15684

the FEDERAL REGISTER through an appro-priate amendment to 39 CFR 111.3.

[FR Doc.77-8559 Filed 3-22-77;8:45 am]

Title 40-Protection of EnvironmentCHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCYSUBCHAPTER N-EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND

STANDARDS[FRL 702-71

PART 419-PETROLEUM REFININGPOINTSOURCE CATEGORY PRETREATMENTSTANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES

Final RegulationsPretreatment standards for existing

sources set forth in interim final formbelow are hereby promulgated by the En-vironmental Protection Agency (EPAor Agency). On May 9, 1974, EPA pro-mulgated a regulation adding Part 419 toChapter 40 of the dode of Federal Regu-lations (39 FR 16560). That regulation,with subsequent amendments on May 20,1975 (40 FR 21939), established effluentlimitations and guidelines for existingsources and standards of performanceand pretreatment standards for newsources for the petroleum refining pointsource category. Pretreatment standardsfor existing sources in the petroleum re-fining point source category were pro-.posed May 9, 1974 (39 FR 16574). Theregulations established here have beensubstantially modified from the form inwhich they were propbsed and, there-fore, are being established in interimfinal form here so that further commentscan be received. Theregulation set forthbelow will amend 40 CFR 419 petroleumrefining point source category by adding§ 419.14 to the topping subcategory(Subpart A), § 419.24 to the crackingsubeategory (Subpart B), § 419.34 to thepetrochemical subeategory (Subpart C,§ 419.44 to the lube subcategory (Sub-part D), and § 419.54 to the integratedsubcategory. (Subpart E) pursuant tosection 307(b) of the Federal Water Pol-lution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.t.1251 and 1317(b); 86 Stat. 816 et seq.;Pub. L. 92-500) (the Act).

(a) Legal Authority. Section 307(b)of the Act requires the establishment ofpretreatment standards for pollutantsintroduced into publicly owned treat-ment works (POTW) and 40 CFR 128 es-tablishes that the Agency will proposespecific pretreatment standards at thetime effluent limitations are establishedfor point source discharges. The regula-tions promulgated herein are a resultof further analyses subsequent to pro-posal of pretreatment regulations for ex-isting sources in the petroleum refiningindustry (39 FR 16574). Sections 419.14,419.24, 419.34, 419.44 and 419.54 set forthbelow establish in interim form pretreat-ment standards for existing sourceswithin the petroleum refining pointsource category..

(b) Summary and Basis of'Pretreat-ment Standards for Existing Sources.The regulation set forth below estab-lishes pretreatment standards for pollut-ants discharged to publicly'owned treat-ment works from existing sources within

RULES AND REGULATIONS

the subparts set forth in paragraph (a)above. This regulation establishes twosets of pretreatment standards under theauthority of section 307(b) of the Act.The first set, known as prohibited dis-charge standards, are designed to pre-vent inhibition or interference with themunicipal treatment works by prohibit-ing the discharge of pollutants of suchnature or quantity that the mechanicalor hydraulic integrity of the publiclyowned treatment works is endangered.These prohibited discharge standardswith minor changes are identical to theprohibitions contained in the generalpretreatment regulation now found at40 CFR 128.131. The second set, knownas categorical pretreatment standards,apply to existing sources in this specificindustrial subcategory. These standardscontain numerical limitations basedupon available technologies to preventthe discharge of any pollutant intoPOTW which pollutant may interferewith, pass through, or otherwise be in-compatible with such works.

With respect to the subcategories gov-erned by this regulation, the general pre-treatment requirements set forth in 40CFR Part 128 are superseded. Those re-quireMents were proposed on July 19,1973 (38 FR 19236) and published in finalform on November 8, 1973 (38 FR 30982).They' limit the discharge of pollutantswhich pass through or interfere with theoperation of publicly owned treatmentworks, but do not set numerical limita-tions or explicitly list particular pollut-ants to be regulated. The provisions ofthe present regulation overlap to a con-siderable degree with the language of thegeneral pretreatment requirements whileat the same time setting specific numeri-cal limitations on certain pollutants. Forthe purpose of clarity, sources affectedby the present regulation are exemptedfrom 40 CFR Part 128. This decision isparticularly warranted because the pro-visions of 40 CFR Part 128 have some-times been a source of confusion in thepast, and because new general pretreat-ment regulations have been proposed(42 FR 6476, February 2, 1977) which willrevoke and replace 40 CFR Part 128 uponpromulgation. In other words, all pre-treatment requirements established bythe Agency which are currently appli-cable to the subcategories listed in para-graph (a) above are included in the reg-ulation set forth below. When thegeneral pretreatment regulations arepromulgated, these standards will be re-viewed for consistency with -the generalpolicy stated therein.

The regulations establish the max-imum concentrations .of ammonia andoil and grease allowed to be dischargedby petroleum refineries to publicly ownedtreatment works (POTW). In addition,attachment A to the preamble of thisregulation provides guidance to the op-erators of POTW relative to pollutantssuch as chromium, sulfides, and phenoliccompounds, which, on a case-by-case ba-sis, may prove harmful to or not be ade-quately treated by POTW.. A supplemental technical study wasmade to determine the levels of pretreat-ment requirements which are appro-

priate considering the limitations estab-lished for direct dischargers under sec-tions 301 and 304 and the requirementsof section 307(b). The findings of this-study and the technical rationale for the.establishment of pretreatment standardsare summarized in Attachment A to thispreamble.

The report entitled "Supplement forPretreatment to the Development Doc-ument for the Petroleum Refining In-dustry; Existing PointSource Category"details the additional technical analysisundertaken in support of the interimfinal regulation set forth herein and isavailable for inspection at the EPA Pub-lic Information Reference 'Unit, Room2922 (EPA Library), Waterside Mall, 401M St. SW., Washington, D.C. 20460, atall EPA Regional offices and at Statewater pollution control offices. A sup-plementary analysis prepared for EPAof the possible economic effects of theregulation is also available for inspec-tion at these locations. Copies of bothof these documents are being sent to per-sons or Institutions affected by the regu-lation or who have placed themselveson a mailing list for this purpose (seeEPA's Advance Notice of Public ReviewProcedures, 38 FR 21202, August 6, 1973),An additional limited number of copiesof both reports are available. Personswishing to obtain a copy may write theEnvironmental Protection Agency, Ef-fluent Guidelines Division, Washington,D.C. 20460, Attention: Distribution Of-ficer, WH-552.

When this regulation is promulgatedin final'rather than interim form, re-vised copies of the technical documenta-tion will be available from the Superin-tendent of Documents, GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, D.C. 20402,Copies of the econqmic analysis docu-ment will be available through the Na-tional Technical Information Service,Springfield, VA. 22151.

(c) Public Participation. Prior to thispublication, many agencies and groups'were consulted and given an opportu-nity to participate in the development ofthese standards. As a result of commentsreceived following publication of theproposed regulation and further consid-eration by the Agency, pretreatment re-quirements for the petroleum refiningpoint source category have been furtherstudied. Immediately prior to this rule-making. the results of this study werecirculated for additional comments topersons known to be interested. In addi-tion, a public meeting was held on Jan-uary 21, 1977, to enable further publicparticipation. A summary of public par-ticipation In this rulemaking, publiccomments and the Agency's response,and reconsideration of these is containcdin Attachment B of this preamble.

(a) Economic Impact and InllationaryImpact Analysis. The Agency has stud-ied the economic and inflationary effectsof these standards and has made the fol-lowing estimates. Twenty-three of the26 indirect dischargers that were identi-fied are anticipated to incur some treat-ment costs for ammonia and oil andgrease removal. The total investment

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 56-WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 1977

RULES AND REGULATIONS

necessary is estimated to be $6.0 millionwith anannual cost of $2.2 million, wherethe annual cost includes depreciation,cost of capital, operating, and mainte-nance costs. This would increase the costper barrel of crude oil processed from$.02 for small plants to $.002 for largeplants. The additional cost of treatmentis estimated to be no more than 1 per-cent of the value added by the refinery.The user charges that are incurred bythese plants are expected to be less than$.01 per barrel of crude oil capacity.When user charges ,and estimated pre-treatment costs are combined, the re-sulting cost per barrel is still less thanthe $.16 per barrel costs that many di-rect discharging refineries must pay forwastewater treatment. This regulationwill reduce but not eliminate the com-petitive advantage of the indirect dis-charging refineries. They would have aslightly lower return on investment anda reduction in nonenvironmental invest-ment of no more than $6.0 million. Nochanges in production, prices, or em-ployment are expected to result fromthese standards.

The Agency recommends that sulfides,phenol, and chromium be controlled asneeded on an individual basis by localauthority. Therefore, an analysis wasperformed considering the costs of con-trolling these additional pollutants. Theinvestment cost is estimated to be an ad-ditional $14.9'million,-with a correspond-ng annual cost of $6.1 million, if allidentified indirect dischargers were re-quired to control sulfides, phenol, andchromium. The five indirect dischargingrefineries with the greatest potential foreconomic effects would incur pretreat-ment and user charge costs of no morethan $.06 per barrel of crude oil proc-essed. This cost remains below the S.16per barrel that many direct dischargingrefineries must pay for wastewater treat-ment. For those individual cases inwhich sulfides, phenol, or chromiummight be controlled, there is no expectedchange in price, production, or employ-ment.

Executfge Order 11821 (November 27,1974) requires that major proposals forlegisla.tion and promulgation of regula-tions and rules by agencies of the execu-tive branch be accompanied by a state-ment certifying that the inflationaryimpact of the proposal has been evalu-ated. The Administrator has directedthat all regulatory acions that are likelyto result in (1) annualized costs of morethan $100 million, (2) additional costs ofproduction of more than 5 percent ofthe selling price, or (3) an energy con-sumption increase equivalent to 25,000barrels of oil per day will require a cer-tified inflationary impact statement.None of these criteria are likely to be ex-ceeded due to these standards; however,the analysis that was performed meetsall the requirements of an inflation im-pact statement. It is hereby certifiedthat the economic and inflationary ef-fects of the proposal have been evalu-ated in accordance with Executive Order11821.

(e) Compliance Date. Section 301 ofthe Act anticipates that pretreatmentstandards for existing sources would beestablished and compliance would be re-quired before July 1, 1977, while section307(b) specifies "a time for compliancenot to exceed three years from the dateof promulgation" of the standard. Inview of this conflict of statutory lan-guage and the fact that the pretreatmentstandards are only now being promul-gated, the Agency believes that the com-pliance deadline as set forth in section307(b) should apply. The time for com-pliance with the categorical pretreatmentstandards will be within the shortest rea-sonable time but not later than threeyears from the effective date. However,this does not preclude a Regional Admin-istrator or local or State authority fromestablishing a more expeditious compli-ance date on an individual basis whereit is appropriate. Compliance with theprohibited discharge standards is re-quired immediately upon the effectivedate of these regulations since thesestandards are essentially the same as 40CFR 128.131 and since the deadlineoforcompliance with 40 CFR 128.131 haspassed.

The Agency Is subject to an order ofthe United States District Court for theDistrict of Columbia entered in NaturalResources Defense Council (NRDC) v.EPA, 8 E.R.C. 2120 (D.D.C. 1976) whichrequires the promulgation of pretreat-meat standards for this industry cate-gory no later than February 15,1977. Thecourt order which was entered by theUnited States Court for the District ofColumbia on June 8, 1976, following acon~ent agreement among the parties tofour lawsuits, placed EPA on rigid time-tables for the preparation and publica-tion of water pollution regulations for 21broad industry categories and 65 famIoiesof water pollutants.

It has not been practical to developand republish regulations for this cate-gory in a second proposed form and toprovide a 30-day comment period withinthe time constraints imposed by the courtorder referred to above. Accordingly, theAgency has determined pursuant to 5USC 553(b) that notice and comment onthe interim final regulations prior to pro-mulgation would be impractical and con-trary to the public interest.

Interested persons are encouraged tosubmit written comments. Commentsshould be submitted in triplicate to theEnvironmental Protection Agency, 401 MSt., SW., Washington. D.C. 20460, Atten-tion: Distribution Officer, WH-552. Com-ments on all aspects of the regulation aresolicited. In the event comments are Inthe nature of criticisms as to the ade-quacy of data which are available, orwhich may be relied upon by the Agency,.comments should Identify and, if possi-ble, provide any additional data whichmay be available and should indicate whysuch data suggest amendment or modifi-cation of the regulation. In the eventcomments address the approach taken bythe Agency in establishing pretreatmentstandards, EPA solicits suggestions as to

what alternative approach should betaken and why and how this alternativebetter satisfies the detailed requirementsof section 307(b) of the Act.

A copy of all public comments will beavailable for inspection and copying atthe EPA Public Information ReferenceUnit. Room 2922 (EPA Library) Water-side Mall. 401 M Street SW., Washington,D.C. 20460. A copy of the technical studyand economic study referred to above,and certain supplementary materials willbe maintained at this location for publicreview and copying. The EPA informa-tion regulation, 40 CFR Part 2, providesthat a reasonable fee may be chargedfor copying.

All- comments received within sixtydvs of publication will be considered.The Agency especially solicits commentsconcerning those refineries not IdentifiedIn the present study and those refineriesfor which hook-up to POTW is planned.Steps previously taken by the Environ-mental Protection Agency to facilitatepublic response within this time periodare outlined in the advance notice con-cerning public review procedures pub-lished on August 6. 1973 (38 TR 21202).

In addition, section 8 of the FWPCAauthorizes the Small Business Adminis-tration, through its economic disasterloan program. to make loans to a.pistany small business concerns in effectingadditions to or alterations in their equip-ment. facilities, or methods of overationso as to meet water Pollution control re-quirements under the FWPCA, if theconcorn Is likely to suffer a substantialeconomic Injurv without such assistance.

For further details on this Federal loanpro-ram write to EPA. Office of Analysisand Evaluation, WH-586, 401 M St, S.W.,Washington, D.C. 20460.

In consideration of the forezoing, 40CFR Part 419 is hereby amended as setforth below.

This rulemaking becomes effectiveMarch 23,1977.

Dated: March 11, 1977.DoGras . Cosmr,

Adminsrator.

Armcanu.- ATEcv mca= suORy AND BASIS rca

r.EGUL&TIONSThis attachment summarizes the basis

of interim final pretreatment standardsfor existing sources.

(1) General methodology. The pre-treatment standards set forth hereinwere developed in the following manner.The point source category was first stud-ied for the purpose of determiningwhether separate pretreatment stand-ards are appropriate for different seg-ments within the category. This analysisincluded a determination of whether dif-ferences in raw materials used, productsproduced, manufacturing processes em-ployed, age, size, wastewater constitu-ents, and other factors require develop-ment of separate standards for differentbegments of the point source category.T ne raw waste characteristics for eachsuch segment were then identified. This

FiDERAL REGISTER,.VOL 42, NO. 56-WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 1977

156S5

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Included an analysis of the source, flowand volume of water used in the proc-esses employed, the sources of waste andwastewaters in the operation, and theconstituents of all wastewater. The con-stituents of the wastewaters whichshould be subject to pretreatment stand-ards were identified. In addition, theAgency assessed the extent to which theconstituents discharged would passthrough or interfere with POTW.

The control and treatment technolo-gies existing within each segment wereIdentified. This included an identificationof distinct control and treatment tech-nologies, including both in-plant andend-of-process technologies. It also in-cluded an identification of the effluentlevel resulting from the application ofeach of the technologies, in terms of theamount of constituents and the chemi-cal, physical, and biological character-istics of pollutants. The problems, limi-tations and reliability of each treatmentand control technology were also identi-fied. In addition, the nonwater qualityenvironmental Impact, such as the effectsof the application of such technologiesupon other pollution problems, includ-ing air, solid waste, noise and radiationWere identified. The energy requirementsof each control and treatment tech-nology were determined as well as thecost of the application of suchtechnologies.

The information, as outlined above,was then evaluated in order to determinewhat levels of technology constitute thebest practicable pretreatment tech-nology. In identifying such technologies,various factors were considered. Theseincluded the total cost of application of'the technology, the age of equipmentand facilities involved, the processesemployed, the engineering aspects of theapplication of various types of controltechniques, process changes, nonwaterquality environmental impact (includ-ing energy requirements) and otherfactors.

The data upon which the above analy-sis was performed included EPA inspec-tions, consultant reports, and industryand POTW submissions.

(2) Summary of conclusions with re-spect to sections of the petroleum refin-ing point source category.

(I) Categorization. The petroleum re-fining point source category was subcate-gorized, in support of the direct dischargelimitations, primarily on process consid-erations. In the course of establishing asubcategorization scheme for the indirectdischarging segment of this industry, itwas determined upon analysis of loca-tion, age, economic status, size, waste-water characteristics, and manufactur-ing processes of indirect versus directdischargers, that there are no funda-mental differences that would warrant adifferent method of subcategorization forthe indirect discharge segment of thepetroleum refining industry. However, itwas further concluded that all indirectdischargers should be subject to thesame pretreatment standards. This con-clusion resulted from the fact that thepretreatment standards recommendedherein are imposed on a concentration

basis, as opposed to the mass basisutilized for direct dischargers. Addition-ally, the pollutants of concern for pre-treatment purposes are common to allrefineries' wastewaters regardless of thesubcategorization scheme previouslyestablished.

While it has been determined that theindirect dischargers should be subjectto the same' standards, the regulations'presented below are structured in thesame manner as the direct dischargingsegment. This approach was taken tokeep the regulation (40 CFR Part 419)straightforward and understandable.These pretreatment standards may,however, be subject to revision in thefuture in vieiv of the order of the UnitedStates District Court for the District ofColumbia entered in NRDC v. EPA, 8E.R.C. 2120 (D.D.C. 1976). Upon thisconsideration, it may become appropriateto revise the pretreatment standards insuch a manner as to -require subcate-gorization. Possible revisions to the pre-treatment standards that may requiredifferent subcategorization include: (1)the promulgation of mass limitations,which could involve the use of flowmodels similar to those for the BPCTCAregulations (40 CFR Part 419); or (2)the addition of specific problem pollut-ants to the list of compounds limited byth~se regulations.

(ii) Waste characteristics. The volumeof -process wastewater generated by theindirect discharge segment of the indus-try was found to be generally the same(per thousand barrels of feed stock) asthe direct discharge'segment of the in-dustry. Total effluent flows for indirectdischargers range from 0.006 million gal-lons per day (MGD) to 7.64 MGD, withthe average flow rate equal to 1.42 MGD.

Materials present in refinery effluentwastewaters include BeD, COD, oil andgrease, suspended solids, sulfides, am-monia, phenolic compounds, and chro-mium. The current study indicated thatthe mean concentrations of these pollut-ants are as follows: BOD5-165 mg/l;COD-923 mg/l; oil and grease--49.4mg/l; sulfdes-7.81 mg/I; ammonia-87.8 mg/l; phenols-27.0 mg/i; andchromium-0.84 mg/l. These values arebased upon all the data received for thesepollutants, whether or not best prac-ticable pretreatment technology existedat the refineries when the data wereobtained.

(iii) Origin of wastewater pollutants.Wastewaters emanate from a number ofsources within a refinery. Analysis of thedata collected shows that the majorsource of ammonia, sulfide, and phenol isthe sour water waste stream. Sour watersare produced when steam is used as astripping medium in the various crackingprocesses present in a refinery.

The major sources of oil and greaseare waste streams that, when combined,are referred to as the oily sewer. Thesewastewaters are normally generated bymany operations within a refinery, in-cluding pad washings, tank bottom wash-ings, and contaminated storm runoff.

The major source of chromium is cool-ing tower blowdown when chromiumcompounds are used as corrosion inhib-

Itors in a refinery's cooling water system.(iv) Treatment and control technol-

ogy. Wastewater treatment and controltechnologies have been studied for thisindustry to determine what should beconsidered as the best practicable pre-treatment technology. The pretreatmentstudy showed that the sources and con-centrations of pollutants are generallysimilar between all subcategories of thepetroleum refining industry. Therefore,the same control and pretreatment tech-nologies are available to the entire in-dustrial segment regardless of subcate-gorization.

Petroleum refinery wastes are general-ly treated by biological treatment. Priorto biological treatment, various pretreat-ment techniques are employed at directdischarging petroleum refineries. Thesepretreatment steps Include (1) oil andgrease removal through the applicationof API separators and dissolved air flo-tation units or other similar processesand (2) sulfide and ammonia removalthrough steam stripping of sour waterwaste streams. These pretreatment tech-nologies are employed to protect bio-logical treatment systems.

Sound pretreatment practice includesthe segregation of major wastewateratreams. Segregation can drastically re-duce the size of equipment needed forpretreatment. These wastewater streamsinclude: Storm water runoff, spent caus-tic, sour waters, and cooling tower blow-downs.

Newer refineries are being designed ormodified with reduction of water use andpollutant loading as a major part of thedesign criteria. Some of these techniquesare used by current Indirect dischargers,or may be planned with future mqdifica-tions.

Achievement of the pretreatment lim-itations for this industry will generallyrequire the following control and pre-treatment technologies which are iden-tical to those generally employed by di-rect dischargers: (1) The use of sourwater strippers for the removal of am-monia from the sour water wastestreams; and (2) the use of dissolved airflotation (DAF), or similar processes, Inaddition to the use of API separators,for oil and grease removal. At the presenttime, all indirect dischargers have APIseparators as part of their pretreatmentschemes.

The Agency also recommends that sul-fides, phenol, and chromium be con-trolled as needed on an individual basisby local authority. The data available tothe Agency at the present time do notsupport the implementation of uniformnational pretreatment standards forthese pollutants.

Phenolic compounds are biodegrada-ble by biota which become acclimated tothem. Many POTW are able to acceptindustrial effluents containing phenolwithout experiencing either upset orpass-through problems. The limited dataavailable relative to treatment of phe-nolic-bearing petroleum refinery waste-waters by POTW indicate that the re-moval efficiency of phenol by individualPOTW should be considered In the de-velopment of pretreatment standards for

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 56-WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 1977

15686

RULES AND REGULATIONS

this parameter. Therefore, pretreatmentstandards for phenol should be estab-lished on an individual basis by a POTWreceiving refinery wastewater. In thosecases where it is demonstrated that thePOTW is unable to adequately treat aspecific refinery's phenolic wastewaters,a phenol limitation of .35 mg/l (dailymaximum) can be achieved and is in-cluded as guidance for the purpose of as-

,sisting local authorities. The model tech-nology which supports this limitation isbiological treatment of Segregated sourwater stripper bottoms. Detailed discus-sion and supporting data are included inthe Development Document for EffluentLimitations Guidelines for the Pe--troleum Refining Point Source Category,and its Supplement for Pretreatment

'Standards.It was judged at this time to be inap-

propriate to set a specific national pre-treatment standard for chromium. Cur-rently, there is no specific pretreatmenttechnology practiced In the industry forremoval of this pollutant, and, therefore,removal data for specific technologieswere not available. This pollutant will bestudied more thoroughly in light of theorder of the U.S.- District Court for theDistrict of Columbia entered In NRDC vEPA, 8 E.R.C. 2120 (D.D.C. 1976).

In those individual cases'where chro-mium levels are judged to be having asignificant detrimental effect on aPOTW, by creating either upset or pass-through problems, a total chromiumlimitation of 1.0 mg/i (daily maximum)

,can be achieved and is included as guid-ance for the purpose of assisting localauthorities. The model technology whichsupports this limitation is the treatmentof segregated cooling tower blowdown byclarification, subsequent to reduction ofhexavalent chromium- to trivalent withsulfur dioxide. This technology is dis-cussed in the Supplement for Pretreat-ment to the Development Document forthe Pretroleum Refining Industry.

Sulfides discharged by refineries mayinterfere with the operation of a POTW,particularly with regard to corrosion ofconcrete pipes that are used to conveyeffluent to the treatment plant itself. Inthose individual cases where sulfidelevels are judged to have a significantdetrimental effect on a POTW, a sulfidelinitation of 3.0 mg/I (daily maximum)can be achieved and is included as guid-ance for the purpose of assisting localauthorities. The model technology whichsupports this limitation is steam strip-ping of sour water waste' streams. De-tailed discussion and supporting data areincluded in the Development Documentfor Effluent Limitations Guidelines forthe Petroleum Refining Point SourceCategoUy, and its Supplement for Pre-treatment Standards.

(v) Cost estimates for control ofwastewater pollutants. Since the indi-rect discharge segment of the industryhas been specifically identified, alongwith most of its pretreatment operations,total investment costs for compliancewith pretreatment standards have beendeveloped on a plant-by-plant basis. Thetotal investment costs for all identified

indirect discharging refineries are sum-marized by pollutant parameter as fol-lows:Ammonia --------------------. 3,787. 000Oil and grease .......... ----------- 2,40. 000

Totals --------------- . 0,244,000

These figures represent estimates ofthe maximum costs that would be ex-perienced if all identified indirect dis-charging refineries not having best prac-ticable pretreatment technology wereforced to implement technologies forammonia and secondary oil removal. Inactuality, the economic impact of pre-treatment standards on the industryshould be significantly less than the totalcosts shown, since it is anticipated thatmany refineries may not require all theequipment in the pretreatment model inorder to meet pretreatment standardsfor these two parameters.

The cost estimates presented above donot include land costs, and assume thatample space is available for the pre-treatment systems. In addition, the esti-mates -also assume that no unusualfoundation or other site-specific prob-lems exists. The land requirements arerelatively minimal conipared to thosefor refinery process equipment, and theland areas required should generally beavailable to petroleum refineries.

Total annual operating costs for theremoval of sulfides, ammonia, and oiland grease were developed with the useof model, or typical-sized, plants. Asummary of the total annual operatingcosts for these model plants are as fol-lows:Ammonia (barrels per day): Pcr-Dcar

20,000 ------------- 05095,000 --. -------------- 371,000150,000 ------------------ 03, 000

Oil and grease (MOD):0.08 -------------------------- e33. G001.0 ----------------------.. . . . 87.4004.4______ 217 0006.2- ------------- 284000

The total annual operating costs pre-sented above include chemical (includ-ing steam), pumping, labor, deprecia-tion of investment, and maintenancecosts. In regard to sulfide and ammoniaremoval, other operating costs, such astreatment of the off-gases and pH ad-justment of the sour waters, are not In-eluded due to the difficulty in determin-ing a representative value for the entireindustrial segment. While these factorsmay have an effect on the total operat-ing cost of implementing sour waterstripping technology, they are not ex-pected to have a significant effect on theconclusions of the economic impactstudy.

Costs were developed for the removalof sulfide, phenol, and chromium tocomplement the guidance values de-scribed above. The costs presented be-low for phenol removal are based uponthe use of biological treatment for re-moving phenols directly from the segre-gated sour water stripper bottoms. Thecosts for chromium removal are basedupon treatment of the cooling towerblowdown stream by reduction of hex-avalent chromium to trivalent chromiumwith sulfur dioxide, followed by clarlfi-

cation. The costs for chromium removalrepresent a maximum expenditure, sincechromium Is removedi in many refineriesby virtue of the reducing environmentin the plant sewers and the detentiontime afforded by the API separator. Thecosts for sulfide removal are based uponsteam stripping of sour water wastestreams.

Tota TG!2InnlBanr j pcr d~y Invel =Mt ca

Phenl r zr ah

1. o t ~ c

Chremlum rz~jra:

Sufl~da remowah~

(vi) Energy requirements and non-water quality environmental impacts.The energy requirements related to theimplementation of theze regulations arelimited to pumping requirements for liq-uid transfer, steam generation for sul-fide and ammonia stripping, and energyto operate various pumping- and mixingequipment associated with dissolved airflotation. Energy requirements for sourwater stripping can range from 1,000,-000 BTU/hr for a 20,000 bbl/day re-finery to 33,000,000 BTU/hr for a150.000 bbl/day refinery. Energy re-quirements for DAF can range from 6horsepower (H.P.) for a 20,000 bbl/dayrefinery to 180 H.P. for a 200,000 bblldayrefinery.

Nonwater quality considerations asso-ciated with pretreatment primarily re-late to the gaseous stream from sourwater strippers. Generally, the gaseousstream from a sour water stripper iseither incinerated or directed to a re-covery facility. If a second stripper isadded in series for anmonifa removal itIs not anticipated that the dispositionof the gaseous stream will create seriousproblems within the refinery. In fact, theue of two strippers in series allows forthe production of high purity sulfide andammonia off-gases which can be recov-ered and disposed of more readily. Insome refineries, ammonia is recoveredin the aqueous or anhydrous form andsold as a by-product of the stripping op-eration. The Agency solicits Informationwhich provides cost and other data re-garding sulfide and ammonia off-gas re-covery and disposal.

Sludges created by a blogcal systemfor phenol removal could be combinedwith other semi-solid wastes generatedin the refinery. T sludge should notbe offensive in nature, since it will notcontain sanitary sewage. Similarly,sludge generated by a DAF system couldbe combined with API separator sludgefor treatment and disposal. The oilyfroth could be directed to the refineryslop oil system or disposed of by incinera-tion.

In most cases the sludges describedabove are nonhazardous substances re-quiring only minimal custodial care.However, some constitutents may be

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 56-WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 1977

156S7

RULES AND REGULATIONS

hazardous and may require special con-sideration. In order to insure long termprotection of the environment from thesehazardous or harmful constituents, spe-cial consideration of disposal sites mustbe made. All landfill sites where suchhazardous wastes are disposed should beselected so as to prevent horizontal andvertical migration of these contaminantsto ground or surface waters. In caseswhere geologic conditions may not rea-sonably ensure this, adequate legal andmechanical precautions (e.g., imper-vious liners) should be taken to ensurelong term protection to the environmentfrom hazardous materials. Where appro-priate, the location of solid hazardousmaterials disposal sites should be per-manently recorded in the appropriateoffice of legal jurisdiction.

Other nonwater quality aspects, suchas noise levels, will not be perceptivelyaffected. Most refineries generate fairlyhigh noise levels (85-95 dB(A)) withinthe battery limits because of equipmentsuch as pumps, compressors, steam jets,flare stacks, etc. Equipment associatedwith in-process or end-of-pipe dontrolsystems would not add significantly_ tothese levels. There are no radioactive nu-clides used in the industry, other than ininstrumentation. Thus, no radiationproblems will be expected. Compared tothe odor emissions possible from otherrefinery sources, odors from the waste-water treatment plants are not expected-to create a significant problem. However,odors are possible from the wastewaterfacilities, especially from the possiblestripping of ammonia and sulfides in theair flotation units.

In summary, it is not anticipated thatany serious non-water .quality environ-mental impact will result from waste-water pretreatment processes.

(vii) Economic and inflationary im-pact analysis. The Agency has evaluatedthe inflationary and economic impactsof these regulations in accordance withExecutive Order 11821 that requires in-flation impact statements for major ac-tions. The primary approach in studyingthe effects of these pretreatment stand-ards was to assess each indirect dis-charger's relative competitive conditionas compared to direct discharging re-fineries. Since indirect dischargers formonly about 10 percent of all refineries,the prices and returns on investmentare primarily set by direct dischargers.The only major difference between thisgroup of indirect dischargers and otherrefineries is that they will incur usercharges and pretreatment costs ratherthan the costs of meeting the 1977 and1983 regulations for direct dischargers.The relative competitive advantage canbe assessed by comparing the differencesin cost. The economic analysis consid-ered the installation of treatment equip-ment that would control sulfides, oil andgrease, and ammonia. Since these stand-ards do not require the control of sul-fides, the following estimates have ex-cluded the costs of controlling sulfides.

The 23 plants that would need to im-prove their treatment systems are ex-pected to Incur an aggregate investment

cost of $6.0 million for treating ammo-nia, and oil and grease. The aggregateannual cost is estimated to'be $2.2 mil-lion, where the annual cost consists ofdepreciation, cost of capital, operating,and maintenance costs. This would in-crease the cost per barrel of crude proc-essed from $.02 for small plants to $.002for large plants. The additional cost oftreatment is estimated to be no morethan 1 percent of the value added bythe refinery. When these costs are com-bined with the payments to the munici-pal system,* which are expected to beless than $0.01 per barrel of crude ca-pacity, the resulting cost per barrel Isstill less than the water pollution treat-ment costs for direct discharging refin-eries, which wifl generally be more than$.16 per barrel for small refineries. Thisregulation will reduce but not eliminatethe competitive advantage of the indi-rect discharging refineries. They wouldthen have a slightly lower return oninvestment and a reduction in non-environmental investment of no morethan $6.0 million. No changes in produc-tion, prices, or employment are expectedto result from the application of thesestandards. There is a strong economicincentive to become an indirect dis-charger, and it is expected tlhat refinerieswill continue to move to municipal sys-tems when possible. Although the costson which the analysis was based weredeveloped for the Gulf Coast States, geo-graphical differences in costs are not ex-pected to be so large as to change theconclusions of the analysis.

The Agency recommends that sul-fides, phenol, and chromium be con-trolled as needed on an individual basisby local authority. An examination ofthe costs of treatment indicates that con-trol of any or all of these pollutants iseconomically feasible. The investmentcost is estimated to be an additional $14.9million, with a corresponding annual costof $6.1 million, if all identified indirectdischargers were required to controlthese pollutants. The five indirect dis-charging refineries with the greatestpotential for experiencing economic ef-fects would incur user charges and pre-treatment costs of no more than $.06 perbarrel ,of crude oil processed. This costremains well below the $.16 per barrelthat many. direct discharging refineriesmust pay for wastewater treatment.

ATTACMIUIENT B

SUMVIARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Prior to this publication, copies of thedraft development document ("DraftSupplement for Pretreatment to the De-velopment Document for the PetroleumRefining Industry; Existing Point SourceCategory," December, 1976) were sent toindustry trade groups, environmental in-terest groups, Federal agencies, andState, local, and territorial pollution con-trol agencies, and ESWQIAC (the Efflu-ent Standards 'and Water Quality In-formation Advisory Committee estab-lished under section 515 of the FWPCA).In addition, copies were sent to eachpetroleum refinery known to be discharg-ing to a POTW. These persons were given

an opportunity to participate In the de-velopment of lretreatment standards bysubmitting written comments. In addi-tion, a public meeting was held on Janu-ary 21, 1977, at EPA headquarters inWashington, D.C., at which interestedpersons were invited to express theirviews publicly. Public comments werealso solicited when existing source pre-treatment standards for this industrywere proposed in the FEDlE.AL RVOxsTERon May 9, 1975 (39 FR 16574).

The following organizations respondedwith comments: U.S. Department ofCommerce; County Sanitation Districtsof Los Angeles County; MetropolitanSanitary District of Greater Chicago;Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority;American Petroleum Institute; AshlandOil, Inc.; Atlantic Richfield Co.; BetzLaboratories, Inc.; Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.;Clark Oil and Refining Corp.; MarathonOil Co.; Mobil Oil Corp.; Shell Oil Co.;Texaco, Inc.; and Union OiECo. of Cali-fornia.

The major Issues raised by commentersduring the development of the interimfinal pretreatment standards and theresolution of these Issues are as follows:

(1) The establishment of nationalpretreatment standards was criticized.Many commenters suggested that pre-treatment standards be established on acase-by-case basis at the local level.

The Act requires that pretreatmentstandards be established on a uniformnational level, although individual mu-nicipalities may establish more stringentstandards. The standards are establishedon the basis of treatability and the tend-ency of the regulated pollutants to passthrough or interfere with the operationof POTW. The national standards for oiland grease and ammonia reflect the ap-plication of currently available technol-ogy as Implied in section 307(b) (2) ofthe Act. Rather than establishing na-tional standards at this time for chro-mium, phenol, and sulfides, limitationsare presented in Attachment A of thepreamble to this regulation to serve asguidance to local authorities implement-ing pretreatment programs.

(2) Several ' commenters Indicatedthat the use of chromium-based corro-sion inhibitors in cooling systems is moreeffective and economical than the sug-gested use of organic-based corrosioninhibitors.

The Agency recognizes that the use ofchromium-based corrosion inhibitorscan be more economical than the use oforganic-based inhibitors. However, chro-mium and Its compounds are includedon the list of pollutant parameters to bestudied pursuant to an order of theUnited States District Court for the Dis-trict of Columbia entered In NRDO VEPA, 8 E.R.C. 2120 (D.D.C. 1076). At thistime, a national pretreatment standardfor chromium is not recommended. Theuse of organic-based corrosion Inhibitors-and better control of cooling tower blow-down flows are encouraged for elimina-tion or reduction of chromium dis-charges. As indicated in the response tocomment #1, guidance for the controlof chromium discharges Is presented in

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 56-WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 1977

15688

RULES AND REGULATION3

Appendix A. This guidance limitationand attendant costs for compliance arebased on reduction of hexavalent chro-mium from the segregated cooling towerblowdown stream, rather than the useof organic-based corrosion inhibitors.However, the Agency intends to reassessthe need for a mational pretreatmentstandard for chromiun during the proc-ess of developing the-final pretreatmentregulation for the petroleum refiningindustry.

(3) Several commenters indicatedthat the current cost of steam is con-siderably higher than the cost figureused by EPA for costing purposes.

The Agency has reassessed the cost ofsteam. The interim final developmentdocument for pretreatment and the eco-nomic report include steam costs at$3.00/1,000 lb. rather than the $1.50/1,000 lb. estimate used in the draft docu-ment.

(4) One commenter argues that thereshould be no national pretreatmenitstandard for ammonia because somebiological systems have substantial re-)noval capability for ammonia and thatthe Agency should take this into accountif it promulgates a numerical standard.

The Agency recognizes that, at rel-atively low concentration levels, am-monia serves as a nutrient in the blo-oxidation process. However, excessivelyhigh levels of ammonia exhibit inhibi-tory effects on the bio-oxidation processand will pass through POTW untreated.The direct discharging segment of thepetroleum refining industry typically"pretreats" sour waters by steam strip-ping prior to biological treatment (e.g.,activated sludge, aerated lagoons) tominimize, among other things, excessiveammonia loadings in the biological sys-tem. The national pretreatment stand-ard for ammonia in the present regula-tion is based on the need to protectPOTW from excessive ammonia loadingsand is established at levels achievable bytechnology in common use today.

(5) Several commenters indicatedthat costs for downstream ammonia andsulfur recovery were not adequately ad-dressed in the draft development docu-ment.

The Agency recognizes that sufficientdata were not available during the studyto include meaningful cost estimates ofdownstream ammonia and sulfur recov-ery. The Agency solicits cost informa-tion on the types and capacities ofammonia and sulfur recovery systemsassociated with removal of these mate-rials from refinery wastewaters. In ad-dition, the Agency solicits explanationsand evaluations of existing or poten-tial problems relative to non-water qual-ity impacts from ammonia ind sulfidetreatment processes (especially air pol-lution). These comments will be care-fully considered in the development ofthe final pretreatment regulation forthis industry.

(6) Two commenters indicated thatthey presently have plants discharging toPOTW which were not identified in thestudy.

The Agency acknowledges that theserefineries were not identified by thestudy dnd is proceeding to solicit rele-vant information from these two refiner-ies for inclusion in the data base priorto promulgation of the final regulation.In addition, the Agency solicits informa-tion on other petroleum refineries whichwere not contacted during this study;this includes refineries which are pres-ently discharging to POTW and thosewhich are firmly committed to futurePOTW tie-ins.

(7) Several commenters argued thatthe factor used for adjusting costs from1972 to 1976 dollars (1.35) was unreal-istically low.

A cross-check of three additional costIndices-CE plant costs, A&S equipmentcosts, and ENR construction costs--yields a cost adjustment factor range of1.30 to 1.40 which comports with the costadjustment factor used in the study.

(8) Several commenters indicated thattheir costs incurred for installation ofwater pollution control facilities similarto those considered in this study wereconsiderably higher than those presentedin the draft development document.

The draft development document In-cludes an explanation that such costestimates did not Include land costs, un-usual foundation or site preparationcosts, or other unusual site-specific costs.Those commenters who argued that costestimates were understated did not pre-sent detailed Information to enable di-rect comparisons. The Agency solicitsdetailed cost estimates which includeitemized cost breakdowns (Me., landcosts, site preparation costs, founda-tion costs, equipment costs, Installationcosts, etc.). Based on the responses tothis request, the Agency will reassess, ifnecessary, the costs and economic Im-pacts prior to final promulgation of thisregulation.

Sections 419.14, 419.24, 419.34, 419.44,419.54 are added as follows:

§ 419.14 Pretreatment standards for ex-isting sources.

For the purpose of establishing pre-treatment standards under section307(b) of the Act for a source withinthe topping subcategory, the provisionsof 40 CFR 128 shall not apply. The pre-treatment standards for an existingsource within the topping subcategoryare set forth below.

(a) No pollutant (or pollutant prop-erty) introduced into a publicly ownedtreatment works shall interfere withthe operation or performance of theworks. Specifically, the following wastesshall not be introduced Into the publiclyowned treatment works:

(1) Pollutants which create a fire orexplosion hazard in the publicly ownedtreatment works.

(2) Pollutants which will cause cor-rosive structural damage to treatmentworks, but In no case pollutants with apH lower than 5.0, unless the works isdesigned to accommodate such pollut-ants.

(3) Solid or viscous pollutants inamounts which would case obstruction

156S9

to the flow In sewers, or other Interfer-ence with the proper operation of thepublicly owned treatment works.

(4) Pollutants at either a hydraulicflow rate or pollutant flow rate whichIs excessive over relatively short time pe-rods so that there is a treatment prac-ess upset and subsequent loss of treat-ment efficiency.

(b) In addition to the general pro-hibitions set forth in paragraph (a) ofthis section, the following pretreatmentstandard establishes the quality orquantity of pollutants or pollutant prop-erties controlled by this subseettionwhich may be introduced into a publiclyowned treatment works by a source sub-ject to the provisions of this subpart.

Pretreatmert-tandard-

iraxfrnura forany I day

Pollutant or (miMigrarnzpolutant property: per liter)

Ammonla (a3 AV) -IcOil and grea ....... ---------- 100

(c) Any owner or operator of anysource to which the pretreatment stand-ards required by § 419.14(a) are appli-cable, shall be in compliance with suchstandards upon the effective date of suchstandards. The time for compliance wifnstandards required by § 419.14(b) shallbe within the short(t time but not laterthan three years from the effecive dateof such standardi

I

419.24 Pretreatment standards for ex-isting sources.

For the purpose of establishing pre-treatment standards under section 307(b). of the Act for a source within thecracking subcategory, the provisions of40 CFR 128 shall not apply. The pretreat-ment standards for an existing sourcewithin the cracking subcategory are setforth below.

(a) No pollutant (or pollutant prop-erty) introduced into a publicly ownedtreatment works shall interfere ith theoperation or performance of the works.Specifically, the following wastes shallnot be Introduced into the publicly ownedtreatment works:

(1) Pollutants which create a fire orexplosion hazard in the publicly ownedtreatment works.

(2) Pollutants which wil cause cor-rosive structural damage to treatmentworks, but in no case pollutants ith apH lower than 5.0, unless the works isdesigned to accommodate such pollut-ants.

(3) Solid or viscous pollutants inamounts which would cause obstructionto the flow in sewers, or other interfer-ence with the proper operation of thepublicly owned treatment works.

(4) Pollutants at either a hydraulicflow rate or pollutant flow rate which isexcezsve over relatively short time pe-riods so that there is a treatment proc-ess upset and subsequent loss of treat-ment efficiency.

(b) In addition to the general prohi-bitions set forth in paragraph (a) ofthis section, the following pretreatmentstandard establishes the quality or quan-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 56--WEDNESDAY, MA.RCH 23, 1977

RULES AND REGULATIONS

tity of pollutants or pollutant propertiescontrolled by this subsection which maybe introduced into a publicly ownedtreatment works by a source subject to'the provisions of this subpart.

Pretreatmentstandard-maximumfor any I d

Pollutant or pollutant (milligramsproperty: per liter)

Ammonia (as N) ------------ 100Oil and grease ------------- 100

(c) Any owner or operator of anysource to which the pretreatment stand-ards required by § 419.24(a) are ap-plicable, shall be in compliance withsuch standards upon the effective dateof such standards. The time for compli-ance with standards required by § 419.24(b) shall be within the shortest time butnot later than three years from the ef-fective date of such standards.§ 419.34 Pretreatment standards for ex-

isting sources.

For the purpose -of establishing pre-treatment standards under Section 307(b) of the Act for a source within thepetrochemical subcategory, the provi-sions of 40 CFI 128 shall not apply. Thepretreatment standards for an existingsource within the petrochemical subcat-egory are set forth below.

(a) No pollutant (or pollutant prop-erty) introduced into a publicly ownedtreatment works shall interfere with theoperation or performance of the works.Specifically, the following wastes shallnot be introduced into the publicly ownedtreatment works:

(1) Pollutants which create a fire orexplosion hazard in the publicly owned,treatment works.

(2) Pollutants which will cause corro-sive structural damage to _treatmentworks, but in no case pollutants with apH lower than 5.0, unless the works isdesigned to accommodate such pollut-ants.

(3) Solid or viscous pollutants inamounts which would cause obstructionto the flow in sewers, or other interfer-ence with the proper operation of thepublicly owned treatment works.

(4) Pollutants at either a hydraulicflow rate or pollutant flow rate which isexcessive over relatively short time pe-riods so that there is a treatment processupset and subsequent loss of treatmentefficiency.

(b) In addition to the general prohibi-tions set forth in paragraph (a) of thissection, the following pretreatmentstandard establishes the quality or quan-,tity of pollutants or pollutant propertiescontrolled by this subsection which maybe introduced into a publicly ownedtreatment works by a source subject tothe provisions of this subpart.

Pretreatmentstandard-

maximum forany 1 d

(milligramsper liter)

Pollutant or pollutant property: -Ammonia (as N) ------------ 100Oil and grease -------------- 100

(c) Any owner or operator of anysource to which the pretreatment stand-ards required by § 419.34(a) are applica-ble, shall be in compliance with suchstandards upon the effective date of suchstandards. The time for 6ompliance withstandards required by § 419.34(b) shallbe within the shortest time but not laterthan three years from the effective dateof such standards.§ 419.44 Pretreatment standards for ex-

isting sources.For the purpose of establishing pre-

treatment standards under section 307(b) of the Act for a source within thelube subcategory, the provisions of 40CFR 128 shall not apply. The pretreat-ment standards for an existing sourcewithin the lube subcategory are set forthbelow.

(a) No pollutant (or pollutant prop-erty) introduced into a publicly ownedtreatment works shall interfere with theoperation or performance of the works,Specifically, the following wastes shallnot be introduced into the publicly

,owned treatment works:(1) Pollutants which create a fire or

explosion hazard in the publicly ownedtreatment works.

(2) Pollutants which will cause corro-sive structural damage to treatmentworks, but in no case pollutants with apH lower than 5.0, unless the works isdesigned to accommodate such pollut-ants.

(3) *Solid or viscous pollutants inamounts which would cause obstructionto the flow in sewers, or other interfer-ence with the proper operation of thepublicly owned treatment works..

(4) Pollutants at either 'a hydraulicflow rate or pollutant flow rate which isexcessive over relatively short time pe-riods so that there is a treatment proc-ess upset and subsequent loss of treat-ment 'efficiency.

(b) In addition to the general prohibi-tions set forth in paragraph (a) of thissection. the following pretreatmentstandard establishes the quality or quan-tity of pollutants or pollutant propertiescontrolled by this subsection which maybe introduced into a publicly ownedtreatment works by a source subject tothe provisions of this subpart.

Pretreatmentstandard-

maximum forany I day

(milligramsper liter)

Pollutant or pollutant property:Ammonia (as N) ------------- 1 00Oil and grease -------------- 1 00

(c) Any owner or operator of anysource to which the pretreatment stand-ards required by § 419.44(a) are appli-cable, shall be in compliance with suchstandards upon the effective date of suchstandards. The time for compliance withstandards required by § 419.44(b) shallbe within the shortest time but not laterthan three years from the effective dateof such standards.

§ 419.54 Pretreatment standards for ex.isting sources.

For the purpose of establishing pre-treatment standards under Section 307(b) of the Act for a source within theintegrated subcategory, the provisions of40 CFR 128 shall not apply. The pre-treatment standards for an existingsource within the Integrated subcate-gory are set forth below.

(a) No pollutant (or pollutant prop-erty) introduced into a publicly ownedtreatment works shall interfere with theoperation or performance of the works.Specifically, the following wastes shallnot be introduced into the publiclyowned treatment works: ,

(1) Pollutants which create a fire orexplosion hazard in the publicly ownedtreatment works.

(2) Pollutants which will cause corro-sive structural damage to treatmentworks, but in no case pollutants with apH lower than 5.0, unless the wor.s Isdesigned to accommodate such pol-lutants.

(3) Solid or viscous pollutants inamounts which would cause obstructionto the flow in sewers, or other interfer-ence with the proper operation of thepublicly owned treatment works.

(4) Pollutants at either a hydrauloflow rate or pollutant flow rate which Isexcessive over relatively short time pe-riods so that there is a treatment proc-ess upset and subsequent loss of treat-ment efficiency.

(b) In addition to the general prohi-bitions set forth in paragraph (a) of thissection, the following pretreatmentstandard establishes the quality or quan-tity of pollutant or pollutant proper-ties controlled by this subsection whichmay be introduced Into a publicly ownedtreatment works by a source subject tothe provisions of this subpart.

Pretreatmentstandard-

maximum fora?'l I d

Pollutant or (rinlligraizsPollutant property: per liter)Ammonia (as N1) ----------- 100Oil and grease -------------- 100

(c) Any owner or operator of anysource to which the pretreatmentstandards required by S19.54(a) treapplicable, shall be In compliance withsuch standards upon the effective dateof such standards. The time for com-pliance with standards required by§ 419.54(b) shall be within the shortesttime but not later than three years fromthe effective date of such standards.

[FR oc.77-8549 Filed 3-22-77; 8:45 aml

[FRL 702-81

PART 423-STEAM ELECTRIC POWERGENERATING POINT SOURCE CATE-GORY PRETREATMENT STANDARDSFOR EXISTING SOURCES

Interim RegulationsNotice is hereby given that pretreat-

ment standards for existing sources setforth In Interim final form below are

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 56-WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 1977

15690