PROPOSED RULES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

[40 CFRPart4406][zFL 263-5]

GRAIN MILLS MANUFACTURING POINTSOURCE CATEGORY

Effluent Limitations Guidelines for ExistingSources and Standards of Performanceand Pretreatment Standards for NewSourcesNotice is hereby given that effluent

limitations and guidelines for existingsources and standards of performanceand pretreatment standards for newsources set forth in tentative form beloware proposed by the Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA). On March 20,1974, EPA promulgated a regulation add-ing Part 406 to Chapter 40 of the Codeof Federal Regulations (39 FR 10512).That regulation with subsequent amend-ments established effluent limitations andguidelines for existing sources andstandards of performance and pretreat-ment standards for new sources for thegrain mills manufacturing point sourcecategory. The regulation proposed belowwill amend 40 CFR 406-grain millsmanufacturing point source category byadding thereto the animal feed sub-category (Subpart G), the hot cerealSubcategory (Subpart H), the ready-to-eat cereal subcategory (Subpart I) and,the wheat starch and gluten subcategory(Subpart J) pursuant to sections 301, 304(b) and (c), 306(b) and 307(c) of theFederal Water Pollution Control Act asamended (33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314 (b)and (c), 1316(b) and 1317(c); 86 Stat.816 et seq.; P.L. 92-500) (the Act).

(a) Legal authority-(1) Existinp'pointsources. Section 301(b) of the Act re-quires the achievement by not later thanJuly 1, 1977, of effluent limitations forpoint sources, other than publicly ownedtreatment works, which require the ap-plication of the best practicable controltechnology currently available as definedby the Administrator pursuant to section304(b) of the Act. Section 301(b) alsorequires the achievement by not laterthan July 1, 1983, of effluent limitations

.for point sources, other than publiclyowned treatment works, which requirethe application of best available tech-nology economically achievable whichwill result in reasonable further progresstoward the national goal of eliminatingthe discharge of all pollutants, as deter-mined in accordance with regulations is-sued by the Administrator pursuant tosection 304(b) of the Act.

Section 304(b) of the Act requires theAdministrator to publish regulations pro-viding guidelines for effluent limitationssetting forth the degree of effluent reduc-tion attainable through the applicationof the best practicable control technologycurrently available and the degree ofeffluent reduction attainable through theapplication of the best control measuresand practices achievable including treat-ment techniques, process and procedureinnovations, operating methods Andother alternatives. The regulation pro-posed herein sets forth effluent limita-

tions and guidelines, pursuant to sections301 and 304(b) of the Act, for the animalfeed subeategory (Subpart G), the hotcereal subcategory (Subpart H), theready-to-eat cereal subcategory (Sub-part I) and the wheat starch andgluten subcategory (Subpart J) of thegrain mills manufacturing point sourcecategory.

(2) New sources. Section 306 of theAct requires the achievement by newsources of a Federal standard of per-formance providing for the control ofthe discharge of pollutants which reflectsthe greatest degree of effluent reductionwhich the Administrator determinesto be achievable through application ofthe best available demonstrated controltechnology, processes, operating meth-ods, or other alternatives, including,where practicable, a standard permittingno discharge of pollutants.

Section 306(b) (1) (B) of the Act re-quires the Administrator to propose reg-ulations establishing Federal standardsof performance for categories of newsources included in a list published pur-suant to section 306(b) (1) (A) of theAct. The Administrator published In theFEDERAL REGISTER of January 16, 1973,(38 FR 1624) a list of 27 source categor-ies, including the grain mills manufac-turing category. The regulations pro-posed herein set forth the standards ofperformance applicable to new sourcesfor the animal feed subcategory (Sub-part G), the hot cereal subcategory(Subpart H), the ready-to-eat cerealsubcategory (Subpart I) and the wheatstarch and gluten subcategory (Suh-part J) of the grain mills point sourcecategory.

Section 307(c) of the Act requires theAdministrator to promulgate pretreat-ment standards for new sources at thesame time that standards of performancefor new sources are promulgated pur-suant to section 306. Sections 406.76,406.86, and 406.96, and 406.106 proposedbelow, provide pretreatment standardsfor new sources within the animal feedsubcategory (Subpart G), the hot cerealsubeategory (Subpart H), the ready-to-eat cereal subcategory (Subpart I) andthe wheat starch and gluten subcategory(Subpart J), of the grain mills pointsource category.

Section 304(c) of the Act requires theAdministrator to issue to the States andappropriate water pollution controlagencies information on the processes,procedures or operating methods whichresult in the elimination or reduction ofthe discharge of pollutants to implementstandards of performance under section306 of the Act. The report or "Develop-ment Document" referred to below pro-vides, pursuant to section 304(c) of theAct, information on such processes, pro-cedures or operating methods.

(b) Summary and Basis of ProposedEffluent Limitations Guidelines for Exist-ing Sources and Standards of Perform-ance and Pretreatment Standards forNew Sources. -

(1) General methodology. The effluentlimitations, guidelines and standards of

performance proposed herein were de-veloped In the following manner. Thepoint source category wv first studiedfor the purpose of determining whetherseparate limitations and standards areappropriate for different segments with-in the category. This analysis Includeda determination of whether differencesin raw material used, product produced,manufacturing process employed, a'o,size, waste water constituents and otherfactors require development of separatelimitations and standards for differentsegments of the point source categoryThe raw waste characteristics for eachsuch segment were then identified, Thisincluded an analysis of the source, flowand volume of water used in the processemployed, the sources of waste andwaste waters in the operation and theconstituents of all waste water. The con-stituents of the waste waters whichshould be subject to effluent limitationsand standards of performance wereidentified.

The control and treatment technolo-gies existing within each segment wereidentified. This included an Identifica-tion of each distinct control and treat-ment technology, including both In-plantand end-of-process technologies, whichare existent or capable of being designedfor each zegment. It also included anIdentification of, in terms of the amountof constituents and the chemical, phys-ical, and biological characteristics of pol-lutants, the effluent level resulting fromthe application of each of the technolo-gies. The problems, limitations and re-liability of each treatment and controltechnology were also Identified. In ad-dition, the nonwater quality environmen-tal impact, such as the effects of theapplication of such technologies uponother pollution problems, Including air,solid waste, noise and radiation weroidentified. The energy requirements ofeach control and treatment technologywere determined as well as the cost ofthe application of such technologies.

The information, as outlined above,was then evaluated in order to deter-mine what levels of technology con-stitute the "best practicable control tech-nology currently available," "bcst avail-able technology economically achievable"and the "best available demonstratedcontrol technology, processes, operat-ing methods, or other alternatives."In identifying such technologies, varl-ous factors were considered. Theseincluded the total cost of applicationof technology In relation to the ef-fluent reduction bcneflts to be achievedfrom such application, the age of equip-ment and facilities involved, the proce'.semployed, the engineering aspects of theapplication of various types of controltechniques, process changes, nonwaterquality environmental impact (Includingenergy requirements) and other factors,

The data upon which the above anal-ysis was performed included EPA sam-pling and Inspections, nd consultantreports, and industry submirslons.

The pretreatment standards proposedherein are intended to be complemon-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 181-TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1974

33470

PROPOSED RULES

tary to the pretreatment standards pro-posed for existing sources under 40 CFR128 The basis for such standards Is setforth in the FDERAL RcE a of July 19,1973, 38 FR 19236. The provisions ofPart 128 are equally applicable to sourceswhich would constitute "new sources,"under section 309 if they were to dis-charge pollutants directly to navigablewaters, except for section 128.133. Thatsecti6nl provides a pretreatment stand-ard for "incompatible pollutants"which requlre application of the "bestpiacticable control technology currentlyavailable," subject to an adjustment foramounts of pollutants removed by thepublicly owned treatment works. Sincethe pretratment standards proposedherein apply to new sources, sections406.76, 406.86, 406.96 and'406.106 belowamend section 128.133 to specify the ap-plication-of the standard of performancefor new sources rather than the "bestpracticable" standard applicable to ex-sting sources under sections 301 and

304(b) of the Act.(2) Suimary of conclusions with re-

spect to. the animal feed subcategory(Subpart G), the hot cereal.subategory(Subpart-H), the- ready-to-eat cerealsubcategory (Subpart I), and the wheatstarch and gluten subcategory (SubpartJ) "of the grain mills point source-category.

(D Categorization. For the purposeof establishing effluent limitations guide-lines and standards of performance, theanimal feed, breakfast cereal, and wheatstarch segment of the grain mills pointsource category has been divided intofour subcategories:

(1) Subpart G-Animal Feed Sub-category: This subcategory ,includesthose plants which utilize various grains,'protein, and other additives at theirfacility' for production of formula feedconcentrates for poultry and livestock.

(2) Subpart H-Hot Cereal Subcate-gory: This subcategory includes thoseplants, which produce various 'cerealsfrom grains, principally wheat and oats,

-which in turn requr. further cooking-prior to-being eaten. -

(3) Subpart I--Ready-to-Eat CerealSubcategory: This subcategory includesthose plants which process various grainsand other products (whole grain'wheat,

mce, corn grits, oat flour, .sugar, andminor ingrediets) at their facility to

'produce vaxious breakfast cereals readyfor human consumption without cookingprior to being served. -

(4) Subpart -Wheat Starch andGluten Subcategory: This subcategoryincludes those plants which utilize wheatflour as a, raw material at their facilityand through processes of pbysical separa-tion and refinement produce starch andgluten (protein) components.' actors such as raw materials used,

age and size of production facilities,principal products' and production proc-esses, waste water characteristics, andapplicablea- treatment methods sub-stantiate and verify thbs.categorization.

(il) Waste cl=acteristics.The imownsigrifficant 'Pollutant properties or con-

stituents of waste waters resulting fromthe manufacture of ready-to-eat cerealsinclude BODS, suspended solids, pH, andtemperature. Temperature is not asignificant pollutant parameter for proc-ess waste waters associated with wheatstarch and gluten operations. These proc-ess waste waters have relatively highlevels of nitrogen and phosphorus esn-tial to and effectively removed by biologi-cal treatment. Wheat starch and glutenmanufacturing process waste waters areparticularly characterized by high BOD5and suspended solids concentrationshaving considerable potential pollutingeffect. No process waste water was foundto result from the animal feed and hotcereal industries. The only water used inthe animal feed manufacturing industryis the addition of a small amount ofwater for dust control during graingrinding and for steam used during thepelleting operation. In hot breakfastcereal manufacture, only dry milling andblending operations exist Water Is usedonly sometimes for tempering and In-creasing moisture content of the hotcereal product.

(i0 Origin of waste water pollutants.A discussion of water usage and thesources of pollutant discharges for thevarious subcategories of the animal feed,breakfast cereal, and wheat starch seg-ment. of the grain mills point sourcecategory are as described below:

(1) Animal fee subcategory. Processwater used in the manufacturing processIs as described above In section (2) (1)entitled Waste Characteristics. No proc-ess waste water-results from this manu-facturing subcategory. (2) Hot cerealsubcategory. Process water used in themanufacturing process is as described-above n section (2) () entitled WasteCharacteristics. No process waste waterresults from this manufacturing sub-category. (3Y Ready-to-eat cereal sub-category. Process water is used quite ex-tensively for grain tempering, flavorsolution make-up, cooking, extrusion,coating, clean-up of processing and qon-veying equipment, cooling purposes, andn wet scrubbers for air pollution control.

Process waste water results primarilyfrom condensed vapors from cooking op-erations, wet clean-up operations, andwet scrubber discharge. Spent noncon-tact cooling water Is also generated. Theprincipal pollutants associated with thissubcategory are BOD5, suspended solids,pH, and temperature. The temperatureof the untreated waste water stream (900to I10' F) is due principally to the dis-charge of spent noncontact cooling waterand hot water clean-up to the processwaste water flow. The higher tempera-ture results in the shredded cereal pro-duction due to the process waste wateritself. Under present waste water han-dling procedures, waste water as leavingthe plant site has, not been found to bedetrimental to conventional biologicaltreatment systetns and further evapora-tive cooling occurring through the treat-ment process Is sufclent to reduce tem-perature to near ambient waste watercharacteristics without heat addition.

=.371

The largest waste load from ready-to-eatcereal manufacturing results from clean-up and washing operations. (4) Wheatstarch and gluten subcategory. Water isused within this subcategory for doughmaking, dough washing, back washing ofscreens, counter current was-hing of cen-trifuge diChaes, plant clean-up, boilerfeed, and cooling purposes. The princi-pal pollutants associated with this sub-category are BOD5, suspended solids, andpH. Principal waste water contributionsresult from starch milk screening, thick-ening, centrifugation, dewatering and B-starch concentration, and plant clean-up. This waste is characterized by highorganic and suspended solids content be-ing attributed largely to finely suspendedstarch particles from unrecovered starchin the process. Relatively high nitrogenand phosphorus concentrations contrib-ute to the ready biodegradability of thewaste. Cellulose fiber collected fromscreening devices necessitates m satisac-tory disposal method for this solid waste.

(iv) Treatment and control technol-ogy. Waste water treatment and controltechnologies have been studied for eachsubcategory of the industry to determinewhat is (a) the best practicable controltechnology currently available, (b) thebest available technology economicallyachievable, and (c) the best availabledemonstrated control technology, proc-esses, operating methods or other alter-natives.

Technologies such as waste equaliza-tion, activated sludge, waste stabilizationlagoons, deep bed filtration, activatedcarbon filtration and reverse osmosishave been considered for the treatmentand handling of process waste watersfrom the ready-to-eat cereal, and wheatstarch and gluten manufacturing sub-categories. Because of the general prac-tice of discharging process waste watersfrom these subcategories to municipalse*age systems, many of these technolo-gies are not currently practiced withinthese industries. Pilot plant studies andoperational pretreatment facilities haveamply and reliably demonstrated theready biodegradability and amendabilityfor treatment of both ready-to-eatcereal, and wheat starch and luten plantwastes. The technologies considered arereadily transferable due to their widepractice within other Industrial cate-gories or within the field of water treat-ment. Experiences with treatment of"similar wastes provide evidence for an-ticipated removals of pollutants by ap-plcable technologies.

The following is a discussion of thecontrol and treatment technologies rec-,ommended for each subcategory as bestpracticable control technology currently.available and best available technologyeconomically achievable.

(1) Recommen d control and treat-ment-AnImal feed subategory.

Since no process waste water resultsfrom operations within this subcategory,the best practicable control technologycurrently available and the best avail-able technology economically achievable

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 181j-TUESDAY, SEPMABER 17, 1974

33472

recommend no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters.

(2) Recommended control and treat-ment-Hot cereal subcategory. Since noprocess waste water results from opera-tions within this subcategory, the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable and the best available technol-ogy economically achievable recommendno discharge of process waste water pol-lutants to navigable waters.

(3) Recommended control and treat-ment-Ready-to-eat cereal subcategory.At present, all 47 cereal plants with oneexception discharge their process wastewaters to nearby municipal sewage sys-tems. One plant presently provides notreatment of process waste waters priorto discharge to receiving waters. How-ever, a municipal connection for thisplant is presently planned. Best practi-cable control technology currently avail-able would be applicable where directdischarge of process waste waters to navi-gable waters results, and for this sub-category would require that a plantachieve effluent levels of 70 mg/1 BOD5and suspended solids at an average totalprocess waste water flow of 5.8 1/kg (0.7gal/lb) of cereal product. Since the proc-ess waste water is greatly attributable toclean-up operations, minimization ofwater usage for this purpose is an inte-gral part of the technology. These levelsof pollutant reductions are not currentlypracticed at any plant in the industry,since these plants currently convey proc-ess waste water to municipal sewage sys-tems for treatment. However, the proc-ess waste water has been demonstratedto be readily treatable by conventionalbiological treatment, and the technologyhas been satisfactorily demonstrated tobe capable of achieving the effluent levelsthrough pilot plant and prototype in-stallations. Achievement of the recom-mended effluent limitations and bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable is based upon in-process con-trol for minimization of clean-up wateruse, and end-of-pip6 treatment includ-ing equalization and activated sludge.Sedimentation and sludge handling fa-cilities are included. Corresponding BOD5.and suspended solids reductions of 94percent and 67 percent of the averagewaste load will result.

Best available technology economicallyachievable recommends that deep bed fil-tration be added with the treatmentsteps under best practicable control tech-nology currently available. This addi-tion will further reduce BOD5 and sus-pended solids in the process waste waterstream to 30 mg/1 at the current averagewaste water flow. Corresponding percentremovals are 97 and 87 percent for BOD5and suspended solids.

(4) Recommended control and treat-ment-Wheat starch and gluten cate-gory. Of the present 7 wheat starch andgluten plants, 6 discharge all processwaste waters to municipal sewage sys-tems. One plant utilizes the starch-ladenprocess waste water from the wheatstarch and gluten manufacturing proc-ess as, a high-carbohydrate raw materialin an associated distillery operation. Dis-

PROPOSED RULES

tillery effluent is presently being dis-charged without treatment to surfacewaters, however an elaborate treatmentsystem is tow under construction. In-plant control to reduce pollutants inwheat starch and gluten manufacturingby conventional techniques offers littlepotential. Waste water flow and loadsattributable to clean-up operations arerelatively insignificant in terms of totalprocess waste water characteristics. Theprocess inherently produces a. wastewater characterized by its extremely highBOD5 (6,000 to 14,000 mg/I) and sus-pended solids (5100 to 15,000 mg/1)levels. The high BOD5 concentrationmay be accounted for largely by highconcentration of very finely suspendedstarch particles. Best practicable controltechnology currently available would beapplicable where direct discharge ofprocess waste waters to navigable watersresults, and for this subcategory wouldrequixe that a plant achieve effluent levelsof 200 mg/I each, for BOD5 and sus-pended solids, at an average total proc-ess waste water flow of 10 1/kg (1.2 gal/lb) of wheat flour processed. These levelsof pollutant reduction are not currentlyachieved at any plant in the industry,since process waste water is generallydischarged to municipal sewage facili-ties for treatment. Ready biodegradabil-ity of the process waste waters and theiramendability to conventional treatmentmeasures has been well demonstratedthrough operational and experimentalfull-scale systems, as well as pilot plantstudies. With consideration of the high-strength nature of the waste and Its pol-luting potential, and present practices asnow demonstrated in the industry, atransfer of pollution control technologyfor this subcategory is necessary and ap-propriate. Applicable control technologiesare known and readily transferable withreasonable expectancy for predicted pol-lutant removals based on past experiencewith treating similar high-strengthwaste. The high BOD5 concentrationbeing attributable in large part to sus-pended starch particles necessitates highremoval of suspended solids through sedi-mentation and/or filtration. Best prac-ticable control technology currentlyavailable is based upon minimization ofinplant water use for clean-up and end-of-pipe treatment including pH, neutral-izatiofi, equalization and activatedsludge. 'Sedimentation, sludge handlingand effluent chlorination are included.The recommended technology is capa-ble of reliably achieving BOD5 and sus-pended solids reduction of 98 and 97 per-cent, respectively.

Best available technology economicallyachievable recommends that deep bed fil-tration be added with the treatment stepsunder best practicable control technologycurrently available. This addition willfurther reduce BOD5 and suspendedsolids in the process waste water streamto 50 mg/1 and 40 mg/l, respectively, atthe current average total waste waterflow. Removal efficiency is 99 percent for-both BOD5 and suspended solids.

(5) Solid waste control. The applica-tion of these technologies, requires that

solid waste control must be considered.Best practicable control technology andbest available control technology ms theyare known today, require disposal of thepollutants removed from waste watersin this industry in the form of solidwastes and liquid concentrates. In mostcases these are non-hazardous substancesrequiring only minimal custodial care,However, some constituents may be haz-ardous and may require special consid-eration. In order to ensure long-termprotection of the environment from thesehazardous or harmful constittients, 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. imperviousliners) should be taken to ensure long-term protection to the environment fromhazardous materials. Where appropriatethe location of solid hazardous materialsdisposal sites should be permanently re-corded in the appropriate office of legaljurisdiction. It should be noted that thereis no evidence that the application of therecommended control and treatmenttechnologies will result in any unusualsolid waste disposal problems for this in-dustry segment.

(v) Cost estimates for control of wastewater pollutants. Since the animal feedand hot cereal subcategories do not ro-sult in the generation of process wastewaters, the only subcategories havingcost importance for control of processwaste water pollutants are ready-to-eatcereal, and wheat starch and glutenmanufacture. Within the ready-to-catcereal subcategory, all plants presentlydischarge, or anticipate the discharge (inonly one case) of all proces5 wastewaters to municipal sewage systems. n-vestment costs and total annual costs forthis subcategory to achieve the proposedbest practicable control technology cur-rently available effluent limitationsguidelines may be estimated to be $811,-800 and $199,200, respectively. This as-sumes that the one plant planning fordischarge of its process waste water tomunicipal facilities does not effect sucha connection, and that separate wastehandling and treatment are then neces-sary prior to discharge to navigablewaters.

Process waste water from 6 of thewheat starch and gluten plants in theU.S. is discharged to municipal systems;process waste water from the remainingplant is utilized as a raw material In anadjacent distillery. The distillery wastesare presently discharged untreated tonavigable waters: however, extensivetreatment facilities are now being con-structed to substantially reduce pol-lutant loads. In view of present practices,no significant investment and annualcosts may be presently attributable orforeseen for this subcategory to achievethe proposed effluent limitation guide-lines for best practicable control tech-nology currently available. This estimate

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 181-TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1974

PROPOSED RULES

is based on the assumption that onlysurface dischargers are affected by theproposed guidelines.

The investment and total annual coststo achieve the proposed best availabletechnology economically achievable efflu-eht limitations guidelines for all subcate-gories within the segment are estimatedsimilarly as above, except that the in-vestment and total annual costs for theready-to-eat cereal subcategory are$875,300 and $223,100, respectively. Thehigher costs reflect the increased levelof effluent pollutant reduction associatedwith the proposed best available tech-nology economically achievable. No in-vestment and total annual costs may beattributable to the animal feed, hot ce-real, and wheat starch and gluten sub-categories. This estimate ig based on theassumption that only surface dischargersare affected by the proposed guidelineswith no credit given for those facilitieswhich employ technology representativeof a portion of the best available tech-nology economically achievable. This es-timate also includes those costs asso-ciated with best practicable control tech-nology currently available.

(vi) Energy requirements and non-water quality environmental impacts.The process waste water treatment andcontrol technologies required to achievethe best practicable control technologycurrently available and the best avail-able technology economically achievabledo not require unusually high energy re-quirements. Power would be needed foraeration, pumping, centrifugation, andother unit operations. Power require-ments to achieve the levels of technologyare in the range of 75 to 310 kw (100 to500 hp) for ready-to-eat cereal plantsand 150 to 220 kw (200 to 300 hp) forwheat starch and gluten plants. Thislevel of energy demand is generally lessthan one percent of the total energy re-quirements of an average-sized ready-to-eat cereal or wheat starch and glutenplant. It is concluded that the energyneeds for achieving waste water treat-ment where discharge of process wastewaters results, constitute only a smallportion of the energy demands of the en-tire industry. These added demandscould be accommodated readily by pur-chased and in-house power sources. Thefact that essentially all ready-to-eatcereal, and wheat starch and glutenplants now discharge to municipal sew-age systems supports the conclusion thatno appreciable energy Increase will likelyresult with continuation of present prac-tices. Because of no process waste waterdischarge for the animal feed and hotcereal subcategories, no additional pol-lution control measures are required,and therefore no related energyrequirements.

-There is no evidence that application- of the proposed effuent limitations

guidelines will result in any unusual airor solid waste disposal problems. Somepotential odors from any biologicaltreatment system exist particularlywhen treating high organic contentwastes. However, this ever-present po-

tential may be ellminated or minimizedthrough the selection, desin, and op-eration of biological treatme r.nytenmConsiderable amounts of solids createdIn biological treatment of ready-to-eatcereal and wheat starch manufacturingwaste are subject to conventional meth-ods of handling and dispozal e.g., dige3-tion, dewatering, disposal in a sanitarylandfill, or Incineration. Disposal ofsolid material so as not to contribute pol-lutants to navigable vmters is necessaryand can be technologically accomplished.

(vii) Economic impact analysis. Allready-to-eat cereal plants are, or will bein the near future, connected to mu-nicipal treatment systems and vill In-cur no costs as a result of thee guide-lines. Regardle-s, the costs of compli-ance for this segment will be low;either return on investment (after-tax)would fall 0.3 percent at most or priceincreases would be a maximum of 0.7percent. Additional price incre"-e for1983 requirements would be less than 0.1percent. Industry production, employ-ment and growth would not be slnill-cantly affected.

Of the seven existing wheat starchplants, none are direct dischargers. How-ever, in the future, these plants have theoption of continuing to wse a municipalSystem or of investing In pollution con-trol facilities. Some plants are givingserious consideration to the latter alter-native due to the rising costs of munici-pal treatment. BPT Is a flnnelally viablealternative for most wheat starch plants.However, two plants probably would closeif It became necessary to construct awaste treatment Installation In com-pliance with BPCTCA guidelines.

The report entitled 'Development Doc-ument for Proposed Effluent LimitationsGuidelines and New Source PerformanceStandards for the Animal Feed, Break-fast Cereal, and Wheat Starch Segmentof the Grain Mill, Point Source Cate-gory" details the analysis undertaken Insupport of the regulation being proposedherein and is available for Inspection Inthe EPA Information Center, Room 227.West Tower, Waterside Mall, Washing-ton, D.C., at all EPA regional offlces, andat State Water pollution control offices.A supplementary analysis prepared forEPA of the possible economic effect- ofthe proposed regulation Is also availablefor inspection at these locations. Copiesof both of these documents ara beingsent to perons or institutions affectedby the proposed regulation, or who haveplaced themselves on a mailing lst forthis purpose (see EPA's Advance Noticeof Public Review Procedures, 38 FR21202, August 6, 1973). An additionallimited number of copies of both reportsare available. Persons wishing to obtaina copy may write the EPA Informa-tion Center, Environmental ProtectionAgency, Washington. D.C. 204G0, Atten-tion: Mr. Philip B. WIsman.

On June 14, 1973, the Agency pub-lished procedures designed to insure that,when certain major standards, regula-tions, and guidelines are propozed, anexplanation of their b"sd', purpose and

environmental effects is made availableto the public (38 FR 15653). Thj pro-cedures are applicable to major stand-ards, regulations and guidelines whichare propozsd on or aftr December 31,1973, and which preccribe nationa stand-ards of environmental quality or requirenationalemf- -- n, efiuentorperformancestanmads and limitations.

The Agency determined to Implementthese procedures in order to In=ure thatthe public was apprised of the environ-mental effect- of Its major standarcls-LEtting actions and as provided withdetailed brachground information to a-slat It in commenting on the merits ofa propoZed action. In brief, the proce-dure call for the Agency to make publicthe information available to it delirit-ing the major nonenvironmental factorsaffecting the decision, and to e--plain theviable options avvil ble to It and thereasons for the option selected.

The procedures contemplate publica-tion of this information in the F==LRos=, w-here this is practicable. Theyprovide, however, that where, because ofthe length of these materials, such pub-11cation Is impracticable, the materialmay be made avalable in an alternateformat.

The report entitled °DevelopmentDocument for Proposed EIuent Limita-tions Guidelines and New Source Per-formance Standards for the AnimalFeed, Breakfast Cereal, and WheatStarch Segment of the Grain Mills PointSource Category" contains Informationavailable to the Agency concerning themajor environmental effects of the regu-lation proposed below, Including:

(1) the pollutants presently dis-charged into the Nation's vaterways bymanufacturers of animal feed, hot cereal,ready-to-eat cereal, and wheat starchand gluten, and the degree of pollutionreduction attainable from implementa-tion of the proposed guidelines andstandards (see particularly Sectins IV,V, VI, IX,. , and =3 ;

(2) the anticipated effects of the pro-poed regulation on other aspects of theenvironment Including air, and solidw.aste dispozal (se prticularly SectionVIII);

(3) options available to the Agency indeveloping the proposed regulatory Sys-tem. and the reasons for Its selecting theparticular levels of efluent reductionwhich are proposed (see Particularly Sec-tions V, VI,, and VflD.

Tho supplementary report entitled"Economic Analysis of Proposed EfluentGuideline3 for Animal Feed, BreakfastCereal and Mheat Starch Segment ofthe Grain Zills Point Source Category',July, 1974, contains an estimate of thecost of pollution control requirementsand an analysi of the pozible effectsof the propo ed regulation on prices, pro-duction levels, employment, communitiesin which animal feed, hot cereal, ready-to-eat cereal, and wheat starch andgluten manufacturing plants are located,and international trade. In addiffon, theDevelopment Document deccribe, laSection VIII, the cost and energy con-.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 181-TUESDAY, SEPTEMB6 17, 1974

=73

PROPOSEb RULES

sumption implications of the proposedregulations.

The two reports described above in theaggregate exceed 200 pages in lehgth andcontain a substantial number of charts,diagrams, and tables. It is clearly im-practicable to publish the material con-tained.in these documents in the FEDERALREGISTER. To the extent possible, signif-icant aspects of the material have beenpresented in summary form in foregoing,portions of this preamble. Additionaldiscussion is contained in the followinganalysis of comments received and theAgency's response to them. As has beenindicated, both documents are availablefor inspection at the Agency's Washing-ton, D.C. and regional offices and atState water pollution control agencyoffices. Copies of each have been distrib-uted to persons and institutions affectedby the proposed regulations or who haveplaced themselves on a mailing list forthis purpose. Finally, so long as the sup-ply remains available, additional copiesmay be obtained from the Agency asdescribed above.

When this regulation is promulgated,revised copies of the Development Docu-ment will be available from the Superin-tendent of Documents, GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.Copies of the Economic Analysis will beavailable through the National TechnicalInformation ,Service, Springfield, Vir-ginia, 22151.

(c) Summary of public participation.Prior to this publication, the agenciesand groups listed below were consultedand given an opportunity to participatein the development of effluent limita-tions, guidelines and standards proposed'for the animal feed, breakfast cereal, andwheat starch segment of the grain millspoint source category. All participatingagencies have been informed of projectdevelopments. An initial draft of theDevelopment Document was sent to allparticipants and comments were solic-ited on that report. The following arethe principal agencies and groups con-sulted: (1) Effluent Standards and WaterQuality Information Advisory Commit-tee (established'under section 515 of theAct); (2) all State and U.S. TerritoryPollution Control Agencies; (3) NewEngland Interstate Water Pollution Con-trol Commission; (4) Ohio River ValleySanitation Commission; (5) DelawareRiver Basin Commission; (6) AmericanFeed Manufactures Association; (7)Cereal Institute; (8) Gerber ProductsCompany; (9) Malt-O-leal Company;(10) Van Brode Milling Company, Inc.;(11) Standard Milling Company; (12)Loma Linda Foods; (13) Far-Mar Com-pany; (14) Midwest Solvents; (15) A. E.Staley Manufacturing Company; (16)Centennial Mills; (17) New Era MillingCompany; (18) Baker/Beech-Nut; (19)CPA International, Inc.; (20) NationalOats Company; (21) Pillsbury Company;(22) The American Society of Mechani-cal Engineers; (23) The ConservationFoundation; (24) Businessmen for thePublic Interest; (25) Environmental De-fense Fund, Inc.; (26) Natural Resource

Defense Council; (27) The AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers; (28) WaterPollution Control Federation; and (29)National Wildlife Federation.

The following responded with com-ments: General Mills, Inc.; AmericanFood Manufacturers Association; Stateof Colorado Department of PublicHealth; United States Water ResourcesCouncil; Research Division, Far-MarCo., Inc.; Baker/Beech-Nut Corporation;Kellogg Company; Nabisco Inc.; State ofMichigan Department of Natural Re-sources; Minnesoth Pollution ControlAgency; A. E. Staley. ManufacturingCompany; New York State Departmentof Environmental Conservation; ThePillsbury Company, CPC International,Inc.; U.S. Department of Agriculture;Centennial Mills; Delaware River BasinCommission; U.S. Department of Health,Education, and Welfare; National OatsCompany; and the U.S. Department ofthe Interior.

The primary issues raised in the de-velopment of the proposed effluent limita-tions guidelines and standards of per-formance and the treatment of these is-sues herein as as follows:

(1) A common criticism was thatmaximum effluent limitations for BATEAand new source performance standardswere suggested based on daily values.

Maximum effluent limitations stipu-lated for these two technology levels areintended to be based on the maximumdaily average of daily values for 30 con-secutive days, as indicated for BPCTCA.The proposed guidelines have beenamended accordingly.

(2) One comment was made expressingapprehension regarding establishmentof effluent guidelines limitations requir-ing very high (greater than 90 percent)removals of BOD5 and suspended solidswithout such technology now beingdemonstrated on a full-scale basis in theready-to-eat cereal and wheat starch andgluten manufacturing - subcategories.Particular concern is shown for limita-tions for the wheat starch industry, inthe lack of "demonstrated" technology.

The biological and physical treata-bility of both wheat starch and ready-to-eat cereal process waste water has beenevaluated and reliably demonstratedthrough use of present in-place pretreat-ment facilities and further pilot plantstudies. The waste is readily biodegrad-able, and treatment levels can be reason-ably predicted for this type waste andknown treatment measures. Effective andefficient treatment of process wastewaters may be expected through transferof treatment technologies from otherapplications, and such technologies arereadily available for use.

The fact that this industry does notemploy such technology in wide spreaduse does not, therefore, preclude estab-lishing these levels of control. The treat-ment mechanisms utilized In establishingthe specific effluent limitation guidelinesand standards for this industry havebeen based on a transfer of technologyfor treatment of similar high-strengthfood processing wastes, and knowledge

of waste- water pollutant characteristicsand waste water treatment efficlencles,Substantive comments and data are so-licited In regard to the effectiveness oftreatment technologies applicable tothese subcategories and the resultanteffluent limitations and standards asproposed.

(3) One comment was made that thepollutant removal efficiencies requiredby the proposed effluent limitation guide-lines cannot be achieved within a rea-sonable economic framework.

The economic impact of the proposedeffluent limitation guidelines have beenthoroughly evaluated within the docu-ment "Economic Analysis of ProposedEffluent Guidelines for Animal Feed,Breakfast Cereal and Wheat Starch Seg-ments of the Grain Mill Point SourceCategory," prepared in conjunction withthe Development Document. All ready-to-eat cereal plants are, with one excep-tion,' connected to municipal waste treat-ment systems. However, should it becomenecessary for plants in this segment tohave separate waste treatment facilities,industry production, employment, andgrowth would not be significantlyaffected. No wheat starch plants are our-rently directly discharging process wastewaters to navigable waters. The economicanalysis indicates that if a plant foundit necessary to install independent pollu-tion control equipment, it would remainfinancially viable.

(4) A comment was made that sub-categorization of the wheat starch Indus-try is necessary for appropriate con-sideration of size and age of plants. Atleast an allowance for older and largerplants should be made.

An analysis of data currently availableto the agency does not indicate a justifi-cation for subcategorization of wheatstarch industry on the basis of plant sizeand age. This conclusion is fully dis-cussed in Section V of the DevelopmentDocument.

(5) A comment was made that morestringent requirements should beadopted for the ready-to-eat and wheatstarch manufacturing subcategories.More stringent limitations are requiredby at least one state pollution controlagency.

The detailed technical and economicevaluation of these industry subeate-gories support the reasonableness andexpected achievability of the proposedlimitations. Since essentially all plantsnow discharge their entire process wastewater to municipal systems, little benefitwould result In relation to cost for addi-tional pollutant removal. Land applica-tions were also considered as an integralpart of the waste treatment and disposalsystem at new plant sites, thereby per-mitting further reduction of pollutantloads discharged to navigable waters.

(6) A comment was made that a nodischarge of process waste water pollut-ants limitation for the Animal Feed andHot Cereal Manufacturing SubcategoriesIs inappropriate since waste water Is at-tributable to clean-up from these opera-tions and air pollution control devices.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 181-TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1974

33474

PROPOSED RULES

Consideration of the use of clean-upwater incidental to such manufacturingprocesses should be made.

Field investigation and plant surveysconducted in development of proposedeffluent limitation guidelines for theanimal feed and hot cereal industriesconcluded that no process waste wateris generated in these operations. Thisresult was verified by numerous visits toplants in these industrial categories anddiscussions with responsible plant per-sonnel.

(7) One comment was made thatclimatic factors have not been appro-priately considered as influencing theconsistent efficiency of biological sys-tems in achieving the effluent limitationsas proposed.Treatment efficiency may reasonablybe expected to be influenced by variabletemperature conditions and winter con-ditions in northern climates. However,variability of treatment efficiency withclimate may be compensated for in thedesign and operation of the treatmentfacilities.

(8) A comment was made that effluentlimitations for temperature, phosphorus,nitrogen and bacteriological qualitiesWere not stipulated even though theseparameters were identified as those hav-ing possible pollutional significance.

Temperature is a potential pollutantonly for ready-to-eat cereal manufactur-ing process waste water. However, underpresent waste handling and disposalpractices the temperature is satisfac-torily reduced to technologically accept-able levels. The temperature characteris-tic of the process waste water is reducedsatisfactorily by waste water convey-ance, and by biological and physicaltreatment measures commonly employedby municipal treatment systems or tobe employed at future on-site treatmentfacilities. Heated waste is commonlyadded to other unheated waste watercomponents to effect substantial reduc-tion in the temperature characteristic ofthe composite process waste water load.Based on present knowledge and data, nojustification exists for limitation oftemperature under present practices andwaste disposal procedures.

Nitrogen and phosphorus are presentin significant concentrations in processwaste waters from wheat starch andgluten manufacturing (350 to 400 mg/1and 75 to 140 mg/1 respectively). In con-sideration of the attendant high BOD5characteristics of this waste, the phos-phorus and nitrogen levels are judgednecessary to achieve effective and effi-cient biological treatment. Available evi-dence indicates that nitrogen and phos-"phorus levels are very substantially re-duced to concentrations equivalent toeffluent quality expected from conven-tional biological treatment facilities fordomestic waste. Therefore, nitrogen andphosphorus levels in treated processwaste water which is in compliance withthe proposed effluent limitations guide-lines are not judged to warrant separate,specific limitations. Achievement of ac-ceptable nitrogen and phosphorus levelsare a consequence of and attendant to

attaining the Proposed effluent limita-tion guidelines for other stipulated pol-lutant parameters. On the contrary, ni-trogen and phosphorus concentration inready-to-eat cereal procezs waste watersare generally Insignificant., and thesematerials must be added to accomplisheffective biological treatment of thewaste, as presently practiced at one pre-treatment facility in the industry.

Bacteriological considerations are ofimportance in the process waste wateritself only when sanitary waste fromhuman sources is added to the total proc-ess waste water stream. The processwaste and sanitary waste where result-ing in a combined waste discharge arereadily accommodated by municipaltreatment systems under present prac-tices without deleterious effects. On-sitetreatment of composite process wastewater would likely require separation ofthe process-related waste stream and thehuman waste contribution No justifica-tion for limitation of baeterolog calqualities for any of the various subcate-gories is presently justified based onexisting pollution control practices.

(9) A comment was made that lagoon-Ing may not be an acceptable treatmentalternative for plants located in munici-palities.

Alternative C technology for bothready-to-eat cereal, and wheat starchand gluten manufacturing subcategoriesincludes the utilization of a waste stabil-ization lagoon for treatment and controlof process waste water. However, thistechnology was only one of several tech-nologies available for treatment of thesewastes. Other technologies which are notland-dependent were noted, and wererecommended as appropriate methods toachieve the propose.d eMuent limitationguidelines.

(10) One comment was made that thelimitations should be adjusted upwardto account for variability in treatmentsystem performance and that allowancesshould be made for sudden shocking ofthe treatment system during plantcleanup operations.

The need for-flexibillty in the effluentlimitations guidelines to take into ac-count variation in biological treatmentsystem performance and upsets in plantoperation is recognized and has beenproperly considered in the proposedeffluent limitation guidelines. The efflu-ent limitation for all required technolo-gy levels (best practicable control tech-nology currently available, best avail--able technology economically achiev-able, and new source performance stand-ards) allow a maximum daily averagepollutant load of 3.0 times the average30-day values to account for suchvariances.

Interested persons may participate inthis rulemaking by submitting writtencomments in triplicate to the EPA In-formation Center, Environmental Pro-tection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460,Attention: Mr. Philip B. Wisman. Com-ments on all aspects of the proposedregulation are solicited. In the eventcomments are in the nature of criticismsas to the adequacy of data which are

33475

available, or which may be relied uponby the Agency, comments should identifyand, If Po zible, provide any additionaldata which may be available and shouldindicate why such data are essentia tothe development of the regulatfons. Inthe event comments address the ap-proach taken by the Agency in establish-ing an effluent limitations guideline orstandard of performancei EPA solicitssuggestions as to what alternative a.-proach should be taken and why and howthis alternative better satisfies the de-tailed requirements of section 301, 304(b), 306 and 307 of the Act.

A copy of all public comments will baavailable for inspection and copying atthe EPA Information Center, Room 227,West Tower, Waterside Mall, 401 1.1Street S.W., Washington, D.C. A copy ofthe preliminary draft contractor report,the Development Document and eco-nomic study referred to above, and cer-tain supplementary materials supportingthe study of the industry concerned willalso be maintained at this location forpublic review and copying. The EPA in-formation regulation, 40 CFR Part 2,provides that a reasonable fee may becharged for copying.

All comments received on or beforeOctober 17,1974 will be considered. Stepspreviously taken by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency to facilitate public re-sponse within this time period are out-lined in the advance notice concerningpublic revlev? proecedure. published onAugust 6, 1973 (33 F.R. 21202).

Dated: September 5,1974.JoHIu QuAsnIS,

Acting Administrator.PART 406-GRAIN MILLS EFFLUENT

LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES FOR EXIST-ING SOURCES AND STANDARDS OFPERFORMANCE AND PRETREATMENTSTANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES FORTHE GRAIN MILLS POINT SOURCECATEGORY

Subpart G-..nlmal Fecd SubcatcZrySec.400.7O0 Applicability; de-zription of the

animal feed subcategory.400.71 Specalize d deflnitions.400.72 EMluent limitations guidelines rep-

reznting the degree of effuentreduction attainable by the appli-catlon of the beA practicable con-trol technolo-y currently avail-able.

406.73 Effluent limltatfons guldelines rep-rez:c=ting tho deoree of effluentreduction attainable by the ap-plication of the best availabletechnology economically achiev-able.

406.74 -c-erved.400.75 Standards of performance for new

rourcc-.400.70 Pretreatment standards for new

cources1.Subpart H-Hat Cereal Subcateaory

406.60 Applfcabilty; dacription of the hotcareal cubcategory.

408.81 SpciJallzed dflnitfons.406.62 Euent limit3tions guldelin_ rep-

reenting the de gee of effluentreduction attainable by the ap-plication of the best practicablecontrol technology currentlyavailable.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 181-TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1974

33476

Sec.406.83 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best available tech-nology economically achievable.

406.84 Reserved.406.85 Standards of performance for new

sources.406.86 Pretreatment standards for new

sources.Subpart I-ReadyTo-Eat Cereal Subcategory

406.90 Applicability: description of theready-to-eat cereal subcategory.

406.91 Specialized definitions.406.92 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effluentduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best practicable con-trol technology currently avail-able.

400.93 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting the degree of effluentduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best available tech-nology economically achievable.

406.94 Reserved.406.05 Standards of performance for new

sources.406.96 Pretreatment of standards for new

sources.Subpart J-Wheat Starch and Gluten SuSctegory400.100 Applicability: description of the

wheat starch and gluten sub-category.

406.101 Specialized definitions.400.102 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effluentduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best practicable con-trol technology currently avail-able.

406.103 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the ap-plication of the best availabletechnology economically achiev-able.

400.104 Reserved.406.105 Standards of performance for new

sources.400.106 Pretreatment standards for new

sources.

Subpart G-Animal Feed Subcategory§ 406.70 Applicability; description of

the animal feed subcategory.The provisions of this subpart are ap-

plicable to discharges resulting from themanufacturing of animal feeds (formulafeed concentrate) for poultry and live-stock utilizing various grains, proteins,and other additives as raw materials.§ 406.71 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:(a) The general definitions, abbrevia-

tions and methods of analysis set forthin 40 CFR 401 shall apply to this subpart.§ 406.72 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

(a) In establishing the limitations setforth In this section, EPA took into ac-count all information it was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements and costs).which can affect the industry subcate-gorization and effluent levels established.

PROPOSED RULES

It is, however, possible that data whichwould affect these limitations have notbeen available and, as a result, theselimitations should be adjusted for certainplants In this industry. An individual dis-charger or other Interested person maysubmit evidence to the Regional Admin-istrator (or to the State, if the Statehas the authority to issue NPDES per-mits) that factors relating to the equip-ment or facilities Involved, the processapplied, or other such factors related tosuch discharger are fundamentally dif-ferent from the factors considered in theestablishment of the guidelines. On thebasis of such evidence or other availableinformation, the Regional Administrator(or the State) will make a written find-ing that such factors are or are not fun-damentally different for that facilitycompared to those specified in the De-velopment Document. If such funda-mentally different factors are found toexist, the Regional Administrator or theState shall estabilsh for the dischargereffluent limitations in the NPDES per-mit either more or less stringent than thelimitations established herein, to the ex-tent dictated by such fundamentally dif-ferent factors. Such limitations must beapproved by the Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency. TheAdministrator may approve or disap-prove such limitations, specify otherlimitations, or initiate proceedings to re-vise these regulations.

(b) The following limitations estab-lish the quantity or quality of pollutantsor 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: There shall be no dischargeof process waste water pollutants tonavigable waters.§ 406.73 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available technologyeconomically achievable.

The following limitations establish the- quantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties controlled by this sec-tion, which may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of thebest available technology economicallyachievable: There shall be no dischargeof process waste water pollutants tonavigable waters.§ 406.74 [Reserved]§ 406.75 Standards of performance for

new sources.

The following standards of perform-ance establish the quantity or quality ofpollutants or pollutant properties, con-trolled by this section, which may be dis-charged by a new source subject to theprovisions of this subpart: There shall beno discharge of process waste waterpollutants to navigable waters.§ 406.76 Pretreatment standards for new

sources.

The pretreatment standards undersection 307(c) of the Act for a source

within the animal feed subcategory,which is a user of a publicly owned treat-ment works (and which would be a newsource subject to section 306 of the Act,if it were to discharge pollutants to thenavigable waters), shall be the standardset forth in 40 CFR Part 128, except that,for the purpose of this section, 40 CF128.133 slll be amended to read as fol-lows: "In addition to the prohibitions svetforth in 40 CFR 128.131, the pretreat-ment standard for incompatible pollut-ants introduced Into a publicly ownedtreatment workls shall be the standard ofperformance for new sources, specified In40 CFR 406.75: Provided, That, if thopublicly owned treatment works whichreceives the pollutants is committed, inIts NPDES permit, to remove a specifiedpercentage of any incompatible pollut-ant, the pretreatment standard applica-ble to users of such treatment worlmshall, except in the case of standardsproviding for no discharge of pollutants,be correspondingly reduced in stringencyfor that pollutant."

Subpart H-Hot Cereal Subcategory§ 406.80 Applicability; description of

the hot cereal subcategory.The provisions of this subparb are

applicable to discharges resulting fromthe production of various cereal fromgrains, principally wheat and oats, re-quiring cooking prior to normal humnanconsumption.§ 406.81 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:(a) The general definitions, abbrevia-

tions and methods of analysis set forth In40 CFR Part 401 shall apply to this sub-part.

§406.82 Effluent linitationg guidelincarepresenting the degree of efiucntreduction attainable by the applica.tion of the beit practicablo controltechnology currently available. I

(a) In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took into ac-count all information It was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements and costs)which can affect the Industry cubeatc-goriation and effluent levels established,It is, however, possible that data whichwould affect these limitatlons have nobbeen available and, as a result, theselimitations should be adjusted for cer-tain plants in this industry. An Individualdischarger or other interested personmay submit evidence to the Regional Ad-ministrator (or to the State, if the Statehas the authority to issue INPDES per-mits) that factors relating to the equip-ment or facilities involved, the processapplied, or other such factors related tosuch discharger are fundamentally dif-ferent from the factors considered in theestablishment of the guidelines. On thebasis of such evidence or other availabloinformation, the Regional Administrator(or the State) will make a vrltten find-ing that such factors are or are nobfundamentally different for that facility

FEDERAL.REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 181-TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1974

PROPOSED RULES

compared to those specified in the De-velopment Document. If such funda-mentally different factors are found toexist, the Regional Administrator or theState shall establish for the dischargereffluent limitations in the NPDES permiteither more or less stringent than thelimitations established herein, to the ex-tent dictated by-such fundamentally dif-ferent factors. Such limitations'must beapproved by the Administrator of theE.nvironmental Protection Agency. TheAdministrator may approve or disapprovesuch limitations, specify other limita-tions, or initiate proceedings to revisethese regulations.

(b) The following limitations estab-lish the quantity or quality of pollutantsor Pollutant properties controlled bythis section, which may be dischargedby a point source subject to the pro-visions of this subpart after applicationof the best practicable control tech-nology currently available: There shallbe no discharge of process waste waterpollutants to navigable waters.§ 406.83 Efflu'ent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available technologyeconomically achievablc

The following limitations establishthe quantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties controlled by thissection, which may be discharged bya point source subject to the provisionsof this subpart after application of thebest available technology economicallyachievable: There shall be no dischargeof process waste water pollutants tonavigable waters.

§ 406.84 [Reserved]§ 406.85 Standards of performance for

new sources.The following standards of perform-

ance establish the quantity or quality ofpollutants or pollutant properties con-trolled by this section, which may bedischarged by a new source subject tothe provisions of this subpart: Thereshall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters.

§ 406.86 Pretreatment standards for newsources.

The pretreatment' standards undersection 307(c) of the Act for a sourcewithin the hot cereal subcategory, whichis a user of a publicly owned treatmentworks (and which would be a new-sourcesubject to section 306 of the Act, ifit were to discharge pollutants.to thenavigable waters), shall be the stand-ard set forth in 40 CPl Part 128, exceptthat, for the purpose of this section, 40CFE 128.133 shall be amended to readas follows: "In addition to the prohibi-tions set forth In 40 OPl. 128.131, thepretreatment standard for incompatiblepollutants introduced Into a publiclyowned treatment works shall be thestandard of performance for new sourcesspecified in 40 CFR 406.85; providedthat, if the publicly owned treatmentworks which receives the pollutants is

committed, in its NPDES permit, to re-move a specified percentage of any n-compatible pollutant, the pretreatmentstandard applicable to users of suchtreatment works shall, except in the caseof standards providing for no dischargeof pollutants, be correspondingly re-duced in stringency for that pollutant.'

Subpart J-Ready-To-Eat CerealSubcategory

§ 406.90 Applicability; description ofthe ready-to-eat subcatcgory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting fromthe processing of various grains andother materials (whole grain wheat,rice, corn grits, oat flour, sugar, andminor ingredients) to produce variousbreakfast cereals normally available forhuman consumption without coolng.§ 406.91 Specialized definition&.

For the purpose of this subpart:(a) The general definitions, abbrevia-

tions and methods of analysis setforth in 40 CFR Part 401 shall applyto this subpart.

§ 406.92 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

(a) In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took into ac-count all information it was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processe,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements and costs)which can affect the industry subcate-gorization and effluent levels established.It is, however, possible that data whichwould affect these limitations have notbeen available and, as a result, these lim-itations should be adjusted for certainplants in this industry. An Individualdischarger or other interested peronmay submit evidence to the RegionalAdministrator (or to the State, If theState has the authority to Issue NPDESpermits) that factors relating to theequipment or facilities involved, the proc-ess applied, or other such factors relatedto such discharger are fundamentallydifferent from the factors considered inthe establishment of the guidelines. Onthe basis of such evidence or other avail-able information, the Regional Adminis-trator (or the State) will make a writtenfinding that such factors are or are notfundamentally different for that facilitycompared to thoze specified In the De-velopment Document. If such funda-mentally different factors are found toexist, the Regional Administrator orthe State shall establish for the dis-charger effluent limitations In theNPDES permit either more or lezsstringent than the limitations estab-lished herein, to the extent dictated bysuch fundamentally different factors.Such limitations must be approved bythe Administrator of the EnvironmentalProtection Agency. The Administrator

may approve or disapprove such limita-tions, specify other limitations, or ini-tiate proceedings to revise these regu-lations.

(b) The following- limitations estab-ish the quantity or quality of pollutantsor pollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged bya point source subject to the provisionsof this subpart after application of thebest practicable control technology cur-rently available:

r5xnt Aver 0L1My ca! dy cn:Zc.utive da5

f ct d: uIt 1) k r_ r, a crc-, grc du.-t

BOW . ..... ..... L?. ...... 4.DOD.......... 04.O.... ..... L2... ...... .

r9~.0.

DoF ..... ...-.. .. 4

pH ........... Witn th, --.

n .0.0t

§ 406.93 Effluent limitations gidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available technologyeconomically achievable.

The following limitations establishthe quantity 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 thebest available technology economicallyachievable:

ci ~ M traot Zb 5r vanz4:ratb th311 not CMa

BOD5 .......... 0 ........... Llp1 .............. hinthr ......

PH ................. Maat h, -----_------.......

7Z5 F 0.0 to

(r r u~h ur t,) ibtc. bacrc z ja.t

PH ............. vTiua tti .......rnz e.0 to

§ 406.91 [lReserved]§ 406.95 Standards of performance for

new sources.

The following standards of perform-ance establish the quantity or quality ofPollutants or pollutant properties, con-trolled by this section, which may bedischarged by a new source- subject tothe provisions of this subpart:

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 181-TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1974No. 181-Pt. 11-2

3,3477

PROPOSED RULES

Effluent limitations

Effluent Average of dailycharacteristic Maximum for values for thirty

any one day consecutive daysshall not exceed

(Metric units) kg/lkkg of cereal product

3OD. 0.0...... 0.20?SS .............. 0.45 ------------- 0.15iH ................ Within the ----------------- a

range 6.0 to9.0.

(English units) lb/1000 lb of cereal product

10D5.. ----------- 0.0 ... - 0.20SS ..------------ 0.45 ...... 0.15

4H ---------------- Within the .................range 6.0 to9.0.

406.96 Pretreatment standards for newsources.

The pretreatment standards under see-ion 307(c) of the Act for a source withinhe ready-to-eat cereal subeategory,,ihich Is a user of a publicly owned treat-nent works (and which would be a newource subject to section 306 of the Act.f it were to discharge pollutants to thetavigable waters), shall be the stand-Lrd set forth in 40 CFR 128, except that,or the purpose of this section, 40 CFR.28.133 shall be amended to read as fol-ows: "In addition to the prohibitionset forth in 40 CFR 128.131, the pretreat-nent standard for incompatible pollu-ants introduced into a publicly ownedreatment works shall be the standard of)erformance for new sources specified inL0 CFR 406.95; provided that, if theublicly owned treatment works which'ecelves the pollutants is committed, ints NPDES permit, to remove a specifiediercentage of any incompatible pollutant,he pretreatment standard applicable toisers of such treatment works shall, ex-;ept in the case of standards providing:or no discharge of pollutants, be cor-•espondingly reduced in stringency forhat-pollutant."

Subpart J-VJheat Starch and GlutenSubcategory

j 406.100 Applicability; description ofthe wheat starch and subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-)licable to discharges resulting from;hose industrial operations utilizing,vheat flour as a raw material for pro-luction of wheat starch and gluten (pro-ein) components through conventional)rocesses of physical separation and sub-;equent refinement.b 406.101 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:(a) The general definitionm, abbrevia-

tions and methods of analysis set forthIn 40 CFR 401 shall apply to this sub-part.

106.102 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

(a) In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took into

account all information it was able tocollect, develop and solicit with respectto factors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing proc-esses, products produced, treatmenttechnology available, energy require-ments and costs) which can affect theindustry subcategorization and effluentlevels established. It is, however, possible'that data which would affect these limi-tations have not been available and, as aresult, these limitations should be ad-justed for certain plants in this industry.An individual discharger or other inter-ested person 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 factors re-lated to such discharger are funda-mentally different from the factors con-sidered in the establishment of the guide-lines. On the basis of such evidence orother available information, the RegionalAdministrator (or the State) will makea written finding that such factors areor are not fundamentally different forthat facility compared to those specifiedin the Development Document. If suchfundamentally different factors arefound to exist, the Regional Administra-tor or the State shall establish for thedischarger effluent limitations in theNPDES permit either more or less strin-gent than the limitations establishedherein, to the extent dictated by suchfundamentally different factors. Suchlimitations must be approved by the Ad-ministrator of the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. The Administrator mayapprove or disapprove such limitations,.specify other limitations, or initiate pro-ceedings to revise these regulations.

(b) The following limitations estab-lish the quantity or quality of pollutantsor 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 limitations

Effluent Averago of dailycharaeteristio Maximum for values for thirty

any one day consceutivo daysshall not exceed

(Metric units) kg/khg of raw material (wheat flour)

TSS 6.0 -------------- 2.0T55 -------------. 0 -------- 2.0pH --------------- Within the -------------------

range 6.0 to9.0.

(English units) lb/1M lb of raw materlal (wheat flour)

B 0D6 6.0 -------------- 2.0TSS ------------ 6 -. 0 -------------- 2.0pH --------------- Within the -----------------

range 6.0 to9.0.

§ 406.103 Effluent limitations guidelidnerepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the beot available technolo,.economically achievable.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of polluttnt.z or pol-lutant properties, controlled by this sec-tion, which may be discharged by a pointsource stibJect to the provisions of thisubpart after application of thebest available technology economicallyachievable:

Effluent llmltitloa

EfIluent Awrio of d~dlycharacteristio Maximum for valuc3 for thirty

any one day consecutlve d.vishall not exceed

(Metric units) kgk kg of raw material (wvheit flour)

BODJ_.. .. l1.5....... 0,r00TS...-------. 1.2 ....... 0.40pH- .... . withi.. hn t-e - ...........range 0.0 to

9.0.

(EnglLh units) lb1000 lb of raw ma triel (whcat flour)

BOD5--. ------ .... 0,.0TS....-------. 1.2. 0,40pH --------- -Within ls .................

nr- o 6.0 to9.0,

§ 406.104 [Reserved]§ 406.105 Standards of performance for

new sources.The following standards of perform-

ance establish the quantity or qualityof pollutants or pollutant propertie , con-trolled by this section, which may be dis-charged by a new source subject to theprovisions of this subpart:

Effluont limitatlon

Effluent Avmreo of dailycharactertltio Maximum for vzduci for thirty

any ens dly coutvo dssVarhasl not excct

(Metric units) 1rhlg of raw material (wheat flour)

BOD5---.. ... 0..... .= 1.0TS . . 3.0 .............. t,0pH ------ - Wltlnthi ..................

range 0.0 to9.0.

(EnglIsh unit ) Ib/100 lb of raw materfl (wheat flour)

BTD------------. a1...0.TS3 ................ 3.0 .............. 0pH --------------- Within ths ................

rario 6.0 to0.0.

§ 406.106 Pretreatment standard fornew Cources.

The pretreatment standards undersection 307(c) of the Act for a sourcewithin the wheat starch and rluten hub-category, which is a user of a publiclyowned treatment works (and whichwould be a new source subject to section306 of the Act, if it were to dischargopollutants to the navigable waters), ohallbe the standard set forth in 40 C1R 1.8,except that, for the purpose of this ec-tIon, 40 CFR 128.133 shall be amended

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 181-TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1974

PROPOSED RULES

to read as follows: 'Tin addition to theprohibitions set forth In-40 CFR. 128.131,the pretreatment standard for incom-patible pollutants Introduced into a pub-licly owned treatment works shall be thestandard of performance for new sourcesspecified in 40 CFR 406.105; providedthat, If the publicly owned treatmentworks which receives the pollutants Is

committed, In Ito ITPDES prmit, to re-move a specifled percentage of any in-compatible pollutant, the pretreatmentstandard applicable to uzers of suchtreatment w ork.s, shall, ePxcept in the ca'seof standards providing for no dl-chargeof pollutants, be correspondinNly reducedin stringency for that pollutant."

[IM Doc.74-21239 rned D-1074;8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 181-TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1974

=7T9