403.6(e) and by permitwriters in writing direct dischargepermits.

VIII. Best Practicable Technology (BPT)Effluent Limitations

The factors considered in definingbest practicable control technology

currently 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 consideres appropriate.In general, the BPT level represents theaverage of the best existingperformances of plants of various ages,sizes, processes or other commoncharacteristics. Where existing .performance 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, 4th Cir.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, conducted at EPA'sdiscretion, which does not require theAgency to quantify benefits in monetaryterms. (See, for example,.American Ironand Steel Institute v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027,3rd Cir. 1975.) In balancing costs witheffluent-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 qualityimprovements in particular waterbodies. Therefore, EPA has notconsidered these factors. (SeeWeyerhaeuser Company v. Castle, 590F.2d 1011, 1026, D.C. Cir. 1978).

In developing the proposed BPTlimitations, an evaluation was made ofcanmaking data for both the 7 direct and81 indirect discharges. The Agency firstconsidered the amoint ,of water usedper canmaking line at each plant whichwas sampled or which supplied usabledcp data. The Agency noted that morethan half (32 of 51) of the D&I aluminumcan plants reuse water within thecanwasher. (Reuse within thecanwasher is defined to mean using thesame water in more than one operationbefore discharging it to wastcwatertreatment.) This practice r:duces theamount of water used to wash cans and

I6273


is commonly practiced within thesubcategory so that it constitutes BPT.The normalized wastewater flow (litersper 1000 cans) proposed at BPT forcanmaking is based on the average ofthese 32 plants.

The model end-of-pipe treatmenttechnology EPA is using as the basis forproposing for BPT is oil removal bydissolved air flotation and emulsionbreaking, chromium reduction andcyanide precipitation when necessary,and lime and settle technology toremove other pollutants. Treatmentequipment for BPT technology isreported to be installed at plants in thissubcategory. Of the 76 plants thatsupplied usable dcp data, 50 have oilremoval treatment including 17 thathave emulsion breaking and 16 thathave installed dissolved air flotation.Chromium reduction equipment isreported to be in-place at 7 plants.Thirty plants have lime and settletreatment equipment in-place, and 12 ofthese plants have all of the model BPTtreatment equipment in-place. Clearlythe frequent occurrence of thesetechnologies indicates that they form anappropriate model technology on whichto base BPT.

The more significant pollutants foundin the wastewaters of the canmakingsubcategory and regulated under BPTinclude chromium, zinc, aluminum,fluoride, phosphorous, oil and grease,TSS and pH. Sections VII and IX of thedevelopment document explain thederivation of treatment effectivenessdata and the calculation of BPTlimitations.

Compliance with BPT limitations willresult in direct dischargers removing(from raw waste) 4,415 kg/yr of toxicpollutants and 7.31 million kg/yr ofother pollutants at a capital cost (1982dollars) of $1.0 million and a totalannual cost of $0.45 million includinginterest and depreciation. EPA is usingraw waste rather than estimated currentdischarge.values because of thedifficulty of making a meaningfulestimate of current discharge levelswhen equipment in-place is not beingconsistently operated.

EPA expects no plant closures,unemployment, or changes in industryproduction capacity as a result ofcompliance with the BPT effluentlimitations. The Agency has determinedthe effluent reduction benefitsassociated with compliance with BPTlimitations justify these costs.

IX. Best Available Technology (BAT)'Effluent Limitations

The factors considered in assessingbest available technology economicallyachievable (BAT] include the age of

equipment and facilities involved, theprocess employed, process changes,nonwater-quality environmental impacts(including energy requirements) and thecosts of applying such technology(Section 304(b)(2)(B)). At a mirimum, theBAT technology level represents thebest economically achievableperformance of plants of various ages,sizes, processes, or other sharedcharacteristics. As with BPT, whereexisting 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 a.balancing of costs against effluentreduction benefits (see Weyerhaeuser v.Costle, supra). In developing theproposed BAT, however, EPA hascarefully considered the cost of the BATtreatment. The Agency has consideredthe volume and nature of the estimatedpresent discharges, the volume andnature of discharges expected after theapplication of BAT, the generalenvironmental effects of the pollutants,and the costs and economic impacts ofthe required pollution control levels onthe industry.

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 agency has considered three setsof technology options for thesubcategory that might be applied at theBAT level. The options are described indetail in Section X of the developmentdocument and are outlined below.

The pollutants regulated in thecanmaking subcategory under BATinclude chromium, zinc, aluminum,fluoride, and phosphorous. The Agencyconsidered establishing a Total ToxicOrganics (TTO) limitation at BAT forthe toxic organic pollutants listed inAppendix E. However, data from plantswith similar wastewaters and treatment(aluminum forming plants) show a 97percent reduction in the concentrationsof toxic organics with the effectivetreatment and removal of oil and grease(see Section VII and X of thedevelopment document). Thus, theAgency has determined that the oil andgrease limitation at BCT will provideadequate control of the toxic organics,and therefore,.is not establishing a TTOlimit at BAT.

The cost estimates for the varioustreatment options are detailed in SectionVIII of the development document.

Control technologies and treatmenteffectiveness are detailed in Section VII,and effluent reduction benefits aredetailed and tabulated in Section X ofthe development document.'TheEconomic Impact Analysis contains ananalysis of potential economic impactsfor all regulatory options considered.

As noted below, technology optionsmore stringent than those adopted as abasis for this proposal are available.Proposed BAT limitations are based onBAT Option 1. In order to make a finaldecision, EPA solicits the submission ofall information available on the costs ofthese technologies and the effluentreductions they will achieve. EPA willdecide which technologies to select andwhich limitation to promulgate afterconsideration of all informationavailable, including the informationreceived in comments submitted on thisproposal, its current information, andthe results of any additional studies itsponsors. The final regulation may wellbe based upon a technology other thanthat which forms the basis for thecurrent proposal. The BAT limitationsbased on BAT Option 2 are shown inSection U of the development document.

Option 1. BAT option 1 is based onBPT level treatment (chrome reductionand cyanide removal when required,emulsion breaking, dissolved airflotation, hydroxide precipitation andsedimentation) with the addition of in-process flow reduction to reduce thedischarge of toxic pollutants to theenvironment. The principal in-processwater reduction technology is the use ofa countercurrent cascade rinse in thecanwasher. This technology is expectedto reduce the total discharge flow by67.5 percent. (See Section VII of thedevelopment document.)

Option 2. This option includes chromereduction and cyanide removal whenrequired, emulsion breaking, dissolvedair flotation, hydroxide precipitation,sedimentation and polishing filtration.BAT option 2 builds on the end-of-pipetreatment technology for BAT option 1by adding a polishing filter to improvethe removal of toxic metals andnonconventional pollutants. Thewastewater discharge of this optionflow is the same as option 1.

Option 3. This option includes chromereduction and cyanide removal whenrequired, emulsion breaking, dissolvedair flotation, hydroxide precipitation,sedimentation, polishing filtration, andultrafiltration. BAT option 3 builds onthe reduced wastewater flows and end-of-pipe treatment of option 2, and addsultrafiltration. This option reduces theamount of toxic organics discharged

6274


which is comparable to the oil andgrease removals, as discussed above.

The pollutant removals and costs ofthe BAT options are summarized below.

Removals are for regulated pollutantsabove raw waste levels and compliancecosts are above treatment equipment in-place.

Pollutant removal Idlograms per year (pounds per year) Costs (dollars Inthousands)

Option Torics Other (millons) Capital Annual

BPT ................................................................................ 4,415(9.712) 7.31(16.09) $1,000 $450BAT ...................................................................................... 4,633(10,1921 7.33(16.13) 680 420BAT-2 ................. ........ 4,651(10,232) 7.34(16.14) 910 450SAT-3 ........................................................................ 4.651(10,232) 7.34(1&15) 3,310 2,300

BAT Selection EPA is proposing BATeffluent limitations based on technologyoption 1 because it substantially reducesthe discharge of toxic pollutants and thetechnology is being practiced in thesubcategory Six plants presently meetthe flow basis and 12 plants have theBAT treatment equipment in-place.Additionally, the Agency believes thatindustry will install BAT technologyequipment rather than installing BPTand upgrading it to BAT.Implementation of these BAT limitationswill remove an estimated 4,633 kg/yr oftoxic pollutants and 7.33 million kg/yr ofother pollutants (from raw waste) at acapital cost of $0.68 million and a totalannual costs of $0.42 million. Theincremental effluent reduction benefitsof BAT above BPT are the removarannually of 218 kg of toxic pollutantsand 20,000 kg of other pullutants. Thecosts for BAT are lower than for BPTbecause of the smaller end-of-pipetreatment system needed as a result offlow reduction. Seven direct dischargersmay incur costs under the BATlimitations. EPA expects no plantclosures, unemployment, or changes inindustry production capacity as a resultof the proposed BAT effluent limitations.

The BPT option was not selectedbecause it considers only widelypracticed end-of-pipe technologies, littlein-process change, and is more costlythan the selected BAT option. BATOption 2 is not being proposed becausethe added removals above option 1 arevery small. No plant closures or joblosses are projected for this option.Option 3 is not being proposed becauseof the very substantial costs andextremely low additional pollutantremovals (less than one pound per yearof toxic pollutants). Nine plants areprojected to close at this option. TheAgency invites comments on thetechnology options not selected as thebasis for BAT.

X. New Source Performance Standards(NSPS)

The basis for new source performancestandards (NSPS) under Section 30B of

the Act is the best availabledemonstrated technology (BDT). Newplants can incorporate the best and mostefficient canwashing processes andwastewater treatment technologies, and,therefore, Congress directed EPA toconsider the best demonstrated processchanges, in-plant controls, and end-of-pipe treatment technologies to reducepollution to the maximum extentfeasible.

EPA considered a number of optionsfor selection of NSPS technology.Options included those discussed underBAT (options 1-3) plus two additionaloptions discussed below. These optionswere not considered under BAT becausemost of the existing plants lacksufficient space to add additional stagesto the canwasher. Each option isdiscussed in Sections X and XI of thedevelopment document and costs arediscussed in Section VIII. As discussedin the Economic Impact Analysis, noneof the options would present barriers toentry by new plants.

The pollutants regulated under NSPSinclude chromium, zinc, aluminum,fluoride, phosphorus, oil and grease,TSS, and pH.

Option 4. NSPS option 4 is based onthe flow reduction achieved by theinstallation of a 9-stage canwasher or itsequivalent. This technology includes atleast three additional stages for usingcountercurrent rinses and recirculationof rinses to minimize wastewatergeneration. The option reduces totaldischarge flow by .over 90 percent whencompared to raw waste discharge, andby 75 percent when compared to option1. End-of-pipe treatment includeschrome reduction and cyanide removalwhen required, emulsion breaking,dissolved air flotation, hydroxideprecipitation and sedimentation, whichis the same as option 1. Assuming a newplant installs six production lines, theinvestment costs would be $0.97 millionand annual costs would be $0.55 million.Pollutant removals would be 28,272 kg/yr for toxics and 44.04 million kg/yr forother regulated pollutants above rawwaste.

Option 5. NSPS option 5 included flowcontrol to reduce total discharge flow byover 90 percent (same as option 4). End-of-pipe treatment includes chromereduction and cyanide removal whenrequired, emulsion breaking, dissolvedair flotation, hydroxide precipitation,sedimentation, and polishing filtrationwhich is the same as option 2. Assuminga new plant installs six production lines,the investment costs Would be $1.02million and annual costs would be $0.57million. Pollutant removals would be28,296 kg/yr for toxics and 44.05 millionkg/yr for other regulated pollutantsabove raw waste.

The Agency also considered an optionrequiring no discharge of processwastewater pollutants. One plant is'achieving this level of pollutantreduction using water use reduction,ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, andwater reuse. This system of pollutantreduction is costly; investment costsgreater than $1.7 million and annualcosts greater than $0.97 million for a sixline production plant. This option is notconsidered as the basis for NSPSbecause of the high costs associatedwith this technology. Specific commentis requested on the cost, and possibleinhibition to the construction of newsources that this option might involve.

NSPS Selection. EPA is proposingNSPS based on technology option 4. Theflow basis for this option is the achievedperformance of 4 plants in the industry.This option was selected because itsubstantially reduces the discharge oftoxic pollutants and has beenadequately demonstrated in theindustry. Additionally, the new sourceflow reduction is an appropriatetechnology for NSPS because the flowsare demonstrated in this subcategoryand because new plants have theopportunity to design and implement themost efficient processes without retrofitcosts and space availability limitations.Moreover, theAgency believes there aresignificant efficiency benefits associatedwith this option including reduced wateruse charges and sewer charges, anddecreased treatment system size (andattendant cost savings. Technologyoptions 1, 2 and 3 were rejected becausethe Agency has determined that theseoptions would not comply with statutorystandards for NSPS. Option 5 wasrejected because the added removalsabove option 4 are very small and donot seem to justify the installation offilters. The Agency requests commentson these options (See Section XXII ofthis preamble).

6275


XI. Pretreatment Standards for ExistingSources (PSES)

Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPAto promulgate pretreatment standardsfor existing sources (PSES), which mustbe achieved within three years ofpromulgation. PSES are designed toprevent the discharge of pollutantswhich pass through, interfere with, orare otherwise incompatible with theoperation of publicly owned treatmentworks (POTW). The legislative historyof the 1977 Act indictes thatpretreatment standards are to betechnology-based and analogous to thebest available technology for removal oftoxic pollutants. The generalpretreatment regulations can be found at40 CFR Part 403. (46 FR 9404, January 28,1981; and 47 FR 42688, September 28,1982).

Before proposing pretreatmentstandards, the Agency examineswhether the pollutants discharged bythe industry pass through the POTW orinterfere with the POTW operation or itschosen sludge disposal practices. Indetermining whether pollutants passthrough a POTW, the Agency comparesthe percentage of a pollutant removedby POTW with the percentage removedby the direct dischargers applying BAT.A pollutant is deemed to pass throughthe POTW when the average percentageremoved nationwide by well-operatedPOTW meeting secondary treatmentrequirements is less than the percentageremoved by direct dischargerscomplying with BAT effluent limitationsguidelines for that pollutant.

This approach to the definition of passthrough satisfies two competingobjectives set by Congress: Thatstandards for indirect dischargers beequivalent to standards for directdischargers, while, at the same time,that the treatment capability andperformance of the POTW be recognizedand taken into account in regulating thedischarge of pollutants from indirectdischargers. Rather than compare themass or concentration of pollutantsdischarged by the POTW with the massor concentration discharged by a directdischarger, the Agency compares thepercentage of the pollutants removed bythe direct discharger. The Agency takesthis approach because a comparison ofmass or concentration of pollutants in aPOTW effluent with pollutants in adirect discharger's effluent would nottake into account the mass of pollutantsdischarged to the POTW fromnonindustrial sources nor the dilution ofthe pollutants in the POTW effluent tolower concentrations from the additionof large amounts of nonindustrialwastewater.'

The pollutants regulated in thecanmaking subcategory under PSESinclude chromium, zinc, aluminum,fluoride, phosphorous and Total ToxicOrganics ('ITO).

As discussed previously differentmetal cleaning and surface coatingformulations can be used in thecanmaking process. Aluminum isregulated as an indicator pollutant toassure removal of chromium and zincand other toxic metals, if chemicalformulation were changed to eliminatechromium or zinc by substituting someother toxic metal. Under 403.7(a) of thegeneral pretreatment regulation, eachcategorical pretreatment standard thatuses an indicator pollutant specifieswhether or not a removal credit may begranted for the pollutant. In thisregulation the POTW may give credit foraluminum only to the extent that it isdetermined that chromium; zinc, andother toxic metals are removed by thePOTW. The Agency recognizes thatPOTW add aluminum to assist in theremoval of solids; however this is not abasis for granting a removal credit.

As discussed previously, there aretoxic organics associated withlubricants used in the canmakingsubcategory. These toxic pollutants arenot specifically regulated at BAT,because for direct dischargers, the BCToil and grease limits should provideadequate removal. As discussed in thedevelopment document, the BCTlimitation for oil and grease will remove97 percent of the toxic organics. This isgreater than the removal of toxicorganics from a well operated POTWachieving secondary treatment whichremoves about 65 percent. Accordingly,the Agency believes that there is passthrough of toxic organic pollutantsassociated with these oil waste streams.Given the mix of toxic organicpollutants (See Appendix E) found inthese wastestreams, and the fact thatthey may pass through POTW, theAgency proposes to establish apretreatment standard for TTO tocontrol these pollutants. The proposedTTO standard is based on theapplication of oil and grease removaltechnology which achieves the sameremoval of TTO as the BCT modeltreatment technology.

In the canmaking subcategory, theAgency has also concluded that thepollutants that would be regulated(chromium, zinc, aluminum, fluoride,and phosphorus) under these proposedstandards pass through the POTW.Pollutants removed by POTW fromchromium and zinc are 05 percent, foraluminum range from 80 to 90 percentand for phosphorous range from 10 to 20

percent. There is no removal of fluorideby the POTW. The percentage that canbe removed by a canmaking directdischarger applying BAT is expected tobe over 98 percent. Accordingly, thesepollutants pass through POTW. Inaddition, toxic metals are not degradedin the POTW; they may limit a POTW.schosen sludge disposal method.

The pretreatment standards areexpressed as mass standards only. Thisis because a concentration basedregulation would not assure thesubstantial additional pollutantremovals achievable by flow reduction.

EPA proposes to establish a TotalToxic Organics (TTO) limitation basedon the data presented in Section VII ofthe technical development document.Analysis of toxic organics is costly andrequires delicate and sensitiveequipment. Therefore, the Agencyproposes to establish as an alternativeto monitoring for total toxic organics anoil and grease limit equivalent to theBCT limit for which the analysis is muchless costly and frequently can be doneat the plant. Data indicate that the toxicorganics are in the oil and grease and byremoving the oil and grease the toxicorganics should also be removed. Seediscussion in Section VII of thedevelopment document. The Agencyrequests comment on the TTO limit andthe alternate monitoring parameter of oiland grease. Because oil and grease isused as an indicator for TTO, POTWmay not give a removal credit for the oiland grease. EPA also requestscomments on whether to simplypromulgate an oil and grease limitationto effectively control organics.

EPA is proposing that the deadline forcompliance with PSES in this regulationbe three years after promulgation. EPAbelieves this time for compliance isreasonable because most of the plantsdo not now have all of the requiredequipment in-place and this amount oftime generally will be needed for properengineering, installation and start-up ofthe treatment facilities. The Agencyinvites comments with supportingdocumentation and rationale on theneed for this or any shorter compliancetime.

PSES Option Selection

The Agency considered PSES optionsequivalent to BPT (PSES-0) and the BAToptions 1, 2 and 3. PSES equivalent toBAT option I was selected for proposedstandards because it is demonstrated,removes more pollutants than PSES-Owhich would pass through POTW, andis economically achievable (annualcosts are less than for PSES-0). Options

6276


Removals for regulated pollutants areabove raw waste and compliance costsare above treatment equipment in place.

Pollutant removals kilograms per year (pounds per year) Costs (dollars inthousands)

Opton Toslcs Other (millions) Cap f8 Annual

PSES-0 ........................................ 44,880(98,736) 74.6(164.1) $34,000 $18,400PSES-1 ............................................................................... 47,255(103.900) 74.81(164.6) 27,600 16,700PSES-2 ........................................................ ._. ......... 47,440(104,400) 74.84(164.8) 31,800 17,400PSES-3.... . ...................... 47,440(104,400) 74.84(164.8) 43,500 32,900

Implementation of PSES will removean estimated 47,255 kg/yr of toxicmetals pollutants and 75 million kg/yr ofother pollutants (from raw waste) at acapital cost of $27.6 million and a totalannual cost of $16.7 million. Section VIIIof the development document explainsthe basis for these costs. PSES affects 81indirect discharging canmaking plants.EPA predicts no plant closures resultingfrom this regulation. No changes inindustry production capacity areexpected as a result of thesepretreatment standards. The EconomicImpact Analysis explains the economicimpacts in detail.

XII. Pretreatment Standards for NewSources (PSNS)

Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPAto promulgate pretreatment standardsfor new sources (PSNS) at the same timethat it promulgates NSPS. New indirectdischargers will produce wastespresenting the same pass-throughinterference, and sludge disposalproblems that existing dischargers have.New indirect dischargers, like newdirect dischargers, have the opportunityto incorporate the best availabledemonstrated technologies includingprocess changes, in-plant controls, andend-of-pipe treatment technologies, andto use plant site selection to ensureadequate treatment system installation.

The pollutants regulated in thecanmaking subcategory under PSNSinclude chromium, zinc, aluminum,fluoride, phosphorous and TTO. Thereason for selecting these pollutants areset forth under PSES above.

The PSNS treatment optionsconsidered are identical to the NSPSoptions. As explained above underPSES, the pollutants considered forregulation under PSNS pass throughPOTW. For PSNS the Agency isproposing standards based on the sametreatment technology options as NSPS.The selected options will not createbarriers to entry, as is discussed in theEconomic Impact Analysis.

The-Agency also considered requiringno discharge of process wastewater

pollutants. This option was rejected forthe reasons set forth for NSPS.

The-mass standards set forth as PSNSare presented here as the only method ofdesignating pretreatment standards.Regulation on the basis of concentrationwill not assure the substantial pollutantremovals that flow reduction willachieve. Flow reduction is a significantpart of the model technology for PSNS.

XIII. Best Conventional Technology(BCT) Effluent Limitations

The 1977 amendments added Section301(b}(2)(E) to the Act, establishing"best conventional pollutant controltechnology" (BCT) for discharges ofconventional pollutants from existingindustrial point sources. Conventionalpollutants are those defined in Section304(a}(4)-biological oxygen demandingpollutants (BODs),total suspended solids(TSS), and pH--and any additionalpollutants defined by the Administratoras "conventional." On July 30, 1979, EPAadded oil and grease to the conventionalpollutant list (44 FR 44501].

BCT is not an additional limitation butreplaces BAT for the control ofconventional pollutants. In addition toother factors specified in section304(b)(4](B), the Act requires that BCTlimitations be assessed in light of a twopart "cost-reasonableness" test. (SeeAmerican Paper Institute v. EPA, 660 F.2d 954 4th Cir. 1981.) The first testcompares the cost for private industry toreduce the discharge of its conventionalpollutants with the costs to POTW forsimilar levels of reduction in thedischarge of these pollutants. Thesecond test examines the cost-effectiveness of additional industrialtreatment beyond BPT. EPA must findthat limitations are "reasonable" underboth tests before establishing them asBCT. In no case may BCT be lessstringent than BPT.

EPA published its originalmethodology for carrying out the BCTanalysis on August 29, 1979 (44 FR50732). In the case mentioned above, theCourt of Appeals ordered EPA to correctdata errors underlying EPA's calculation

2 and 3 were not chosen for thereasonsdiscussed under the BATsection above.*

The pollutant removals and costs ofthe PSES options are summarized below.

of the first test, and to apply the secondcost test. (EPA had argued-that a secondcost test was not required.) EPAproposed its new methodology onOcotober 29, 1982 (47 FR 49176).

For the canmaking subcategory, EPAhas determined that the BPT end-of-pipetechnology sequence with added flowreduction (BCT technology is capable ofremoving significant amounts ofconventional pollutants. The Agencycompared the cost of removingconventional pollutants using the BCTtechnology with the costs of achievingcomparable treatment in a POTW. Usingthe newly revised proposed BCTmethodology, the result of thiscomparison indicates the cost for thisremoval is (-) $1.39 per pound, which issubstantially less than the proposedPOTW benchmark of $0.27 per pound.Because BCT technology is less costly-than BPT technology the second phaseof the cost test will also show a negativevalue. The application of BCTtechnology above BPT is accepted, andBCT limitations are established basedon this technology for oil and grease,TSS, and pH.

The lesser cost of BCT technology isdue to the reduced wastewater flow andresultant reduction in treatmentequipment size. The Agency specificallyrequests comment on this aspect of theBCT methodology and, in particular, onthe negative cost results shown for BCTtechnology.

XIV. Pollutants and Subcategories NotRegulated

The Settlement Agreement containsprovisions authorizing the exclusionfrom regulation, in certain instances, oftoxic pollutants and industry segments.

Paragraph 8(a)(iii) of the RevisedSettlement Agreement allows theAdministrator to exclude fromregulation specific pollutants notdetectable by Section 304(h) analyticalmethods or other state-of-the-artmethods. The toxic pollutants notdetected in this subcategory andtherefore, excluded from regulation arelisted in Appendix B to this notice.

Paragraph 8(a)(iii) of the RevisedSettlement Agreement allows theAdministrator to exclude fromregulation toxic pollutants detected inamounts too small to be effectivelyreduced by technologies knovn to theAdministrator. Appendix C to thisnotice lists the toxic pollutants in thissubcategory that were detected in theeffluent in amounts that are at or belowthe nominal limit of analyticalquantification which are too small to beeffectively reduced by technologies and

6277


that are therefore excluded fromregulation.

Paragraph 8(a)(iii) also allows theAdministrator to exclude fromregulation toxic pollutants present inamounts too small to be effectivelyreduced by technologies consideredapplicable to the subcategory. AppendixD lists those toxic pollutants which arenot treatable using technologiesconsidered applicable to the category.

Paragraph 8(a)(iii) also allows theAdministrator to exclude fromregulation specific pollutants which willbe effectively controlled by thetechnologies upon which are basedother effluent limitations and guidelines,standards of performance orpretreatment standards. The toxicpollutants considered for regulation, butexcluded from BPT, BAT limitations andNSPS because adequate protection isnow provided by this regulation throughthe control of other pollutants, are listedfor this subcategory in Appendix E ofthis preamble.

Paragraph 8(a)(iv) and 8(b)(ii) of theRevised Settlement Agreement allow theAdministrator to exclude fromregulation subcategories for which theamount and the toxicity of pollutants inthe discharge does not justifydeveloping national regulations. Somesegments of the canmaking subcategorymeet this provision and are excludedfrom this regulation because there is nodischarge of process wastewater. Thesesegments are listed in Appendix F tothis preamble.

XV. Cost and Economic ImpactExecutive Order 12291 requires EPA

and other agencies to perform regulatoryimpact analyses of major regulations.Major rules impose an annual cost to theeconomy of $100 million or more or meetother economic impact criteria. Theproposed regulation for the canmakingsubcategory of the coil coating categoryis not a major rule. The costs to beincurred by this industry will besignificantly less than $100 million.Therefore, formal regulatory impactanalysis is not required. This proposedrulemaking satisfies the requirement ofthe Executive Order for a non-majorrule. The Agency's regulatory strategyconsidered both the cost and theeconomic impacts of the proposedrulemaking.

The Economic Impact Analysis reportpresents tHe economic effects for theindustry as a whole and for typicalplants covered by the proposedregulation. Compliance costs are basedon engineering estimates of capitalrequirements for the effluent controlsystems described earlier in thispreamble. The report assesses the

impact of price changes, productionchanges, plant closures, job losses andbalance of trade effects.

EPA has identified 89 facilities thatmanufacture and wash seamlessaluminum and steel cans and arecovered by this regulation. Seven aredirect dischargers, 81 are indirectdischargers, and 1 does not dischargeprocess wastewater. Total investmentfor BAT and PSES is estimated to be$28.3 million, with annual costs of $17.1million, including depreciation andinterest. These costs are expressed in1982 dollars and account for existingtreatment in place among canmakingfacilities. These cost estimates arebased on the determination thatcanmaking facilities will move fromtheir existing treatment to either BAT orPSES for the BAT treatment technologycan installed by canmaking facilities ata cost proportionally lower than the BPTtreatment technology.

In order to measure the potentialeconomic effects of the proposedregulation, the Agency conducted aplant-by-plant analysis which focusedon profitability and capital availabilityrequirements. Both characteristics areexamined through standard financialanalysis techniques. Plant closuredeterminations are based primarily onmeasures of financial performance suchas return on assets and complianceinvestment cost as a percent of annualrevenues.

No plant closures or job losses wereprojected as a result of compliance costsfor this regulation. Annual compliancecosts for BAT and PSES are relativelysmall, with annual compliance costsaccounting for less than 1 percent ofplant revenues. In addition, because thecanmaking industry appears to be highlycompetitive, it is assumed thatproducers would attempt to absorb theircompliance costs and would not raisetheir prices. This assumption representsa worst case situation and to the extentprices are raised, may overstate theimpact of the regulation.

Return on investment (ROI) waschosen to assess the impact ofcompliance cost on plant profitability.Plants with an after-compliance ROI ofless than 7 percent were consideredpotential closure candidates. Theunderlying assumption is that plantscannot continue to operate as viableconcerns if they are unable to generate areturn on investment that is at leastequal to the opportunity cost of otherlow risk investment alternatives. Allcanmaking facilities analyzed werefound to have an after-compliance ROIgreater than 7 percent. The Ratio of"compliance capital investment torevenues" (CCI/R) was used to provide

a good indication of the relativemagnitude of the compliance capitalinvestment requirements. The ratio CCI/R was calculated for all canmakingfacilities as compared to a "capitalavailability threshold value" (CCI/R) of3 percent. If a plant's CCI/R ratio is lessthan the threshold value, the capitalinvestment for treatment equipment maybe financed out of a single year'sinternally generated funds withoutadditional debt. None of the canmakingfacilities had CCI/R ratios greater thanthe 3 percent threshold value.

In addition, EPA has conducted ananalysis of the incremental removal costper pound equivalent for each of theproposed technology based options. Apound equivalent is calculated bymultiplying the number of pounds ofpollutant discharged by a weightingfactor for that pollutant. The weightingfactor is equal to the water qualitycriterion for a standard pollutant(copper), divided by the water qualitycriterion for the pollutant beingevaluated. The use of "poundequivalent" gives relatively more weightto removal of more toxic pollutants.Thus, for a given expenditure, the costper pount equivalent removed would belower when a highly toxic pollutant isremoved than if a less toxic is removed.This analysis, entitled "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," is included inthe record of this rulemaking. EPAinvites comments on the methodologyused in this analysis.

Presented below are compliance costsfor the following regulations: BPT, BAT,PSES, PSNS and NSPS. There are noBCT compliance costs because theeffluent limitations are based on BATtechnology which is less costly thanBPT.

BPT: BPT regulations are proposed fordirect discharges for the canmakingindustry. This regulation will affect 7facilities. Investment costs for BPT are$1.0 million; total annual costs are $0.45million (in 1982 dollars). No plantclosures or job losses are anticipated asa result of BPT.

BAT: BAT regulations will also affectthe 7 direct discharges within thecanmaking industry' To comply directlywith BAT, these canmaking facilitieswill incur investment costs of $0.68million and annual costs of $0.42. Thereare no plant closures or job lossesprojected as a result of BAT.

PSES: Pretreatment standards areproposed for indirect dischargers withinthe canmaking industry. 81 plants willincur investment costs of $27.6 millionand annual costs of $16.7 million. Thereare no plant closures or job lossesprojected as a result of PSES.

6278

Federal Register / 'Vol. 48, No. 29 / Thursday, February 10, 1983 / Proposed Rules

NSPS/PSNS: The results of theeconomic analysis for new sourcesindicate that a new canmaking line willhave an annual output volume of 300million cans per production line. Theincremental annual compliance costs ofthe recommended technology for newsources of the BAT/PSES option for anormal canmaking line is estimated tobe approximately $20,000 which is lessthan 0.1 percent of plant revenues(assuming $90 per 1000 cansmanufactured). In addition, thecompliance capital investment for newsources is less than the required capitalinvestment for the recommended BAT/PSES technology. These comparisonsindicate that new sources would not beat a competitive disadvantage as aresult of having to comply with NSPS/PSNS.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis: Pub.L. 96-354 requires EPA to prepare anInitial Regulatory Flexbility Analysis forall proposed regulations that have asignificant impact on substantial numberof small entities. The analysis may beconducted in conjunction with or as partof other Agency analyses. A smallbusiness analysis for this industry isincluded in the Economic ImpactAnalysis. The number of plant lines wasthe primary variable recommended todistinguish firm size. The small sizecategory includes approximately 20facilities (46 percent of the industrytotal). The Agency invites comments onthis size definition. Annual BAT andPSES tompliance costs for small plantsare approximately 38 percent of theestimated BAT/PSES costs for existingsources. Thus, capital costs areestimated to be $10,693,000 with annualcosts of $4,074,000 for a. canmakingfacility with less than 3 production lines.For this proposed rulemaking, there areno significant impacts on small firms;therefore, a formal RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis is not required.

XVI. 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 consideredthe effect of this regulation on airpollution, solid waste generation, andenergy consumption. This proposal wascirculated to and reviewed by EPApersonnel responsible for non-waterquality environmental programs. Whileit is always difficult to balance pollutionproblems against each other and against

energy utilization, EPA is proposingregulations that it believes best serveoften competing national goals.

The following are the non-waterquality environmental impactsassociated with the proposedregulations and are discussed in SectionVIII of the Development Document:

A. Air Pollution

Compliance with the proposed BPT,BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS willnot create any substantial air pollutionproblems. Precipitation and clarification,the major portion of the technologybasis, should not result in any airpollution problems.

B. Solid Waste

EPA estimates that canmaking plantsgenerate a total of 7,100 kkg of solidwaste per year from manufacturingprocess operations, including sludgefrom current wastewater treatment.

Wastewater treatment sludgescontain toxic metals includingchromium, and zinc.

EPA estimates that the proposed BPTlimitations will contribute an additional382 kkg per year of solid wastes.Proposed BAT and PSES will contributeapproximately 3,950 kkg per year.Proposed NSPS and PSES willcontribute approximately 1500 kkg peryear. These sludges will necessarilycontain additional quantities of toxicmetal pollutants.

None of these wastewater treatmentsludges from this subcategory are likelyto be hazardous under the regulationsimplementing subtitle C of the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)when the model treatment technology isused to meet BAT or PSES. Generatorsof these wastes must meet requirementsset forth at 40 CFR Part 260 et seq. (See45 FR 33142-33143 (May 19, 1980).

C. Energy Requirements

The canmaking industry in 1981 usedabout 3.9 billion kilowatt hours ofenergy. This regulation does notsignificantly affect the energyrequirements of the industry. EPAestimates that the achievements ofproposed BPT effluent limitations willresult in a net increase in electricalenergy consumption of approximately1.5 million kilowatt-hours per year.Proposed BAT limitations are projectedto add insignificant additional kilowatt-,hours to electrical energy consumption.

The Agency estimates that proposedPSES will result in a net increase in -electrical energy consumption ofapproximately 15.1 million kilowatt-hours per year.

The energy requirements for NSPSand PSNS are estimated to be similar to

energy requirements for BAT. Moreaccurate estimates are difficult to makebecause projections for new plantconstruction are variable.

XVII. Best Management Practices

Section 304(e) of the Clean Water Actauthorizes the Administrator toprescribe "best management practices"(BMP), described under Authority andBackground. EPA is not now consideringpromulgating BMP specific to thecanmaking subcategory.

XVIII. Upset and Bypass Provisions

An issue of recurrent concern hasbeen 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 torequire only what technology canachieve, it is claimed that liability forsuch 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. Castle, supra and CornRefiners Association, et a. v. Castle,No. 78-1069 (8th Cir., April 2, 1979). Seealso American Petroleum Institute v.EPA, 540 F.2d 1023 (1oth Cir. 1976); CPCInternational, Inc., v. Train, 540 F.2d1320 (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 regulationsthat include upset and bypass permitprovisions. (See 40 CFR 122.60: 45 FR33290; May 19, 1980.) The upsetprovision establishes an upset as anaffirmative defense to prosecution forviolation of technology-based effluent

6279


limitations. The bypass provisionauthorizes bypassing to prevent loss oflife, personal injury, or severe propertydamage. Permittees in canmaking willbe entitled to the general upset andbypass provisions in NPDES permits.Thus these proposed regulations do notaddress these issues.

XIX. Variances and Modifications

Upon the promulgation of finalregulations, the numerical effluentlimitations must be applied in allFederal and State NPDES permitsthereafter issued to canmaking directdischargers. In addition, onpromulgation, the pretreatmentlimitations are directly applicable toindirect dischargers.

For the BPT effluent limitations, theonly exception to the binding limitationsis EPA's "fundamentally differentfactors" variance. See E. . duPont deNemours and Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112(1977); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle,supra; EPA v. National Crushed StoneAssociation, et a]. 449 U.S. 64 (1980).This variance recognizes that there maybe factors concerning a particulardischarger that are fundamentallydifferent from the factors considered inthis rulemaking. This variance clausewas originally set forth in EPA's 1973-1976 industry regulations. It now will beincluded in the general NPDESregulations and will not be included inthe canmaking or other specific industryregulations. See the NPDES regulation,40 CFR 125, Subpart D, 44 FR 32854,32893 (June 7, 1979), 45 FR 33512 (May19, 1980), 46 FR 9460 (January 28, 1981),and 47 FR 52309 (November 19, 1982) forthe text and explanation of the"fundamentally different factors"variance.

Dischargers subject to the BATlimitations are also eligible for EPA's"fundamentally different factors"variance. In addition, BAT limitationsfor nonconventional pollutants may bemodified under Sections 301 (c) and (g)of the Act which are now in 40 CFR122.53(i)(2). Section 301(1) precludes theAdministrator from modifying BATrequirements for any pollutants whichare on the toxic pollutant list underSection 307(a)(1) of the Act. Theeconomic modification section (301(c))gives the Administrator authority tomodify BAT requirements fornonconventional pollutants fordischargers who file a permitapplication after July 1, 1977, upon ashowing that such modifiedrequirements will: (1) Represent themaximum use of technology within theeconomic capability of the owner oroperator and (2) result in reasonablefurther progress 'toward the elimination

of the discharge of pollutants. Theenvironmental modification section(301(g)) allows the Administrator, withthe concurrence of the State, to modifyBat limitations for nonconventional "pollutants from any point source upon ashowing by the owner or operator ofsuch point source satisfactory to theAdministrator that:

(a) Such modified requirements willresult at a minimum in compliance withBPT limitations or any more stringentlimitations necessary to meet waterquality standards;

(b) Such modified requirements willnot result in any additionalrequirements on any other point ornonpoint source; and

(c) Such modification will not interferewith the attainment or maintenance ofthat water quality which shall assureprotection of public water sapplies, andthe protection and propagation of abalanced population of shellfish, fish,and wildlife, and allow recreationalactivities, in and on the water and suchmodification will not result in thedischarge of pollutants in quantitieswhich may reasonably be anticipated topose an unacceptable risk to humanhealth or the environment because ofbioaccumulation, persistency in theenvironment, acute toxicity, chronictoxicity (including carcinogenicity,mutagenicity or teratogenicity), orsynergistic propensities.

Section 301(j)(1)(B) of the Act requiresthat application for modifications undersection 301 (c) of (g) must be filed within270 days after the promulgatioh of anapplicable effluent guideline. Initialapplications must be filed with theRegional Administrator and, in thoseStates that participate in the NPDESProgram, a copy must be sent to theDirector of the State program. Initialapplications to comply with 301(j) mustinclude the name of the permittee, thepermit and outfall number, theapplicable effluent guideline, andwhether the permittee is applying for a301(c) or 301(g) modification.or both.Appli.ants interested in applying forboth must do so in their initialapplication. For further details, see 43FR 40859, September 13, 1978.

The nonconventional pollutantslimited under BAT in this regulation arealuminum, fluoride, and phosphorus. Noregulations establishing criteria for301(c) and 301(g) determinations havebeen proposed or promulgated. Alldischargers who file an initialapplication within 270 days will be senta copy of the substantive requirementsfor 301(c) and 301(g) determinationsonce they are promulgated. Modificationdeterminations will be considered at the

time the NPDES permit is beingreissued.

Pretreatment standards for existingsources are subject to the"fundamentally different factors"variance and credits for pollutantsremoved by POTWs. (See 40 CFR 403.7,493.13.) 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.)

XX. Relationship To NPDES Permits

The BPT, BAT, BCT and NSPSlimitations in this regulation will beapplied to individual canmaking plantsthrough NPDES permits issued by EPAor approved State agencies underSection 402 of the Act. The precedingsection of this preamble discussed thebinding 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 NPDESpermits.

One matter that has been subject todifferent judicial views is the scope ofNPDES permit proceedings in theabsence of effluent limitations,guidelines, and standards. Under currentEPA regulations, states and EPA regionsthat issue NPDES permits beforeregulations are promulgated do so on acase-by-case basis on consideration ofthe statutory factors. (See US. SteelCorp. v. Train, 556 F.2d 822, 844, 854 7thCir. 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 mannerconsistent 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 limitationof pollutants not covered by thisregulation (or require more stringent

6280


limitations on covered pollutants), suchlimitations must be applied by thepermit-issuing authority.

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 initiation ofenforcement proceedings by EPA isdiscretionary (Sierra Club v. Train, 527F 2nd. 485, 5th Cir. 1977). EPA hasexercised and intends to exercise thatdiscretion in a manner that recognizesand promotes good faith complianceefforts.

XXI. Summary of Public Participation

The Agency has had contact withindividual can manufacturing companiesand with the Can ManufacturersInstitute during the collection ofinformation and data basic to thisproposal. Information they supplied wasused in the preparation of this proposal.

XXII. Solicitation of Comments

The Agency invites and encouragescomments on any aspect of thisproposed regulation but is particularlyinterested in receiving comments on theissues listed below. In order for theAgency to evaluate views expressed bycommenters, the comments shouldcontain specific data and information tosupport those views.

1. As is explained in Section VI of thispreamble and Section IV of thedevelopment document for canmaking,the production of steel seamless cansand that of aluminum seamless cans areregulated as one subcategory with asingle set of limitations and standards.The Agency seeks comments on whetherthe judgment to include the productionof all seamless cans which are washedin a single subcategory is appropriate.Existing data on steel canmaking hasshown that flows and pollutant loadingsfor steel canmaking are somewhat lowerthan those for aluminum canmaking.Interested persons are invited to submitinformation relevant to subcatgorizationfor this proposal. Additional informationabout the processes, use of lubricantsand other materials, water use, andcharacterization of steel canmaking rawwastewaters and treated effluents isalso requested.

2. The Agency has concluded,preliminarily, that basing BATlimitations and PSES and new sourcestandards upon a technology train thatincludes polishing filtration wouldachieve little additional removal ofpollutants. The Agency seeks data fromcanmakers, equipment suppliers, and

other interested persons about the costand pollutant removal benefits ofpolishing filtration and its ability toremove toxic and nonconventionalpollutants from canmaking wastewaters,Wherever possible, persons submittingtreatment effectiveness informationshould present long-term samplingdata-especially paired rawwastewater-treated effluent data-fromcanmaking plants, or plants in othercategories with comparablewastewaters, with well-operatedpolishing filters.

3. The Agency has included dissolvedair flotation and chemical emulsionbreaking as recommended technologiesfor existing sources that have high levelsof oil and grease in their. wastewaters.As is explained in Section VII of thispreamble and Section VII of thedevelopment document, the Agency isconfident that these technologies--inaddition to oil skimming-will reduce oiland grease and TTO to concentrationsthat will allow the proposed limitationsand standards to be met. These oilremoval technologies perform well onwastewaters generated in otherindustries and are expected'to performsatisfactorily on canmakingwastewaters. Dissolved air flotation isused in the canmaking industry, and theAgency previously has requestedcanmakers to supply 'data with respectto the performance of this technology.As of the date of this proposal no datahas been received. The Agency wouldbe interested in receiving data on theperformance of dissolved' air flotationand chemical emulsion breaking incanmaking facilities, however, toconfirm the performance of thesetechnologies. Wherever possible,interested persons should submit long-term sampling data-especially pairedraw wastewater-treated effluent data-from canmaking plants with well-operated dissolved air flotation andchemical emulsion breakingtechnologies.

4. The Agency is continuing to seekadditional data to support theseproposed limitations and standards, andspecifically requests long-term samplingdata (especially paired raw wastewatertreated effluent data) from canmakingplants having well-operated chemicalprecipitation and sedimentationsystems.

5. To determine the economic impactof this regulations, the Agency hascalculated the cost of installing BPT,BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS for eachfacility for which canmaking data wereavailable. The details of the estimatedcosts and other impacts are presented inSection VIII of the technicaldevelopment document and in the

Economic Impact Analysis. Based onthese analyses, the Agency projects noplant closures or employment losses asa result of this regulation. Because theAgency did not have plant specific dataon some financial measures, as suchdata is often proprietary, the Agencyused industry-wide ranges or averages.The Agency invites comments on theseanalyses and projections. The Agencyparticularly seeks comment on whetherincremental costs are achievable bycanmakers; especially those that aresmall or less profitable. Commentersshould not focus only on the likelihoodof plant closures and employment lossesbut should also include data on theeffects of the regulation onmodernization or expansion ofproduction, production costs, the abilityto finance nonenvironmentalinvestments, product prices,profitability, availability of less costlytechnology and internationalcompetitiveness.

6. Xhe Agency is seeking comment onthe achieyability and costs associatedwith new source flow reduction.Specifically the Agency requestscomment with supporting data on theefficiency benefits associated with flowreduction such as reduced water usecharges, sewer charges, and decreasedtreatment system size and cost.

The proposed regulation wassubmitted to the Office of Managementand Budget for review as required byExecutive Order 12291. Any commentsfrom OMB to EPA and any EPAresponse to those comments areavailable for public inspection at theEPA Public Information Reference Unit,Room 2922 (EPA Library),Environmental Protection Agency, 401 MStreet, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.

The reporting or recordkeepingprovisions in this rule will be submittedfor approval to the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) undersection 3504(h) of the PaperworkReduction.Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq. Any final rule will explain how itsreporting or recordkeeping provisionsrespond to any OMB or publiccomments.

XXIV. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part465

Metal cans, Metal coating and alliedservices, Waste treatment and disposal,Water pollution control.-

Dated: January 31, 1983Anne M. Gorsuch,Administrator.

Appendix A-Abbreviations, Acronyms andOther Terms Used in This NoticeAct-The Clean Water Act

.6281 '

Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 29 / Thursday, February 10, 1983 / Proposed Rules

Agency-The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency

BAT-The best available technologyeconomically achievable under Section304(b)(2)(B) of the Act

BCT-The best conventional pollutantcontrol technology, under Section 304(b)(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 WaterPollution Control Act Amendments of 1972(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended by theClean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L 95-217)

Direct discharger-A plant that dischargespollutants into water of the United States

Indirect discharger-A plant that introducespollutrants into a publicly owned treatmentworks

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

NSPS-New source performance standardsunder Section 306 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 Not Detected

(a) Subpart D-Canmaking Subcategory001 Acenaphthene002 Acrolein003 Acrylonitrile005 Benzidine008 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene009 Hexachlorobenzene010 1,2-dichloroethane012 Hexachloroethane014 1,1,2-trichloroethane015 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane016 Chloroethane017 [Deleted)019 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)020 2-chloronaphthalene021 2,4,6-trichlorophenol022 Parachlorometa cresol'024 2-chlorophenol025 1,2-dichlorobenzene026 1,3-dichlorobenzene027 1,4-dichlorobenzene028 3,3-dichlorobenzidine030 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene031 2,4-dichlorophenol032 1,2-dichloropropane033 1,2-dichloropropylene (1,3-

dichloropropene)034 2,4-dimethyphenol035 2,4-dinitrotoluene036 2,6-dinitrotoluene039 Fluoranthene

040 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether041 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether042 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether043 Bis(2-chloroethyxy) methane045 Methyl chloride (dichloromethane)046 Methyl bromide (bromomethane)047 Bromoform (tribromomethane)049 (Deleted]050 [Deleted]052 Hexachlorobutadiene053 Hexachloromyclopentadiene054 Isophorone056 Nitrobenzene057 2-nitrophenol058 4-nitrophenol059 2,4-dinitrophenol060 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol061 N-nitrosodimethylamine063 N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine064 Pentachlorophenol069 Di-N-octyl phthalate073 Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)074 3,4-Benzofluoranthene

(benzo(b)fluoranthene)075 11,12-benzofluoranthene

(benzo(b)fluoranthene)077 Acenaphthylene079 1,12-benzoperylene (benzo(ghi)perylene)082 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene

dibenzo(,h)anthracene083 Ideno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene (2,3-0-

pheynylene pyrene)084 Pyrene088 Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)089 Aldrin090 Dieldrin094 4,4-DDD (p,p-TDE)095 Alpha-endosulfan096 Beta-endosulfan099 Endrin aldehyde105 Delta-BHC (PCB-polychlorinated

biphenyls)106 PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)108 PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)109 PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)111 PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)112 PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)113 Toxaphene114 Antimony116 Asbestos117 Beryllium125 Selenium126 Silver127 Thallium129 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

(TCDD)

Appendix C-Toxic Pollutants DetectedBelow the Nominal Quantification Limit

(a) Subpart D-Canmaking Subcategory.004 Benzene006 Carbon tetrachloride

(tetrachloromethane)007 Chlorobenzene013 1,1-dichloroethane023 Chloroform (trichloromethane)037 , 1,2-diphenylhydrazine038 Ethylbenzene048 Dichlorobromomethane051 Chlorodibromomethane055 Naphthalene062 N-nitrosodiphenylamine065 Phenol070 Diethyl phthalate071 Dimethyl phthalate072 1,2-benzanthracene

(benzo(a)anthracene)

076 Chrysene078 Anthracene080 Fluorene081 Phenanthrene085 Tetrachloroethylene087 Trichloroethylene091 Chlordane (technical mixture and

metabolites)092 4,4-DDT093 4,4-DDE (p,p-DDX)097 Endosulfan sulfate098 Endrin100 Heptachlor101 Heptachlor epoxide (BHC-

hexachlorocyclohexane102 Alpha-BHC103 Beta-BHC104 Gamma-BHC (lindane)107 PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)110 PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)

Appendix D-Toxic Pollutants Not treatableUsing Technologies Considered Applicable tothe Subcategory

(a) Subpart D-Canmaking Subcategory.115 Arsenic118 Cadmium120 Copper121 Cyanide122 Lead123 Mercury124 Nickel

Appendix E-Toxic Pollutants Controlled atBPT, BAT and NSPS But Not SpecificallyRegulated

(a) Subpart D--Canmaking Subcategory.011 1,1,1-trichloroethane018 Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether029 1,1-dichloroethylene044 Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)066 Bis(2-ethylhexyll)phthalate067 Butyl benzylphthalate068 Di-N-butyl phthalate080 Toluene

Appendix F-Segments Not Regulated

(a) The manufacture of seamed cans(clinched, soldered or welded).

(b) The manufacture of seamless cans fromcoated stock.

(c) The manufacture of can ends and cantops. I

(Secs. 301, 304 (b), (c), (e), and (g), 308 (b) and(c), 307 (b) and (c), and 501 of the CleanWater Act (the Federal Water PollutionControl Act Amendments of 1972, asamended 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. 15687.Pub. L. 95-217)

PART 465--[AMENDED)

1. EPA proposes to amend the table ofcontents to 40 CFR Part 465 by adding anew subpart D to read as follows:*t * *t , . *

Subpart D-Canmaking Subcategory

Sec.465.40 Applicability; description of the

canmaking subcategory.

6282


465.41 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best practicablecontrol technology currently available.

465.42 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable.

465.53 -New source performance standards.465.54 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources.465.55 Pretreatment standards for new

sources.465.56 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology.

2. EPA proposes to revise § 465.01 toread as follows:

§ 465.01 Applicability.This part applies to any coil coating

facility or to any canmaking facility thatdischarges a pollutant to waters of theUnited States or that introducespollutants to a publicly owned treatmentworks.

3. EPA proposes to amend § 465.02 byadding new paragraphs (h) and (i) toread as follows:

§ 465.02 [Amended]*r * * * *

(h) The term "can" means a containerformed from sheet metal and consistingof a body and two ends or a body and atop.

(i) the term "canmaking" means themanufacturing process or processesused to manufacture a can from a basismetal.

4. EPA proposes to amend §465.03 byadding paragraphs (c) and (d) to read asfollows:

§ 465.03 [Amended]

(c) As an alternative monitoringprocedure for pretreatment, the POTWuser may measure and limit oil andgrease to the levels shown inpretreatment standards in lieu ofmeasuring and regulating total toxicorganics (TTO]. The optional oil and .grease parameter is not eligible forallowance for removal achieved at aPOTW under 40 CFR 403.7.

(d) Aluminum is'used as an indicatorpollutant for toxic pollutants and aPOTW may give credit for aluminumremoval only to the extent that it isdetermined that chromium, zinc andother toxic metals are removed by thePOTW.

5. EPA proposes to revise § 465.04 toread as follows:

§ 465.04 Compliance date for PSES.(a) For Subparts A, B, and C the

compliance date for Pretreatment

Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) isDecember 1, 1985.1

(b) For Subpart D, the compliancedate for Pretreatment Standards forExisting Sources will be three yearsfrom the date of promulgation ofSubpart D. 1

6. EPA proposes to add a new SubpartD to read as follows:

Subpart D-Canmaking Subcategory

§ 465.40 Applicability; description of thecanmaking subcategory.

This subpart applies to discharges towaters of the United States, andintroductions of pollutants into publiclyowned treatment works from themanufacturing of seamless can bodies,which are washed.

§ 465.41 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best practicablecontrol technology currently available.

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-.32, any existing point source subject tothis subpart must achieve the followingeffluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable.

Subpart D

BPT effluent limitations

Pollutant or pollutant Mamum forproperty Maximum for any fmontry

day I average

g (lbe)/l .00.000 cans manufac rad

Cr .................................... 74.21 (0.163)1 30.03 (0.066)Zn ................................ I 235.01 (0.517) 98.95 (0.217)Al ..................................... 803.98 (1.768) 1 328.66 (0.723)F ....................................... 110513.65 (23.130) 14664.8 (10.262)P .................................. 2950.89 (6.491) 1206.86 (2.655)O&G ....................... 7. 3534.00 (7.774) 2120.40 (4.664)TSS ................... . 7244.70 (15.938) 3534.00 (7.774)PH ............................... 1 (9

'Within the range of 7.5 to 10 at all times.

§ 465.42 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable.

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-.32, any existing point source subject tothis subpart must achieve the followingeffluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable:

' The Consent Decree in NRDC v. Troin, 12 ERC1833 (D.C.C. 1979) specifies a compliance data forPSES of no later than June 30, 1984. EPA will bemoving for modification of that provision of theDecree. Should the Court deny that motion, EPAwill be required to modify this compliance dateaccordingly.

Subpart D

B4 T effluentl kb7?flonsPolutant or pollutant

property Maximum for any Maximum forp one day I monthly average

g (lbs)/1, )000 cans manufad

Cr ............................ 24.10 (0.053) 9.75 (0.021)Zn. ............... 76.34 (0.167 32.14 (0.070)A] ............... . .. 261.17 (0.574) 106.76 (0.234)F ...................................... 3415.30 (7.513) I 1515.36 (3.333)P ...................................... 958.58 (2.108) 392.04 (9.862)

§ 465.43 . New source performancestandards.

The following standards ofperformance establish the quantity ofquality of pollutants or pollutantproperties, controlled by this section,which may be discharged by a newsource subject to the provisions of thissubpart:

Subpart D

NSPS effluent limitations

Pollutant or pollutantproperly Maximtum for any M= for

one day amap

g (lbs)I1,000,000 cans manufactured

Cr ................... 5.88 (0.013) 2.38 (0.005)Zn .................. 18.62 (0.041) 4.84 (0.017)A ...................................... 63.7 (0.140) 26.04 (0.57)F .................................... 833.0 (1.833) 369.60 (0.813)P .............. . ...................... 233.8 (0.514) 95.62 (0.210)O&G .......... 280.0 (0.616) 168.0 (0.370)TSS ................................. 574.0 (1.263) 280.0 (0.616)pH ................................ . (0 )

'Within the range of 7.5 to. 10 at all times.

§ 465.44 Pretreatment standards forexisting sources.

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7and 403.13, any existing source subjectto this subpart which introducespollutants into a publicly ownedtreatment works must comply with 40CFR Part 403 and achieve the followingpretreatment standards for existingsources.

Subpart D

PSES effluent limitationsPollutant or pollutyntproperty Maximum for any Maximum for

one day* monthly average

kg (lbs)/1000,000 cans manufactured

Cr ..................................... 24.10 (0.053) 9.75Zn ................ 76.34 (0.167) 32.14A ..................................... 261.17 (0.574) 106.78F ............... 3415.30 (7.513) 1515.36P ...................................... 958.58 (2.108) 392.04TTO ................................. 18.36 (0.040) 8.61O&G (for alternate

monitoring) ................. 2353.0 (5.177) 1148.0

(0.021)(0.070)(0.234)(3.333)(0.862)(0.009)

(2.526)

§ 465.45 Pretreatment standards for newsources.

Except as provided in § 403.7 any newsource subject to this subpart whichintroduces pollutants into a publiclyowned treatment works must comply

6283

6284 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 29 / Thursday, February 10, 1983 / Proposed Rules

with 40 CFR Part 403 and achieve thefollowing pretreatment standards fornew sources.

Subpart D

PSNSPollutant or pollutant

property Maximum for any r Maximum forone day monthly average

g (tbs)/l000,000 cans manufacturedCR ................................... 5.88 (0.013) 2.38 (0.005)At .................................... 18.62 (0.041) 7.84 (0.017)Al ..................................... 63.7 (0.140) 26.04 (0.057)F ................ 833.0 (1.833) 369.60 (0.813)P 233.8 (0.514) 95.62 - (0.210)TO ............... 4.48 (0.010) 2.10 (0.005)

O&G (for alternateImonitoring) ................. 280.0 (0.616) 168.0 (0.616)

§ 465.46 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 source subject tothis subpart must achieve the followingeffluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology:

Subpart D

SCT effluent limitationsPollutant or pollutant

property Maximum for any I Maximum forone day I monthly average

g (lbs)/1000.000 cans manufacturedO&G ................................ 1148.00 (2.526) 688.80 (1.515)TSS ......................... 2353.4 (5.177) 1148.00 (2.526)pH ...................................

Within the range of 7.5 to 10 at all times.

[FR Doc, 83-3194 Filed 2-9-83: 8:45 am!BILUNG CODE 6560-S0-M

6268 Federal Register Vol. 48, No. 29 Thursday, February ... · Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 29...

Documents

Transcript of 6268 Federal Register Vol. 48, No. 29 Thursday, February ... · Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 29...