Effluent Guidelines - Best Conventional Pollutant Control ... · that conventional pollutants...

Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 210 / Friday, October 29, 1982 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Parts 405, 406, 407, 408, 409,411, 412, 415, 422, 424, 426, 429,430,431, 432, 433, and 440

lWH-FRL-2150-41

Best Conventional Pollutant ControlTechnology; Effluent LimitationGuidelines

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Proposed rules.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes new andrevised effluent limitation guidelines forbest conventional pollutant controltechnology (BCT) under the Clean WaterAct and a revised BCT methodology.The proposed rules cover the Dairy,Grain Milling, Fruits and Vegetables,Seafood, Sugar, Feedlots, Ferroalloys,Glass, Meat, Phosphate, Timber,Inorganic Chemicals, Ore Mining andDressing, Metal Finishing, and Pulp,Paper, and Paperboard industries. Theyare based on a revised approach to theBCT methodology developed inresponse to judicial and agency reviewof the BCT methodology promulgated inAugust, 1979.DATE: Comments must be submitted onor before December 28, 1982.ADDRESSES: Send comments in triplicateon the proposal to: Ms. Renee Rico, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 401 MStreet, S.W. (WH-586), Washington,D.C. 20460.

The Record, including copies of thedevelopment documents and economicanalyses, will be available for publicreview in EPA's Public InformationReference Unit, Room 2404 (Rear), EPAlibrary, 401 M St., S.W., Washington,D.C. 20460. The EPA informationregulation (40 CFR Part 2) allows theAgency to charge a reasonable fee forcopyifig."FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Ms. Renee Rico, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Office of Analysisand Evaluation (WH-586), 401 M Street,S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 382-5386.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Statutory Authority

In 1977, Congress amended the CleanWater Act (CWA) to include section304(b)(4)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(4)(B). Thisprovision requires EPA to establish bestconventional pollutant controltechnology (BCT) effluent limitations tobe determined by an analysis of:

The reasonableness of the relationshipbetween the costs of attaining a reduction ineffluents and the effluent reduction benefitsderived, and the comparison of the cost andlevel of reduction of such pollutants from thedischarge of publicly owned treatment worksto the cost and level of reduction of suchpollutants from a class or category ofindustrial sources.

The Act also specifies that in makingBCT determinations consideration begiven to the age of equipment,production process, energyrequirements, and other appropriatefactors.

BCT is not an additional effluentlimitation for industrial dischargers, butrather replaces "best availabletechnology economically achievable"(BAT) effluent limitations for the controlof conventional pollutants. Effluentlimitations representing BCT may not beless stringent than limitationsrepresenting "best practicable controltechnology currently available" (BPT).Conventional pollutants can becontrolled to more stringent levels thanBCT for dischargers in areas wherewater quality considerations necessitateadditional control.

Section 304(a)(4) of the Act specifiesthat conventional pollutants include, butare not limited to, biochemical oxygendemanding materials (BOD5), totalsuspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform,and pH. The Agency has also designatedoil and grease as a conventionalpollutant (44 FR 44501, July 30, 1979).

B. Previous Regulations

.Under Section 73 of the 1977 CWA,EPA was directed to review all existingBAT effluent guidelines for conventionalpollutants in those industries notcovered in the Settlement Agreementreached in National Resources DefenseCouncil v. Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C.1976), as modifed 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C.1979), and to determine their suitabilityas BCT limitations. These industries areoften referred to as "secondaryindustries." On August 29, 1979, EPApublished its BCT methodology andpromulgated BCT limitations for 41subcategories of the secondaryindustries (44 FR 50732). However, EPAdid not have sufficient Information atthat time to establish BCT limitations forall the secondary industries andtherefore deferred regulation of some ofthem.

In developing the methodology for the1979 regulation, EPA was guided both bythe statutory language of Section304(b)(4)(B and by Congress' underlyingobjectives in establishing BCT. Congresswas concerned that requirements for thecontrol of conventional pollutantsbeyond BPT were unreasonably

expensive in some cases. Accordingly,Congress required that a special "costreasonableness comparison" be appliedbefore establishing BCT limitations at alevel more stringent than BPT. The coreof the Agency's BCT methodology was acomparison of the costs of removingadditional pounds of conventionalpollu*tants for industry with comparablecosts of removal for an average-sizedpublicly owned treatment works(POTW).

C. BCT Court Suit

The 1979 regulations were challengedin the U.S. Court of Appeals for theFourth Circuit. On July 28, 1981, theCourt issued its decision, upholding themethodology EPA had developed for thePOTW cost-comparison test. AmericanPaper Institute v. EPA, 660 F2d 954 (4thCir. 1981). However, since EPA hadrecently informed the Court thatsignificant statistical errors had beenfound in its calculation of the POTWtest, the Court directed the Agency tocorrect the errors.

The Court also held that the CWArequires EPA to consider two"reasonableness" tests as part of theBCT methodology: an industry cost-effectiveness test and a POTW costcomparison test. Because EPA had onlydeveloped the latter test, the Courtremanded the regulations and orderedEPA to develop and implement anindustry cost-effectiveness test thatcompares the industry's costs ofattaining a reduction in effluents withthe effluent reduction benefits derived,

As a result of the remand, EPAwithdrew many of the 1979 regulations,as well as the BCT limitations for theTimber category. (47 FR 6835, February17, 1982.) Since BPT represents theminimal level of control required by lawfor conventional pollutants, those BCTlimitations which equalled BPT were leftin effect. Those BCT regulations whichrequired a higher level of control thanBPT were withdrawn.

D. Purpose of This Proposal

This rulemaking serves severalpurposes. First, in response to the courtremand, EPA has developed an industrycost-effectiveness test and corrected thestatistical errors in its prior calculationof the POTW test.

Second, EPA has generallyreevaluated the BCT methodology inresponse to a March 15, 1981 directivefrom the Presidential Task Force onRegulatory Relief and comments by theCouncil on Wage and Price Stability.Based on this review, EPA hasdetermined that the POTW cost-comparison methodology promulgated in

49176


1979 and upheld by the Court of Appealsis still the preferred approach, with theexception of one change proposedtoday.

Finally, EPA is required to apply theBCT methodology to establish BCTlimitations for both the primaryindustries (those covered by the NRDCConsent Decree) and the secondary,industries. Today's proposal, ifpromulgated, would replace the BCTlimits withdrawn on February 17, 1982,and establish BCT limits for some of thesecondary industries that were notincluded in the 1979 regulations. Second,EPA is reproposing BCT limitations forthe Pulp, Paper and Paperboard,Inorganic Chemicals, Metal Finishing,and Timber industries since the originalBCT limitations for these industrieswere proposed or promulgated using theBCT methodology remanded'by theCourt. Therefore, today's proposalsupersedes BCT limitations proposed onJanuary 6, 1981 for Pulp, Paper andPaperboard (46 FR 1430), July 24, 1980for Inorganic Chemicals [44 FR 49450).and June 14, 1982 for Ore Mining andDressing (47 FR 25682). It would alsoreplace the BCT limitations that werewithdrawn for Timber (46 FR 3260). EPAis also reproposing BCT limitations forthe Ore Mining and Dressing categorysince BCT limitations were erroneouslyproposed.

These proposed limitations apply toBOD5 , TSS, fecal coliform, pH, and oiland grease. Since all of the BAT pHlimitations were set at BPT levels, noBDT assessment was carried out for pH.If at any time pollutants are added ordeleted from the conventional pollutantlist, the Agency plans to reevaluate alleffluent guidelines affected by suchrevisions.

EPA intends to use today'smethodology to evaluate conventionalpollutant treatment requirements for theremaining primary industries. TheseBCT limitations will be proposed andpromulgated where possible along withBAT, pretreatment, and new sourcestandards. Calculations for applying theBCT methodology for each industry willbe explained when each regulation isproposed. Because the methodologyproposed today will be used in alleffluent guidelines, t&is notice isintended to provide the opportunity forall industries to submit comments on themethodology now.

E. Summary of Proposal

EPA proposes to use the methodologycontained in this notice to determine thecost-reasonableness of all BCTtechnology options. The methodologyconsists of two parts: a POTW test andan industry cost-effectiveness test. The

b

POTW test is passed if the incrementalcost per pound of conventional pollutantremoved in going from BPT to BCT isless than $.27 per pound in 1976 dollars.The industry test is passed if this sameincremental cost per pound is less than143% of the incremental cost per poundassociated with achieving BPT. Bothtests must be passed for a BCTlimitation more stringent than BPT to beestablished.

EPA applied this methodology to thecategories included in today's proposal.If the BAT limits that were promulgatedfor a secondary industry pass the BCTreasonableness test, BCT is establishedequal to BAT. If either test is failed, BCTis established equal to BPT.

In those subcategories for which BATor BCT limitations were neverpromulgated, or were being reevaluatedon technical grounds, the Agencyconsidered several candidatetechnologies for BCT. These candidatetechnologies are those that removesignificant amounts of conventionalpollutants beyond BPT..In evaluatingtheir reasonableness, EPA used BPT asa starting point and determined theincremental costs and levels of pollutantremoval from BPT to each of thecandidate technologies. The selection ofthe final BCT limitations is based on themost stringent technology option whichpasses the reasonableness tests, as wellas the other factors specified in the Act.

The Agency has determined thatestablishing the BAT level of control ofconventional pollutants as BCT for thesecondary industries is reasonable forthe following 8 of the 96 subcategoriesreviewed: Pacific Coast Hand-ShuckedOyster (408.257), Atlantic and GulfCoast Hand-Shucked Oy9ter (408.267),Non-Alaskan Scallop (408.307), Abalone(408.337), Sodium Phosphates (422.67),Slag Processing (424.37), Small Prccessor(432.57), and Renderers (432.107).

EPA also determined that BCTlimitations more stringent than BPT arereasonable for the following 4subcategories in the pulp, paper, andpaperboard and timber industries: WetProcess Hardboard (429.62), PapergradeSulfite-Blow Pit Wash (430.103),Groundwood-Thermo Mechanical(430.133), and Papergrade Sulfite DrumWash (430.213). BCT equals BPT for theremaining subcategories in the pulp andpaper and timber industries, as well asfor the ore mining, metal finishing andinorganic chemicals industries.

All the subcategories reviewed appearin Table I. This table summarizes thecurrent status of each point sourcesubcategory, the results of the BCTreview, and whether BCT is set equal toor more stringent than BPT limitations.

The columns and their entries aredefined as follows.

1. Industry/Subcategory: Eachindustrial point source subcategory inthe primary and secondary industries islisted in the table. The chart and thediscussions in Section III include thosesubcategories for which BCT limitationsequal to BPT have already beenestablished. They are included forinformational purposes only.

2. Size: EPA performed many of theBCT industrial calculation using modelplants. Where more than one modelplant was used, the size designationsare listed for small, medium, and largedischargers.

3. CFR Part: The CFR Part and sectionnumber are included for additionalidentification of the subcategory. Whereno BCT section exists, the proposedsection number for the subcategory isused.

4. Current Status: A number of termsthat are explained below are used todefine the rulemaking status of aparticular subcategory prior to today'sproposal. For further information, referto the Application of BCT Methodology(Section III).

a. Removed: The BCT limitations forthe subcategory were withdrawn inresponse to the Court Remand of July1981 (47'FR 6835, February 17, 1982).

b. pHLimit: The BCT limitation forthe subcategory contains only alimitation for pH that equals the BPTlimitations.

c. BPT=BCT: EPA has alreadypromulgated BCT limitations that areequal to BPT. EPA did not perform aBCT review of these subcategories intoday's proposal.

d. No section: No BCT limitationswere ever promulgated for thissubcategory, and no current sectionnumber exists in the CFR.

e. BCT Reserved: The CFR section forthis subcategory was reserved for futureBCT effluent guideline rulemaking.

f. BCT Proposed: EPA previouslyproposed BCT limitations for thissubcategory based on the 1979methodology.

5. BCT Methodology: This columndescribes the resu'ts of applying theproposed BCT methodology. It indicateswhether any candidate technologypasses the BCT tests and whethertherefore, BCT is proposed equal to or amore stringent level than BPT.

6. Other: EPA reviewed thetechnology basis and economic impactof candidate BCT technologies if newinformation became available. Wherethese factors caused the Agency toreject the technologies, the columnentries are marked Fail. See the

49177


discussion of each industry in Section III subcategories where EPA has X appears in the column BCT=BPT.for more information, determined that the candidate BCT Where the Agency has determined that

7. BCT Limitations: This heading technologies are not reasonable and is they are reasonable and is setting BCTcontains two columns. For those setting BCT limitations equal to BPT, an limitations more stringent than BPT, an

X appears in the column BCT>BPT.

TABLE

Size CFR Part

DAIRY PRODUCTS PROCESSING

Receiving Stations ......................................................................... S L .................Fluid Products ..................................................................................... S, L .................Cultured Products ........................................................................... S, L .................B utter .............................................................................................. . . S , L .................Cottage Cheese Cultured Cream Cheese ....................................... S, L .................Natural, Processed Cheese ............................................................... S, L .................Fluid Mix for Ice Cream and Other Frozen Desserts ................... S. L .................Ice Cream, Frozen Desserts ............................................................ S, L .................Condensed Milk .............................................................................. S, L .................Dry Milk ................................................................................................ S,L.Condensed Whey .............................................................................. S, L .................Dry Whey ............................................................................................. S,L.

GRAIN MILLS

Corn Wet Milling .. ........................................................................ S. M, L ............Corn Dry Milling ..................................................... S .......................... S, L .................Normal Wheat Flour Milling ..................................Bulgar Wheat Flour Milling ............................................................... .........................Normal Rice Milling ....................................................................................................Parboiled Rice Processing ..........................................................................................A nim a l F ee d ....................................................................................... ..........................Hot Cereal ............................................................................................ ...............Ready-To-Eat.Co real ......................................................................... S, M, L ............Wheat Starch and Gluten ...........................................................................................

CANNED AND PRESERVED FRUITS AND VEGETABLES

Apple Juice ........................................................................................ S, L .................Apple Products ................................................................................ S, L .................Citrus Products ................................................................................ SA .................

Dehydrated Potatoes Products ..................................................................... ........................Frozen Potato Products................................................ . L .......Dehydrated Potatoes Products........................................5S, L .......Canned and Preserved Fruits .....................................................................................Canned and Preserved Vegetables ...........................................................................Canned and Miscellaneous Specialities .............................................................

CANNED AND PRESERVED SEAFOOD PROCESSING

Farm.Raised Catfish Processing ..................... S M, L ............Conventional Blue Crab Processing ................................................ S, M, L ............Mechanized Blue Crab Processing ................................................. S, M, L ............Non-Remote Alaskan Crab Meat Processing ..................................................Remote Alaskan Crab Meat .......................................................................................Non-Remote Alaskan Whole Crab and Crab Section Process- ..........................

ing.Remote Alaskan Whole Crab and Crab Section Processing. S, M, L ............Dungeness and Tanner Crab Processing in the contiguous ..........................States.

Non-Remote Alaskan Shrimp Processing ...................................... S, M, L ............Remote Alaskan Shnmp Processing ..................... S, M, L ............Northern Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States ................ S M, L ............Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous S, M, L ............

States.Breaded Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States ................ S, M, L ............Tuna Processing ............................... ; ........................................... S, M, L ............Fish Meal Processing ....................................................................... ..........................Alaskan Hand-Butchered Salmon Processing ......................................

-Remote ...........................................................................

- Non-Remote ............................................................................. ..........................Alaskan Mechanized Salmon Processing ..........................................................

405.17405.27405.37405.47405.57405.67405.77405.87405.97,405.107405.117405.127

406.17406.27406.37406.47406.57406.67406.77406.67406.97406.107

407.17407.27407.37

407.47407.57407.67407.77407.87

408.17408.27408.37408.47408.57408.67

408.77408.87

408.97408.107408.117408.127

408.137408.147408.157408.167

.408.177

.Ii UIU ...................................................................................................................................- Non-Remote .................................................................................................. .... .......

West Coast Hand-Butchered Salmon Processing ...................... S L.West Coast Mechanized Salmon Processing .............................. L.Alaskan Bottom Fish Processing ...............................................................................

- Remote ..............................................................................................................- N on-R em ote ............................................................................

Non-Alaskan Conventional Bottom Fish Processing ....................Non-Alaskan Mechanical Botton Fish Processing ........................

Hand-Shucked Clam Processing .....................................................M echanized Clam Processing ..........................................................Pacific Coast Hand-Shucked Oyster Processing ...........................Atlantic and Gull Coast Hand-Shucked Oyster Processing .........Steamed and Canned Oyster Processing .......................................Sardine Processing .................................Alaskan Scallop Processing .............................

- R e m o te .....................................................................................-Non-Remote ..................................

Non-Alaskan Scallop Processing ..... ...............

Current status

Removed ................Removed ................Removed ................Removed ................Removed ................Removed ................Removed ...............Removed ................Removed ................

pH Limit ..................Removed ................

Removed ................Removed ................BPT-BCT ................pH Limits ...............BPT-BCT ................Removed ................BPT-BCT ................BPT-BCT .............Removed .............Removed ..........

Removed ................Removed ................Removed ................

pH Limit .................Removed ................No section .............No section ............No section .............

No section .............No section .............No Section ............No section ............No section ............No section .............

BCT methodology

POTW test Industry test

.......... I... ................

F.a........................

Fail ........................

Reserved ........................ I .................I ....................................................... II .........................................................I .......... ... ............................. I ................

Other

Fail ..................Fail ..................Fail ..................Fail ..................Fail ..................Fail ..................Fail ..................Fail ..................Fail ..................Fail ..................Fail ..................Fail ..................

BCT lmits

BBPT)

Fail .................... I ................... ...............Pass ........ Fail .... ............................................ ......

Fail .....................Fail ......................Fail(S) .................Pass(L) ...............Pass (S, L).Pass (S, L).Fail ......................Fail .....................Fail ......................

Fail (L) ................Fail (S, L) ..........Fail (S, L) ..........

Fail ........ I ...........

X.X (S. L.X IS. L)..x IS, L)X.

x.X.x.X.

X

X.

x

x!

............. ..................... x is , L)-..................................... X iS , L):

.................. ........ I................. IX IS, L). .... .. .. .. .L - -

Fall ..................

Fail..................Fail..................Fail ..................Fail ..................Fail ..................

No section ............. No section Fal ................FIil............................................................................... .................................. Fai ..................

No section ............No section .............No section ............No section .............

No section ............No section ............No section ............... ..................No section.No section ............

No section ............No section.

408.187 No section408.187 No section*.....408.207 ............................

-Fail...I................ .... ................................... ............... F ail - ... ............. .. .:.. .. .................................. Fail ....... . ........ .................................... Fail ..... I . ........ ........

I .......... ... ...........................................Fail ......................

..............................

.................................................................................. I...........................

I .......................Fail ......................

I ...................................................

.............................. Fail ........................

............................. Fall ....... . ......... .......

I..................... INo section ............. I .................... I............................................................... NO section .......................................... I............................S, M , L ............ 408.217S, L ................. 408.227

S,L .................

S,M,L ............

408.237408.247408.257408.267408.277408.287408.297

............... .408.307

No section ............No section ............

No section ............No section ............No section ............No section ............No section ............No section ............

No section ............No section ............No section ............

Fail (S) Pass(M. LI.

Pass ....................Pass ....................

Fail ....................

Pass...........

F..l....................

Fail ..................Fail ..................

Fail ..................

Fail ..................

Fail ..................

Fail IS, M, L)..

X (5, Q)X IS' LI.x.X.

X.x.x.

X.x.If.x.x.

XIf S. M, Q.If.

.............................. Fail .................. .... ............ . . X.

.............................. Fail ........ . ......... ........ XNA ...................... .... X'.....................NA ..............................................

............................. .Fail ..... . ......... ....... X

.............................. Fail .................. ................ . . ............................... X ... .

NA........... I . ..................... X ............

49178

Industry and subcategory

Remo I vedI ...................................... I.............I............ ............

..............................

..............................

..............................

..............................

..............................

................ I ............ I

..............................

...................... I

..............................

..............................

..............................

..............................

............ I .................

..............................

..............................

..............................

............. I ................

.............................I ........................

.............................

................................ ...................

.............................

.................... I.-

Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 210 / Friday, October 29, 1982 / Proposed Rules 49179

TABLE I-Continued

i F BCT methodology BCT limitsndustry and subcategory Size FP Current status test Industry test Otter Pass Fail (=BPT)

Alaskan Herring Filet Processing ...................................................- Rem ote .............................................................................- Non.Rem ote ............................................................................

Non-Alaskan Herring Filet Processing .............................................Abalone Processing .....................................................................................................

SUGAR PROCESSING

Beet Sugar Processing ............................................Crystalline Cane Sugar Refining ........... ... .................. S, L ................Uquid Cane Sugar Refining .............. . . . . ...............Louisiana Raw Cane Sugar Processing .................................... ; .........................Florida and Texas Raw Cane Sugar Processing ...........................Hdo-Hamakua Coast of the Island of Hawaii Raw Cane Sugar .........................

Processing.Hawaiian Raw Cane Sugar Processing Subcategory .......................Puerto Rican Raw Cane Sugar Processing ........................................................

CEMENT MANUFACTURING

N onleaching .................................................................................................................Leaching .......................................................................................................................M aterial Storage ..........................................................................................................

FEEDLOTS

All Subcategories except Ducks .......................... ...................

Ducks ...................................................................................................... ...............

INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTUFINGR

Chlor-Alkali-Mercury Cell ...........................................................- Diaphragm Cell ............................. ...............................................................

Hydrofluoric Acid ...........................................................................................................Sodium Dichromate and Sodium Sulfate ...........................................................Titanium Dioxide . ..........................Aluminum Fluoride ................. ....................Chrome Pigments .............................................C opper Sulfate ............................................................................................................Hyofrogen Cyanide .......................................................................................................N ickel Sulfate ...............................................................................................................Sodium Bisulfite ................................................................................. ........................

PHOSPHATES

Defluorinated Phosphate Rock ........................Defluorinated Phosphoric Acid ................................Sodium Phosphates. ............................ XS, S, M, L

FERROALLOY MANUFACTURING

Open Electric Furnaces, Wet ...........................................Covered Electric Furnaces and Other Smelting Operations ...........................Slag Processing ...............................................Covered Calcium Carbide Furnaces, Wet .........................Other Calcium Carbide Furnaces ....................................Electrolytic M anganese ..................................................................... ..........................Electrolytic Chromium ..............................................

GLASS MANUFACTURING

Insulation Fiberglass .......................................................................... .........................Sheet G lass ........................................................................................ ........................R olled G lass ..................................................................................... .........................Plate G lass ........................................................................................ ..........................Float Glass ...................................................Automotive Glass Tempenng ................ ......... . ................Automotive Glass Laminating ...................................................................................Glass Container Manufacturing ......................................Glass Tubing (Danner) Manufacturing .................................Television Picture Tube ................................................ ................................Incandescent Lamp ...........................................Hand Pressed and Blown Glass ...............................................................................

TIMBER PRODUCTSBarking ................................................................................................ ...................

V eneer ................................................................................................ .........................Plyw ood ............................................................................................... ....................Dry Process Hardboard ................................................................. . ..Wet Process Hardboard .................................................................. .........Wood Preserving-Waterborne Nonpressure ....................................................Wood Presering-Steam .....................................................................................Wood Preservino-Boulton ...... . ..........................................

Log W ashing .......................................................................................Sawmills and Planning Mills ................. .............Finishing ................................Particleboard M ftg .............................................................................Insulation Board ..................................................................................Wood Furniture and Fixture Production w/o Water Wash

Spray Booth.Wood Furniture and Fixture Production w/Water Wash Spray

Booth.

PULP, PAPER AND PAPERBOARO

408.327408.337

409.17409.27409.37409.47409.57409.67

409.77409.87

411.17411.27411.37

412.17

412.27

415.67(a)415.67(b)415.87415.177415.227415.237415.347415.367415.427415.477415.547

422.47422.57422.67

424.17424.27424.37424.47424.57424.67424.77

426.17426.27426.37426.47426.57426.67426.77426.87426.107426.117426.127426.137

429.22(a)429.22(b)429.32429.42429.52429.62429.72429.82429.92429.102429.112429.122429.132AAO'

.. 429.172

No section.............No section ............No section ............No section ............

pH s ci ............pH limit .................pH limit ..................

No section ............No section ............No section ............

Pass....................

Pass ....................

Fail ......................Fail ......................

.......................

.............................................

NA .......................

Fal .....................- ..' ...................................................

I .............................................................................

Fagl..........Reserved.Fail.Fag..........

..........................

.........................

.........................

............... I ..........X ......................

No c seton]::::::. . . . . ....... .. t

BPT=BCT ............... ......................... ......................................... ...pH sect ................... .......I............... ................................ . . ......................... XBPT=BCT ............. .................... ......................... ....

BPT=BCT ............

No section ............

BPT=BCT ............Reserved ...............Reserved ...............BPT=BCT ............BPT=BCT ............BPT=BCT ............BPT=BCT ............BPT=BCT ............BPT=BCT ............BPT=BCT ............BPT=BCT ............

BPT=BCT ............BPT=BCT ............Removed ...............

Fall ......................Fail ......................

Reserved ........ ........

Pass..........=........Pass I ............ I .... ..... ...........

11-111 .... ............. ......... .. I I ............. .... ........ ..... .......... I : -Removed. Fail... ............ ...................... .....................Removed ................ Pass .................... Pass ................... . X .......... . ........pH limit ................... Fail .......... . . . . . . ........................BCT =B PT ........................................................................... ..........................pH limit ................... Fail ................ ................. ..........pH limit ................... Fall .............................. . . . X.

Rem oved ............................................................................ Fail ..................BPT= BCT ........................................................................................... .......BPT= BGT ............................................................................................ .......Removed ................ Fail .................................................. ... :.....pH limit . Fail......................................................................................KpH limit ................... Fail .................... ........................................................... .i. XpH limit ................... Fail ..................................................... X.pH limit ................... Fai ................. ........................... ................................... XpH limit ................... Fail ...................... ....... . ......................................... ..... x.pH lim it ................... Fail ............ .............................. .......................... ................. ....... XpH lim it ................... Fail .................................................... . .............. .. . ...... X,pH limit ................... Fall ...... . ................... .... ...................... .......................... X.

Reserved .............................................. .......................... R ... ...... ...Reserved ....................................... ... .......................... al. Re ........ .. .

Reserved z...................... . ........................... Faill..................... t.Reserved ........ ............................................ Fail .............................. It.Remorved . Pass.... ...................................Pass.l..................It...............

Reserved ............................................. F ......... .........Reserved .......................................................................... Revl ........................................... X.Reserved ........................................................................... Fall ........................................... X.Reserved ............... ................ F..... . .................... ..., ,.,.,.,....Reserved ..................... .......................... Fail .......... X.Reserved ................................................................... Fal....... ............. .

Reserved.....................................................Fal......................K!ii!

Reserved ............................................................................ Fail ......... . ........R eserved ................. .Fail ...................... ............................... ............ ........ ... ........................ .

Removed ......... Fail.............................................. X.Reserved ........................................................................... Fail ................... X

Reserved ............................ ; ............................................... Reserved ...... .. .

Unbleached Kraft .......................................................................................................... 430.13Sodium Based-Neutral Sulfite Semi-Chemical ............................. 430.23

............................ 408. 3 17

............................................................. I ..................................................

.. .. ............. I

............................

.............................

........... I .................

.............................

.............................

.............................

.............. I ..............

.............................

BCT proposed .... Fail ......................Reserved ................ I NA .......................


TABLE I-Continued

BCT methodology BCT limitsIndustry and subcategory Size CFR Part Current status t Other PaFPOTW test Industry test (aBPT Fail (=BPT)

Ammonia Base Neutral Sulfite SemI-Chemical ...............................Unbleached Kraft and Neutral Sulfite Serni-Chemical (Cross

Recovery).Poperboard trom W astepaper ...........................................................Dissolving Kraft ............................................. . . ... .....................Market Bleached Kraft . .....................OCT Bleached Kraft ...........................................................................

ine Bleached Kraft ...........................................................................Papergrade Sulfite (Blow Pit Wash) ................................................Dissolving Sulfite Pulp . ...................Groundwood-Chemi-Mechanical ....................................................Groundwood-Thermo-Mechanical . ... . . ..............Groundwood-CM N Papers ..............................................................Groundwood-Fine Papers ..............................................................Soda......................Deink.....................NI- Fine Papers..................................................................................NI-Tissue Papers . .....................Tissue from Wastepaper .................................................................Papergrade Sulfite (Drum Wash) .................................................Unbleached Kraft and Semi-Chemical ....... ...............Sem i-Chem lcal ...................................................................................Wastepaper--Molded Products ........................................................NI-Lightweight Papers ... ...... ...................NI-Filter arl Nonwoven Papers . ..... ....... . ................NI--Paperboard ........................................................ ........

BUILDERS' PAPER AND BOARD MILLS CATEGORY

Builder's Paper and Roofing Felt ....................................................

MEAT PRODUCTS

430.103430.113430.123430.133430.143430.153430.163430.173430.183430.193430.203430.213430.223430.233430.243430.253430.263

......................... 430.12

Sim ple Sl ug te ouse .................................................................... .................... ... 432.17Com plex Slaughter ouse .................................................................. ......................... 432.27Low Proc. Packinghouse ............................................................................................ 432.37High Proc. Pac inghouse ........................................................................................... 432.47Sm all Processor ........................................................................................................... 432.57M eat Cutter ................................................................................................................... 432.67Sausage and Luncheon M eats ........................................................ ......................... 432.77Hem Processor ....................................................... ........................... ......................... 432.87Canned M eat ................................................................................................................ 432.97Renderers ................................................................................................................... 432.107

METAL FINISHNG

M etal Finlshing ......................................................... ................................................. 433.18

ORE MINING AND DRESSING

Iron O re ....................................................................................................................... 440.15Alum inum O re ................................................................. ........... ..... . . . ............. 440.35Uranium. Radium and Vanadium . ... . ...............Mercury Ores ................Titanium O re .......................................................................................Tun-tn nre:...

-rt~ u .~r .................................................................................. . .............Antimony Ore ..................... ..Copper, Lead, Zinc, Gold, Silver, Platinum, and Molybdenum

Ores.

........ ... ...... 440.55

........................... 440.65AAfl 75

....................I .......................... 440.95

440.115440.125

- 1er .e............... . ......................... .............................. ........ ............... ..........................Reserved ................ NA ...F.a.................. .......... ......... .......... ........................

BCT proposed. Fal .......................................... X.OCT proposed . Fail .................................................................. ......................... . X.BCT proposed. Fail .......................................... X.BCT proposed. Fail ........................................................................................................ X.BCT proposed. Fall ....................................................................................................... X.BCT proposed ...... Pas .............. ......................... ..... . ...............BCT proposed . F il ............................................................ . .... ...................... .. X.Reserved ................ NA .............. s. .................................... . .............................BCT proposed...... Pass .................... Pass ............................................ X ......................BCT proposed..... Fail ............................................................................. .................. X.BCT proposed Fall ........................................................................................................ X.BCT proposed Fail ...................... ........................................................................... XBCT proposed Pass .................... Fail .......................................................................... X.BCT proposed . Fail ...................................................................................................... X.BCT proposed. Fall ......................................................................................................... X.BCT proposed...... a ............................................................................................ XBCT proposed...... Pass .. . . .................... X ......................BCT proposed._.. Fall .............................. ............................................................. X.BCT proposed .... Fail ...................... .............................. ................ . ....... ........................... X.

BCT proposed . Fall .......................................... X.BCT proposed Fail ..................................................................................................... X.BCT proposed.BCT proposed.

Fail .................... I ........................ . ......................Fai .................................................... . ...............

BCT proposed . Fail ....................................

pH limit ..............pH limit ..................pH limit ..................pH li t ...................Removed ................pH limit .................pH limit ...............pH limit ...................pH limit ...................Removed ...............

Pass ...................

Pass ...................

Pass.............. ..

Pass ...................

Fail .................Fail .................Fail .................Fail .................

Fail .................Fail .................Fail .................Fal .................

......................... X.

.......................... X.

......................... X

.......................... X.

......................... X

......................... X.

......................... X.................X ...-. ....

Reserved ................ Fail .............................................................................. ........................

OCT proposed.BCT proposed......BCT proposed.OCT proposed.BCT proposed.BCT proposed......Reserved ................Reserved ................Reserved ...........OCT proposed.

II. BCT Methodology

A. Part 1: The POTW test

1. Background. The POTW testcompares the cost for industry toremove a pound of conventionalpollutants to the cost incurred by aPOTW for removing a pound ofconventional pollutants.

In 1979, a single number ( the POTWbenchmark) was developed based onthe costs of an average-size POTW toupgrade its facility from secondarytreatment to advanced secondarytreatment. The benchmark, asestablished in 1979, was $1.15 per pound(1976 dollars). This number was thencompared to the costs industry wouldincur in going from BPT to the candidateBCT technologies. If the cost to industryto remove a pound of conventional

pollutants was less than $1.15, BCTlimitations beyond BPT levels wereestablished.

As explained above, EPAsubsequently discovered that the costsused to calculate the $1.15 benchmarkwere incorrect. Correction of the errorsusing updated and revised data resultsin a benchmark in the range of $.50-.60per pound. The POTW test benchmarkproposed today is $.27 per pound (1976dollars) because EPA has decided tomodify the method used to calculate it.

2. Modification to PromulgatedPOTW Test Benchmark. EPA is usingthe 1979 methodology upheld by theCourt as the basis for this proposal withone modification. Instead of basing thePOTW benchmark on costs andremovals for an average-size 2 milliongallon per day (mgd) plant, EPA

proposes to base the POTW benchmarkon cost and removal data for POTWswith flows ranging from one to fifty mgd.We have computed cost per poundfigures for four flow sizes in this rangeand then weighted them according toeach size's contribution to the total U.S.flow of POTWs. Finally, we summedthese figures to obtain a single POTWbenchmark.

EPA believes that weighting a varietyof sizes of POTWs gives a betterestimate of the costs to treatconventional pollutants at POITWs fortwo reasons. First, the use of data fordifferent flow sizes of plants betterdepicts the costs of removingconventional pollutants at POTWs sincethe economies of scale inherent in largePOTWs can be included in thecalculation. Second, the statistical

49180

I 1.............. ..........

-. 1 .


reliability of the benchmark is improvedbecause more data points are used.

The resulting.POTW benchmarkequals $.27 per pound in 1976 dollars.This figure is indexed to other years toaccount for inflation. These calculations,as well as a more detailed discussion ofcomputations for the modified POTWbenchmark, appear in Appendix A.

3. Comparison of Municipal andIndustrial Treatment Costs. UnderEPA's methodology, industry's costs ingoing from BPT to the candidate BCTare compared to determine whether theindustrial costs are lower than thePOTW benchmark of $.27 per pound(1976 dollars) and therefore reasonable.The sections below describe thecalculation of the industrial costs.

a. Calculation of Industrial TeatmentCosts. EPA has calculated theincremental annual costs for pollutioncontrol by determining the differencebetween the annual costs for a modelplant or all plants in a subcategory toachieve BPT and the costs to achievethe candidate BCT. Annual costs includeoperation and maintenance expenses,interest, and depreciation. The dataused by EPA in determining industrialcosts for this review are drawn from theAgency Development Documents foreach of the industries (See Appendix C.)

b. Calculation of Industrial PollutantRemoval. EPA calculated theincremental removal of conventionalpollutants by determining the differencebetween the annual pounds ofconventional pollutants removed aftercompliance with BPT and the poundsremoved after compliance with thecandidate BCT. These removals arebased on the regulatory limitsestablished for the 30-day averagedischarge of each pollutant. Theconventional pollutants subject to thisreview fall into two categories: totalsuspended solids (TSS), and oxygen-demanding substances (BOD 5 and oiland grease). To avoid "double counting"of the amount of pollutants removedfrom BPT to the candidate BCT,pollutant removals are calculated usingonly one pollutant from each group. Inthose cases where both BOD5 and oiland grease are subject to limitations,EPA included the pollutant with thegreater amount of removal in thecalculation.

c. Calculation of the Industrial CostPer Pound Figure. EPA calculated theratio of incremental annual cost toincremental conventional pollutantremoval as follows: (candidate BCTannual costs minus BPT annual costs)divided by (candidate BCT pounds ofconventional pollutants removed minusBPT pounds of conventional pollutantsremoved) This cost figure represents the

annual incremental cost to remove apound of conventional pollutantsbeyond BPT, and is the figure comparedto the POTW benchmark to determinewhether a BCT option passes the POTWtest. These figures appear in AppendixD.

C. Part -1: The Industry Cost Test.

1. Background. The Court of Appealsdirected EPA to develop a separate.additional cost-effectiveness test whichcompares the costs to industry and theeffluent reduction benefits achieved byindustry in going from BPT to morestringent levels of control. Neither theCourt nor the legislative history of the1977 amendments provide specificguidance on how to design this test. EPAbelieves that three conditions must bemet by the methodology for the secondtest. First, the industry cost test shouldbe performed using an explicitnumerical benchmark to determine thereasonableness of the proposedlimitations. By comparing industry coststo a uniform benchmark, EPA willreduce the bias in calculating limitationsfor so many different industries. Second,the test must measure both for increasesin pollution control costs and foreffluent reductions of conventionalpollutants. Third, the informationneeded to perform the test must becurrently available for those industriescovered by the secondary industryreview, so that promulgation of BCTlimitations is not significantly delayed.

The following sections describe theindustry cost test and the alternativesconsidered. The discussion of theselection of the proposed method forcalculating the incremental costs of BCTfor the industrial subcategories appearsfirst. The discussion of the selection ofthe proposed benchmark against whichthe industry incremental costs aremeasured follows.

2. Industrial Cost Calculations. Thealternatives considered are discussedfirst, followed by the explanation of theselection of the meihod and itscomputation.

a. Alternatives Considered. EPAconsidered 5 different ways to measurethe incremental costs of BCT for theindustry cost test.

(1) Measures of EconomicAchievability. One alternative was touse measures of economic achievability.Examples of such measures are;

After Tax Return on Investment.Return on investment (ROI) is theplant's profit (or n'et income) divided bythe investment in the plant. Investmentin water pollution control generallyreduces the plant's ROI because there isno monetary "return" to the firm on thisinvestment. Therefore, changes in the

ROI measure the changes in plantprofitability. Although absolute changesin ROI indicate that the plant is beingaffected, they do not measure the size ofthe impact on the plant since the baselevel of the ROI is extremely important.

Plant Closures. Another alternative isto look at the potential for plantclosures. However, this is not always areliable economic indicator since plantsseriously affected by pollution controlrequirements may still decide to remainopen for other financial reasons such aspotential for long-term profitabiltiy,ability to absorb short term losses orlow fixed costs of production.

Pollution Control Investment to BookValue. This criterion is based on theratio of pollution control investmentcosts to the book value of the plant. In ageneral way, it measures the likelihoodthat the pollution control equipment canbe financed.

Other Measures. Other measures werealso considered such as the ratio ofannual compliance costs to the totalvalue of shipments and cash flowanalyses.

All these economic achievabilitymeasures contain three drawbacks.First, they do not consider the effluentreductions benefits of additionalcontrols. Second, the data required toperform these analyses are not generallyavailable. Finally, the economicachievability of the regulations wasalready taken into account in the initialdevelopment of the BAT regulations.

(2) Relative Pollutant Reduction(Percent). Pollutant reduction efficiencyfor a plant is a measure of the relativeamount of pollutant removed from thewastewater in percentage terms. Onealternative for the test is to compute thepercentage of pollutants removed ingoing from BPT to BCT levels of controlas compared to the total amount ofpollutants in the untreated wastewater.Because the removals are expressed inpercentage terms, the results of suchanalysis would not depend on the size ofthe facility, making the test "blind" tosize.

There are two major drawbacks tothese types of measures. First, the costsof pollutant removal would not beconsidered. Second, measuring only therelative amounts of pollutants removedcan lead to misleading conclusionsabout effluent reduction benefits. Alarge facility might remove 10 times thewaste as a small facility, yet inpercentage terms have a smaller relativeefficiency than the small facility, andthus "fail" the BCT industry cost testwhen in reality substantial additionalpounds of conventional pollutantswould be removed by further treatment.

49181


(3) Cost Curve Elasticity. Theelasticity of the pollution control costcurve is measured by the ratio ofbercent change in pollutant removaldivided by the percent change in thetotal annual compliance cost. Thiscriterion has a number of advantagesover the first two alternatives. First, thecriterion considers both cost andpollutant reduction. Second, themeasure does not assess factors alreadytaken into account in the developmentof the BAT regulations. Third, the figuregenerally can be calculated fromavailable data. Finally, a numericalbenchmark for costs and removal can becomputed for comparison.

(4) Incremental Costs to Average Costof Pollutant Removal Ratio. Under thisalternative EPA would calculate theaverage cost per pound of conventionalpollutants removed in going from notreatment to BCT levels, and divide theresult into the incremental cost perpound in going from BPT to BCT levels.It has the same advantages as theelasticity approach, and in addition iseasier to compute with currentlyavailable data.

(5) Increasing Cost Ratio. The lastratio EPA considered is the incrementalcost per pound in going from BPT to BCTlevels divided by the average cost ingoing to BPT. This alternative has thesame advatages as Alternative (4).

b. Selection of Second TestMethodology. Alternatives (1) and (2) inthe previous section were rejected forthe reasons discussed above, whilealternatives (3), (4), and (5) generallyfulfill all the conditions that EPA hasdetermined the second test must satisfy,EPA's proposed methodology is basedon the increasing cost ratio, Alternative(5), because it is the only measure whichdirectly compares the cost-effectivenessof effluent reduction in achieving BCTlevels (in dollars per pound removed)with the cost-effectiveness that isachieved at BPT levels.

c. Calculation of the Industry CostFigures. This section describes how theAlternative 5 calculations are actuallyperformed. The increasing cost ratiosare a combination of two computationsfor incremental annual cost per pound.The first increment is the annual costper pound in going from BPT tocandidate BCT control levels. This isidentical to the industry calculationused in the POTW test. (See "Part I: ThePOTW Test" in this notice for thedetailed explanation.) This incrementbecomes the numerator in the increasingcost ratio.

The second increment is theincremental annual cost per pound ingoing from a "pre-BPT" level of controlto BPT levels of control and becomes the

denominator in the increasing cost ratio.The "pre-BPT" level is set at one of twolevels, depending upon the availabilityof data for each affected industry. Ifsufficient data exists for thedevelopment of cost and effluent datafor treatment levels in-place at the timeBPT limitations were being developed,that level of treatment would be used inthe calculation. If not enough data isavailable, the "pre-BPT" control wouldbe assumed to be no treatment ofeffluent wastewater. This use leads tovariation in the way the incrementalcost per pound figuers are calculated.The cost per pound under the incrementfrom raw waste load to BPT will ingeneral be smaller than that for the pre-BPT to BPT increment. This means thatthe assumption of no treatment-in-placemay lead to an overestimation ofpounds removed by BPT andunderestimation of the incremental costper pound. In the absence of additionaldata, EPA beleives this result isunavoidable.

The calculation of cost and effluentreduction (in pounds of conventionalpollutants removed) for the pre-BPT toBPT increment would follow the methodused for the BPT to candidate BCTincrement except for one point. Theconventional pollutant discharges atpre-BPT would be based on the averageeffluent discharge per year because no30-day limitations exist. Monthly or 30-day average discharge levels are usedfor BPT and candidate BCT levelsbecause they are the regulatory limitswith which industry must comply. Usingannual average effluent data instead ofmonthly average data for the pre-BPTlevels of control increases the pre-BPTto BPT incremental cost per pound. EPArequests comments on both of theseissues on the second increment.

After each increment is calculated,EPA calculates the increasing cost ratioby dividing the first increment by thesecond:

Total annual coat/pounds removed (BPT to BCT)

Total annual cost/pounds removed (praPT toBPT)

3. The Industry Cost Benchmark. Asmentioned before, EPA beleives that theindustrial cost calculations should becompared against a single numericalbenchmark. This section describes thealternatives considered, the selection ofthe benchmark, and its computation.

a. Alternatives Considered. EPAidentified two alternative benchmarksfor use in the industry cost test.

(1) Elastiicity of Unity (1.0). The unitelasticity, 1.0, was considered fr abenchmark value because it identifies

the point on a continuous cost curvewhere, on a percentage basis, theincremental costs begin to exceed theincremental effluent reduction. If the testwere to be applied, all industrialcalculations which are less than 1.0would be considered reasonablebecause the unit cost per pound of goingbeyond BPT levels would be less thanthat incurred in attaining BPT levels.This approach establishes the cost perpound of achieving BPT as an upperbound of reasonable cost.

(2) POTW Data. Another alternativeis using POTW cost-effectiveness datain going from primary to ST and from STto AST as the basis for comparison withindustrial cost-effectiveness data. Asdiscussed in 1979, there are generalparallels between industrial andmunicipal treatment levels at BCT andadvanced secondary treatment levels. 45Fr 50735. In addition, pre-BPT andprimary treatment levels correspondsince both levels represent the basictechnologies used to treat raw wastes.This benchmark alternative is computedby dividing the incremental cost perpound in going from ST to AST by theincremental cost per pound in goingfrom primary to secondary. Thebenchmark, which is computed inApendix B to be 1.43, would then serveas a basis for assessing the cost-effectiveness of advanced wastewatertreatment of coventional pollutants.

b. Selection of Benchmark. EPA choseto use a POTW-based benchmark forseveral reasons. First, the data onPOTW costs and removal are the mostsophisticated data available onconventional pollutant removal. In viewof the analogies between industrial andmunicipal treatment levels, EPA dedidedto utilize this POTW basis. Second, EPAbelieves the first alternative is contraryto Congressional intent since the costper pound in achieving BCT could neverbe higher than the cost per pound inachieving BPT. While Congress directedEPA to evaluate the cost-effectivenessof BCT it did not establish the cost perpound in achieving BPT as a ceiling forBCT costs. Finally, EPA believesreliance on an objective, documentedPOTW measure is preferable to judgingthe cost-effectiveness of industrialtreatment on an ad-hoc basis. EPArequests comments on either alternative,and other possible alternatives notpresented here.

c. Comparison of Industry Costs andBenchmark. Under EPA's proposed.methodology, the industry subcategorycalculations would be compared to thebenchmark of 1.42. If the industry figurefor a subcategory is lower than 1.43, thesubcate.gory passes this BCT test. If the

49182 •,49182


industry figure is higher than 1.43, thecosts for BCT are consideredunreasonable, and the limitations are setat the lowest level that passes the test.This may be BPT or alternativecandidate BCT limitations above BPTlevels.

II!. Application of BCT Methodology

EPA applied the proposed BCTmethodology above to the followingsecondary industry and primaryindustry categories: Dairy Products,Grain Mills, Canned and PreservedFruits and Vegetables, Canned andPreserved Seafoods, Sugar, CementManufacturing, Feedlots, InorganicChemicals, Phosphates, FerroalloyManufacturing, Glass Manufacturing,Timber Products, Pulp Paper andPaperboard, and Builder's paper andBoard Mills, Meat Products, MetalFinishing, and Ore Mining and Dressing.Table 1 summarizes the results of thisapplication. The actual calculations arein the rulemaking record. For secondaryindustries where BAT limitationsequalled BPT, EPA did not perform theBCT costs calculations, since BCT mustbe at least as stringent as BPT.

In addition to the BCT cost test,Section 304(b)(4)(B) of the Clean WaterAct requires EPA to consider otherfactors such as the age of equipment,production process, and energyrequirements in the development of BCTlimitations. Based on the rulemakingrecord for these industrial categoriesand this proceeding, EPA hasdetermined that the proposed limitationsare technically achievable andotherwise satisfy Section 304(b}(4)(B).

A. Secondary Industries.

The BCT test determinations for thescotidary industries are based on thecost and effluent data collected at thetime of the original proposal andpromulgation of the BAT guidelines forthose industries. Where newinformation regarding the availability ofpollution control technologies and itseconomic achievability becameavailable, EPA used the information todetermine whether the BAT technologystill satisfied all the statutory factors.

1. Dairy Products. All twelvesubcategories in tle Dairy subcategorywere reviewed. The technology basis forthe former BAT limitations was tertiarytreatment by multi-media filtration.Based on information submitted to theAgency since promulgation of the BATeffluent limitations, EPA believes thatthe aplication of iltration technologywould be difficult technically in thisindustry. The suspended solids in theDairy Products Industry are extremelydifficult to treat, and the excess solids

can cause filter blindig and substantialoperational difficulty. Thus, EPA isproposing BCT limitations equal to BPTfor all twelve subcategories.

2. Grain Mills. BCT limitations equalto BPT were already promulgated for theNormal Wheat Flour, Normal Rice,Animal Feed and Hot Cerealsubcategories. BCT limitations for theCorn Wet Milling subcategory are beingreserved until more recent informationon BPT compliance costs received byEPA has been evaluated. The remaining5 subcategories fail the proposed BCTtest. BCT limiations for them aretherefore proposed equal to BPT.

3. Canned and Preserved Fruits andVegetables. There are eightsubcategories in this category. All eightfail the proposed BCT test and BCTlimitaions for them are proposed equalto BPT.

4. Sugar. Of the eight subcategoriesfor Sugar Processing, five had the sameconventional pollutants limitations forBAT and BPT. None of the threeremaining subcategories pass theproposed BCT test. EPA thereforeproposes that BCT limitations for alleight subcategories be equal to BPT.

5. Cement Manufacturing. Two of thethree subcategories already contain BCTlimitations equal to BPT. The remainingsubcategory, Leaching, fails theproposed BCT test and the BCTlimitations are proposed equal to BPT.

6. Feedlots. The Feedlots categorycontains two subcategories. For the firstsubcategory (All Subcategories ExceptDucks), both BPT and BAT are zerodischarge limitations. Therefore, zerodischarge BCT limitations werepromulgated in 1979. For the remainingsubcategory, Duck feedlots,conventional pollutant discharges fromman-made or natural (e.g., marshes)swimwater areas are difficult toquantify and adapt to traditIonal end-of-pipe treatment technologies. Because theeffluent reduction benefits betweenexisting discharges and the BATtechnology, dry lots, are not readilyquantifiable, the BCT test cannot beperformed. Therefore, EPA is not nowproposing BCT effluent limitations forthis subcategory.

7. Ferroalloy Manufacturing. One ofthe seven subcategories contains BCTlimitations equal to BPT. The remainingsix are being reviewed; only the SlagProcessing subcategory passes theProposed BCT test. BCT limitations forSlag Processing subcategory areproposed at the BAT level; the BCTlimitations for the other fivesubcategories are proposed equal toBPT.

8. Glass Manufacturing. Three of 13subcategories contain BCT limitations

equal to BPT. EPA is reviewing theremaining ten subcategories nine failthe proposed BCT test, and BCTlimitations for them are proposed equalto BPT. The remaining subcategory,Insulation Fiberglass, had zerodischarge limitations set at BPT forwastewater from air emissionequipment. BCT limitations areproposed equal to BPT since no furtherpollutant removal is possible.

9. Meat Products. This categorycontains ten subcategories. The BATeffluent limitations for conventionalpollutants for eight of thesesubcategories were withdrawn, pendinga technical review of biologicalnitrification technology for ammoniaand TSS removal in response to a courtdecision. Based on this review EPA hasdetermined that nitrification, the BATtechnology, is unsuitable as a basis for aBCT technology. One significant factoris that nitrification effects removal ofammonia nitrogen from thesewastewaters, but affords onlyinsignificant removal of conventionalpollutants beyond BPT levels. Further,reduction in water use in meatprocessing operations, a key part of theformer BAT limitations, may not beachievable at many plants. Finally,preliminary results of the nitrification,technology review indicate thatconsistent year round removal ofconventional pollutants is technicallyachievable only with extraordinaryoperational care. For these reasons EPAhas rejected nitrification as a BCTtechnology and is proposing BCT equalto BPT for those eight subcategories.

The remaining two subcategories, theSmall Processor and Rendererssubcategories, pass the proposed BCTtest. BCT limitations equal to BAT areproposed for these subcategories.

10. Phosphates. The Phosphatescategory contains three subcategories,two of which already have BCTlimitations equal to BPT. The thirdsubcategory, Sodium Phosphates, passesthe proposed BCT test. The BCTlimitations for this subcategory areproposed equal to BAT.

11. Canned and Preserved SeafoodProcessing. EPA conducted a review ofall 33 subcategories in the Canned andPreserved Seafoods Category. Becausenew information has become available,EPA also reevaluated the technicalavailability and economic achievabilityof the BAT regulations.

The BAT technology basis for thefollowing 12 subcategories and sectionsof two other subcategories is dissolvedair flotation (DAF): Mechanized BlueCrab, Dungeness and Tanner Crab, Non-Remote Alaskan Shrimp, Northern

49183


Shrimp, Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp,Breaded Shrimp, Alaska MechanizedSalmon (Non-Remote), West CoastMechanized Salmon, Non-AlaskanMechanized Bottom Fish, MechanizedClam, Sardine, Alaskan Herring Fillet(Non-Remote), Non-Alaskan HerringFillet, and Tuna. This technology has notbeen widely applied at full scale, exceptfor the tuna subcategory. Experience inthe tuna subcategory shows thatachievement of effluent limitations on aconsistent basis by DAF can be difficultin light of the variability of rawwastewater effluent loads, theirtypically oily nature, and theoperational problems thesecircumstances present in maintainingthe solids flotation process. Spacerequirements for installation of thistechnology also can present problemsfor many plants. Optimized DAF (withchemically assisted coagulation) for thetuna subcategory adds operationalcomplexity, maintenance requirements,and disposal cost for additional sludgevolume generated by optimizedoperation. EPA has therefore determinedthat this technology is infeasible andpropose BCT limitations for thesesubcategories equal to BPT.

Aerated lagoons were the BATtechnology for three subcategories:Conventional Blue Crab, Non-AlaskanConventional Bottom Fish and Steamedand Canned Oyster. EPA hasdetermined that aerated laoons are nota feasible technology for thesesubcategories because lagoons require asubstantial amount of land, which is notuniformly available. Moreover, theseasonal and often sporadic processingoperations of these plants does notprovide the consistent source ofwastewater needed for properfunctioning of biological treatmentsystems such as aerated lagoons.Therefore, EPA is proposing BCTlimitations equal to BPT for thesesubcategories.

EPA is proposing BCT equal to BPTfor the Remote Alaskan Crab Meat,Remote Alaskan Whole Crab and CrabSection, and Remote Alaskan Shrimpsubcategories and remote sections of 5other subcategories because there aretechnical problems with the technologythat was promulgated for BAT. Thistechnology was screening of the fishwastes, and subsequent disposal ofthese wastes. Solid waste disposal innonremote areas can be accomplishedby the use of reduction facilities;however, these are not economicallyviable in remote areas there are noseafood processing waste-watertreatment facilities. Land disposal orbarging are the only solid waste

disposal techniques available to theremote seafood processors; however,they are often not feasible or workduring only a portion of the yearbecause of weather. Therefore, theAgency has rejected the BAT technologyas being suitable for BCT.

Two subcategories, Hand-ShuckedClam and Fish Meal, would incursubstantial adverse economic impactsas a result of the former BATregulations. For the Hand-Shucked Clamsubcategory, nine of the fifteen plantsthat directly discharge processwastewaters would probably closerather than comply with the BCTregulations. These nine plants consist ofall six small plants and all three cannedclam plants. Because the economicimpacts appear to be so severe, EPA isproposing BCT limitations equal to BPTfor this subcategory.

For the Fish Meal subcategory, twelveof the 54 direct discharging plants wouldprobably close as a result of the formerBAT regulations. Most of these plantsare small facilities. Because theeconomic impacts as a result of thisregulation are so adverse, EPA isproposing BCT limitations equal to BPTfor this subcategory.

On February 17, 1977, EPA voluntarilywithdrew BAT limitations for thefollowing five Alaskan SeafoodCategories because of an inadequateeconomic analysis: Alaskan Hand-Butchered Salmon, Alaskan MechanizedSalmon, Alaskan Bottom Fish, AlaskanScallop and Alaskan Herring Fillet. Asdiscussed above, BCT is being proposedequal to BPT for the geographicallyremote sections of these subcategoriesbecause of technical problems withscreening, and for the Non-RemoteAlaskan Mechanized Salmon and Non-Remote Alaskan Herring Filletsubcategories because the BATtechnology was DAF. The economicimpact analysis for the non-remotesections of the three remainingsubcategories Alaskan Hand-ButcheredSalmon (Non-Remote), Alaskan BottomFish (Non-Remote), Alaskan HerringFillet (Non-Remote), has not beencompleted. EPA is therefore deferringproposing BCT limitations for the 3remaining subcategories until theanalysis is completed.

Four of the remaining 8 subcategoriesfail the POTW test: Farm-RaisedCatfish, Non-Remote Alaskan CrabMeat, Non-Remote Alaskan WholeCrab, and West Coast Hand-ButcheredSalmon. BCT limitations for thesesubcategories are proposed equal toBPT. Four subcategories pass the POTWtest: Pacific Coast Hand-ShuckedOyster, Atlantic and Gulf Coast Hand-

Shucked Oyster, Non-Alaskan Scallop,and Abalone. The BPT technology forthe latter four subcategories is screeningof the fish wastes. Because screeningremoves only gross solids from thewastewater, EPA cannot calculate theincremental removal of pollutants ingoing from raw waste load to BPT in aquantitatively meaningful way.Therefore, EPA cannot perform theindustry cost test according to theformula EPA is proposing. However,EPA has examined the technology basisof BCT, which is simple in-plantcontrols, and has determined that thetechnology is cost-effective (less than$.04 per pound of conventionalpollutants removed) and economicallyachievable. EPA is therefore proposingBCT limitations equal to the BAT level,and request comments on this decision.In 1979 a number of seafood processersfiled a petition with EPA requesting thatthe Agency modify BPT limitations forcertain seafood processing areas inAlaska. The Agency is currentlyreviewing the petition and will decidewhether to modify the BPT limitationsshortly. If any modification is proposed,the corresponding BCT limitations willbe revised accordingly.

B. Primary Industries.

1. Timber Products. This categorycontains 16 subcategories. Twosubcategories had BCT limitationsestablished in January 1981 (46 FR 3260);they were subsequently withdrawn inFebruary 1982 (47 FR 6835). TheInsulation Board subcategory fails theproposed BCT test, while the WetProcess Hardboard subcategory passesthe proposed BCT test. This result isidentical to the 1981 promulgation.

EPA never established BCTlimitations for the remaining 14subcategories. BPT limitations for theBarking-Mechanical (a portion of theBarking subcategory), Veneer, Plywood,Dry Process Hardboard, WoodPreserving-Waterborne Nonpressure,Wood Preserving-Boulton, Sawmills andPlaning Mills, Finishing, Particleboardand one of the Wood Furniture andFixture Production Subcategories a;e nodischarge of wastewater. Because noincremental removal can be achievedbeyond BPT, EPA is proposing BCTlimitations equal to BPT for thesesubcategories. EPA cannot identifytreatment technologies beyond BPT forthe Wet Storage subcategory thatremove significant amounts ofconventional pollutants. EPA istherefore proposing BCT limitationsequal to BPT. EPA is not proposing BCTlimitations for the Barking-Hydraulic (asegment of the Barking subcategory),

49184


Wood Preserving-Steam, Log Washingand the other Wood Furniture andFixture Production subcategories. EPAwill reserve BCT limitations for thesesubcategories until a BCT assessmentcan be made.

2. Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard. InJanuary of 1981, EPA proposed BCTlimitations for 24 subcategories in thisindustry (46 FR 1430). Of these 24, 21would have required pollution controlmore stringent than BPT. In performingthe proposed BCT test, EPA used BCTComputations based on BPT limitationspromulgated in 1977 with the followingexceptions. EPA will be shortlypromulgating BPT limitations for fournew subcategories and 2 newsubdivisions. These BPT limitationswere used as the basis for reproposingBCT for those subcategories andsubdivisions and are included in thisrulemaking record solely to facilitatecomments on BCT.

The BCT limitations for the twoPapergrade Sulfite subcategories andthe Groundwood-Thermo-Mechanicalsubcategory pass the new BCT test. Inthe January 1981 proposal, EPA selectedOption 4 for these subcategories;however, Option 4 did not pass the newBCT test. EPA has therefore selectedOption 1, BPT plus in-plant controls, asthe technology basis for proposed BCTlimitations for these subcategories. Noadditional end-of-pipe technologybeyond BPT is contemplated in thisoption. The controls primarily achievereductions in water use and BOD5 rawwaste loadings that translate into lowerconventional pollutant discharge aftertreatment in existing end-of-pipesystems. This option passes theproposed BCT test for all threesubcategories and will cost less than thepreviously proposed option. In addition,no economic impact was projected forOption 4; therefore, no impact isexpected for this less costly option.

The remaining twenty-onesubcategories fail the proposed BCT testfor all options. The BCT limitationsproposed in January 1981 are revised toequal BPT for these subcategories.

3. Inorganic Chemicals. EPApromulgated BCT limitations equal toBPT for all subcategories except for theHydrofluoric Acid and the Chlor-Alkali-Diaphragm Cells subcategories.BCT limitations for these twosubcategories were reserved becausethe 1979 BCT methodology had beenremanded (47 FR 28260, June 29, 1982).EPA has since performed the proposedBCT test on the two subcategories. Bothof them failed the test, and BCTlimitations for them are proposed equalto the BPT level.

4. Ore Mining and Dressing. EPAproposed BCT equal to BPT limitationsfor seven subcategories on June 14, 1982(47 FR 25682). The proposed limitationswere published erroneously withoutapplying the proposed BCT cost test.EPA has now applied the new test to allseven subcategories. None pass andEPA is proposing revised BCTlimitations for them equal to BPT.

5. Metal Finishing. Effluent limitationsguidelines for the metal finishing pointsource category were proposed onAugust 31, 1982 (47 FR 38462). EPAdeferred proposing BCT limitations forthis category because the 1979 BCTmethodology had been remanded. EPAhas since performed the proposed BCTtest on the category, which contains onesubcategory. The category failed thetest, and BCT limitations equal to BPTare proposed.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis andRegulatory Impact Analysis

Public Law 96-354 requires EPA toprepare an Initial Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis for all proposed regulationsthat have a significant impact on asubstantial number of small entities.This analysis may be done inconjunction with or as part of any otheranalysis conducted by the Agency. EPAalready performed analyses designed toevaluate significant impacts on smallfacilities in the previous proposal and/or promulagtion of these regulations andthese showed no potential for asignificant impact. The newer economicanalysis for seafoods showed asignificant economic impact for certainsmall plants, as discussed previously.EPA is therefore proposing that BCTequal BPT for these plants. Thus, no newsignificant impacts on small businessesare expected as a result of this proposal.Therefore, a formal regulatory flexibilityanalysis is not required. The analysesand small business definitions appear inthe documents listed in Appendix C.

Executive Order 12291 requires EPAand 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. EPAdoes not consider the proposed rules forBCT to be a major rule because theannual cost is less than $100 million andnone of the other criteria are met.

VI. Comments Invited

The Agency urges interestedindividuals to submit comments on theproposal set forth in this notice. Allcomments received within 60 days willbe considered in the promulgation ofthese BCT effluent limitationsguidelines. EPA particularly requests

comments and/or data on the followingissues:

1. New economic information whichwould affect the Agency's considerationof economic impacts on any of theindustries affected by this rulemaking.

2. EPA's plans to recommend thatpermit writers use the proposed BCTmethodology in setting BPJ-BCT permitsin the absence of national effluentlimitations.

VII. OMB Review

The regulation was submitted to theOffice of Management and Budget forreview as required by E.O. 12291. Anycomments from OMB to EPA and anyEPA response to those comments areavailable for public inspection at Room2404, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW.,Washington, D.C. 20460 from 9:00 a.m. to4:00 p.m. Monday through Fridayexcluding Federal holidays.

Lists of Subjects

40 CFR Part 405

Dairy products, Water pollutioncontrol, Waste treatment and disposal.

40 CFR Part 406

Grain mill products, Water pollutioncontrol, Waste treatment and disposal.

40 CFR Part 407

Fruits, Vegetables, Water pollutioncontrol, Waste treatment and disposal.

40 CFR Part 408

Seafood, Water pollution control,Waste treatment and disposal.

40 CFR Part 409

Sugar, Water pollution control, Wastetreatment and disposal.

40 CFR Part 411

Cement industry, Water pollutioncontrol, Waste treatment and disposal.

40 CFIi Part 412

Livestock, Water pollution control,Feedlots, Waste treatment and disposal.

40 CFR Part 415

Chemicals, Water pollution control,Waste treatment and disposal.

40 CFR Part 422

Phosphate, Water pollution control,Waste treatment and disposal.

40 CFR Part 424

Iron, Metals, Water pollution control,Waste treatment and disposal.

49185


40 CFR Part 426

Glass and glass products, Waterpollution control, Waste treatment anddisposal.

40 CFR Part 429

Forests and forest products, Furnitureindustry, Water pollution control, Wastetreatment and disposal.

40 CFR Part 430

Paper and paper products industry,Water pollution control, Wastetreatment and disposal.

40 CFR Part 431

Paper and paper products industry,Water pollution control, Wastetreatment and disposal.

40 CFR Part 432

Meat and meat products, Waterpollution control, Waste treatment anddisposal.

40 CFR Part 433

Water pollution control, Wastetreatment and disposal.

40 CFR Part 440

Metals, Mines, Water pollutioncontrol, Waste treatment and disposal.

(Secs. 301 and 304, Clean Water Act, (FederalWater Pollution Control Act Amendments of1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as amended bythe Clean Water Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-217))

Dated: October 14, 1982.John W. Hernandez,Acting Administrator.

For reasons set out in the preamble,the revisions proposed on January 6,1981 (46 FR 1430) for § § 430.13, 430.53,430.63, 430.73, 430.83, 430.93, 430.103,430.113, 430.133, 430.143, 430.153, 430.163,430.173, 430.183, 430.193, 430.203, 430.213,430.223, 430.233, 430.243, 430.253, 430.263,430.273 and 431.13 are withdrawn. Inaddition, 40 CFR Parts 405, 406, 407, 408,409, 411, 412, 415, 422, 424, 426, 429, 430,431, 432, 433 and 440 are proposed to beamended as follows:

PART 405-EFFLUENT LIMITATIONSGUIDELINES FOR STANDARDS OFPERFORMANCE AND PRETREATMENTSTANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCESFOR THE DAIRY PRODUCTSPROCESSING INDUSTRY POINTSOURCE CATEGORY

40 CFR Subchapter N, Part 405 for theDairy Products Processing IndustryPoint Source Category is amended asfollows:

§§ 405.17, 405.27, 405.37, 405.47, 405.57,405.67, 405.77, 405.87, 405.97, 405.107, and405.127 [Added]

§ 405.117 [Revised]1. Sections 405.17, 405.27, 405.37,

405.47, 405.57, 405.67, 405.77, 405.87,405.97, 405.107, and 405.127 are added,and 405.117 is revised. The text of eachsection is identical except for thesection number in the heading and thesection number referenced at the end ofthe section. The text of the sections isset out only once. Within the text aretwo blank spaces, one designated (a)and one designated (b). In the tablepreceding the text, column (a) indicatesthe section number to be added to thesection heading for the respectivesubparts of Part 405. Column (b)indicates the section number to beadded to the text of the sectionindicated in column (a).

(b)(a,) Section

Section numbernumber to be

Subpart to be added toadded to text ofsection theheading section

in (a)

Subpart A-Receiving Stations Sub-category .................................................. 405.17 405.12

Subpart B-Fluid Products Subcate-gory .................. ... 405.27 405.22

Subpart C-Cultured Products Subca-tegory ...................... 405.37 405.32

Subpart D-Butter Subcategory .......... 405.47 405.42Subpart E-Cottage Cheese and Cul-

tured Cream Cheqese Subcategory-... 405.57 405.52Subpart F-Natural and Processed

Cheese Subcategory ...........- __ 405.67 405.62Subpart G-Fluid Mix for Ice Cream

and Other Frozen Desserts Subca-tegory......... 405.77 405.72

Subpart H-Ice Cream, Frozen Des-serts. Novelties and Other DairyDesserts Subcategory .......................... 405.87 405.82

Subpart I--Condensed Milk Subcat-gory ....... ................ .............. 405.97 405.92

Subpart J-Dr Milk Subcategory ......... 405.107 405.102Subpart K-Condensed Whey Subca,

tegory ...................................................... 405.117 405.112Subpart L-Dry Whey Subcategory . 405.127 405.122

§ (a) Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology (BCT).

Except as provided in § 125.30-32 anyexisting point source subject to thissubpart shall achieve the followingeffluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology (BCT): The limitations shallbe the same as those specified forconventional pollutants (which aredefined in § 401.16) in §(b) of thissubpart for the best practicable controltechnology currently available (BPT).

PART 406-GRAIN MILLS POINTSOURCE CATEGORY

40 CFR Subchapter N, Part 406 for theGrain Mills Point Source Category isamended as follows:

§§ 406.27, 406.67, 406.97 and 406.107[Added]

§§ 406.37, 406.47, 406.57 and 406.77 and406.87 [Revised]

Sections 406.27, 406.67, 406.97, and406.107 are added, and § § 406.37, 406.47,406.57, 406.77, and 406.87 are revised.The text of each section is identicalexcept for the section number in theheading and the section numberreferenced at the end of the section. Thetext of the sections is set out only once.Within the text are two blank spaces,one designated (a) and one designated(b). In the table preceding the text,column (a) indicates the section numberto be added to the section heading forthe respective subparts of Part 406.Column (b) indicates the section numberto be added to the text of the sectionindicated in column (a).

(b)(a) Section



in (a)

Subpart B-Corn Dry Milling Subcate.gory ........................................................ 406.27 406.22

Subpart C-Normal Wheat Flour Mill-ing Subcategory ..... 406.37 406.32

Subpart D-Bulgar Wheat Flour Mill.ing Subcategory ................................... 406.47 406.42

Subpart E-Normal Rice Milling Sub-category ................................................ 406.57 406.52

Subpart F-Parboiled Rice ProcessingSubcategory .......................................... 406.67 406.62

Subpart G-Animal Feed Subcategory. 406.77 406.72Subpart H-Hot Cereal Subcategory 406.87 406.82Subpart I-Ready.To-Eat Cereal Sub-

category ................... 406.97 406.92Subpart J-Wheat Starch and Gluten

Subcategory .......................................... 406.107 466.102


Except as provided in § 125.30-32 anyexisting point source subject to thissubpart shall achieve the followingeffluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology (BCT}: The limitations shallbe the same as those specified forconventional pollutants (which aredefined in § 406.16) in § (b) of this

49186


subpart for the best practicable controltechnology currently available (BPT).

PART 407-CANNED ANDPRESERVED FRUITS ANDVEGETABLES PROCESSING POINTSOURCE CATEGORY

40 CFR Subchapter N, Part 407 for theCanned and Preserved Fruits andVegetables Processing Point SourceCategory isamended as follows:

§§ 407.37, 407.57, 407.67 and 407.77, 407.87[Added]

§§ 407.17, 407.27, 407.47 [Revised]Sections 407.17, 407.27, and 407.47 are

revised, and § § 407.37, 407.57, 407.67,407.77, and 407.87 are added. The text ofeach section is identical except for thesection number in the heading and thesection number referenced at the end ofthe section. The text of the sections isset out only once. Within the text aretwo blank spaces, one designated (a)and one designated (b). In the tablepreceding the text, column (a) indicatesthe section number to be added to thesection heading for the respectivesubparts of Part 407. Column (b)indicates the section number to beadded to the text of the sectionindicated in column (a).

(b)S(al Section

on numbernumber to be

Subpart to be added toadded to text otsection theheading section

in (a)

Subpart A-Apple Juice Subcategory.... 407.17 407.12Subpart B-Apple Products Subcate-

gory ....................... 407.27 407.22Subpart C-Citrus Products Subcate-

gory ..... ...................... ....................... 407.37 407.32Subpart 0-Frozen Potato Products

Subcategory .......................................... 407.47 407.42Subpart E-Dehydrated Potato Prod-

ucts Subcategory ................................. 407.57 407.52Subpart F-Canned and Preserved

Fruits Subcategory ............................... 407.67 407.62Subpart G-Canned and Preserved

Vegetables Subcategory ..................... 407.77 407.72Subpart H-Canned and Miscella-

neous Specialties Subcategory .......... 407.87 407.82


Except as provided in § 125.30-32 anyexisting point source subject to thissubpart shall achieve the followingeffluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology (BCT]: The limitations shallbe the same as those specified for

conventional pollutants (which aredefined in § 401.16) in § (b) of thissubpart for the best practicable controltechnology currently available (BPT).

PART 4O8-,-CANNED ANDPRESERVED SEAFOOD PROCESSINGPOINT SOURCE CATEGORY

40 CFR Subchapter N, Part 408 for theCanned and Preserved SeafoodProcessing Point Source Category isamended as follows:

§§ 408.17, 408.27, 408.37, 408.47, 408.57,408.67, 408.77, 408.87, 408.97, 408.107,408.117, 408.127, 408.137, 408.147, 408.157,408.177, 408.187, 408.197, 408.217, 408.227,408.237, 408.247, 408.277, 408.287, 408.317,and 408.327 [Added]

1. Sections 408.17, 408.27, 408.37,408.47, 408.57, 408.67, 408.77, 408.87,408.97, 408.107, 408.117, 408.127, 408.137,408.147, 408.157, 408.177, 408.187, 408.197,408.217, 408.227, 408.237, 408.247, 408.277,408.287, 408.317, and 408.327 are added.The text of each section is identicalexcept for the section number in theheading and the section numberreferenced at the end of the section. Thetext of the sections is set out only once.Within the text are two blank spaces,one designated (a) and one designated(b). In the table preceding the text,column (a) indicates the section numberto be added to the section heading forthe respective subparts of Part 408.Column (b) indicates the section numberto be added to the text of the sectionindicated in column (a).

(b)(a) Section


Subpart' to be added toadded to test ofsection theheading sectionin (a)

Subpart A-Farm-Raised CatfishProcessing Subcategory ......................

Subpart B--Conventional Blue CrabProcessing Subcategory .....................

Subpart C-Mechanized Blue CrabProcessing Subcategory .....................

Subpart D-Non-Remote AlaskanCrab Meat Processing Subcategory..

Subpart E-Remote Alaskan CrabMeat Processing Subcategory ...........

Subpart F-Non-Remote AlaskanWhole Crab and Crab Section ...........

Subpart G-Remote Alaskan WholeCrab and Section Processing Sub-categ ory .................................................

Subpart H-Dungeness and TannerCrab Processing in the ContiguousStates Subcategory ..............................

Subpart I-Non-Remote AlaskanShrimp Processing Subcategory.

Subpart J-Remote Alaskan ShrimpProcessing Subcategory ......................

Subpart K-Northern Shrimp Process-ing in the Contiguous States Sub-

category ..............................................Subpart L-Southern Non-Breaded

Shrimp Processing in the Conligu-ous States Subcategory .......................

408.17

408.27

408.37

408.47

-408.57

408.67

408.77

408.87

408.97

408.107

408.117

408.127

408.12

408.22

408.32

408.42

(b)(a) Section



in (a)

Subpart M-Breaded Shrimp Process-ing in the Contiguous States Subca-tegory ...................................................... 408.137 408.132

Subpart N-Tuna Processing Subca-tegory ...................................................... 408.147 408.142

Subpart 0-Fish Meal ProcessingSubcategory ........................................... 408.157 408.152

Subpart Q--Alaskan MechanizedSalmon Processing Subcategory . 408.177 408.172

Subpart R-West Coast Hand-But-chered Salmon Processing Subca-tegory ...................................................... 408.187 408.182

Subpart S-West Coast MechanizedSalmon Processing Subcategory . 408.197 408.192

Subpart U-Non-Alaskan Convention-al Bottom Fish Processing Subcate-gory ........................................................ 408.217 408.212

Subpart V-Non-Alaskan MechanizedBottom Fish Processing Subcate-gory . ......................... ................... 408.227 408.222

Subpart W-Hand-Shucked ClamProcessing Subcategory ..................... 408.237 408.232

Subpart X-Mechanized Clam Proc-essing Subcategory ............................. 408.247 408.242

Subpart AA-Steamed and CannedOyster Processing Subcategory ......... 408.277 408.272

Subpart AB-Sardine Processing Sub-category ................................................. 408.287 408.282

Subpart AE-Alaskan Herring FilletProcessing Subcategory ...................... 408.317 408.312

Subpart AF-Non-Alaskan HerringFillet Processing Subcategory ............ 408.327 408.322


Except as provided in § 125.30-32 anyexisting point source subject to thissubpart shall achieve the followingeffluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology (BCT): The limitations shallbe the same as those specified forconventional pollutants (which aredefined in § 401.16) in § (b) of thissubpart for the best practicable controltechnology currently available (BPT).

2. Section 408.167 for Subpart P-Alaskan Hand-Butchered SalmonProcessing Subcategory is added as setforth below:

§ 408.167 Effluent limitations representing408.52 the degree of effluent reduction attainable

408.82 by the application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology.

408.72 (a) [Reserved](b) Except as provided in § 125.30-32

408.82 any herring fillet processing facility

408.92 located in population or processingcenters including but not limited to

408.102 Acachorege, Cordova, Juneau,Ketchikan, Kodiak, and Petersburg shall

408.112 achieve the following effluentlimitations representing the degree of

408.122 effluent reduction attainable by the

49187


application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT): Thelimitations shall be the same as thosespecified for conventional pollutants(which are defined in § 401.16) in§ 408.16Z(b)(2) of this subpart for thebest practicable control technologycurrently available (BPT).

3. Section 408.207 for Subpart T-Alaskan Bottom Fish ProcessingSubcategory is added as set forth below:

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

(a) [Reserved](b) Except as provided in § 125.30-32

any bottom fish processing facilitylocated in population or processingcenters including but not limited toAcachorege, Cordova, Juneau,Ketchikan, Kodiak, and Petersburg shallachieve the following effluentlimitations representing the degree ofeffluent reduction attainable by theapplication of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT): Thelimitations shall be the same as thosespecified for conventional pollutants(which are defined in § 401.16) in§ 408.202(b)(2) of this subpart for the

'best practicable control technologycurrently available (BPT).

4. Section 408.297 for Subpart AC-Alaskan Scallop Processing Subcategoryis added as set forth below:


(a) [Reserved](b) Except as provided in § 125.30-32

any scallop processing facility located inpopulation or processing centersincluding but not limited to Acachorege,Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan, Kodiak,and Petersburg shall achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applicationof the best conventional pollutantcontrol technology (BCT): Thalimitations shall be the same as thosespecified for conventional pollutants(which are defined in § 401.16) in§ 408.292(b)(2) of this subpart for thebest practicable control technologycurrently available (BPT).

5. Section 408.257 for Subpart Y-Pacific Coast Hand-Shucked OysterProcessing Subcategory is added as setforth below:


The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable:

Effluent limitations

Average of

Effluent characteristic daMmum dly valuesMayimun for for 30

any I day consecutivedays shallnot exceed

(Metric unlts) (kilograms per1,000 kg of product)

TSS .............................. 45 36Oil and Grease ................ 2.2 1.7pH .....................................

(English units) (pounds per1,000 lb of product)

TSS .............................. ........... 45 36Oil and Grease ........... 2.2 1.7pH .. ................. ..................... . (') . ...

Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

6. Section 406.267 for Subpart Z-Atlantic and Gulf Coast Hand-ShuckedOyster Processing Subcategory is addedto read as set forth below:


The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology:

S Effluent, limidtations

Average ofdaily values

Effluent characteristic Maximum for Ifor 30any 1 day consecutive

days shallERI0*2 not exceed

(Metric units) (kilograms per1,000 kg of producty

T S S ........................................... 23 16Oil and Grease ........... 1.1 I 0.77pH ............... ..... .( .......................

(English units) (pounds per1,000 lb of product)

TSS ......................... .23 16Oil and Grease .................. 1.1 0.77pH ......................... ................. ..... D ........................


7. Section 408.307 for Subpart AD-Non-Alaskan Scallop ProcessingSubcategory is added as set forth below:




Average of

Effluent characteristic Maximum for i valuesMaximm for for 30

any 1 day consecutivedays shallnot exceed

(Metric units) kk/kkg ofproduct

TSS . ............................... . 5.7 1.4Oil and Grease ................... 7.3 0.23pH .............................. ........... ..... ...

(English units) pounds per1,000 lb of product

TSS .................................. .5.7 1.4Oil and Grease ....... .......... .7.3 0.23pH ..................................


8. Section 408.337 for Subpart AG-Abalone Processing Subcategory isadded as set forth below:



Effluent Imittions

Average of

Effluent characteristic Maxim aly valuesMaximm for for 30


(Metric units) kk/kkg ofseaiood

TSS . . ...... 26 14

Oil and Grease ......... 21 1.3pH ................................................. . . .....................

49188



Average ofEfflent harateriticdaily valuesEffluent charactersic Maximum for for 30

any I day consecutivedays ahallnot exceed

(English units) pounds per1.000 lb of product

TSS ... .......................................... 26 14Oil and Grease _............... .. 2.1 1.3pH ... . (1).......................

IW thin the range 6.0 to 9.0.

PART 409-SUGAR PROCESSINGPOINT SOURCE CATEGORY

40 CFR Subchapter N. Part 409 for theSugar Processing Point Source Categoryis amended as follows:

§§ 409.17, 409.27, 409.37 [Revised]

§§ 409.47, 409.57, 409.67, 409.77, and 409.87[Added]

Section 409.17, 409.27, and 409.37 arerevised. Sections 409.47, 409.57, 409.67,409.77, and 409.87 are added. The text ofeach section is identical except for thesection number in the heading and thesection number referenced at the end ofthe section. The text of the sections isset out only once. Within the text aretwo blank spaces, one designated (a)and one designated (b). In the tablepreceding the text, column (a) indicatesthe section number to be added to thesection heading for the respectivesubparts of Part 409. Column (b)indicates the section number to beadded to the text of the sectionindicated in column (a).

(b)(a) SectionSection number

number to beSubpart to be added to

added to text ofsection theheading section

in (a)

Subpart A-Beet Sugar ProcessingSubcategory ........................................... 409.17 409.12

Subpart B-Crystalline Cane SugarRefining Subcategory ........................... 409.27 409.22

Subpart C-Lictuld Cane Sugar Refin-ing Subcategory . ... . 409.37 409.32

Subpart D-Louisiana Raw CaneSugar Processing Subcategory .......... 409.47 409.42

Subpart E-Florlda and Texas RawCane Sugar Processing Subcate-gory ................................... 409.57 409.52

Subpart F-Hio-Hamakua Coast ofthe Island of Hawaii Raw CaneSugar Processing Subcategory ........... 409.67 409.62

Subpart G-Hawaian Raw CaneSugar Processing Subcategory ........... 406.77 406.72

Subpart H-Puerto Rican Raw CaneSugar Processing Subcategory ........... 406.87 406.82



PART 411-CEMENTMANUFACTURING POINT SOURCECATEGORY

40 CFR Subchapter N, Part 411 for theCement Manufacturing Point SourceCategory is amended by revising§ 411.27 of the Leaching Subcategory asfollows:

§ 411.27 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by application of thebest conventional pollutant controltechnology (BCT).

Except as provided in § 125.30-32 anyexisting point source subject to thissubpart shall achieve the followingeffluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology (BCT): The limitations shallbe the same as those specified forconventional pollutants (which aredefined in § 401.16) in § 411.22 of thissubpart for the best practicable controltechnology currently available (BPT).PART 412-FEEDLOTS POINT

SOURCE CATEGORY

§ 412.17 [Removed]

40 CFR Subchapter N, Part 412 for theFeedlots Point Source Category isamended by removing § 412.17.

PART 415-INORGANIC CHEMICALSMANUFACTURING POINT SOURCECATEGORY

40 CFR Subchapter N, Part 415 for theInorganic Chemicals ManufacturingPoint Source Category is amended asfollows:

1. In Subpart F-Chlor-Alkali

Subcategory (Chlorine and Sodium orPotassium Hydroxide Production),§ 415.67(b) is added to read as follows:

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

(b) Except as provided in 40 CFR125.30-125.32, any existing point sourcesubject to this subpart and using thediaphragm cell process must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applicationof the best conventional pollutantcontrol technology (BCT): Thelimitations are the same for TSS and pHas specified in § 415.62.

2. In Subpart H-Hydrofluoric AcidProduction Subcategory, § 415.87 isadded to read as follows!

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

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, limitations on the discharge ofconventional pollutants (which aredefined in § 401.16) by an existing pointsource subject to this subpart shall, afterthe application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT), bethe same as the limitations specified forconventional pollutants in this subpartunder the best practicable controltechnology currently available (BPT), asstated in § 415.82.

PART 422-PHOSPHATEMANUFACTURING POINT SOURCECATEGORY

40 CFR Subchapter N, Part 422 for thePhosphate Point Source Category isamended by adding § 422.67 of theSodium Phosphates Subcategory asfollows:

§ 422.67 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology.


49189


METRIC UNITS (KG/KKG OF PRODUCT); ENGLISHUNITS (1B/1,000 LB OF PRODUCT)


Aerage ofEffluent characteristic rdaily values

Maximu for for 30any 1 day consecutivedays shall

not exceed

TSS ..................................... .... 01pH ..................................... (I).35 )

3 Within the range 6.0 to 9.5.

PART 424-FERROALLOYMANUFACTURING POINT SOURCECATEGORY

40 CFR Subchapter N, Part 424 for theFerroalloy Manufacturing Point SourceCategory is amended as follows:

§§ 424.17 and 424.27 [Added]

§§ 424.47, 424.67, and 424.77 [Revised]

1. Sections 424.17, 424.27 are added,and § § 424.47, 424.67, and 424.77 arerevised.'The text of each section isidentical except for the section numberin the heading and the section numberreferenced at the end of the section. Thetext of the sections is set out only once.Within the text are two blank spaces,one designated (a) and one designated(b). In the table preceding the text,column (a) indicates the section numberto be added to the section heading forthe respective subparts of Part 424.Column (b) indicates the section numberto be added to the text of the sectionindicated in column (a).

(b)(a) .Section



in (a)

Subpart A--Open Electric Furnaceswith Wet Air Pollution Control De-vices Subcategory ................................. 424.17 424.12

Subpart B--Covered Electric Fur-naces and Other Smelting Oper-ations with Wet Air Pollution Con-trol Devices Subcategory .................... 424.27 424.22

Subpart D-overed Calcium CarbideFurnaces with Wet Air PollutionControl Devices Subcategory . 424.47 424.42

Subpart F-Electrolytic ManganeseProducts Subcategory .................. 424.67 424.62

Subpart G-Electrolytic ChromiumSubcategory ........................................... 424.77 424.72


Except as provided in § 125.30-32 anyexisting point source subject to this

subpart shall achieve the followingeffluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology (BCT): The limitations shallbe the same as those specified forconventional pollutants (which aredefined in § 401.16) in § (b) of thissubpart for the best practicable controltechnology currently available (BPT).

2. Section 424.37 for Subpart C-SlagProcessing Subcategory is added to readas set forth below:

§ 424.37 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology (BCT).


Effluent Limitations

Average ofEffluent charactoristic daily valuesMaximm for for 30


Metric units (kg/Mwh)

TSS ........................ 0,211 0.136pH ........................ .......... () (1)

English units Ob/Mwh)

TSS ............... .542 .271pH .................................................. . (i) I )

IWith the range 6.0 to 9.0.

PART 426-GLASS MANUFACTURINGPOINT SOURCE CATEGORY

40 CFR Subchapter N, Part 426 for theGlass Manufacturing Point SourceCategory is amended as follows:

§§ 426.17 and 427.47 [Added]

§§ 426.57, 426.67, 426.77, 426.87, 426.107,426.117, 426.127, and 426.137 [Revised]

Sections 426.17, 426.47 are added, and§ § 426.57, 426.67, 426.77, 426.87, 426.107,426.117, 426.127, and 426.137 are revised.The text of each section is identicalexcept for the section number in theheading and the section numberreferenced at the end of the section. Thetext of the sections is set out only once.Within the text are two blank spaces,one designated (a) and one designated(b). In the table preceding the text,.column (a) indicates the section number

to be added to the section heading forthe respective subparts of Part 426.Column (b) indicates the section numberto be added to the text of the sectionindicated in column (a).

(b)(s) Section


Subpart to be added toadded to text Ofsection theheading section

in (a)

Subpart A-Insulation Fiberglass Sub-category .................................................. 426.17 426.12

Subpart D-Plate Glass Manufactur-ing Subcategory .................................... 426.47 426.42

Subpart E-Float Glass ManufacturingSubcategory .................. 426.57 426.52

Subpart F-Automative Glass Tem-pering Subcategory ............................... 426.67 426.62

Subpart G-Automative Glass Lami-nating Subcategory ............................... 426.77 426.72

Subpart H-Glass Container Manufac-turing Subcategory ................................ 426.87 426.82

Subpart J-Glass Tubing (Danner)Manufacturing Subcategory ................. 426.107 426.102

Subpart K-Television Picture TubeEnvelope Manufacturing Subcate-gory .......... ............. 426.117 426.112

Subpart L-ncandescent Lamp Enve-lope Manufacturing Subcategory . 426.127 426.122

Subpart M-Hand Pressed and BlownGlass Manufacturing Subcategory 426.137 426.132



PART 429-TIMBER PRODUCTSPROCESSING POINT SOURCECATEGORY

40 CFR Subchaper N, Part 429 for theTimber Products Point Source Categoryis amended as follows:

§§ 429.32, 429.42, 429.52, 429.72, 429.92,429.102,429.112, 429.132, 429.142, 429.162and 429.152 [Added]

The text of § § 429.32, 429.42, 429.52,429.72, 429.92, 429.102, 429.112, 429.132,429.142, and 429.162 is added. Section429.152 is added. The text of eachsection is identical except for thesection number in the heading and thesection number referenced at the end of

4919049190


the section. The text of the sections isset out only once. Within the text aretwo blank spaces, one designated (a)and one designated (b). In the tablepreceding the text, column (a) indicatesthe section number to be add to thesection heading for the respectivesubparts of Part 429. Column (b)indicates the section number to beadded to the text of the sectionindicated in column (a).

(ti)(a) Secton



in (a)

Subpart B-Veneer Subcategory ............ 429.32 429.31Subpart C-Plywood Subcategory 429.42 429.41Subpart D-Dry Process Hardboard

Subcategory....... ... . 429.52 429.51Subpart F-Wood Preserving-Water

Borne or Nonpressure Subcategory 429.72 429.71Subpart H-Wood Presenring-Boutton

Subcategory ......................................... 429.92 429.91Subpart I-Wet Storage Subcategory 429.102 429.101Subpart K-Saw Mills and Planing

Mills Subcategory ............................ 429.122 429.121Subpart L-Finishing Subcategory. 429.132 429.131Subpart M-Particleboerd Manufactur-

ing Subcategory ...... .... 429.142 429.141Subpart N-Insuation Board Subcate-

gory...... ......... .......... 429.152 429.151Subpart 0-Wood Furniture and Fix-

ture Production Without WashSpray Booth(s) or Without LaundryFacilities Subcategory .......................... 429.162 429.161



2. Section 429.62 is added as set forthbelow:

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

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

conventional pollutant controltechnology (BCT):

(a) The following limitations apply toplans which produce smooth-one-side(SiS) hardboard.

SUBPART E (SIS)

BCT effluent limitations

Average ofPollutant or pollutant property Maximum for daily values

any....da..... for 30any 1 day Jconsecutive

days

(kg/kkg (pounds per 1,000rb) of gross production)

B005 ................. 3.83 2.51TSS ...........-..... ... 10.9 7.04pH ................................... ........ ()

'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(b) The following limitations apply toplants which produce smooth-two-sides($2S) hardboard:

SUBPART E ($2S)

BCT effluent limitations

Average ofPollutant or pollutant property Maximum for daily values

ayIdy for 30ay1dy consecutive

days

(kg/kkg (pounds per 1,000Ib) of gross production)

B D 5 ........... .............. 13.2 8.62.139 9.52

pH ................................ (') (')

'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

3. The text of § 429.22 is added as setforth below:

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

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-32, any existing point source subject tothis subpart must achieve the followingeffluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology (BCT).

(a) The following limitations apply toall mechanical barking installations:There shall be no discharge of processwastewater pollutants into navigablewaters.

(b] [Reserved]

PART 430-PULP, PAPER, ANDPAPERBOARD POINT SOURCECATEGORY

On January 6, 1981, at 46 FR 1457, EPAproposed to revise 40 CFR Part 430 forthe Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard PointSource Category. EPA proposes to futheramend proposed Part 430 as follows:

§§ 430.63, 430.73, 430.83, 430.93, 430.113,430.143,430.153, 430.163, 430.173, 430.183,430.193, 430.203, 430.243, 430.253, 430.263and 430.273 [Revised]

1. Proposed § § 430.63, 430.73, 430.83,430.113, 430.143,430.153, 430.163, 430.173,430.183, 430.193, 430.203, 430.243, 430.253,430.263 and 430.273 are revised. The textof each section is identical except forthe section number in the heading andthe section number referenced at theend of the section. The text of thesections is set out only once. Within thetext are two blank spaces, onedesignated (a) and one designated (b). Inthe table preceding the text, column (a)indicates the section number to beadded to the section heading for therespective subparts of Part 430. Column(b) indicates the section number to beadded to the text of the sectionindicated in column (a).

5)

Sectilon numbernumber to be


In (a)

Subpart F-Dissolving Kraft Subcate-gory ........................................................ 430.63 430.62

Subpart G-Market Bleached KraftSubcategory ........................................... 430.73 430.72

Subpart H-BCT Bleached Kraft Sub-category ................................................. 430.83 430.82

Subpart I--Fine Bleached Kraft Sub-category .................................................. 430.93 430.92

Subpart K-Dissolving Sufite PulpSubcategory ..................... . 430.113 430.112

Subpart M-Groundwood-CMNPapers Subcategory .......... . 430.143 430.142

Subpart O-Grundwood-Fine PapersSubcategory ......................................... 430.153 430.152

Subpart P-Sods Subcategory ............. 430.163 430.162Subpart 0-Deink Subcategory .............. 430.173 430.172Subpart R-Nonintegrated Fine

Papers Subcategory ....................... 430.183 430.182Subpart S-Nonintegrated-Tissue

Papers Subcategory ....... .. 430.193 430.192Subpart T-Tissue from Wastepaper

Subcategory .......................................... 430.203 430.202Subpart X-Wastepaper-Molded Prod-

ucts Subcategory ................................. 430.243 430.242Subpart Y-Nonntegrated-Lightweight

Paper Subcategory ............................... 430.253 430.252Subpart Z-Nonintegrated-Filter and

Nonwoven Papers Subcategory 430.263 430.262Subpart AA-Nonintegrated-Paper-

board Subcategory ................................ 430.273 430.272


Except as provided in § 125.30-32 anyexisting point source subject to thissubpart shall achieve the followingeffluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology (BCT): The limitations shall

49191


be the same as those specified forconventional pollutants (which aredefined in § 401.16) in § (b) of thissubpart for the best practicable controltechnology currently available (BPT).

2. Proposed § 430.13 is revised forSubpart A-Unbleached KraftSubcategory and reads as follows:


Except as provided in § 125.30-32,limitations on the discharge ofconventional pollutants (which aredefined in § 401.16) by an existing pointsource subject to this subpart shall, afterthe application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT), bethe same as the limitations specified forconventional pollutants in this subpartunder the best practicable controltechnology currently available (BPT), asstated in § 430.12, except that non-continuous dischargers shall not besubject to the maximum day andaverage effluent limitations determinedby dividing the average-of-30-

consecutive-days limitations, but shallbe subject to annual average effluentlimitations determined by dividing theaverage-of-30-consecutive-dayslimitations for BOD 5 by 1.78 and TSS by1.82.

3. Proposed § 430.53 is revised forSubpart E-Paperboard fromWastepaper Subcategory and reads asfollows:


Except as provided in § 125.30-32,limitations on the discharge ofconventional pollutants (which aredefined In § 401.16) by an existing pointsource subject to this subpart shall, afterthe application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT), bethe same as the limitations specified forconventional pollutants in this subpartunder the best practicable controltechnology currently available (BPT), asstated in § 430.52, except that non-continuous dischargers shall not besubject to the maximum day and

average-of-30-consecutive-dayslimitations, but shall be subject toannual average effluent limitationsdetermined by dividing the average-of-30-consecutive-days limitations forBOD 5 by 1.78 and TSS by 1.82.

4. Proposed § 430.103 is revised forSubpart J-Papergrade Sulfite (Blow PitWash) Subcategory, and reads asfollows:


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 (BCT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not besubject to the maximum day andaverage-of-30-consecutive dayslimitations, but shall be subject toannual average effluent limitationsdetermined by dividing the average-of-30-consecutive day limitations for BOD5by 1.78 and TSS by 1.82:

SUBPART J

Pollutant or pollutant property BCT effluent limitationsMaximum for any 1 day Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 Ib) of product

BOD ........................... . .............................. ............... 0.00438X'-0.234X+ 14.8 0.00260X-0.139X+8.76TSS ..................................................... I .................................. 0.00684X'-0.363X+23.2 0.00415X1_0.220X+ 14.1pH . .. ...................................................................................................... ()

X= Percent sulfite pulp In final product.'Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

5. Proposed § 430.133 is revised forSubpart M-Groundwood-Thermo-Mechanical Subcategory, and reads asfollows:


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 (BCT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not besubject to the maximum day andaverage-of-30-consecutive-dayslimitations, but shall be subject to

annual average effluent limitationsdetermined by dividing the average-of-30-consecutive-days limitations forBOD5 by 1.78 and TSS by 1.82:

SUBPART M

BCT effluent linitations

Average ofPollutant or pollutant property Maximum daily values

for any for30day consecutive

days

Kg/kkg (or pounds per1,000 lb) of product

BOD5 ......... ................ 5,7 3.4TSS ......................... 9.6 5.8pH .................................................... (1) (1)

'Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

6. Proposed § 430.213 is revised forSubpart U-Papergrade Sulfite (Drum

Wash Subcategory, and reads asfollows:


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 (BCT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not besubject to the maximum day andaverage-of-30-consecutive dayslimitations, but shall be subject toannual average effluent limitationsdetermined by dividing the average-of-30-consecutive days limitations forBOD5 by 1.78 and TSS by 1.82:

49192


SUBPART U

BCT effluent limitationsPollutant or pollutant propertyI Maximum for any 1 day 1 Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days

Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 tb) of product

BOD5 ............................................... .... ...................... ... 00438X-0,234X+14.8 0.00260X -0.139x+.76TSS ............................................... .................................................. 0.00684X -0.363X+23.2 0.00415X -0.220X+ 14.1

pH .......................... ....................................................... I............... .( ) '

X = Percent sulfite pulp In final product.'Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

7. Proposed § 430.223 is revised forSubpart V-Unbleached Kraft and Semi-Chemical Subcategory and reads asfollows:


Any existing point source subject tothis subpart must achieve the followingeffluent limitations representiog thedegree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology (BCT], except that non-continuous dischargers shall not besubject to the maximum day andaverage-of-30-consecutive-dayslimitations, but shall be subject toannual average effluent limitationsdetermined by dividing the average-of-30-consecutive-days limitations forBOD5 by 178 and TSS by 1.82:

SUBPART V


Average ofEffluent characteristic Maximum for daily values

nI dax f for 30any 1 day consecutive

days

Kg/kg (or pounds per 1,000Ib)

BO 5 ..... ................... 8.0 4.0TSS ..... ...... .............. 12.5 6.25pH ............................................. .... ( ) (')

'Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

8. Proposed § 430.233 is revised forSubpart W-Semi-Chemical Subcategoryand reads as follows:


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 (BCT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not besubject to the maximum day and

average-of-30-consecutive-dayslimitations, but shall be subject toannual average effluent limitationsdetermined by dividing the average-of-30-consecutive-days limitations forBOD5 by 1.78 and TSS by 1.82.

(a) For plants producing pulp andpaper by the ammonia base neutralsulfite semi-chemical process:

SUBPART W-AMMONIA BASE

Effluent imitations

Average ofEffluent characteristic Maxim for daily values

un m for 30any I day consecutivedays

Kg/kkg (or pounds per1,000 Ib)

OD5 .................... 8.0 4.0TSS ...................... 10.0. 5.0pH .................................................. ... (')

Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(b) For plants producing pulp andpaper by all other semi-chemicalprocesses:

SUBPART W-OTHER BASES

Effluent limitationsMxumfrAverage of

Effluent characteristic Maximum for daily valuesany 1 day for 30

consecutivedays

kg/kkg (or pounds per1,000 Ih) of product

BOD5 ............ 8.7 4.35TSS .............. 1.. 5.5pH ...................... ........... (') (')

'Within the range of 6.0 to .0 at all times.

PART 431-BUILDERS' PAPER ANDBOARD MILLS POINT SOURCECATEGORY

On January 6, 1981, at 46 FR 1457, EPAproposed to revise 40 CFR Part 431 forthe Builders' Paper and Board MillsPoint Source Category. EPA proposes tofurther amend proposed Part 431 asfollows:

1. Section 431.12 is added to read asfollows:

§431.12 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best practicable control technologycurrently available.

(a] In establishing the limitations selforth in this section, EPA took intoaccount all information it was able tocollect, develop and solicit with respectto factors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatmenttechnology available, energyrequirements and costs] which canaffect the industry subcategorizationand effluent levels established. It is,however, possible that data whichwould affect these limitations have notbeen* available and, as a result, theselimitations should be adjusted forcertain plants in this industry. Anindividual discharger or other interestedperson may submit evidence to theRegional Administrator (or to the State,if the State has the authority to issueNPDES permits) that factors relating tothe equipment or facilities involved, theprocess applied, or other such factorsrelated to such discharger arefundamentally different from the factorsconsidered in the establishment of theguidelines. On the basis of suchevidence or other available information,the Regional Administrator (or theState) will make a written finding thatsuch factors are or are notfundamentally different for that facilitycompared to those specified in theDevelopment Document. If suchfundamentally different factors arefound to exist, the RegionalAdministrator or the State shallestablish for the discharger effluentlimitations in the NPDES permit eithermore or less stringent than thelimitations established herein, to theextent dictated by such fundamentallydifferent factors. Such limitations mustbe approved by the Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency. TheAdministrator may approve ordisapprove such limitations, specifyother limitations, or initiate proceedingsto revise these regulations.

(b) The following limitations establishthe quantity or quality of pollutants or

49193

4194Federal Reister / Vol. 47, No. 210 I Friday, October 29, 1982 / Proposed Rules

pollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable:

Effluent Average oflimitations daily values

Effluent characteristics consecutive

Maximum for days shallnot exceed

Metric units (kilograms per1.000 kg of product)

BO DS ............................................. 5.0 3.0TSS ....................... 5.0 3.0Oiand Grease ............................ . ') ('pH ............. ....................... ... ) )

English units (pounds perton of product)

BOD5 ............................................ . 10.0 6.0TSS . ......... ......................... 10.0 6.0Oil and Grease ............................. () 12)pH .................................................. . (. ) ( )

'Not to exceed 0.2 rt/L'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.'No comparable English units.

2. Proposed § 431.13 under SubpartA-Builders Paper and Roofing FeltSubcategory is revised as follows:


Except as provided in § 125.30-32 anyexisting point source subject to thissubpart shall achieve the followingeffluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology (BCT): The limitations shallbe the same as those specified forconventional pollutants (which aredefined in § 401.16) in § 431.12 of thissubpart for the best practicable controltechnology currently available (BPT).

PART 423-MEAT PRODUCTS POINTSOURCE CATEGORY

40 CFR Subchapter N, Part 432 for theMeat Products Point Source Category isamended as follows:

§§ 432.17, 432.27, 432.37, 432.47, 432.67,432.77, 432.87, 432.97 [Revised]

1. Sections 432.17, 432.27, 432.37.432.47, 432.67, 432.77, 432.87, 432.97 arerevised. The text of each section isidentical except for the section numberin the heading and the section numberreferenced at the end of the section. Thetext of the sections is set out only once.Within the text are two blank spaces,

one designated (a) and one designated(b). In the table preceding the text,column (a) indicates the section numberto be added to the section heading forthe respective subparts of Part 432.Column (b) indicates the section numberto be added to the text of the sectionindicated in column (a).

(b)(a) Section



in (a)

Subpart A-Simple SlaughterhouseSubcategory ........................................... 432.17 432.12

Subpart S-Comptex SlaughterhouseSubcategory ........................................... 432.27 432.22

Subpart C-Low-Processing Packing-house Subcategory ............................... 432.37 432.32

Subpart D-High-Processing Packing-house Subcategory ............................ 432.47 432.42

Subpart F-Meat Cutter Subcategory 432.67 432.62Subpart G--Sauseage and Luncheon

Meats Processor Subcategory ............ 432.77 432.72Subpart H-Ham Processor Subcate-

gory ......................................................... 432.87 432.82Subpart f--Canned Meat Processor

Subcatego ry .......................................... 432.97 432.92



2. Section 432.57 for Subpart E-SmallProcessor Subcategory is added to readas set forth below:




Average ofdaily valuesEffluent characteristic Maximum for for 30

any I day consecutivedays shall

not exceed

Metric units (kg/kkg offinished product)

BOD5 ..................... ........ .1.0 0.5TSS ............ .. ... 1.2 0.6Oil and Grease ............................ 0.5 0.25pH ................................ ................ () ()

Fecal coliforms ............................ . ) (V)

English units (lbll,000 lb.of finished product)

BO D5 ............................................ 1.0 0.5TSS ......... .............. . 1.2 0.6Oil and Grease ............................. 0.5 0.25pH .................................................. (1) (I)Fecal ccoforms ........................... ( ) (1)

-Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.No limitation.

3. Section 432.107 for Subpart I-Renderer Subcategory is added to readas set forth below:


(a) Subject to the provisions ofparagraph (b) of this section, thefollowing limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology:


Average ofEffluent characteristic Maximum daily values

Maximm for for 30any 1 day consecutive

days shallnot exceed

Metric units (Kg/kkg offinished product)

BOD5 .......... ............. 0.18 0.09TSS ........................... 0.22 0.11Oil and Grease .......... 0.10 0.05Fecal coliforms ................ () (')pH ................................................. (') (')

English units (pounds per1,000 lb. of finished prod-uct)

BODS ....................... ...... 0.18 0.09TSS ................................... 0.22 0.11Oil and Grease .................. 0.10 0.05Fecal coliforms ............................. .. =) (,)pH .................................................. . (. ) C')

Maximum at any time. 400 mpn/l00 mi.'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

49194 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 210 / Friday, October 29, 1982 / Proposed Rules49194


(b) The limitations given in paragraph(a) of this section for BOD5 and TSS arederived for a renderer which does nocattle hide curing as part of the plantactivities. If a renderer does conducthide curing, the following empiricalformulas should be used to derive anadditive adjustment to the effluentlimitations for BOD5 and TSS.

BOD5 Adjustment (kg/kkg RM=

3.6 x (number of hides)kg of raw material

7.9 x (number of hides)lbs of raw material

TSS Adjustment (kg/kkg RM=

6.2 X (number of hides)k8 of raw material

13.6 X (number of hides)(lb/1,0 lb RM = lbs of raw material

PART 433-METAL FINISHING POINTSOURCE CATEGORY

Part 433 consisting of § 433.18 isadded to 40 CFR Subchapter N to readas follows:


(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR125.30-125.32, any existing point sourcesubject to this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology:

Average of

maximum daily valuesPollutant or pollutant property for any I coeuvy consecutive

days shallnot exceed

Milligrams per liter (mg/I)

Oil and Grease ....................... 42 17TSS.................................... SI 6 23pH ................................................... W ithin 6.0 to

9 0 .......................

(b) No user subject to the provisionsof this subpart shall augment the use ofprocess wastewater or otherwise dilutethe wastewater as a partial or totalsubstitute for adequate treatment toachieve compliance with this limitation.

(Sacs. 301 and 304, Clean Water Act, FederalWater Pollution Control Act Amendments of1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as amended bythe Clean Water Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-217)

PART 440-ORE MINING ANDDRESSING POINT SOURCECATEGORY

On June 14, 1982 at 47 FR 25682, EPAproposed to revise 40 CFR Part 440 forthe Ore Mining and Dressing PointSource Category. EPA proposes tofurther amend proposed Part 440 asfollows:

§§ 440.15, 440.35, 440.55, 440.65, 440.75,and 440.85 [Revised]

1. Proposed §§ 440.15,440.35, 440.55,440.65, 440.75 and 440.85 are revised.The text of each section is identicalexcept for the section number in theheading and the section numberreferenced at the end of the section. Thetext of the sections is set out only once.Within the text are two blank spaces,one designated (a) and one designated(b). In the table preceding the text,column (a) indicates the section numberto be added to the section heading forthe respective subparts of Part 440.Column (b) indicates the section numberto be added to the text of the sectionindicated in Column (a].

( Sb)onSection numbernumber to be

Supart to be added toadded to text ofsection theheading section In________________________ _______ (a)

Subpart A--Iron Ore Subcategory 440.15 440.12Subpart C-Aluminum Ore Subcate-

gory .................. 440.35 440.32Supart E-Uranium. Radium and Va-

nadium Subcategory ......................... 440.55 440.52Subpart F-Mercury Ores Subcate

gory ........................ 440.65 440.62Subpart G-Tianium Ore Subcate-

gory .................................................... 440.75 440.72Subpart H-Tungsten Ore Subcata-

gory ........................ 440.85 440.82

§ (a) Effluent Limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology (BCT).

Except as provided in § 125.30-125.32any existing point source subject to thissubpart shall achieve the followingeffluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology (BCT): The limitations shallbe the same as those specified forconventional pollutants (which aredefined in § 401.16) in § (b) of thissubpart for the best practicable controltechnology currently available (BPT). 2.Proposed § 440.125 is revised to read asfollows:

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

Except as provided in Subpart M ofthis regulation and 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing source subject tothis subpart must achieve the followinglimitations:

(a) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage from minesthat produce copper, lead, zinc, gold,silver, platinum or molybdenum bearingores or any combination of these oresfrom open-pit or undergroundoperations, except gold placer mines,shall not exceed:


Average ofEffluent characteristic Maximum for daily values

any. . ... for 301yIay consecutive

days

Milligrams per liter

pH .............................(') (')TSS . ......... 300 300

'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

(b) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage in minedrainage from mills that use forth-flotation process alone, or inconjunction with other processes, for thebenefication of copper, lead, zinc, gold,silver, platinum or molybdenum ores, orany combination of these shall notexceed:


EAverage of

Effluent characteristic [I fo, r ,daily values............ for 30any consecutive

days

Milligrams per liter

pH .... .......... ............ (1) (a)TSS ............................................... 30.0 20.0

'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

(c)(1) There shall be no discharge ofprocess wastewater from mines andmills that extract copper from ores orore waste materials by the dump, heap,in-situ leach or vat-leach processesexcept as provided in paragraph (c)(2) ofthis section.

(2) In the event that the annualprecipitation falling on the treatmentfacility and the drainage areacontributing surface runoff to thetreatment exceeds the annualevaporation, a volume of water equal tothe difference between annualprecipitation falling on the treatment

49195


facility and the drainage areacontributing surface runoff to thetreatment facility and annualevaporation may be discharged subjectto the limitations set forth in paragraph(a) of this section.

(d)(1) There shall be no discharged ofprocess wastewater from mills that usethe cyanidation process to extract goldor silver except as provided inparagraph (d)(2) of this section.

(2) In the event that the annualprecipitation falling on the treatmentfacility and the drainage areacontributing surface runoff to thetreatment exceeds the annualevaporation, a volume of water equal tothe difference between annualprecipitation falling on the treatmentfacility and the drainage areacontributing surface runoff to thetreatment facility and annualevaporation may be discharged subjectto the limitations set forth in paragraph(a) of this section.

Appendices

Note.-Appendices A-D will not appear inthe Code of Federal Regulations.

Appendix A-The Cost of PollutantRemoval By Publicly Owned TreatmentWorks

Part I of the BCT test requires that thecost and level of reduction ofconventional pollutants by industrialdischargers be compared with the costand level of reduction to remove thesame pollutants by publicly ownedtreatment works (POTWs). The POTWcomparison figure has been calculatedby evaluating the change in costs andremovals between secondary treatment(30 mg/1 BOD and 30 mg/1 TSS) andadvanced secondary treatment (10 mg/1BOD and 10 mg/1 TSS). The differencein cost is divided by the difference inpounds of conventional pollutantsremoved, resulting in an estimate of the"dollars per pound" of pollutantremoved.

The following summary describesdetails of the specific calculation of thisPOTW cost figure. It involves five basicsteps: First, the size distribution ofPOTWs is determined; second, the totalannual costs for secondary andadvanced secondary treatment (AST)are estimated; third, the pollutantremoval capability of the system iscalculated; fourth, the incremental costsin going from secondary to AST aredivided by the additional pounds ofpollutant removal; fifth, the dollars-per-

pound figures calculated in step 4 areflow-weighted using the size distributionto determine a single POTW costcomparison figure. This is the samecalculation as for the 1979 methololgyexcept for the first step.

All the POTW costs have beenindexed to third quarter 1976 dollars tomake them comparable to the industrycosts which are in September 1976dollars, The specific indices used arepresented in the discussion below. ThePOTW cost figure is also updated tocurrent year dollars by use of theseindices.

Size Distribution of POTWs. ThePOTW cost figure Is based on weighting

the cost per pound of conventionalpollutants removed from POTWsaccording to the size distribution ofPOTWs in the United States. The sizedistribution used in these calculations isbased on the 1980 Needs Survey.1 Thesize distribution used was calculatedbased on the number of POTWs whichwere operating or under construction in1980 (see Table Al). The weightingfactor is calculated by dividing the totalflow for each group by the total flow forall POTWs.

'"The 1980 Needs Survey: Conveyance,Treatment, and Control of Municipal Wastewater,Combined Sewer Overflows, and StormwaterRunoff; Summaries of Technical Data", FRS-23 EPA430/9-81-008, February 10. 1981, Table 4.

TABLE At.-POTW SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Size range (mgd)

From 0 .106 1.06 10.6 50.2

TO 0.105 1.05 10.5 50.2 + Total

Number of plants .............. . . ...... 5021 7033 2686 415 96 15251Total flow ................................................................................................. 259 2675 8836 9290 13354 34415Average flow .......................... ............................................. 0.0515 0.3803 3.290 22.39 139.1 2.257Weighting factor ............................................................................................ .0075 .0777 0.2567 0.2700 0.3880 0.9999

Because the cost curves which areused to calculate the POTW cost figureare most reliable in the flow range ofone to 50 mgd, the distribution andweights of the POTW distribution arecapped by these lower and upperbounds. A one mgd POTW representsthe 0-0.105 mgd size group and the 0.106to 1.05 size group of POTWs and a 50mgd POTW represents the 50.2 mgd andgreater size group of POTWs. A 3.29mgd POTW represents the 1.06 to 10.5mgd size group, and a 22.39 mgd POTWrepresents to 10.6 to 50.2 mgd size group.

Total Annual POTW Costs. TheAgency based its estimates of annualPOTW costs on information from twoEPA documents. These documents, onefor construction costs 2 and one foroperation and maintenance costs, 3replace two previous documents foundto contain critical errors. These newdocuments provide the most up-to-dateinformation regarding the costs ofconstructing and operation POTWs.

The POTW costs used in estimatingthe cost of pollutant removal are thetotal annual costs of upgrading asecondary treatment (ST) system to

I"Construction Costs for Municipal WastewaterTreatment Plants: 1973-1978", EPA 430/5-80-OXX,May, 1980 (hereinafter cited as "Construction CostDocument").

I "Technical Report, Operation and MaintenanceCosts for Municipal Wastewater Facilities", EPA430/9-81-004 (hereinafter cited as "O&M CostDocument").

advanced secondary treatment (AST)system. This is calculated by estimatingthe cost of a new advanced secondarysystem and deducting the savings thatare expected if secondary treatment isalready in place. Total annual costsinclude capital charges, interest, andoperation and maintenance expenses.

Table A2 gives the treatment costcurves used in calculating theincremental costs associated inupgrading from second treatment toadvanced secondary treatment.

TABLE A2: TREATMENT COST EQUATIONS

IndexTreatment level Equation factor (to

1976dollars)

CAPITAL COST

Advanced Secondary Treat- $2.76 x 10 1011. $0.816ment .

Savings From Secondary $1.79 x 106 0 -.. .821Treatment

O&M COSTAdvanced Secondary Treat- $0.952 x 10 5 .652

ment t Q'.Secondary.Treanent '....... $1.01 x 10' °

...... .652

'0 = flow size in millions of gallons per day.'Construction Cost Document. Supra note 2, Fig. 4.1,

curve 2.3Construction Cost Document. Spra, note 2. Figure 4.1,

curve B.4O&M Cost Document. Supra, note 3. Figure 3.17.60&M Cost Document. Supra, note 3. Figure 3.3.

All costs are indexed to third quarter1976 dollars by the use of cost indices

49196


for POTWs.' Capital costs are amortizedfor 30 years at a.10% interest rate.5

AST Costs. The costs for AST by flowsize are:

Dollars in millions

Flow Annuale(MGD) Capital idexed O&M Indexed Total

cost capital cost o&t costostcost

1.0 $2.760 $2.397 $0.952 $0.620 $03.013.29 6.742 5.83 2.516 1.64 7.47

22.39 28.409 24.57 12.03 7.84 32.4150.0 51.896 44.89 23.17 15.11 60.00

Savings from ST Costs. The costssavings for in-place ST for upgrading toAST treatment by flow size are:

Dollars In millions

Flow Annual.(MGD) Capital Indexed O&M Indexed

cost capital cost ost costcoat cost

1.0 $1.790 $0.156 $0.101 $0.066 $0.2223.29 4.753 .414 .253 .165 .579

22.39 22'903 1.993 1.106 .721 2.71450.0 44.260 3.852 2.054 1.339 5.191

Incremental Costs. Incremental costsfor each flow size are obtained bysubstracting the total annual AST costsfrom the savings from existing ST. Theresulting incremental costs are listed inTable A3.

TABLE A3.-INCREMENTAL ANNUAL COSTS($ MILLIONS)

Total annual costs Total annualFlow (MGD) incremental

AST ST cost

1.0 $0.301 $0.222 $0.0793.29 .747 .579 .168

22.39 3.241 2.714 .52750.0 6.000 5.191 .809

Pollutant Removal by POTWs. Theincremental number of pounds ofconventional pollutants removed byadvanced secondary treatment beyondsecondary treatment must be estimatedto obtain the incremental annual costs.

I"Construction Cost Indexes [SIC]" Office ofWater Program Operations, EPA, first quarter 1976at seq (hereinafter cited as "Construction CostIndex"). Two different indices are used. For AST,EPA used the LCAT index; for ST, the SCCT index.

For Operating costs, the reference is:"Index of Direct Costs for Operation,

Maintenance and Repair Based on Composite 5MGD Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants",1967, et seq (hereinafter cited as "O&M Cost Index).EPA used the average escalation index.

5Management Accounting, Robert Anthony and

James Reece, June 1975, Appendix Tables, Table B.EPA used a multiplier of 0.106.

The pounds of pollutants removed equalthe flow of the POTW times the changein concentrations of the pollutants asthey pass through the system. For thecalculations presented here the influentconcentration is 210 mg/l for BOD and230 mg/l for TSS.6

Effluent characteristics of 30 mg/lBOD and 30 mg/l for secondarytreatment were selected because this isthe legal requirement for mostsecondary treatment plants establishedby EPA. Effluent characteristics of 10mg/l BOD and 10 mg/l TSS foradvanced secondary treatment are usedsince they represent the bestperformance for advanced secondarytreatment.

Both the 30 mg/1 and the 10 mg/1performance levels correspond to themaximum 30-day average performanceof the POTW. The difference in the BODplus TSS effluent levels from ST to ASTis 40 mg/i. This change results in anincremental pollutant removal of .122million pounds per year for each milliongallons a day of flow. 7 The incrementalanual pollutant removal for each flowsize is listed in Table A4.

TABLE A4.-INCREMENTAL POLLUTANTREMOVAL

Flow mgd Million pounds removed

1.0 0.1223.29 .401

22.39 2.7350.0 8.10

Incremental Cost of Removal. Tocalculate the cost of pollutant removalof upgrading secondary treatment toadvanced secondary treatment, theadditional costs must be divided by theadditional removal of BOD and TSS.Specifically the calculation is:

incremental total annual costs

incremental annuaj pollutant removal

This calculation is performed for eachflow size, then weighted by the factorsthat appear in Table Al. Table A5summerizes these calculations.

'"Areawide Assessment Procedures Mannual,Appendix H, Point Source Control Alternatives,"EPA Laboratories, Cincinnati, Ohio, at H-14.

'The calculation of this figure is as follows:40mg/1 x 3.785 1/gal x 2.2 x 10-lb/mg x 365 days/yr=.122 million pounds/year per million gallons/day.

TABLE AS.-POTW BENCHMARKCALCULATIONS

Incre-Incre- mentalmental Re-Cost moval Per Weight- Weight.

Flow (MGD) ($ (mil- pound ing a d permillion lion Factor pound

pTO pary per

...................... $0.079 0.122 $0.65 0.0852 $0.063.29 ............ 1...8.. .168 .401 .42 .2567 .1122.39 ................ .527 2.73 .19 .2700 .0550.0 .............. . 809 6.10 .13 .3880 .05

Tot ............... ... ...... ........................ . 27

This cost is indexed for a number of

time periods below:

INDEXED POTW BENCHMARKS

Year/quarter 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

1976 ............ ................ 0.27 0.271977 ............... 0.28 0.29 .30 .301978 ................30 .30 .31 .331979 ............... .34 .35 .35 .361980 ............................... .37 .40 .42 .421981 ................. 42 .45 .45 .46

Appendix B-Calculation of theBenchmark for the Industry Cost Test

Part 2 of the BCT test requires that thecost-effectiveness of controlling thedischarge of conventional pollutants byindustrial dischargers be evaluated foreach industry. In order to develop abenchmark that assesses a reasonablerelationship between cost and removal,EPA has developed an industry costbenchmark which compares the cost perpound of conventional pollutant removalin going from primary to secondarytreatment levels with that of going fromsecondary to advanced secondarytreatment levels.

The following details the specificcalculation of the industry costbenchmark. The computation requiresseven steps: First, the size distributionof POTWs is determined; second, thetotal annual costs for primary,secondary and advanced secondarytreatment are estimated; third, thepollutant removals at each treatmentlevel are calculated; fourth, theadditional costs upgrading from primaryto secondary treatment and fromsecondary to advanced secondarytreatment are calculated; fifth, theseincremental costs are divided by therespective incremental pounds ofpollutants removed; sixth, theincremental dollar per pound figures forthe secondary to advanced secondary

49197


increment are divided by those for theprimary to secondary increment;seventh, these ratios are weighted bythe size distribution factors to obtain asingle benchmark.

The method for calculating theincremental dollar per pound figures ingoing from secondary to advancedsecondary treatment has already beencalculated (see Table Al, Appendix A).The calculations for the incrementaldollar per pound figure in going fromprimary to secondary treatment areexplained in detail below.

Size Distribution of POTWs. EPAbased its size distribution of POTWs ondata found in the 1980 Needs Survey formunicipal wastewater treatment. (1)EPA modified the distribution to excludeplants with flows of less than I mgd ormore than 50 mgd based on the likelyerrors in cost estimates outside this flowrange. The size distribution usedappears in Table 131

TABLE Bi.-FLow-SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Flow size (MOG) Weightingfactor

1.0 ............................................................................... 0.08523.29 ............................................................................. 0.256722.39 ........................................................................... 0.270050.0 ............................................................................. 0 .3880

Total ................................................................ 0.9999

Total Annual POTW Costs. EPAbased its estimates of annual POTWcosts on information from three EPAdocuments. The Construction CostDocument (2) and the O&M CostDocument (3) are used to estimate thecosts of advanced secondary andsecondary capital and O&M costs andprimary treatment capital costs. O&Mcosts for primary treatment are notincluded in these documents. In order tode'velop the primary treatment O&Mcost curve, EPA is using a 1978 O&Mcost document.(4] This document wasfound to contain critical errors in thedevelopment of the cost curves from theunderlying data. The regression of totalannual cost versus flow size wascalculated by expressing flow size as afunction of cost. By switching thedependent variable (total annual cost)and the independent variable (flow size)in the regression analysis, the resultingcost curves incorrectly estimated thecosts of treatment. EPA has recalculatedthe O&M cost curve for primarytreatment, using the points that appearin the graph of the curve. (5)

Table B2 shows the curve used incalculating the incremental cost ofupgrading a primary treatment facility.

TABLE B2.-TREATMENT COST CURVES

Treatment levelCurve (0 flow

in mgd)

Indexa-tion

factor toobtain1976

dollars

CAPITAL COST

Secondary Treatment ..............$ 2.66 x 106 $0.821

Savings from Primary Treat- $3.32 x 105 '..... .821ment.

OsM COST

Secondary Treatment ..............$ 1.01 x 10 5Qv* .652Savings from Primary Treat- $5.67 x 101 1-

. .928

ment.

All costs are indexed to third quarter1976 dollars by the use of cost indexfactors developed by EPA for POTWs.(6) Capital costs are amortized over 30years at a 10 percent rate. (7) Qrepresents flow in millions of gallons aday.Secondary Treatment Costs. The costs

for secondary treatment by flow sizeare:

Dollars in millions

Flow Annual, Indexed(mgd) Captal indexed O&M & t m Total

cost capital cost ost costcost s

1.0 2.66 0.231 0.101 0.0658 0.2973.29 6.27 .546 .253 .165 .711

22.39 24.94 2.17 1.11 .721 2.8950.0 44.5 3.87 2.05 1.34 5.21

Savings from Primary Treatment. Thecosts saved for an existing primarytreatment facility when upgrading tosecondary treatment by flow size are:

Dollars In millions

Flow Annual, Indexed(mgd) Capital indexed O&M t e Totatcost capital cost O&M cost

1.0 0.332 0.0289 0.057 0.0526 0.08153.29 1.20 .104 .130 1.21 .225

22.39 9.53 .829 .492 .466 1.2850.0 22.7 1.98 .860 .798 2.78

Incremental Costs. Incremental costsfor each flow size are obtained bysubtracting the total annual secondarytreatment costs from the savings fromprimary treatment costs. The resultingincremental costs are listed in Table B3.

TABLE B3.-INCREMENTAL ANNUAL COSTS:PRIMARY UPGRADE TO SECONDARY

[millions of dollars]

Total annual costs Total annualFlowP(mad) incremental

Primary ISecondary costs

$.0815 $ .297.225 .711

1.28 2.89

TABLE B3.-INCREMENTAL ANNUAL COSTS:

PRIMARY UPGRADE TO SECONDARY-Contin-ued

[millions of dollars]

Total annual costs Total annualFlow (mgd) incremental

Primary Secondary costs

50.0 2.78 5.21 2.43

Pollutant Removal by POTWs. Theother ha.lf of calculating the cost perpound of pollutant removal requires thedetermination of the number of poundsof conventional pollutants removed byadvanced secondary treatment beyondsecondary treatment. The incrementalpounds of pollutants removed equal theflow of the POTW times the reductioneffluent in concentrations of thepollutants obtained from more advancedtreatment.

The primary treatment effluent levelsare set at 130 mg/I for BOD and 100 mg/lfor TSS which are commonly used insewage treatment literature. (8) Effluentcharacteristics of 30 mg/l BOD and 30mg/I TSS for secondary treatment wereselected because this is the legalrequirement for most POTWs asestablished by EPA.

The change in concentration ofconventional pollutants is 170 mg/l (230mg/l minus 60 mg/1). In terms of poundremovals, this change transfers to a totalincremental annual pollutant removal of.517 million pounds a year for each mgdof flow. (9) The incremental annualpollutant removal for each flow size islisted in Table B4.

TABLE B4.-INCREMENTAL ANNUAL POLLUTANTREMOVAL: PRIMARY UPGRADED TO SECONDARY

Flow (mgd) Million pounds removedannually

1.0 .5173.20 1.70

22.39 11.650.0 25.8

incremental Cost of Removal. Tocalculate the cost of pollutant removalfor upgrading primary treatment tosecondary treatment, the additionalcosts must be divided by the additionalremoval of BOD and TSS for each flowsize. Specifically the calculation is:

incremental total annual costs

incremental annual pollutant removal

$ .217 Table B5 summarizes these.486

1.61 calculations.

49198


TABLE B5.-INCREMENTAL ANNUAL COST PERPOUND OF REMOVAL: PRIMARY TO SECOND-ARY TREATMENT

( 1) (2) (3) (2) -(3)

Incremental Incremental Dollar perFlow (mgd) annual cost annual dt$ Million) removal (Ibs. poundmilrlionn)removed

1.0 $.217 .517 .423.29 .486 1.70 .28

22.39 1.61 11.6 .1450.0 2.43 25.8 .09

Industry Cost Benchmark. Theindustry cost benchmark is obtained bydividing the dollar per pound incrementfrom secondary to advanced secondarytreatment (10) by the dollar per poundincrement from primary to secondarytreatment. Once these ratios have beencalculated, each ratio for each flow sizeis multiplied by its size distributionweight to obtain a single industry costbenchmark. Table B6 summarizes thesecomputations.

TABLE B6-INDUSTRY COST BENCHMARK

Incremental dollarper pound

Second-(lo Primary ary to Weight- Weiht.

to ad- ing atmd o~ ratio factors ratios'second- vanced fatr rtis

ary second-treat- aryment treat-

ment

1.0 $0.42 $0.65 1.55 .0852 .133.29 .28 .42 1.50 .2567 .38

22.39 .14 .19 1.34 .2700 .3850.0 .09 .13 1.44 .3880 .56

'Industry cost ratio 1.43.

This benchmark is not indexed bytime periods because the variations inthe result are likely to be small.

Footnotes(1) See note 1, Appendix A. See also Table

Al, Appendix A, for data on the rawdistribution.

(2) See note 2, Appendix A.(3) See note 3, Appendix A.(4) "Analysis of Operations and

Maintenance Costs for MunicipalWastewater Treatment Systems, EPA 430/9-77-015, May 1978 (hereinafter cited as the"1978 O&M Cost Document"), Fig. E. 2-1.

(5) The equation that appears in thedocument is Cost=$.453X104Q'.5 1. This costis expressed in 31 quarter 1977 dollars.

(6) See note 9, Appendix A. The primaryfactor is 208/Z22=0.928.

(7) See note 10, Appendix A. The capitalrecovery factor used is 0.106.

(8) "Areawide Assessment ProceduresManual, Appendix H, Point Source ControlAlternatives", EPA Laboratories, Cincinnati,Ohio, P. H-16. This effluent level assumesinfluent concentrations of 210 mg/l for BODand .30 mg/l for TSS.

(9) The calculation of this figure is as'follows:

170- x 3.785 1x 2.2 X 106--m X 365- X 106 5.17 X 10f - per mgdI gl g yr day yr

(10) See Table A5, Appendix A.

Appendix C-Documents Used in theAnalysis

The data for each of the industrycategories were taken from thedocuments listed below:

1. Dairy Products.Dairy Products Processing, EPA 440/

1-74-021-a.2. Grain Mills.Grain Processing, EPA 440/1/74-:028-

a.Animal Feed, Breakfast Cereal and

Wheat Starch, EPA 440/1-74/039-a.Corn Wet Milling, EPA 440/1-78/028-

b, Supplement.3. Fruits and Vegetables.Apple, Citrus and Potato Products,

EPA 440/1-74-027-a.Economic Analysis of the Fruits and

Vegetables Category (Phase II), EPA230/1-75-036, Supplement, April 1976.

4. Seafood.Fish Meal, Salmon, Bottom Fish, Clam,

Oyster, Sardine, Scallop, Herring, andAbalone, EPA 440/1-75/041-a.

Catfish, Crab, Shrimp and Tuna, EPA440/1-74-020-a.

Qualitative Economic Analysis of theSeafood Industry, May 1982

5. Sugar Processing.Beet Sugar Processing, EPA 440/1-74-

o02-b.Cane Sugar Processing, EPA 440/1-

74-002-c.6. Cement Manufacturing.Cement Maufacturing, EPA 440/1-74-

005-a.7. Feedlots.Feedlots, EPA 440/1-74-004-a.8. Phosphate Manufacturing.Other Non-Fertilizer Phosphate

Chemicals, EPA 440/1-75/043-a.9. Ferroalloys.Smelting and Slag Processing, EPA

440/1-74/008-a.Calcium Carbide, EPA 440/1-75/068.Electrolytic Ferroalloys, EPA 440/1-

75/038-a.10. Glass Manufacturing.Pressed and Blown Glass, EPA 440/1-

75-034-a.Flat Glass, EPA 440/1-74/001-c.Insulation Fiberglass, EPA 440/1-74-.

O01-b.11. Meat Products.Red Meat Processing, EPA 440/1-74-

102-a.Processor, EPA 440/1-74/031.Independent Rendering, EPA 440/1-

77/031-.e,. Supplement.12. Timber Products.

Timber Products, EPA 440/1-81/023.Economic Impact Analysis of Wet

Process Hardboard and InsulationBoard, EPA 440/2-80-089.

Economic Impact Analysis of WoodPreserving, EPA 440/2-80-087.

13. Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Mills.Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills,

EPA 440/1-80-025-b.Economic Impact Analysis of Pulp,

Paper, and Paperboard Mills, EPA 440/2-80-080, Vols. I and II.

14. Inorganic ChemicalsManufacturing.

Inorganic Chemicals ManufacturingPoint Source Category, EPA 440/1-82/007.

Economic Impact Analysis ofInorganic Chemicals ManufacturingIndustry, EPA 440/2-81/023.

15. Ore Mining and Dressing.Ore mining and Dressing (Proposed),

EPA 440/1-82/061-b.16. Metal Finishing.Metal Finishing (Proposed), EPA 440/

1-82/o91-b.Economic Analysis of Proposed

Effluent Standards and Limitations forthe Metal Finishing Industry, EPA 440/2-82/004.

Appendix D-Summary of Data

Incre- = ndsrIndustry subcategory mental PmT I cost

bench- ratiopoind) mark

(1) (2) (3)

Grain MillsCorn dry milling:

Small .........................................Large .........................................

Bulgar wheal .............................Parboiled rice ...............................Ready-to-eat

Small . .. . ...........Medium ....................................Large ...... .................

Wheat starch and gluten ...........Canned and Preserved Fruits

and VegetablesApple juice.small............ ..La e .................................

Apple products:small ......................................

Ciatrus products:small ................................Large .........................................

Frozen potato products:Small .........................................Large ....................................

Dehydrated potato products:small . -.. .... . ......Large .......................................

Canned and Preserved Fruits:Canned and PreservedVegetables

Mushrooms:Small .........................................Large ........................................

SauerkrautSmall ..............................

$0.55..58

1.02

.78-57-45.20

1.16.62

3.74.35

.39

.15

.12

.20

.13

.72

.59

3.50

2.5

2.17

7.5012.00

4.004.33

49199

49200 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 210 / Friday, October 29, 1982 / Proposed Rules

Industry subcategory

Large .........................................Tomatoes:

Sm all .........................................Large .........................................

Corn, peas:Extra Sm all ...............................Sm all .........................................M edium .....................................Large .........................................

Corn, peas: Sm all .......................Green beans: Medium ................Carrots: Large ..............................Frozen corn: Extra small ............Peas, green: Sm all .....................Beans: M edium ...........................Carrots: Large ..............................Broccoli: Sm all ............................Spinach: M edium ........................Lim a bean: Large ........................Cauliflow er ...................................Tomato, dry: Extra small ............Bean:

Sm all .........................................M edium .....................................Large .........................................

C herry, green: Sm all ...................Bean, pear: Medium ...................Plum : Large ..................................C herry: Sm all ...............................Caneberry: Large ........................Straw berry ....................................

Canned and MiscellaneousSpecialties

Potato chips:Extra Sm all ...............................Sm all .........................................M edium .....................................Large .........................................

Canned and preservedseafoods

Farm-raised catfish:Sm all .........................................M edium .....................................Large .........................................

Cony. blue crab ...........................Mach. blue crab:

Sm all .........................................M edium .....................................Large .........................................

Non-remote Alaskan crab-meat:Sm all .........................................M edium .....................................Large .........................................

Remote Alaskan crabmeat:Sm all .........................................M edium ............................ :Large .........................................

Non-remote Alaskan wholecrab:Sm all .........................................M edium .....................................Large .........................................

Aemote Alaskan whole crab:Sm all ........................... : .............M edium .....................................Large .........................................

Dungeness and tanner crab:Sm all .........................................M edium .....................................Large .........................................

Non-remote shrimp:Sm all .........................................M edium .....................................Large .........................................

Remote Alaskan shrimp:Sm all .........................................M edium .....................................Large .........................................

Northern shrimp:Sm all .........................................M edium .....................................Large .........................................

Southern-non-breaded shrimp:Sm all .........................................M edium .....................................Large .........................................

Incre-mental

(perpound)

(1)

2.90

.95

.49

1.291.29.80.51.70

1.221.32.63

1.571.421.101.07.99.77......... .;-75

1.24.76.60

1.50.90

2.105.251.20

1.50.84

1.14.74

1.361.12.84

.07

.06

.04

15.1712.9210.98

.07

.04

.05

19.7814.4310.39

.13

.10

.07

3.232.101.47

.33

.25.18

.05.04.03

.05

.04

.03

.07

.05

.04

Compa-rable

POTW/bench-

mark

(2)

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27....... 27.

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27,27.27.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

.27

Industrycostratio

(3)

Industry subcategory

Breaded shrimp:Small .........................................Medium .....................................Large .........................................

TunaSmall .........................................Medium .....................................Large .........................................

Fish meal .....................................West coast hand butchered

salmon:Small .........................................Large .........................................

West coast mech. salmon:Small .........................................Large .........................................

Alaskan bottom fish ....................Non-Alaskan mech.:

Small .........................................Large .........................................

Non-Alaskan conv. bottomfish:Small .........................................Medium .....................................Large .........................................

Hand-shucked clam : ...................Mechanized clam:

Small .........................................Medium .....................................

Pacific coast hand-shuckedoyster ........................................

Atlantic & Gulf Coast hand-shucked oyster ........................

Steamed and canned oyster.Sardine:

Small .........................................Medium .....................................Large ........................................

Non:Alaskan scallop ...................Non-Alaskan hernng filet ...........Abalone processing ....................

Sugar Processing

Beet sugar ...................................Crystalline cane sugar:

Small .........................................Large .........................................

Liquid cane sugar .......................

Cement Manufacturing

Incre-mental

(perpound)

(1)

.30

.17

.11

.55

.28

.211.17

1.58.70

.13

.09

.27

.08

.34

.24

.15(01

.01

.01

(i)

(I)

.03

7.844.793.96('i)

.04(i)

.03

.91.58.64

Leaching .................. 4.40Feedlots

D uck ..............................................

Ferroalloys ManufacturingOpen electric furnaces, wet...Covered elec. furnace ................S lag ...............................................Covered calcium carbide ...........Electrolytic manganese ..............Electrolytic chromium .................

Glass ManufacturingInsulation fiberglass ....................Plate ..............................................F lo a t ..............................................Auto. glass tempering ................Auto. glass laminating ................Glass container mftg ..................Glass tubing .................................Television picture tuba ...............Incandescent lamp .....................Hand pressed and blown

glass ..........................................

Meat products

Small processor ..........................Renderers ....................................

Phosphates

Sodium phosphates ....................

Timber

Wet process hardboird .............

Pulp, paper, and paperboard

Dissolving kraft: -

Option:2! ............................................2 ............................................

(I)

84.83.02

1.581.451.98

(I)

.3314.42

2.885.583.802.768.56

26.29

(4)

Co pa-rob I

POTW/bench-mark

(2)

Industrycostratio

(3)

(i)

(,i)

(I)

(,)

3.0

.27 ..............

27.27.27.27.27.27

(I)

(2)

1.0

(1)

0 .27 00 .27 0

(') ) 3 1)

.24 .30 .15

1.04.48

.30 11.8

.30 5.3

Incre- Compa-

Industry subcategory mental F POTW/ cost(per bench- ratio

,ound) mark

(1) (2) (3)

3 ...........................................4 ...........................................

Market bleached kraft:Option:

1 ...........................................2 ............................3 ............................4 ............................

BCT bleached kraft:Option:

1 ...........................................2 ............................3 ............................4 ............................

Alkaline fine:Option:

I ............................2 ............................3 ...........................................4 ...........................................

Unbleached kraft:Option:

1 ...........................2 ............................3 ............................4 ............................

Dissolving sulfite pulp:Option:

1 ............................

Papergrade sulfite:Option:

1 ...........................2 ...........................................3 ...........................................4 ...........................................

Groundwood-Thermomech.Option:

1 ...........................2 ...........................................3 ...........................................4 ...........................................

Groundwood-CMN papers:Option:

1 ...........................2 ...........................................3 ...........................................4 ...........................................

Groundwood-Fine papers:Option:

1 ......................................2 ...........................................3 .......................................4 ...........................................

Deink:Option:

1 ...........................................2 ...........................................3 ...........................................4 ...........................................

Tissue from wastepaper:Option:

1 ...........................................2 ...........................................3 ..........................................4 ........................

Paparboard from wastepaper:Option:

1 ...........................................2 ...........................................3 ...........................................4 ...........................................

Wastepaper molded products:Option:

1 ...........................................2 ...........................................3 ...........................................4 ...........................................

Builders paper and roofingfelt:Option:

1 ...........................................2 ...........................................3 ...........................................4 ...........................................

.53

.31

.33

.61

.63

.49

.31

.46

.52

.43

1.05.74.82.46

.40

.64

.62

.67

.70

.30

.53

.43

.20

.42

.38

.42

.08

.64

.55

.62

.441.06

.92

.65

.731.13

.97

.75

.14

.60

.52

.68

.512.001.80

.47

.791.841.05

.79

.642.851.66.55

.443.161.30

.51

.30 5.9

.30 3.4

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

30.30.30.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

.30

1.572.903.002.33

2.383.544.003.31

8.756.176.833.83

1.432.292.212.39

4.672.003.532.87

.911.911.731.91

.504.003.443.88

2.596.245.413.82

4.877.536.475.00

1.566.675.787.56

1.505.885.291.38

1.804.182.391.80

.512.281.33.44

2.3216.66.842.68

J I

Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 210 / Friday, October 29, 1982 / Proposed Rules 49201

Coma- industryIndustry subcategory mental POTWl cost(per bench- ratiopound) mark'

(1) (2) (3)

Nonintegrted-Fine papers:Option:

1 ............................................ .37 .30 1.542 .................... . 78 .30 3.253 .................... . 68 .30 2.834 .................... . 45 .30 1.96

Nonintegrated-Tissuepapers:Option:1 .................... . 45 .30 1.452 .................... 5.62 .30 18.13 .................... 2.67 .30 8.614 .................... 1.56 .30 5.03

Nonintegrated-Ughtweight:Option:

1 .......................................... .83 .30 1.982 .................... 5.23 .30 12.43 .................... 2.58 .30 6.144 .................... 1.44 .30 3.43

Semi-Chemical:Option:

1 ........................................... .65 .30 1.762 .................... . 54 .30 1.463 .................... . 65 .30 1.764 .................... 1.02 .30 2.76

Unbleached Kraft and Semi-Chemical:Option:

1 ............................................ .42 .30 2.002 .................... . 48 .30 2.293 .................... . 49 .30 2.334 ..................... 98 .30 4.67

Nonintegrated filter and non-woven papers:

Option:I .......................................... .83 .30 .192 .................... 6.09 .30 1.393 .................... 3.33 .30 .764 .................... 1.44 .30 .33

Nonintegrated paperboardOption:

1 .......................................... 4.51 .30 11.62 ................... 14.63 .30 37.53 .................... 9.56 .30 24.54 .................... 3.45 .30 8.85

Inorganic ChemicalManufacturing

Chlor-alkali-diaphragm cell . .53 .30 ...........Hydrofluoic acid ......................... .32 .30 .............

Ore Mining and DressingIron ore ......................................... .27 .42 ..............Aluminum ore .............................. .46 .42 ...............Radium, uranium, vanadium

ore ............................................. .47 .42 ...............Titanium ore ................................. .40 .42 ...............Tungsten ore .............................. . 37 .42 ...............Copper, lead, zinc, gold,

silver, platinum, and molyb-denum ...................................... . 34 .42 ...............

Metal FinishingMetal finishing .............. 10.88...............................

'No costs (except housekeeping) associated with meetingBAT.

'Not amenable to analysis.3BAT technology applies to wastewater of wet-scrubbers

only, costs and removals not available.4 Costa unknown.*Minimal costs associated with meeting BAT."Note: EPA reviewed all the cost data for the BCT

guidelines. In some cases, the cost per pound figureschanged from what appeared in the Federal Register onJanuary 6, 1981 (46 FR 1430).

'The calculations presented here apply to both the FineBleached Kraft and Soda subcategories.

'The calculations presented here apply to the Blow PitWash, and Drum Wash Papergrade Sufite subcategories.

(FR Doc. 82-28780 Filed 10-28-82; 8:45 am]BILUNG CODE 6560-50-M

Effluent Guidelines - Best Conventional Pollutant Control ... · that conventional pollutants...

Documents

Transcript of Effluent Guidelines - Best Conventional Pollutant Control ... · that conventional pollutants...